Three Vetoes That Will Come Back To Haunt Rick Perry

Taking a look at the list of vetoes issued last week by Texas Governor Rick Perry’s office, it isn’t hard to see the direction he is trying to take his 2010 campaign. Perry skillfully used his veto pen to cozy up to his Republican base.

He vetoed bills he can claim make him look tough on crime (even teenage nookie). He vetoed bills that he can claim make him look like a champion sensible tax reform, and even vetoed bills that show him to be anti-gambling.

That vast majority of Perry’s vetoes make no sense except when taken in the context of his looming 2010 GOP primary battle with U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. Most of what he vetoed passed both legislative chambers by decent margins and was fairly non-controversial stuff.

Taking a look back through all of those vetoes, there are several that stand out as being tailor-made to be highlighted in any opponent’s opposition research dossier. These vetoes could come back to haunt Perry in a significant way.

House Bill 1293. On the surface, it looks like another boring insurance bill. However, for a potential opponent, it is gold. In one veto, Perry showed he was anti-consumer and, worse, okay with letting the elderly get screwed by big business. The nuts and bolts of this bill may not seem like that is the case, but check this from the bill analysis:

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) has worked for a number of years to develop model laws to prevent unfair and deceptive sales practices in the sale of annuities.  In 2007, Texas passed the NAIC model annuity suitability act which requires agents to determine the suitability of a particular annuity for the individual consumer before it is sold.  This model act is now codified in Chapter 1115 (Suitability of Certain Annuity Transactions), Insurance Code.

In addition to the model standards for suitability, the NAIC developed a model regulation to provide standards for the disclosure of certain critical information to consumers, such as the benefits and limitations of annuity contracts, to protect consumers and foster consumer education. Adopting the model regulation by statute will permit the Texas Department of Insurance to adopt the Buyer’s Guide and Disclosure document by rule and permit changes as those are changed. [Emphasis added]

Annuities are typically used as vehicles to add income to a person’s retirement, hence AARP’s testimony in favor of the bill.

Perry vetoed the bill to give insurance companies (some of his best contributors) cover from lawsuits:

This legislation designates any violation of these standards as an unfair or deceptive act or practice, which would expose agents and insurers to private claims for damages, attorney fees and costs for any such violation. Because the Texas Insurance Code already addresses suitable remedies for such offenses, I am opposed to this bill, which creates greater opportunities for frivolous litigation throughout the state.

The bill analysis may sound innocuous and the reality may very well be that the veto isn’t a complete sky-is-falling disaster for consumers, but to the skilled opposition researcher or campaign staffer, this veto is gold–notwithstanding the fact that Perry actually ordered the Texas Department of Insurance to implement some of the “beneficial” aspects of the bill.

Given that the mainstream media is often slow on the uptake when it comes to dissecting attack nuggets (especially since something as specific as a veto like this can be painted with very broad strokes and it can be hard to figure out what bill, exactly, an ad references), Perry could find himself quickly on the defensive and trying to explain away this veto.

Consider how an opponent might frame this veto to attack Perry:

Rick Perry took thousands of dollars from insurance companies and then used his veto pen to strip away protections to prevent Texas consumers from being taken advantage of by big insurance and financial services companies.

Or this:

Planning for retirement is tough, especially in this economy. And Rick Perry won’t make it any easier for working Texans. Rick Perry vetoed a bill that would set standards for educating consumers about investment options, making it easier for big business to take advantage of Texans. Rick Perry: big business’ best friend in Austin.

The list could go on. Are these examples a trite deceptive? Maybe. Are they factual? Yes. Would any opponent who wants to bust Perry’s electoral kneecaps use this to agitate senior citizens? They’d be stupid not to.

HB 2142. This veto could literally be the among the dumbest of Perry’s entire administration. The bill prevented the Texas Department of Transportation from engaging in marketing campaigns to promote tolls as a mechanism for funding highway construction. In case Perry hasn’t noticed, the vast majority of the state is against toll roads. Check out Perry’s reasoning for the veto:

House Bill No. 2142 limits the Texas Department of Transportation’s ability to market or advertise the use of toll roads or tolling as a method of paying for highway projects, preventing the state from advertising resources such as toll tags. [Emphasis added]

Say WHAT? This bill will prevent the state from advertising toll tags? That’s just a fabrication. Read the bill. Read the bill analysis:

Provides that this section does not authorize TxDOT to engage in marketing, advertising, or other activities for the purpose of influencing public opinion about the use of toll roads or the use of tolls as a financial mechanism.

Where did Perry and his staff come up with being able to claim that this bill would stop the state from advertising toll tags? The bill was very strictly constructed to stop TxDOT from engaging in multi-million dollar ad campaigns to con Texans into believing that the only way for us to have roads is through tolls. Not in the wildest Wonderland of Legislative Intent Dreamscapes can it be construed that this bill would stop TxDOT from promoting toll tags. That is just a scapegoat excuse to veto a bill that passed the House 132-1 and the Senate 31 to zip. (This is probably what happens when you veto bills on salvia.)

HB 130. This one–full-day pre-kindergarten funding–is another opposition researcher’s dream. Imagine video of Rick Perry delivering his 2005 State of the State Address, and this line being delivered:

When our work is done, parents won’t measure our success by how much money we spend, but whether more children learn.

Then imagine pictures of low-income, four-year old kids playing on an abandoned lot somewhere, and the following voiceover:

“How much are our children learning, Governor Perry? You vetoed a bill that would have opened schoolhouse doors to thousands of Texas children, giving them a head start on succeeding in school. Texas has one of the highest high school drop-out rates in the nation, and spends less money per student than almost any other state in the nation. Yet you shut kids out of schools. If you think this is how you measure success, maybe you need to get a new ruler, Governor Perry.”

Again, it passes the truth test just enough to allow Perry to be stabbed in the gut by his own veto pen. The bonus is that you can attack Perry for the veto without actually mentioning the word “pre-kindergarten,” which is an anathema to anti-welfare types who think it is a handout to the poor.

These are only three of Perry’s vetoes from this session–and the first one is probably one most folks wouldn’t consider as something he could be easily attacked with. But, one can clearly see that at the bottom of most of his vetoes is some nugget of gold for opponents.

Tweet This Post   Ping This Post

Bookmark It