One lump, or two?

There’s no accounting for people’s taste in matters of tea, or parties, or especially “tea parties.”

Last week saw the astounding uprising of dozens of people all across our country in a movement that could only be called, truthfully, “astroturf.” That is the term generally applied to activities pretending to be grass-roots movements that are not, really.

In this case, the leadership of passionate folks like Dick Armey, Newt Gingrich and the talking heads on Fox News was hard to ignore. Towards the end, Governor Perry and even ol’ Joe Barton inserted themselves into the act.

In search of a hook upon which to hang their objections to all things Obama, and apparently lacking the imagination to come up with something new, those good folks had decided on tea-and-taxes.

Back in 1773 tea-drinkers in the colonies, specifically in Boston, were really upset to learn that the British Parliament had decided to levy an import tax on tea shipped to the colonies. They were outraged, in fact, and told the captains of the three ships that were waiting in Boston Harbor to take their doggone cargo back to England. Wasn’t fair, they said, to have to pay taxes they had no hand in levying.

It was taxation without representation, they said. And that was wrong.

The ships didn’t budge, and things heated up to the point where angry colonists stormed the docks and dumped all that tea into the harbor.

Reports have it that Samuel Adams was a leader of the movement.

According to the account in Wikipedia,

The Boston Tea Party was a key event in the growth of the American Revolution. Parliament responded in 1774 with the Coercive Acts, which, among other provisions, closed Boston's commerce until the British East India Company had been repaid for the destroyed tea. Colonists in turn responded to the Coercive Acts with additional acts of protest, and by convening the First Continental Congress, which petitioned for repeal of the acts and coordinated colonial resistance to them. The crisis escalated, and the American Revolutionary War began near Boston in 1775.

Inquiring minds want to know: What’s the connection?

Last week’s events had nothing to do with tea, Americans are no longer subject to taxes levied by King George, and Samuel Adams is now associated with a more interesting beverage; Congressional representatives were everywhere to be seen at the “tea parties,” so you could hardly claim lack of representation was the issue.

The organizers managed to turn out clumps of participants all around the country, some wearing teabags, some tossing them into waterways (littering!), many carrying or wearing signs objecting to high taxes, more taxes, and taxes in general.

Given that it was April 15th, the subject had to be pretty fresh on their minds, though it looked like they were having a pretty good time anyway.

Yet the reality is that most of the folks who were demonstrating, from the looks of it, are actually getting a tax cut because of Obama; of course, some of the loudest, like Armey, Perry, Barton, and the stars of Fox News, are probably in that select group of people with income over $250,000 who will see their taxes go up (would that be why they are so passionately involved?).

Lost in the noise, interestingly, is that in the latter case, the projected increase will still keep their rates below what they paid under Clinton. In some cases tax rates will be lower than they were under Reagan. Were they complaining then? Remind me.

A reporter went to one of the rallies and asked around to see how they felt about the fact that their taxes were going to be reduced. Some demonstrators said that didn’t count, because they were sure their taxes were going to go up later.

Well, yes, some people always complain about taxes. They just don’t like them. For that matter, neither do I, but I am very fond of having a government, a military, first responders, national parks and public schools. Just for starters.

Anyway, I don’t think it was really about taxes. I suspect it was more about the economy, and we Americans can be an impatient lot, as is often noted.

Even so, is it reasonable to expect that Obama, after three whole months in office, should have fixed it by now?

Originally published in the Waxahachie Daily Light, April 20, 2009.

Rebels with a cause

Political excitement and change are not limited to national politics these days. In our own State of Texas, as the legislature gears up for its biennial assembly, I want to tell you about some very interesting developments over the past year.

In its last session, drama unfolded in the effort to unseat Speaker Craddick, whose tenure had revealed the iron hand of a dictator, not always to the benefit of the people of our State.

For those of us inclined to be riveted by political happenings, it was a feast.

Among the representatives who challenged the Speaker was our own Jim Pitts, who showed himself to be a thoughtful and honorable man, of whom folks in Waxahachie should be proud. Risking his career, perhaps, but definitely risking his appointment to the powerful position of head of the legislature’s Appropriations Committee. That’s because Craddick’s hold on power was in large part due to a penchant for punishing his opponents – by, for example, taking away their appointments.

As reported in the Austin American Statesman, Pitts had “accused Craddick of holding up the appropriations bill — the only piece of legislation that, by law, must pass each session — to cut deals with members and shore up support for his speakership.”

And, according to the Statesman, there were “rumors that a group of lawmakers, including GOP members of Craddick's leadership team, would attempt a coup with a motion to vacate the chair. Complaints have included that Craddick is too autocratic, is losing control of the House and is bending rules to aid allies and punish opponents.”

Indeed, there were attempts to make the motion, but Craddick danced around it; after he replaced the House parliamentarians with one of his cronies, the two of them worked in tandem, literally, to deny every effort to offer the motion.

It was political theater at its best.

