Pro-Choice Doesn't Mean Pro-Abortion

It seems that the wife of Texas' right-wing governor doesn't agree with him that women should be second-class citizens. She recently said that she believed women should have the right to control their own bodies, just like men do (i.e., have to right to choose whether to have an abortion or not).

She did not say she supported abortion. In fact she said that was not a choice she could make -- and that is her right. No one is asking those on the right to support abortion (or have an abortion) -- but just to recognize that women should have equal rights to men when it comes to controlling their own bodies. Anita Perry showed she is several notches smarter than her husband in recognizing that.

UT Chancellor Says NO To Guns On Campus

The United States leads the world in the number of firearm deaths that occur every year. Here in Texas, there are 11 people killed by guns for every 100,000 people in the state each year. In their infinite wisdom, the Republican leadership in the state has decided that the solution to too many gun deaths is to put guns in the hands of more people. They reason that if more people have guns, there will be fewer gun deaths. I know that doesn't make sense, but then Texas Republicans are not known for making sense.

Texas already has a concealed carry law that allows people over 21 to carry a firearm nearly anywhere (even into the State Capitol building itself). There are still a few places a gun cannot be carried -- like bars, schools, colleges, churches. But the state's Republican legislators are trying to fix that. There is currently a bill in the state legislature that would allow adults 21 and older to carry a concealed firearm on the campus of state colleges and universities, and it looks like it has a good chance of passage.

But not everyone thinks this is a good idea. University of Texas Chancellor Francisco G. Cigarroa believes it would just make his campus a more dangerous place. And in a last-ditch effort to stop the insane bill, he has written a letter to Governor Perry. Here is the text of that letter:

Dear Governor Perry:


As the legislature considers the important and sensitive issue of concealed handguns on campuses of institutions of higher education, I would be remiss in my duties as chancellor of the state's largest university system if I did not convey my concerns regarding this issue.


I greatly respect and value the authority of the legislature to make this important public policy decision, and I recognize the variety of opinions surrounding it. The University of Texas system has worked diligently to make our campuses safer, through the use of emergency notification systems and other measures. Yet parents, students, faculty, administrators, and institutional law enforcement have all expressed to me their concerns that the presence of concealed handguns on campus would contribute to a less-safe environment, not a safer one.


Additionally, further unease has been expressed by our campus mental health professionals, who know and deal with the reality of the emotional and psychological pressures of academic life, separation from family, relationships -- all pressures that contribute to the harsh reality that suicide is the leading cause of death among college students. There is great concern that the presence of handguns, even if limited to licensed individuals 21 or older, will lead to an increase of both accidental shootings and self-inflicted wounds.


Our law enforcement personnel, consisting of highly-trained professionals who work within these unique campus environments, are particularly troubled about the ability of our officers to differentiate between the bad actor and a person defending himself/herself and others when both have guns drawn. Furthermore, the high density of campus housing -- which includes both persons of age and persons too young to secure a concealed handgun license -- raises issues of how licensed individuals will be able to secure their weapons when not carried on the individual's person.


There is also unease that laboratories and hospitals, where chemicals and gases are not only present but often under pressure, create unique situations where the discharge of a firearm may have consequences well beyond what one may expect in other environments.


I must concur with all the concerns and apprehensions expressed to me, that the presence of concealed weapons, on balance, will make a campus a less-safe environment. I respectfully request that you and your colleagues will weigh these concerns, and the safety and lives of those on our campuses, as you consider this issue.


I realize this is one of many important decisions on the legislature's collective shoulders this session. Thank you for considering our concerns.


With great respect, 


Francisco G. Cigarroa, M.D.
Chancellor

Republican Pandering In Texas

It looks like the Republicans in Texas are starting to feel the heat in this election year. Two separate polls have now shown that Democratic senate candidate Rick Noriega is only 4 point behind the incumbent, "Box Turtle" John Cornyn (and Cornyn is polling less than 50% in both polls). In addition, the polls show that John McCain is not doing much better, and may actually be beatable in this reddest of states.

