From CAPP:

Instead of paying rates below the national average – as was the case for years – Texans now pay above average rates. The report also finds that contrary to industry reports, the relatively high prices in Texas cannot be solely ascribed to the state’s reliance on natural gas to fuel generating plants.

“This new report clearly illustrates the need for reform,” said Jay

Doegey, chairman of the Cities Aggregation Power Project, the non-profit organization that sponsored the investigation. “Consumers are hurting. Lawmakers should take a long, hard look at these findings and  consider how best to provide relief for their constituents.”

CAPP releases the report just as lawmakers prepare to convene in Austin for the 81st Texas Legislature. Efforts to overhaul the state’s deregulated electricity market narrowly failed during the waning days of the 80th legislative session, in 2007.

The report is based on years of data compiled by the United States Energy Information Administration, an agency charged with collecting and analyzing information from the electricity, petroleum and natural gas industries. The report compares residential rates in Texas with residential rates in other states, compares prices in regulated and deregulated states, and looks on the impact of natural gas and prices.

Among the key findings:

*Even compared to residents in other deregulated states, Texans pay
too much. Residential electricity prices have increased by a greater
percentage in Texas than they have in any other deregulated state with retail
competition.

*Contrary to a common misconception, Texas’ dependence on natural gas to fuel many of its power plants cannot explain the state’s poor showing. The review shows that even when considering the effect of natural gas-fired generation, average residential rates were higher in deregulated states with retail competition than they were in states that never deregulated.

*Under deregulation, Texans have paid more for electricity and have suffered steeper rate increases than have residents of a neighboring regulated state that also uses a similar fuel mix to power its generators. This provides further evidence that reliance on natural gas generation does not explain the relatively high rates in Texas.

Among other things, the report shows a 6 percent decline in abortions in Texas since 1996.

The practice involves the lending of securities for a fee by one party to another. The loans are secured by collateral, such as cash, government securities or a letter of credit. The securities are often borrowed to cover a short position or to help settle a trade.

The Teacher Retirement System put part of its securities lending program on hold in order to help the agency effectively manage fund assets during the turbulent financial environment. The investment firms affected by this action include Goldman Sachs & Co. (NYSE: GS), Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS), Wachovia Corp. (NYSE: WB), State Street Corp. (NYSE: STT) and Washington Mutual Inc. (NYSE: WM).

“During periods when financial markets are operating normally, securities lending both contributes to the efficient functioning of those markets and also to the growth of the TRS pension fund,” TRS Executive Director Ronnie Jung says.

Last year, TRS put about a third of its assets in “alternative investments,” such as hedge funds.

Securities lending is a form of investment under which securities are paid out in exchange for the right to receive repayment of the securities, plus interest, at some future date. California’s public retirement system made a similar move last week, as did financial giant Bank of America.

All of this is starting to make me wonder how much of its $112 billion TRS has lost in recent weeks. I’ve heard a couple of rumors that TRS is in serious trouble and may be asking the Legislature for a bailout of its own, but I emphasize that’s just a rumor.

For decades the school property tax that funds “maintenance and operations” has been causing troubles for taxpayers – skyrocketing burdens, lawsuits and general confusion. Legislators, taxpayers, school boards and judges have all taken cracks at reforming a system that is fundamentally irreparable.

As you know property taxes are a horrible way to fund government, turning every Texan into a renter while deterring job creation. Property tax burdens essentially double every 7.5 years! And for most folks, retirement funds will be completely depleted by a property tax system that devours everything in its path.

Now a group of legislators are looking to do something about it: Abolishing the tax altogether! This is an idea whose time has not already come, but the people are cheering loudly for it. You can join the winning battle!

First, let’s take a crack at some myth-busting:

Legislators, taxpayers, school boards and judges have all taken cracks at reforming a system that is fundamentally irreparable.

