In the wake of opposition to his school finance reform legislation from Harris County conservative activists Dr. Steve Hotze and insurance executive Norm Adams, Gov. Perry invited GOP leaders from across the state to attend a briefing session in Austin Monday on his tax plan and other issues of concern to Republican Party faithful.

Dr. Hotze and Norm Adams recently led a successful effort to get the Harris County GOP Executive Committee to come out in opposition to the Governor's tax plan.  The two conservative leaders also have been flirting with the idea of supporting the Independent candidacy of Carole Strayhorn.  Both Hotze and Adams reportedly met with Strayhorn recently, and she has come out publicly in favor of the repeal of the Perry school finance reform package.  The new broad-based business tax closes the loopholes which have allowed a number of businesses and professions to escape taxation under the current business franchise tax.  The new tax bill shifts the tax burden away from a heavy reliance on property taxes to fund public education in Texas.

Nearly a hundred GOP leaders gathered in Austin to hear briefings from the Governor's staff on school finance reform, border security, and economic development in Texas.  Gov. Perry's representatives highlighted the record property tax relief of $15.7 billion which will be provided by the re-structuring of the school finance system in Texas.  What was emphasized in the staff presentation--and what has been generally ignored by the mainstream media--is that the legislation provides significant taxpayer protections against local school districts raising property taxes without voter approval.  While the provision in the bill requiring voter approval of local school tax hikes above four cents for every $100 of assessed value has been much discussed, what has not gotten wide attention is the protection against "appraisal creep".  As was pointed out at the session, "HB1 includes the most protection against appraisal creep in modern Texas history.  Starting in 2007, rollback elections will automatically be required when appraisal creep effectively produces a tax increase of more than four cents per $100."

What that provision means is that there is no more "stealth tax", using jacked-up appraisal values to raise our taxes without changing the tax rate.  If higher appraised values result in school districts getting more revenue beyond the four cents per $100, then voter approval is required.  This is a huge victory for taxpayers fed up with out of control appraisal boards.

On another front, party activists voiced their dissatisfaction with our national immigration policy.  The Governor's representative on the border security issue was sympathetic to the concerns expressed about our pourous borders and pointed out that Mexican organized crime gangs are increasing their control over the northern Mexico states which are major corridors for drug and human trafficing into the United States.  In an effort to slow down the influx of illegals into Texas, the state government has re-deployed significant law enforcement assets to the Border region.  But, the federal government will have to come to grips with this problem if we are ever to regain control of our borders.

After the briefing session, Gov. Perry addressed the GOP leaders at the Governor's Mansion.  Clearly, the Perry campaign recognizes the importance of energizing its conservative base in what is expected to be a hard-fought November election.  Monday's series of events put on by the Governor's office was an important indication that Gov. Perry is not taking the conservative base for granted and recognizes the key role the grassroots must play in turning out the Republican vote in November in what is not expected to be a good election cycle for the GOP nationally.

Last Friday night something amazing happened in Dallas, close to 650 people gathered at the Reunion Hyatt ballroom to celebrate being Democrats and raise money for The Texas Values in Action Coalition (TEXVAC). TEXVAC is dedicated to providing professional assistance, training, advice and even direct funding to Democratic candidates in targeted North Texas races. The keynote address was delivered by noted author, political consultant and commentator, James Carville.

The dinner, billed as the first annual Rayburn-Johnson Dinner--after longtime US Congressman from Texas and Speaker of the US House Sam Rayburn and President Lyndon Baines Johnson--was one of the largest such gathering in Dallas-Ft.Worth in recent memory and the most successful Democratic Dinner in years, having raised well over $200,000. The energy was palpable, and the excitement grew stronger and stronger as more and more Democrats arrived, filling the sold out space. As one Democrat said on entering the ballroom, “I didn’t even know there were this many Democrats in Dallas.”

“That was precisely the goal,” said Lisa Turner, TEXVAC’s Communications Director. “We’ve conducted focus groups in North Texas that show most people are not aware of the emerging Democratic majority in Dallas County and many Democrats still feel isolated. One of our goals was to show Democrats that we are many, we are organized and, with their support, TEXVAC can help provide the resources and expertise for Democrats to win big this November.”

The event was a tribute to Congressman Martin Frost who served parts of Dallas and Tarrant Counties for 26 years, until Tom DeLay and his shady money laundering scheme turned the Texas House into a corporate boardroom, bought and paid for by corporate special interests, which then redistricted Frost out of his seat. Even the redistricting itself is before the US Supreme Court as an alleged illegal Gerrymander in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Frost was the driving force for Democratic politics in North Texas. His campaign operations consistently, year after year, provided much needed Democratic media message and get-out-the-vote efforts.

