And, in the spirit of fun—and because, hey, I own the damned blog, baby—I’m going to engage in one of those rare ‘war of words,’ with the commenters. Well, actually, I’m just going to respond to some of their questions/statements:
Reader Doug Webb writes:

Is your spell-check not working or were you trying to show off your Texas education when you misspelled indigestion, indegestion?

I respond:

Dear Doug,

Thanx eu veri mooch for korrecting my mizspellin. I reali appriiiciatie it. I wuz not at alls tryin to exhibitionizt my Texasified edumacation, which, miite I ramind eu, Preeznet Boosh hat untel he were skent offf to Undover er whur evar it waz. Iffin eu waz ups on yer readin, eu wuld hav bef04 nows learndeded thats sometimez peuplez wif veri, veri, veri, hi intelligincifier skores sumtimes mak a lut er spellin errs. Dat jest meanz I smurt. Reaul Smurt. Realli, Reallii, Realliii smurt.
Seriously, though, sometimes my fingers and brain don’t work in total harmony because I think faster than I type. I type between 80-100 words-per-minute on average, so my fingers are perpetually behind my brain. That said, I usually do not run spell-check on this blog, because it is too time consuming and prone to crashing my system. I do know how to spell the word in question; it was a simple typo. Most of my regular readers have learned to forgive my occasional incorrectly spelled words and concentrate on my content.—VL

Tom Bazan writes:

Just read your baloney. I joined CLOUT to try and encourage the state policy makers to cap the growth in property tax assessments so as to slow the out-of-control spending by the bureaucrats. Back to sharpening the pitch fork.

I respond:

Dear Tom,

If you want to talk about out-of-control spending by bureaucrats (by the way, kudos for correctly hyphenating the phrase “out of control”), why don’t you call the Office of the Governor and ask them about the economic development slush fund? If CLOUT wanted to sue over that boondogle, I’d be behind you 100 percent.

And, since you are sharpening the pitchfork, I’m assuming you’re preparing for revolution or seccession. If so, would you let me know when it will happen—you know, just so I can blog it?—VL

Mike Price writes:

Really want a good laugh? How about your left-wing NUT diatribe slamming citizens using the judicial system to challenge the constitutionality of politicians’ actions. However it turns out, that is a right we enjoy in this country. So the LBB has been around 50+ years and is working quite well in your opinion? By your logic, laws allowing slavery must have been OK since slavery was allowed in the US for such a long period of time and it worked quite well for those benefitting from it. Can you imagine the hell that would break loose if every slave were to be given freedom! Maybe not an exact analogy but your criticism is equally ludicrous.

I respond:

Dear Mike,

Want a really, really, REALLY good laugh? Check out the flawed logic in your comment. Slavery? Really, Mike! Laws allowing slavery were very bad. Comparing people held in forced bondage to people who don’t like to pay taxes is, however, a little nutty even for the nuttiest in the bowl of wingnuts. If you’ll go back and read my “left-wing NUT diatribe” more carefully, you’ll note I didn’t slam citizens using the judicial system to challenge the constitutionality of politicians’ actions. I simply stated I thought the suit had no merit. As a Democrat, I believe everyone should have access to the judicial system.—VL

Steve Gibson writes:

I really like the way you laid out the facts to convince me the lawsuit was bad, instead of just name calling and being stupid.

I reply:

Gee, thanks, Steve! Assuming you’re not being sarcastic, that is. Because, as you’ll note, I did have facts in my story.—VL

Barry writes:

The taxes of the average home owning citizen have been going up at unprecedented rates for years via back door confiscation - the appraisal districts. The politicians - republicans and democrats have been hiding this for years, until now, as the average Texas citizen has woken up to the scam. A little math here… money in and money out. As we have been getting over-taxed at an ever increasing rate, the boys have been spending at an ever-increasing rate. This is where the violation enters. The overtaxation must stop so the overspending will stop - and visa/versa. The law suit is just, because of how overtaxation and overspending mutually exist. The LLB has not done its job for years at curtailing spending by the shear fact that it has spent every dime the state has brought in. That “every dime” comes from overtaxation.

I reply:

Dear Barry:

Thank you for your comment, which does foster intelligent debate on the subject at hand and whether or not the LBB is doing its job. You’ve actually stated the case I think the other commenters were trying to make. While I disagree with you, I respect that you have taken the time to argue your case and have done so in an understandable and simplified manner.