Really? I guess someone has forgotten how government works, because the only one of those four groups listed that can “reform” anything is the Texas Legislature. School boards do not devise a tax system and judges, while they may deem something constitutional or not, do not create legislative reforms (unless it is absent legislative action as ordered)

Then, this:

As you know property taxes are a horrible way to fund government, turning every Texan into a renter while deterring job creation…

“Turn every Texan into a renter?” That is so bogus. As for deterring “job creation,” I guess that Texans for Fiscal Responsibility has failed to remember that Texas has a law called the Texas Economic Development Act that is designed to address this issue. Far from being used too little, the Act is actually most often criticized because it allows cities to essentially hand out corporate welfare.

And, finally:

And for most folks, retirement funds will be completely depleted by a property tax system that devours everything in its path.

Where in the world does this come from? First of all, if you consider most Texans who own homes with mortgages, their property taxes are rolled into the note at closing through either escrow or monthly impound and are paid by the mortgage company when they come due.

Too, Texans for Fiscal Responsibility obviously doesn’t realize that those Texans whose property taxes aren’t taken care of via monthly impound or escrow can, if they have a conventional mortgage, refinance and fold those taxes into the new loan, while getting a lower interest rate to boot.

Furthermore, for people with defined benefit pension plans and 401(k) funds, it isn’t exactly like you can whip down to the local credit union and make a withdrawal. With most 401(k) funds, you have to show a significant hardship, i.e. an impending foreclosure, to gain access to funds. Or, you can borrow against a 401(k). If you have a defined-benefit pension plan, however, you can’t withdraw anything until retirement.

As for retired individuals, especially those over the age set forth in the statute, school property taxes are frozen. This segment of the population, which is rapidly growing, doesn’t see the alleged doubling every 7.5 years.Of course, all of this mythological fantasy is nothing more than an excuse to pimp out State Rep. Phil King’s new tax plan, which most people have already determined is equivalent to parakeet cage lining in terms of classifications of future legislation:

State Rep. Phil King of Weatherford has put forward an innovative plan that would eliminate the school M&O property tax – the largest portion of the property tax burden. (A conversation I had with Rep. King on the issue is found at the right, as is a conversation with his colleague, State Rep. Bryan Hughes of Mineola.)

Essentially, the plan would use surplus funds (the state looks to have another $10 billion to $15 billion surplus this biennium), eliminate exemptions to the current sales tax, some fiscal discipline, and then consider a slight rate increase. And be completely rid of two-thirds of the property tax burden!

In other words, to protect wealthy corporations from paying property taxes, we would expand and increase the state’s single-most regressive tax.

Expand? Yep, that’s right. Over-the-counter medications, food products, and a host of other goods presently not subject to the sales tax would have to be taxed in order to make King’s plan come anywhere close to working.

All the King plan amounts to, plain and simple, is shifting the tax burden onto the middle class and working poor.

And, when a right-wing group uses the phrase, “some physical discipline,” you know the middle class and poor are going to get screwed. Translated from right-wing speak to Standard American English, “some physical discipline,” means massive cuts to health and human services programs, massive cuts to secondary and higher education, and massive cuts in all government services–except those necessary to facilitate whatever corporate welfare big business happens to want at any given moment.

As for draining the surplus, how wise, really is that? I believe we’ve been down that road before; we’ve already exhausted much of the surplus we had to pay for bogus property tax reductions. Will the anti-tax wingnuts only be satisfied when our state is broke at the expense of making sure the wealthy have as little a tax burden as possible?

And, one last huge lie from Texans for Fiscal Responsibility:

Economists have long known that the sales tax is inherently more just – and especially the poor – than property taxes, income taxes and business taxes. Rather taxing the product of hard work, penalizing thriftiness or discouraging job creation, sales tax burdens are controlled by the taxpayer – how much you pay is based on how much you spend on items beyond food.