TEXVAC recognized Frost’s service and contribution by giving him the first annual Rayburn-Johnson Award. The award was presented by Jim Wright, the former Speaker of the US House of Representatives. Speaker Wright actually knew both Sam Rayburn and Lyndon Johnson and spoke eloquently of service and public trust, and he remembered fondly Frost’s arrival in the US Congress, his eventual rise to prominence, and the dedication and integrity Frost brought to his post.

Carville started his remarks by saying, “As you all know, this week our illustrious Congress passed a law making English the national language, which makes ours the only country in the world where its President cannot speak the official language.” The room erupted in applause and laughter and the speech took off from there. His voice rising to a near roar at times, Carville mockingly asked the rhetorical question that he said bewildered Republicans are now asking themselves, “Why are the American people so upset?” He then gave a litany of reasons why, including an Iraq war that we entered into with no plan to win and no plan for what to do with the country afterwards, tax cuts that favor the wealthy including this latest tax cut that gives millionaires an extra $42,000 in their pockets per year and gives the average American working family only $40, and a Republican Congress bought and paid for by corporate special interests.

Then he summed up his remarks by encapsulating the Republican theory of governance. “It’s every man for himself,” Carville said with a disapproving look. “Every man for himself is the last command of a failed Captain whose ship is sinking!” Carville explained. “Do you know what the first command is on a healthy ship? All hands on deck.” He said when Democrats regain power that will be the message—that the Republicans have so thoroughly messed things up that it will take all of us working together to make things right. But Americans are up to the challenge. They want a government they can be proud of again, an education system that really prepares their children--all children--for success, a tax system that is fair for all Americans, and a government that serve the interest of the people, not just special interests like those who have lined the pockets of the Republicans in Congress.

His remarks were interrupted several time by applause, whoops and yells, and even an amen or two. At the end, he received a rousing, standing ovation.

Perhaps the event can best be summed up by the statement of David Gail, a law student at SMU who has helped with Democratic politics in Dallas for several years. When the dinner was over and the applause died down, he approached Russell Langley, the TEXVAC Executive Director and said, “I just want you to know, that I have never been so proud to be a Democrat in Dallas.” According to Langley, “He could not have come up with a more perfect response. That is exactly what we were hoping for.”

“The TEXVAC dinner,” Martin Frost said afterwards, “was very impressive not just in terms of the money raised but in terms of the great Democrats in attendance. I was so appreciative of the honor and really enjoyed seeing so many great friends. Everyone at TEXVAC should be proud of such a major accomplishment in just over one year of existence. I have no doubt that next year’s 2^nd annual dinner will be one of the hottest tickets in town.”

You can learn more about TEXVAC and help support the organization by visiting its website at www.texvac.org.

Ed Ishmael is a Dallas Title Attorney and Co-Founder of TEXVAC. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

The Boston Globe recently reported that the President believes he has the authority, by virtue of his office, to disregard more than 750 newly enacted laws. The President has made such a power grab quietly, The Globe states, by relying heavily upon a little document called a presidential signing statement.

Many Americans have probably never heard of presidential signing statements, but these documents are rather common. Indeed, signing statements have been used for centuries, although the vast majority of this usage has occurred since the Reagan administration.

Signing statements, by definition, are typically issued when a president signs a bill that has been approved by Congress. Normally, such a statement has several possible purposes.

First, the statement may contain an explanation of the likely effects of the bill. Second, it may contain instructions to administrative agencies regarding implementation of the bill’s logistical aspects. Third, presidents may hope that their views will be given some weight if and when a court is asked to interpret one of the bill’s provisions. Last, and perhaps more controversially, the signing statement may contain presidential disclaimers that one or more provisions are believed by the Executive Branch to be unconstitutional, although perhaps only in specified situations.

According to Jennifer Van Bergen, writing for Findlaw, presidents before Bush issued a total of 322 presidential signing statements. Of these, 247 were issued by Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. In sharp contrast, George W. Bush had already issued 435 statements at the conclusion of his first term in office.

But the difference isn’t only in the numbers. The Globe reports that Bush has sometimes entered into intense negotiations with Congress, worked out a compromise, then used his signing statement to take back that compromise after the bill’s approval by lawmakers. He simply declares that the provision containing the compromise is unconstitutional and won’t necessarily be enforced.

