School finance is dead. Does it matter?
School finance is dead. Does it matter for the folks who were voting on it? Does it matter what the Supreme Court rules?
(sidenote: Am I the only one who is surprised that gambling never came up in the special sessions? Strayhorn supports it, so Perry is covered politically for the priamry. It's a relatively pain-free revenue stream for legislators, but maybe anti-gambling forces loomed forcefully in the upcoming GOP primary.)
If the Supreme Court rules that the Legislature must fix school finance, then that will be a much easier bill to pass. A Supeme Court ruling will give the legislature a clear idea of what has to be changed, per the Texas Supreme Court. Legislators will have a pass at home ("I had to vote for the bill. The Supreme Court made me.") This is the solution that Speaker Craddick has favored from the beginning, as he has the hardest assignment: pass a school finance bill among 150 Reps. in the House who all feel differently.
I've been a little skeptical from the beginning that a school finance bill would pass. It's hard to do, and Craddick has been public with his reluctance. Perry preferred to very aggressively pursue passing school finance, pushing for negotiations and calling special sessions.
If the Supreme Court finds in favor of the defendants, then that will leave us in the current position: the many political forces are too strong and blow in too many different directions in order to find enough votes to pass a school finance bill. It may not be perfect, but it's the political will of the people as reflected in the current Texas Legislature.
So here are my current thoughts on who is hurt by the failure of the legislature to change school finance in the past few sessions.
Democrats in the House and Senate: Probably not. They're the minority; most of them are in safe seats.
Republicans in the Senate: Who is vulnerable because it failed? They're all safe.
Republicans in the House: Maybe some are in non-safe seats who might have to worry. Quite a few ran in the 2002 primary by saying that they could fix/get rid of Robin Hood. They might be vulnerable. But the powers of incumbency are strong, so I doubt it. Of course, some may be vulnerable because of their votes on particulars of the school finance bills, but I don't think the failure in and of itself will adversely affect many of them individually.
Tom Craddick: He's safe in Midland, and I doubt that the rumblings out of the House about changing speakers are serious. But then, leadership contests are hard to guess at from the outside.
David Dewhurst: I've got a hard time seeing Dewhurst held responsible by voters. Who holds the Lite Guv responsible for much of anything?
Rick Perry: There's certainly frustration around the state right now, and voters tend to aim anger at executives more than legislators. Voters get upset at Congress or the Legislature, but stay happy with their own congressman or representative. Whether voter frustration will actually hurt Perry is two-fold: one) will voters' anger dissipate in a few months?; and two) how will voters react when Perry responds via paid media?
Rick Perry took a gamble by pushing so hard on school finance: he's gambling that voters will forgive him more for pushing school finance (calling special sessions, etc) than they will be upset at him for failing to get a deal. By calling more special sessions, he temporarily is identified with the failure of the legislature to pass school finance. Still, Perry knew that he'd be attacked if he didn't get a deal, so he chose to try to get one.
Back to my two questions: will voters' anger dissipate? I don't know. It often does. Once the legislature stops meeting, the lack of a school finance deal isn't news. Chris Bell, John Sharp and Kinky Friedman can send out multitudes of press releases, the issue will undeniably fade to some degree. When it isn't in the headlines everyday, it's tough for voters to stay as mad .
Second question: how will voters reaction when Perry responds via paid media? Right now, Perry is identified more strongly than anyone or anything else (Craddick, Dewhurst, Legislature, Democrats, etc) with the failure of school finance. But, since newspapers cover the day-to-day news, they haven't really covered Perry's response: that he pushed this Legislature as hard as he could. Whether you think he actually pushed the Legislature as hard as he could isn't really relevant: he'll probably make a compelling case in his TV commercials.
And of course, the preceeding is simply over whether the issue hurts Perry. It doesn't address whether it hurts him enough to make him truly vulnerable. As of yet, I haven't seen any indication that would indicate that any announced or rumored candidate has a significant chance to beat Rick Perry. Carole Strayhorn would be the most likely as of now, and I think that she's currently a longshot. So far, the professionals agree with me.
Other takes: RG Ratcliffe - Chronicle, Kelley Shannon - AP, Jason Embry -- Statesman
Posted by Evan @ 08/21/05 08:59 PM
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
Comments
Add Comments
No flames or impolite behavior. HTML will be stripped. URLs will be transformed into hyperlinks.