What economists? Every economist knows that sales taxes are the most regressive of taxes. They are not “more just,” and it doesn’t take a Nobel-prize winning economist to tell you that. Ask someone who works at Wal-Mart.

A truly just plan would be something like this, or a tax system with more reliance on a VAT.

Although the good folks of Andrews County, where the waste will be dumped, seem to be blind to all of this (maybe they are excited about those jobs, which probably come with a nice case of glow-in-the-dark cancer), but it is clearly an environmental disaster for Texas.

How, exactly, did Texas become the favored dumping ground for radioactive waste? It’s thanks to your friendly neighborhood Republican state representatives.

Back during the 78th Texas Legislature in 2003 (the first one where the Texas House was under GOP control), the Texas Legislature passed House Bill 1567 which allowed for the disposal of “low-level” radioactive waste from other states right here in Texas. A slew of Republicans in hotly contested races this year including Betty Brown (R-Terrell), John Davis (R-Houston), Dwayne Bohac (R-Houston), Myra Crownover (R-Denton), and Linda Harper Brown (R-Irving) voted to make Texas a glowing, leaking, radioactive waste dump. [CSHB 1567: Record Vote 316, Day 53, Texas House Journal, 78th Texas Legislature, p. 1713-17-14].

The real kicker to the whole story is that these folks not only voted for the radioactive waste dumping bill, but took buckets of money from Harold Simmons, the corporate raider who purchased Waste Control–a company that has seen a lot of benefit from HB 1567. (Oh, did we forget to mention that House Speaker Tom Craddick (R-Midland) has taken at least $50,000 from Simmons for his campaign account?)

State Rep. Betty Brown (R-Terrell) has been lining her campaign coffers with Simmons’ radioactive cash for almost a decade, having taken her first contribution from Simmons back in 2000 and her most recent back in February. Here are a few Simmons’ contributions to Brown:

$2,500: 2/17/06
$1,000: 2/8/08
$1,000: 10/17/02
$500: 9/27/00
$500: 6/27/02
$500: 8/8/01

Harper-Brown and Crownover have also taken Simmons’ cash. So has Bohac. John Davis has taken $4,000 from Simmons just since 2006.

In honor (or perhaps in protest) of today’s decision, how about throwing a few bucks Sherrie Matula’s way? Since Davis has taken the most money recently from the King of Nuclear Waste, why not support his wonderful Democratic opponent and let him know what you think of his vote.

Of course, it doesn’t:

With court costs expected to top $2.25 million — even before lawyer fees are included — legal proceedings from April’s raid on a polygamist group’s ranch near Eldorado promise to be a budget buster for rural Schleicher County.

The county of about 3,000 people, with an annual budget of $3.9 million, cannot hope to handle the expense alone, District Judge Ben Woodward said during a Senate Finance Committee hearing Tuesday at the Capitol.

“I’ve come here to run up the red flag for the judiciary branch,” Woodward told the committee. “We need resources.”

Most of the expense will be borne by Schleicher County, where more than 450 children were removed from the Yearning for Zion Ranch in April and placed in foster homes across Texas.

Most court costs are related to the ongoing Child Protective Services custody cases, but the estimate also includes expenses related to anticipated criminal charges, Woodward said.

For what it is worth, $2.25 million is a figure that probably won’t even scratch the surface if the county figured in all the costs related to criminal charges. Trying a bunch of child sex abuse cases won’t be cheap, and the most significant expense will probably be for court appointed criminal defense attorneys. I have no idea what the hourly rate indigent defenders are allowed to charge (a rate set by the district judges in the area is for non-capital offenses), but even if it is a paltry $40 per hour, $2.25 million won’t cover both the civil and criminal costs if a large number of the sect members ultimately charged (again, assuming a large number are charged) require court appointed counsel.