There’s a rule, for example, that motions must be offered using the microphone at the back of the assembly room. So the Speaker had that microphone disabled. And then Pitts and some of the other challengers defied him and went to the front microphone.

As the Statesman reported, "My constituents back home want me to do the right thing for Texas," he said. "And that's replacing the speaker."

“For what purpose does the member rise?”

“To offer a motion that the chair be vacated.”

“The member is not recognized for that purpose.”

And so it went on. And on. Craddick’s personal parliamentarian did his job.

I don’t remember exactly how the challengers managed to finally get the motion to a vote, but they did. Yet, even though Jim Pitts was well positioned to become the new Speaker, at the last minute he withdrew from consideration.

Now why on earth would he have done that? Because he knew that anyone who voted for the motion – in other words, any supporter of his – would be punished by Craddick just for supporting the motion if it didn’t pass, and it was too close to call.

Now that’s an honorable man.

Jim was among those punished, of course, and lost his position as head of Appropriations.

Fast forward to this year.

A bipartisan collection of representatives got together, having decided unity was the best weapon, and announced they would all back Joe Straus, Republican from San Antonio, for speaker. His platform included a promise to end partisanship and special favors.

There were more than enough of them, and Tom Craddick withdrew.

Straus is now Speaker, the Texas legislature has returned to relative sanity -- and Jim Pitts has been returned to the chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee.

We have a lot to be grateful for in Jim Pitts, a truly honorable man. And he showed it again last week when he joined a bipartisan group of legislators who are now challenging Governor Perry’s announcement that he will reject stimulus funds intended to allay the rising costs of unemployment in our State.

Perry claims that accepting the funds would commit Texas to greater costs in the future, but happily the legislature can override that silliness. True, they will have to pass conforming laws to do so, but as a sage has pointed out, what the legislature giveth the legislature can taketh away down the road, if it comes to that and we find ourselves in a crunch.

No one knows how the economy will look in two or three years, but there’s nothing to lose by trying, and lots to lose by doing nothing, and Jim Pitts knows that.

A legislator who really works for the people. Imagine that!

Thanks, Jim!

What have you done for me lately?

Now that the biggest suspense story in politics is settled and we’re getting used to the idea of a new administration in Washington, some political types in Texas are turning some of their left-over hyper-attention to matters closer to home and the rough-and-tumble of Austin politics.

For example, now we can concentrate on getting Tom Craddick out of the Speaker’s chair, maybe along with his personal Parliamentarian, Terry Keel.

And you thought I wasn’t paying attention!

For Governor Rick Perry, the front-page worthy item seems to be the fact that this month he will become the longest-serving governor of Texas. Ever. This past summer he celebrated becoming the second-longest serving Governor after 2,745 days; I guess length of service becomes noteworthy when that’s all there is.

Now as he approaches 2,919 days you’d think that might be enough, but you’d better think again: he wants more, and plans to run for a third term.

Might be a challenge, though. For openers, think Trans-Texas Corridor and toll roads. Think about good ol’ Tom Craddick who, according to the Houston Chronicle, has said “Governor Perry's public service has been exemplary and unique.”

Rumors were that he was angling for a VP slot, but that didn’t work out. And his chances of following the George W. Bush path from Governor to the White House went down the tubes with Rove. Since it’s unlikely he could find a job in Washington anytime soon, it looks like his best hope is to try to stay put.

Enter Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Now, I have had kind of a soft spot for Kay ever since she came out strongly for Amtrak several years ago; her support for SCHIP, the children’s insurance program, made me pretty happy, too — though, to be sure, that support has been somewhat softened by the politics of the Republican opposition, but I have a sneaky suspicion she’d strengthen her position given the opportunity.

Say, as Governor.

Here’s what I think: Two terms of Perry does not seem to have produced much to brag about. Don’t believe me? Ask the person to your right — or left — what he has done for us.

Well, he’s brought us toll roads around Dallas, for starters, roads that were supposed to be built and run by private companies and pay for themselves with toll charges, but now the problem seems to be that a significant number of drivers are using alternate routes to avoid the toll charges. Even though the “scenic” routes take longer — and use more gasoline.

Folks don’t like toll roads, I guess. And now, according to a Dallas Morning News report a couple of months back, we are looking at a gasoline tax increase. The Governor has this to say about that:

“I am not going to block the debate, or if it is the will of the people, and of the legislature, I suspect I would go along with it.”

So much for that accomplishment.

And what about the Trans-Texas Corridor? Well, despite the strong opposition of what seem to be most Texas citizens — at least we know how Ellis County feels about it — Rick Perry remains a believer.

The good arguments against the TTC would fill a column; that has happened before in this space and I suspect will happen again, but that’s not the point here.

The point is that, good hair notwithstanding, this Governor hasn’t done much for us, let alone lately.

Texans should welcome “Kay Baby” into the arena and support her bid for the office of Governor in 2010. It’s time.

And she’s prettier, too.