Couple this with the huge turnout in the Democratic primary in Texas this year, and you have Republican candidates all over the state running scared. It's no longer a matter of whether Democrats will make gains in this year's election, but only of how big those gains will be. Will Texas go from red to purple, or will it go all the way to blue?

The favorite Republican tactic of fearmongering doesn't seem to be working this year -- guess they've gone to that well once too often. So now they're falling back on an old stand-by -- pandering to voter greed.

State Comptroller Combs announced earlier this week that it looks like Texas will have about a $10.7 billion surplus. Speaker Craddick believes it may be $3 or $4 billion larger than that. So the Republicans, led by our inept governor Rick Perry, are now starting to talk about further tax cuts (for the rich probably) or even cash rebates.

What they won't tell you is that the surplus exists because they have been unwilling to fully fund the things that are desperately needed in Texas. We have a surplus because they refuse to:

- fully fund and extend the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

- give our schools all the money they need (especially in poor areas).

- allot enough money to repair our roads and bridges and build new ones (they'd rather build toll roads and give them away to foreign companies).

- pay our state employees a decent wage (with the possible exception of Mississippi and Oklahoma, our employees are among the lowest paid in the nation).

- create treatment and diversion programs for drug and alcohol abusers, so we can get them out of our overcrowded prisons.

- give our colleges and universities enough money to keep the cost to students low enough so everyone who wants to can get a college education.

These are just a few of the problem areas where that money is needed. But don't expect Republicans to act to solve any of these problems. They're far too busy pandering to voters to stay in power.

The funny part is, if they had acted earlier to solve these problems, they wouldn't have to be pandering now.

Bell Sues Perry Over Illegal Donations

Democratic candidate for governor in 2006, Chris Bell, has filed suit against Governor Rick Perry. The suit accuses the Perry campaign of failing to properly report some very large campaign donations ($1,000,000) in the last month of the 2006 campaign.

In October of 2006, the Republican Governor's Association (RGA) gave two $500,000 donations to the Perry campaign. The Perry campaign reported the donations as coming from a PAC. The problem is that the RGA is not a PAC, but a 527 group. There are stricter reporting requirements for a 527 group, which the Perry campaign did not comply with.

Perry's spokesman called it a simple paperwork error, and referred to the lawsuit as "sour grapes". Bell's spokesman replied, "What a load of hokum, hooey and balderdash. Obviously, they can't explain this obvious violation of state elections law and have to resort to the same 'shoot the messenger' tactics that didn't work for Tom Delay and won't work now."

The reason for the stricter requirements for 527 reporting is so the public can know who is giving large donations to the candidates. It is to keep the candidates from hiding the source of huge donations. And it looks like that is exactly what has happened with these two donations. Perry's campaign tried to hide the source of the two $500,000 donations.

The source was Houston homebuilder and Rick Perry supporter, Bob Perry. On October 6, Bob Perry sent the RGA $1,000,000 and the RGA sent Perry a check for $500,000 20 days later. On October 31, Bob Perry sent the RGA another $550,000 and one day later the RGA sent Perry another $500,000 check.

I doubt if this made much difference in the outcome of the election, but that makes little difference. The way the Perry campaign handled these huge donations was illegal. They obviously didn't want the public to know where the money came from. Of course the Perry campaign says it was just an odd coincidence. Sure it was!

If you believe that , I've got some oceanfront property in Amarillo I'll sell you real cheap.

Perry Right To Veto Blue Warrant Bill

Scott Henson, over at Grits for Breakfast is upset over the governor's veto of HB541, which would have allowed parolee's to bail out of jail when they're arrested on a blue warrant (parole revocation warrant).

I want to preface my remarks by saying that Grits for Breakfast is the best criminal justice blog in the state of Texas (and maybe the nation). I enjoy reading it every day, and 99% of the time I agree with it. Mr. Henson knows what he's talking about.