The long and short of it is that this could bankrupt Schlicher County unless the state steps in. My question is, “when will the state step in?” Given that the county is actually nearing the end of its fiscal year, if they are a typical rural county, they don’t have gobs of money in the bank and probably don’t have much in their reserves beyond what standard accounting practices demand government bodies keep in reserve. If Schlicher County is actually waiting until the 81st Legislature, that worries me because it stands to reason that they will be in a budget crunch from day one of the next fiscal year as they balance paying the expenses for this case with paying for their regular expenses.

For some reason, I’ve always been under the impression, though that may be admittedly misguided, that the Governor and the Legislative Budget Board could step in when situations like this arise and ensure that funding is available for such things without waiting for the legislative appropriations process. If that’s not correct (and I trust one of my regular readers will email me and set me right if it isn’t), then it stanCapitol Annex › Create New Post — WordPressds to reason that legislation should be passed (or a constitutional amendment, if that is what is required) to allow the LBB to step in when circumstances like this arise.

It just doesn’t seem fair to leave a rural county like Sclicher County on the hook like this.

The other side of this coin is, of course, the massive amount of state expenses:

It will cost taxpayers $21 million to care for a polygamist sect’s children over the next year, the Health and Human Services Commission estimated Monday.

Foster-care payments for more than 450 youngsters removed because of possible child abuse at the group’s Eldorado ranch will cost nearly $1 million a month, commission spokeswoman Stephanie Goodman said.

Virtually all of the sect children are deemed to need a “basic” level of service, which at $39 a day is the least costly of Texas’ four levels of paid foster care. Nearly doubling the monthly cost, however, is the fact that many – a precise number was not available – are staying in emergency shelters. The state pays shelters $106 a day.

Ms. Goodman said other monthly costs will include $325,500 in health care, provided under the state-federal Medicaid program for the poor; and $425,000 for an additional 70 protective services workers – as soon as they’re hired.

As with any estimate, $21 million is also probably a low-ball figure. Of course, the Senate Committee with oversight over much of this process is worried about the implications the case will have on other foster kids:

Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound, told social services officials Tuesday that although she backed the state’s decision to rush hundreds of workers to West Texas, she worries its preoccupation with the high-profile case could leave youngsters elsewhere unprotected.

“We are very grateful for those [CPS] people that moved quickly, but I don’t want to read in the newspaper that because we moved people in to deal with this situation, we had an incident that should – could – have been avoided back home,” Ms. Nelson said at a special Senate Finance Committee hearing on how much the raid could cost taxpayers.

I almost have to laugh at this one, because health and human services agencies in Texas always seem to raise their “red flag” only following a media expose.

Too, many dams inspected from 2002-2007 had not been inspected since the 1970s and 1980s. Since 1970, 98 of the state’s 7,603 dams have failed. That may not seem like a large number, but consider this:

Examples of these dam failures include breaches, spillway failures, overtoppings, and collapses. Of the 98 failures, 42 percent were at high- or significant-hazard dams. In some cases, the same dam had multiple failures. For example, one dam owned by a public utility has suffered four failures since 1970 and three dams owned by one business suffered a total of eight failures.

Given that any one dam failing–especially if it is a large dam with potentially high hazards associated with its failure–could result in millions of dollars in property damage and even the loss of life, even 98 dam failures are too many, especially when many are preventable.

If you don’t think this is an issue that should matter to you in the next election, then perhaps you should examine the map below and determine how many dams your county has:

Many of my constituents have recently contacted me about large increases in their local property tax appraisals. This is deeply disturbing, as the Texas Legislature voted in 2006 to reduce school property taxes by a full one-third. Additionally, we went further by requiring voter approval before certain property taxes could be raised.

I have heard from several local business people, including one gentleman that reported a 300% increase in a 10-acre tract of undeveloped land. This is the exact opposite of what the legislature intended to happen when we ordered property tax reductions.

