|
||
|
|
|
|
|
April 9, 2001 PROPOSED INCREASE IN FAMILY PLANNING FUNDS COULD LEAD TO MORE ABORTIONS Although the bill suffered from a number of serious omissions, several fixes were made prior to its passage. Senator Ogden added language that would require minors to obtain parental permission before receiving family planning services by inserting a "parental notification" amendment into the bill. Senator Jane Nelson attached an amendment that prohibits the use of program funds for abortions. Whereas Senator Nelson's amendment gives added effect to the Hyde Amendment prohibiting the direct use of federal funds for abortions, Senator Ogden's bill may go largely ignored since federal law does not recognize the need for parents to be notified of their minor's "reproductive health care decisions." Nonetheless, the efforts of these Senators are much appreciated. These fixes, however, do not mitigate the essentially dangerous nature of a bill that will pour tens of thousands of dollars into the coffers of groups like Planned Parenthood, money that will be used to encourage irresponsible promiscuity and economic dependence among lower-income women. Promiscuous behavior inevitably leads to sexually transmitted diseases and "unplanned pregnancies," which in turn feed the voracious appetite of the abortion industry-an industry with close links to same groups that will receive the lion's share of funding under SB812. In the final analysis, SB812 will actually provide a means for abortion clinics to increase their business among lower-income women by generating additional unwanted children under the guise of "family planning." Perhaps that explains why Planned Parenthood has spent so much time lobbying for SB812. **ACTION ITEM** Please contact your Senator and ask him to vote against SB812. BILL LIMITING STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION'S AUTHORITY OVER PERMANENT SCHOOL FUND PASSES THROUGH SENATE COMMITTEE This move to strip the State Board of its management powers over the PSF has been fueled by a House General Investigating Committee report that accused the State Board of lacking the requisite experience to make sound investment decisions, and of making unsound decisions as a result of this inexperience. State Board members have countered that the House Committee's report exaggerated the gravity of the alleged mismanagement, and failed to consider the fact that the Board assigns the task of actually investing the fund to professional money managers. A studied analysis of the situation favors the position taken by the State Board of Education. Under its watch, the PSF has grown to nearly $20 billion while supplying the state with a steady stream of cash for school textbooks and other educational purposes. Although some errors in judgment concerning the selection of fund managers were certainly made, the State Board has taken steps to shore up ethics rules related too future bid selection. It seems that the real reason for stripping the State Board of its management duties over the PSF is to allow cash hungry legislators to dip their hands into the state's best performing endowment fund without an independent elected body blowing the whistle on them. Replacing the State Board with a team of unaccountable bureaucrats would certainly make raiding the PSF easier in the future, and would produce the added effect of writing the State Board completely out of the Constitution-their PSF management duty being their only Constitutionally assigned task. **ACTION ITEM** SJR20 and SB512 are good examples of truly bad legislation that have unfortunately found their way through the thicket of the committee process and now stand a good chance of passage. Both bills have been scheduled for a vote before the entire Senate on Monday, April 9. Please contact your Senator today and ask him to vote against SJR20 and SB512. DOMA TO BE HEARD IN SENATE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ON MONDAY **ACTION ITEM** Please contact the members of the Senate State Affairs Committee today and urge them to vote in favor of DOMA when it comes before their committee on Monday. Please keep the following points in mind when speaking with the members of the Committee:
DALLAS CITY HALL NOT A FUN PLACE THIS TIME OF YEAR This overabundance of negative exposure has led to some interesting reactions from friends of Chief Bolton. Most notable among them has been the daily protests outside of Miller's Kessler Park home, led by none other than Dallas County Commissioner John Wiley Price. After initially ignoring the protests, Mayor Kirk and Chief Bolton have finally called for them to end, but only after Miller lodged a complaint with Dallas Police. Apparently, some of the protesters were making use of vulgarity drenched placards and signs, and were behaving in an unseemly manner (not to mention the fact that they were picketing a PRIVATE residence!!). The X factor in the whole imbroglio has been the charge of racism. Witness City Councilman James Fantroy, who noted that the charges against Chief Bolton were being manufactured by the "powers that be out there" who "don't want a black chief." Thus, the crux of the matter is reached. Miller and Blumer are white, Bolton, Price, Kirk, and Fantroy are black. The basis of the charges of racism have nothing to do with the charges against Chief Bolton, and everything to do with the coincidence of the skin color of the actors involved. Sadly, this whole episode has surely taken the city of Dallas a step backward in the search for a time when city leaders are held accountable to color-blind standards of right and wrong, not the shifting politics of race and ethnicity.