I also agree with you that “overtaxation and overspending mutually exist,” but will state that such is the case only in theory. If you look at the real statistics put out by conservative think tanks (I’ve published some to this blog before but can’t find the link), Texans are not, proportionate to citizens of other states, “over taxed.” It is just that our tax structure is so darned regressive we feel the pinch of it worse than others. Overspending, for the most part, is hard to find in the Texas budget after the slash-and-burn session of 2003. Maybe it is more evident in local governments and school districts, but when the state doesn’t have money to have all the children it should on CHIPs, I don’t see how one can say we are overspending.

I respect your opinion, however, and will mutually agree to disagree if you will. Thanks for your thoughtful comment.—VL

Jim writes:

(1) When the Constitutional spending cap was enacted by the voters, the LBB dealt with it for years by simply not setting one.

(2) When dealing with budget execution decisions, the LBB sets its own agenda — despite the fact that it was established as a way for the executive branch to handle interim spending needs with some legislative oversight.

(3) The House HAS voted to set the spending cap before.

(4) The CLOUT lawsuit looks like a loser, because the Constitution does not direct a formula for setting the cap.

(5) Are you SURE Rick Perry is a defendant in this suit?

PS: How come you don’t have an e-mail address on this site so I could just write my comments to you personally?

I reply:

Dear Jim:

Darn it, I think you caught me on number (5). I wasn’t aware of number (3), and would love to know more about that. With regard to number (4), I think the Constitution is done that way so that the spending cap can be set in harmony with estimated and received revenue. I’m not sure having the formula dicated in the constitution would have been proper.  Food for thought, though.

As for the email, it is on the site, either in the “about” section or another one. It is not just plastered everywhere because spambots have become very adept at harvesting from blogs. For future reference, though, you can write me at pressroom-at-capitolannex.com—VL

Steve Daniel writes:

The lawsuit will either go forward or be thrown out based on its merits, not your opinion. The judicial branch was set up to prevent the type of lawbreaking that CLOUT has alleged. The legislature passed the law, now someone is taking them to court to make them follow it. Sounds pretty simple, but I’m not as connected or as enlightened as you are, so I’ll leave it to the lawyers to argue. In the end all your arrogant arm waving doesn’t amount to squat, because the courts will have the final say, and not some liberal lackey who doesn’t understand the concept of accountability.

I reply:

Dear Steve:

How can I waive my arms when I am typing? That would be a physical impossibility, unless I was half-human, half-octopuss. Then, I’d have eight arms. Except they’d be called tenticals, and you couldn’t say I was waiving my arms then; you’d have to say I was waiving my tenticals. I would also look like Stewie from that one wierd episode of Family Guy.
Furthermore, I’m not some “liberal lackey” and Democrats do understand the concept of accountability. Need I remind you that one of the most famous “conservatives” not to understand the concept of “accountability” is from Sugar Land, Texas?—VL

Derrick writes:

This is probably the most shallow and ignorant column that I have ever read! You liberals can do better! Please start to intellectually challenge conservative POV’s!

I reply:

Dear Derrick:

I frequently do challenge conservative points of view in an intellectual manner. However, when I do, conservatives tend not to read those posts the big words tend to make their eyes go all googely and cause them to fall asleep.

With regard to the “shallow” and “ignorant” remark: I usually consider it a badge of honor to be called “shallow and ignorant” by conservatives. It makes me know I’m doing my job.  Just like—to Conservatives—when we Libs call Ann Coulter all kind of names and complain about her, to you guys, she’s doing her thing and doing it well. The street goes both ways.—VL

Burnam has previously called for Ceverha’s resignation as a result of Ceverha’s significant conflicts of interest.
Here’s what Burnam had to say about the letter:

“In an extremely odd letter to me, Mr. Ceverha blamed me for failing to bring about world peace, among other ridiculous accusations.  Texas does not need a person who exhibits that kind of judgment serving as a fiduciary for a $20 billion state fund.”
…
“It is obvious from this letter that Ceverha isn’t even cognizant of the issues I am trying to address here.  He is so ethically challenged, he doesn’t see how working as a lobbyist and serving on a Board which has millions of dollars invested in companies he represents is a conflict of interest.”

The letter is here (page 1 page 2) for your perusal. After you read it, if you don’t come to the conclusion that this guy is among the nuttiest of the wingnuts, then read it again.