If you have received notice from your local appraisal district of a large increase in the appraised value of your home or business, I would like to know. Please fax a copy of the notice from your local appraisal district to my office at (817) 596-8375 or my capitol office at (512) 463-5896. If you prefer, a scanned copy may be e-mailed to phil.king@house.state.tx.us or mailed to Rep. Phil King, P.O. Box 2910, Austin, TX 78768.

What exactly is Phil King going to do with all of these tax records? Storm off down to the local appraisal district and demand that rates be lowered? Storm into the local school board meeting and complain that they are spending too much money? Or, have they just run out of toilet paper in the Capitol restroom?

Did we miss a piece of legislation that instructed or authorized the Comptroller’s Office to spend state dollars on this report? I hope not, since it appears that this is the stunning conclusion that comes from the 443 page report:

Texas has the resources it needs to meet its energy demands for the foreseeable future, though tomorrow’s fuel mix may be quite different than today’s.The days of near-total reliance on cheap and abundant fossil fuels may be decreasing. Instead, we will rely on a mix of fuels and improved efficiency.

Seriously? Twenty-seven chapters (which we will consent are probably the most beautifully typeset report pages in state history), 443 pages, thousands of footnotes, and a list of contributors that appears to encompass darned near every employee in the Texas Comptroller’s Office and “tomorrow’s fuel mix may be quite different than today’s” is the absolute best they could come up with?

As if that wasn’t enough for you, it appears that another conclusion mentioned earlier in the report basically dismisses all sources of alternative energy altogether:

It is important to remember, however, that there are always tradeoffs to be considered in energy policy.

The fuels we have relied on for decades, despite recent increases in the cost of oil and gas, will continue to be the dominant means to meet specific energy needs. Our current energy infrastructure is designed to take advantage of them. Any policies that discourage their use, directly or indirectly, will likely entail costs to taxpayers and consumers.

I have difficulty believing–unless every single participant in the compilation of this report is a “flat earther”–that Combs would actually make a statement that lawmakers should fear new sources of energy or policies to discourage the use of fossil fuels because of the argument that they will somehow cause tax increases!

If that was not bad enough, then check out what Combs’ missive says the report is intended for:

This report is intended to be a resource for policymakers as they consider such tradeoffs. It provides an overview of a variety of energy sources that Texas can use to meet its future energy demands, with a fact-based assessment of each. Our report frames the critical issues and presents the objective information Texans will need to make informed choices about one of the most important issues facing the state.

So, this report basically provides the kind of information someone can get off Wikipedia? Why the hell not just send lawmakers a memo and ask them to “Google” the term “feedlot biomass?” Isn’t this kind of a report something more appropriately compiled by a legislative research organization, such as the House Research Organization or the Texas Legislative Council? It just seems as though Combs’ office has no place delving into this thicket.

Perhaps it is simply because we have a hard time believing that any report to come out of this Comptroller’s office would provide anything near “objective information” that we hold such a view. Or, perhaps it is because of some of the people interviewed for the compilation of the report:

Jan Caldwell, TXU Power (now Luminant)
Rafael Flores, TXU Power (now Luminant)
Tom Kleckner, TXU Power (now Luminant)
Thomas W. Rose, TXU Power (now Luminant)
Tom Stewart, TXU Power (now Luminant)
Sid Underwood, TXU Power (now Luminant)

That is an awful lot of TXU people working to shape a report that comes to a conclusion that alternative energy sources will cause taxes to go up.

Still, none of this answers the key question: why did Combs’ office compile the report in the first place?

I’m sure that Combs’ snapped her statutory authority to compile such a report from somewhere, but where that is we aren’t sure. What is most likely is that Combs decided she needed a “media boost” and that an energy report would be the best way to get it.

Of course, Combs’ office is not a policy making agency, and isn’t really an energy agency. But hey–pretty, thick reports make for a hell of a press conference.

The GOP governor’s support of private investment in public tollways as a key avenue for needed infrastructure is echoed by former aide Deirdre Delisi of Austin and a second appointee announced Wednesday, Bill Meadows of Fort Worth.