Commentary - The Teacher Tax Hike by Ryan Bangert What started out as a grand quest by Texas lawmakers to provide all school employees with state-sponsored health insurance benefits has quickly turned into a futile search for rapidly evaporating discretionary funds. Big-ticket road construction projects, exploding Medicaid costs, and dozens of other non-negotiable spending items have consumed the lion's share of funds available for new projects. The inevitable result has been a severe shortfall in the amount of money available to prime the teacher health insurance pump. This lack of funds has left teachers groups undaunted, however, in their quest to secure yet another legislative victory to go along with their $3,000 pay increase just two years ago. Donna New-Haschke, vice-president of the Texas State Teachers Association, wrote in a recent editorial that teachers "find it disconcerting that with less than 60 days to go in the 77th Texas Legislative session, there is still no health insurance bill for school employees." With all due respect to Ms. New-Haschke, the problem is not that the legislature has yet to consider a teacher health insurance bill; the problem is that legislators have been unable to discover a way to PAY for any of the proposed teacher insurance plans without a tax hike. Judging by the numbers, there is good reason for this legislative gridlock. A fully funded teacher health insurance plan would constitute a huge budgetary commitment at a time when fiscal restraint is needed. This year, the state budget is expected to be a touch over $109 billion, of which approximately $45 billion comes from dedicated monies, federal funds, etc., and is not available for discretionary spending. The remaining $60 billion is called general revenue, of which $23.3 billion goes to fund public education. The cost of a fully funded teacher health insurance program is expected to carry an initial price tag of between $2 billion and $4 billion per year, and would have to be increased yearly by the annual rate of inflation for health care services, which currently stands at nearly 15%. Given these considerations, teacher health insurance could easily boost state spending on public education by 35%, and constitute over 6% of the entire state budget! Funding for such a large program must come from one of two places, discretionary money or "new revenue" (read new taxes). Unfortunately for state lawmakers, the discretionary funding pool is quickly drying up. Much was made earlier in the session of $800 million in available "settle-up" money-education funds that the state keeps when property taxes revenues increase. The Senate Finance Committee took that money off the table recently by appropriating it to Medicaid and state universities, while the House was forced to approve an emergency appropriation of $718 million to cover cost overruns in state Medicaid and correctional programs. These new expenditures have materialized as legislators are grappling with the prospect of having to borrow money in order to build and maintain roads and highways in the state. In theory, legislators could always cut back or eliminate programs in order to free up money for teacher health insurance…but then again, that's a theory with no basis in real life experience. Thus, with funding scarce and teacher's groups on the prowl, state lawmakers become easy prey for the final legislative solution: a tax increase. Although politically toxic, a number of representatives have endorsed and even embraced the idea of raising taxes. House Ways and Means Chair Rene Oliveira stated, "Anybody who puts their head in the sand and doesn't think that it's going to require additional and massive streams of revenue in the future…shouldn't vote for (teacher health insurance)." He then went on to say, "I'm willing to say as a member of this committee that I would vote for a tax bill to fund this." Representative Barry Telford, chairman of the House Calendars Committee, dourly observed the relationship between teacher health insurance and a tax hike, noting, "I can guarantee you it's going to take a tax bill at some point, if not this session, if not next session, certainly the session after that." Representative Kino Flores even offered to place his head on the political chopping block, exclaiming, "I, for one, would be happy to cast the first vote in favor of a tax increase if that's what it takes." Hopefully, the people of Texas will discover that a tax increase is not what it takes precisely because a fully funded statewide teacher health insurance program is neither feasible nor necessary. Although supporters of a teacher health insurance plan have argued that providing such a benefit to school employees would mitigate the teacher shortage problem, a study conducted by the Texas Public Policy Foundation found that only 14% of educators identified "insufficient financial compensation" as a major factor of low morale, compared to 40% who cited "student attitudes and behaviors" as the culprit. In fact, of the 1041 school districts and 142 charter schools that existed during the 1999-2000 school year, only 17 did not offer health insurance to their employees. Clearly, creating a massive, multi-billion dollar entitlement to meet the needs of 7 school districts and 10 charter schools would be like using a bazooka to take out a Chihuahua. The legislature would better serve those school districts that cannot obtain health insurance bids by creating large risk pools and keeping the funding emphasis at the local level. There may even be room for lawmakers to experiment with self-funded, defined contribution insurance plans that would re-establish the buyer-seller relationship between consumers and providers of health care services. If lawmakers choose the alternative tax-and-spend method, then all of us should expect to have leaner pocketbooks in the near future. Please contact us if you would like to request information, or place a friend on our e-mail list. Phone: 972-250-0734
|
|
|
© Copyright Texas Eagle Forum. All rights reserved.
Texans have the right to decide what Texas marriage law will be. The Defense of Marriage Act affirms the right of Texans alone to decide the proper definition of marriage in their state.