But I have to disagree about HB541. A blue warrant is an arrest warrant issued when a parolee has violated his parole and a revocation hearing is to be held to see whether the parolee will go back to prison or not. A blue warrant is not bailable -- the parolee will remain in jail until the hearing is held and the results are known. Then the parolee will either be released or sent back to prison.

Parole is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution. It is a privilege granted by the Parole Board, and that privilege can be revoked at any time for a violation. It's not like he was waiting to go to court to see if he's going to be convicted. For most crimes, those waiting to go to court should be granted bail (after all, they haven't been convicted of anything yet).

A parolee is someone who's already been convicted of a felony and sent to prison. The hearing is to see if he'll lose the privilege of parole and have to go back to prison. The chances are very good that a parolee sitting in jail on a blue warrant will be sent back to prison, and most parolees know this.

Because of this, there is a much greater risk of a parolee not showing up at his hearing, than that of a bailee not showing up for trial. Then you have a convicted felon running free and unsupervised, and highly likely to commit another crime to keep his freedom. That is why blue warrants are not bailable -- to protect the community at large.

Scott says parole officers abuse the blue warrant by jailing offenders they do not wish to revoke. I'm sure that may be true in some instances. But is this such a bad thing if it straightens out a parole violator? Do we really want parole violators to remain free?

There has to be a better solution to county jail overcrowding that turning parole violators loose. Maybe the state should pay the county for housing these prisoners. Maybe the state should build its own temporary detention facilities. After all, we are not talking about an extended period of time before the revocation decision is made.

One of a parole officer's duties is to protect the community. They cannot do that if parole violators are allowed to run free.

Fund For Poor Misused By Legislature

Once again, the Texas Legislature is showing us that they simply cannot be trusted to keep their word. They now want to take money expressly raised to help the poor pay their electric bills and spend it for other purposes.

In 1999, when they were in the process of deregulating electricity in Texas, they passed a law that added about 65 cents to each electric bill. This money flowed into a state fund that was dedicated to helping the poor pay their electric bills. Since then the fund receives upwards of $150 million each year.

For the first four years, the money was spent as it was intended - to help the poor. In 2002-03, this fund provided for 17% discounts for over 700,000 households. That's not a huge discount, but in poorer households every penny counts and this was a big help.

But things changed in 2004 as Republicans solidified their hold on state government. They decided the poor were an easy target and diverted over half of this money to be spent on other things - even though electric bills were going up because of the deregulation.

In 2006-07, the Legislature leaves most of the money unspent. Instead, they use the fund in an accounting manuever to balance the state budget. By cutting thousands of children from the state's insurance fund (CHIPS), and not spending the money dedicated to helping the poor pay they electric bills, they balance the state budget on the backs of poorer Texans. At the same time, they give new tax cuts to richer Texans.

The fund now has over $400 million in it and will add another $300 million over the next two years. Texas currently has some of the highest electric rates in the nation. This $700 million could be a big help to the poor if it was used as it was intended to be used.

But it looks like the Legislature once again will use this fund as a "back door tax" on the poor, and use it to pay for other things. They are currently considering using less than a quarter of the fund as it was intended. This is just WRONG!

This is just another broken promise to the people of Texas. Even Gov. Perry, who is not known for championing the cause of poor people in Texas, agrees that the fund is being misused and called it "unconscionable". Perry spokesman Robert Black says the fund should be spent for its intended purpose or "the Legislature should figure out a way to give it back and do away with the fee. We need to spend taxes and fees that are dedicated to a specific purpose for that purpose. That's the deal we made with taxpayers."

The Texas Legislature needs to take a long hard look at itself. They are breaking their promise to the people of Texas. They are misusing funds meant to help the poor. And they are doing this at a time when we have a huge state surplus, most of which they will probably waste while ignoring the poor.

Once again, they should be ashamed of themselves.