Both appointees see private investment as an important part of the picture, though not all of it, and said they want to work with lawmakers. The Legislature has sought to curb such projects, alarmed the state would go too far in ceding control of Texas’ infrastructure.

In other words, these two see no problem with sweet-heart deals like the CINTRA/Zachary partnership to build the early phases of the controversial Trans-Texas Corridor. It will be interesting to see whether or not the Senate confirms either or both nominees next January. State Sen. John Carona is already hinting that Delisi may not get a positive nod from the Senate:

He [Carona] said Delisi is intelligent and that he would “make every effort to have a successful relationship with her,” but whether he votes to confirm her when the Legislature next meets in 2009 “will depend on her conduct and her performance between now and January.”

“Both Republicans and Democrats have described her in the past as being difficult to work with and not particularly cordial,” Carona said. Asked about his past critical comments of her possible appointment, he said, “I think that she is a political hack. I’ve said that before. It would be probably senseless for me to deny it.”

Delisi brushed aside the slap: “My response is that I’m looking forward to working with all members of the Legislature, just as I’m looking forward to working with the local officials, to solve our transportation problems.”

Toll roads and private leases to fund transportation “are certainly one of the tools that are available to local officials and the state,” Delisi said. “It is part of the solution; it’s probably not the only solution.”

I guess we’ll see what happens next January.

Hundreds of thousands of Texas businesses, fresh from paying their federal income taxes earlier this month, are now busy calculating what they owe the state under its new business tax – and many don’t like what the numbers show.

The new tax – approved by the Legislature in a special session in 2006 as part of a massive tax overhaul package – debuts this spring with businesses large and small expected to navigate their way through the complex requirements and file their returns by June 16.

Among the disenchanted taxpayers is Dallas businessman Andy Ellard, owner of a machine shop with 28 employees. Mr. Ellard said the size of his tax bill doesn’t match up with the pledges of state lawmakers. “We were promised a number of things, and none of them happened,” said Mr. Ellard. He estimated that he would pay about $8,900 under the new business franchise tax, more than double the $4,200 he paid last year.

“There are going to be some mad business owners [on June 16], and I think you’re going to see some people get voted out of office because of this,” he said.

Ya’ think? The fact of the matter is that the 2006 special session wasn’t conducted for the reasons that most Texans thought it was: more money for public schools. Yes, the Legislature was up against a court-mandated deadline to “equalize” funding for public schools and end what the court declared was essentially an unconstitutional tax, but it did so not with more money for public schools, but with a tax shift of gigantic proportions–all in the name of the bogus concept of “property tax relief.” To wit:

Even with the $1,700 he saved in property taxes – a result of the tax overhaul law – his net state tax increase is still about $3,000.

“We were told there would be no increase if we paid the [old] franchise tax last year,” he said, referring to the promise of lawmakers not to penalize businesses who were paying the franchise tax while many others skirted the tax. “I haven’t talked to a single businessman who isn’t looking at a tax increase.”

What exactly can the Legislature (or at least those who voted for the plan) say here? “Oops, our bad?”

This simply proves the point that the idea of property tax “relief” is a truly bogus concept without a complete re-write of Texas’ tax system. Clearly, just tweaking the franchise tax (incidentally, I notice that, these days, nobody is talking about all of those “loopholes” that were closed in the franchise tax rewrite) doesn’t do anything to equalize the tax burden.

While I do believe that big businesses (ie, banks, Wal-Mart, TXU) should be responsible for more taxes than the average man or woman ‘on the street’ by nature of their profits, the “wash” that small businesses were promised, i.e., “you won’t actually pay more taxes by the time you see your property tax relief and your new business tax and, indeed, may actually pay less taxes” seems to have not materialized.

Until we have truly meaningful tax reform in Texas, there will always be such difficulties.

The report answers key questions about the Texas Pregnancy Care Network which are worth noting:

Does the TPCN meet self-identified goals? No. A close look reveals the TPCN did not come close to reaching self-identified projected goals. For example, the TPCN failed to meet their projected goal of “clients served” by more than 35% in the first two fiscal years (FY 06 and FY 07) of the contract. Over the first two fiscal years, the entire statewide TPCN network served an average of 127 women per month at a cost of more than $3 million. Assuming there are twenty workdays per month, the entire TPCN network reached about six women per day statewide.

2. Is the TPCN an efficient public structure? No. By any reasonable standard of service delivery competence, the TPCN contract is grossly inefficient and wasteful. Under the contract, the state of Texas is paying the TPCN almost $1.4 million (44% of all funds) in administrative fees and passing through almost $1.8 million (56% of all funds) to service providers (pre-existing local organizations that were already providing services to women long before TPCN was created). For every $1 that is passed through the TPCN to a local service provider, Texas taxpayers are paying the TPCN over $.44 – almost half - in overhead!

3. Does the TPCN, acting as a public structure to assist pregnant women, offer recommended services to prepare Texas women for a healthy birth and raising healthy children? No. In contrast to services recommended by mainstream, non-controversial organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and National Association of Social Workers, the TPCN does not offer, and is not required to offer, recommended services for pregnant women. These services include licensed medical services, licensed counseling and support, or (with the exception of maternity homes) significant material assistance, such as cash, housing, or transportation assistance. The Texas “Alternatives to Abortion” program fails to consistently deliver recommended services for pregnant women. Texas women and families deserve a higher standard of care than the TPCN and its CPC partners are designed to provide.l Furthermore, hardworking Texas taxpayers deserve to know their multi-million dollar investment is justified by efficient and beneficial public structures.

Of course, the Texas “Alternatives to Abortion” program, and its contractor, the Texas Pregnancy Care Network, is a giant $3 million political project. Its primary purpose is solely to dissuade Texas women from choosing abortion as an alternative. Unlike real family planning clinics, the crisis pregnancy centers don’t provide any legitimate health services cuch as gynecological exams or prenatal care. Instead, according to the report, the CPCs instead provide “biased and often inaccurate information about the risks of safe and legal abortion care.”

Also, check this out:

During the 2005 Texas legislative session, anti-choice Texas lawmakers led by Senator Tommy Williams (R-The Woodlands) forced an unprecedented rider onto the state budget to create an experimental “Alternatives to Abortion” program. This rider cut a total of $5 million from family planning funding over the 2006–2007 biennium. From its inception, controversy has surrounded the program. Described as the mission of the program, the following mission statement describes the intent of information distributed to promote the program’s mission: “The purpose of the program is to promote childbirth rather than abortion. Therefore, providing abortions, or providing information about abortions or referrals to abortion services in inconsistent with the purpose of this program. However, under the provision of the RFP, abortion may be discussed in the context of promoting childbirth rather than abortion.”

Because licensed social service and medical providers may discuss abortion as a safe and legal option for a woman seeking to terminate her pregnancy, they are not eligible for the program. In effect, only organizations opposed to abortion are eligible to participate. In addition to the biased mission of the program, many have complained about the unusual process through which this program was enacted into state law, moving through the Legislature through a back-door process as a rider rather than a bill. As reported by the Austin Chronicle, Texas officials complained about the back-door nature of the rider’s incorporation in the state budget:

“Sen. Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, noted that the rider was never discussed by the committee’s work-group (in fact, until that day, the committee as a whole wasn’t aware that the rider even existed). The rider passed quickly out of committee, despite the stern and final objection of Senator Barrientos (D-Austin), “The bottom line, it appears to me, is that [in] transferring the money [to the CPCs], are we are saying it’s OK to get pregnant and then deal with it as a crisis?” he asked.

“I really think we need to think about this item a little more.”13In the same article regarding lack of accountability for the proposed program, the following conversation occurred between Senator Shapleigh (D-El Paso) and Senator Williams (R-The Woodlands): “Does your rider require that [the CPCs or other service providers] be licensed by the state?” Sen. Shapleigh asked. “No,” Sen. Williams said. “This rider does not do that.” “Don’t you want to license them, [to] make sure that the information being given out is accurate?” Sen. Shapleigh asked. “Uh, you know, that wouldn’t be proper,” Sen. Williams responded. “That might be the proper way to craft a ‘general law’,” he said, “but not for a rider.” “Well, we could restrict [the funding to make sure it goes] to licensed agencies, couldn’t we?” Sen. Shapleigh continued. “No,” Sen. Williams replied, that’s “not necessary.” When pressed as to why the state would cut funding from proven family planning programs to create an experimental and perhaps duplicative bureaucratic program, several officials responded: Rep. Dawnna Dukes (D-Austin), a member of the House Appropriations Committee, questioned the motive for the program when she asked state officials: “Why would the state want to build a network when we already have entities that provide such services at a lower rate for more women who are low-income, uninsured and underinsured?”

Rep. Dan Gattis, (R-Georgetown), also a member of the House Appropriations Committee, stated, “Everyone knows this is a debate over Planned Parenthood and pregnancy resource centers.” He said that he and Dukes “have some philosophical differences” and that he was confident the program’s costs would decline.

Rep. Warren Chisum (R-Pampa), Appropriations Committee chairman, said that while he is “100 percent in favor of providing women [with] health care” (which the program does not provide) he also favors “encouraging people to have babies.”

Stephanie Goodman, spokeswoman for the Health and Human Services Commission, said the new program was intended “to serve a different population — low-income women who are pregnant and want to have the child. The services they need are different, and so are the costs. . . . This program is about giving women real choices. It offers support for women who choose not to have an abortion and go ahead and have their child. There are very meaningful choices being provided to these women where there weren’t before.”

However, there are no eligibility requirements for the women served by the program and the Texas Maternal and Child Health program, a long-established program, does in fact have eligibility requirements and provides medical and social services to pregnant women.

You just can’t make this stuff up, folks. Read the whole report for more.

Texas ranks 16th among the states in terms of the number of residents with breast cancer, and 20th when it comes to colorectal cancer.

We ranked 29th in terms of prenatal care, and 36th when it comes to having all Texas children fully vaccinated.

And, something we shouldn’t be proud of at all, we ranked 4th in the nation in terms of the number of nursing home/long-term care residents with pressure (bed) sores. That’s awful.

With (according to the report), more than 20 percent of Texans uninsured, some of these rankings are unsurprising. Given our pollution rate in areas like Houston, the cancer rates are probably not surprising to some either.

There is no excuse for being 36th in the nation in terms of child vaccinations. And, we all know who to blame: the Perry/Craddick Republicans in Austin who, starting in 2003, crafted a huge permanent wall keeping kids from health insurance.

To Texans applying for food stamps, it may not seem to matter whether their application goes through the state’s old computer system or the updated one.

But new state data show that less than half — 48 percent — of Texas food stamp applications processed using the updated computer system, known as TIERS, are completed within the 30 days the federal government requires.

In the old system, SAVERR, 90 percent of cases were processed within the federal timeline.

One problem is that there aren’t enough workers trained in TIERS, and the state is losing them almost as fast as they are hired. To combat attrition, state officials announced Tuesday that they’re giving 6,000 workers raises or promotions.

Last month, I saw this post from a blog by an HHSC employee, which noted that there were significant problems for Food Stamp clients because of the new system. If you read HHSC Employee’s post from his blog, you can get a first-hand account of the hell that Food Stamp clients in TIERS have to go through.

There is no excuse for this, and it is yet another example of what have evidently become systematic problems within HHSC’s leadership. Is it impossible for the leadership of this agency to accomplish any switch-over or major chance without screwing clients?