Keep in mind that President Bush has not vetoed a single piece of legislation during his 5½ years in office. Yet his use of presidential signing statements is more expansive and more aggressive than that of any other president in American history.

The President certainly has the right to announce his own view on the constitutionality of legislation and to act accordingly. The Constitution divides power among three branches of government: the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch. No single branch is given the sole authority to uphold the Constitution. Each branch bears some responsibility in this regard. These constitutional checks and balances help to make the American system so successful.

A president could, for instance, sign a bill that is constitutional in some of its applications, but not in others. He could then issue a signing statement clarifying that the law will be enforced only in the constitutional scenarios. Ultimately, then, the only fair way to evaluate the legal validity of Bush’s signing statements is to evaluate them on a case-by-case basis.

Yet there is more to be considered here than legality. An action can be technically legal, but still a poor idea. For this latter reason, the President should reconsider the aggressiveness with which he has been using signing statements.

During his tenure as president, Bush has repeatedly made one small, but critical error. This President continuously pushes for more and more executive power. In and of itself, this isn’t always bad. What is worrisome is the frequency with which Bush touts, “But you can trust me! I won’t abuse this power,” as adequate grounds for voters to support his expansion of presidential authority.

Most notably, Bush seems to have this attitude toward many anti-terrorism powers that he has sought. Last fall, the President took this attitude during the Harriet Miers nomination debacle. He seems to be taking this stance, once again, as he issues his signing statements.

The President sometimes fails to give adequate consideration to the precedents that he is setting for his successors. He doesn’t seem to get that his own trustworthiness is not the issue. The problem is that his expansions of power will be used—perhaps extended even further—by future administrations. For this reason, the precedents that Bush sets should always be “one-size-fits all.” The Constitution, the laws, and administrative procedures should be effective when trustworthy people are in power, but they should also protect freedom when untrustworthy individuals weasel their way into office.

The President’s broad use of presidential signing statements is problematic for one additional reason. Bush seems to see his signing statements as an alternative to the veto, despite the fact that the Constitution explicitly provides the latter venue as the primary route by which presidents may overrule Congress.

This President does not like to be contradicted. He does not like to be told that he can’t have his way. It’s not surprising that someone with his personality has defaulted upon expansive use of signing statements. If he were to use vetoes, it would leave the door open for Congress to tell the President, “No.” Bush does not like to be defied. With signing statements, Bush always gets the last word.

How convenient.

The President has impacted the nation positively in many ways during his time in office. However, his stubbornness and arrogance continue to be liabilities that will cause future generations to suffer.

The discretionary fund may become the critical issue that determines the direction of the Black vote in the 2007 Mayoral race. With all of the Black City Council members squarely behind the discretionary fund concept, Mayoral hopefuls who oppose it may find themselves without strong Black support. Conventional wisdom suggests that no challenger will beat Laura Miller without strong Southern sector African-American voter support.

I support the position of our Black City Council members as they extol the virtues of the discretionary fund concept. I do not quite agree with it becoming such a Black issue. I have always believed that whenever Mayor Miller and her supporters want to defeat something emanating from City Hall, they quickly inject race into the equation. In this case, the discretionary fund concept has become a Black issue despite the fact that the Mayor and all of the white City Council members north of the Trinity have spent $35 million which is all of the money allocated to them under the discretionary fund plan. Apparently all of the white council members knew that spending discretionary funds for their individual district’s needs provided a vital service for their districts.

The discretionary fund concept has been so demonized and race baited that its true benefits have hardly been mentioned. I believe citizens in Rasansky’s District 13 are happy with the alley reconstruction and street resurfacing that the discretionary fund paid for. I believe District 13 residents are pleased with the fact that they only had to convince their councilman regarding their needs as opposed to having to convince the entire City Council. Thus far, we have not heard from all of those satisfied citizens who have taken advantage of the improved parks, better streets, and safe alleys courtesy of the discretionary fund.

I strongly believe in the City Manager’s form of government. I also strongly believe in 14-1. Having 14 city council members respond to the needs of their individual districts is what makes single member district government more responsive. The discretionary fund is currently closely supervised by the city manager, the city auditor, and the entire city council which prevents any council member from mismanaging their portion of the fund. As a result, the council members get the opportunity to respond to their community’s needs based on what their individual districts tell them. Discretionary funds are too closely monitored to be a slush fund.

I believe the media’s negative characterization of the fund and its Black supporters have frightened off Anglo North Dallas Council members from voicing their support. But they cannot duck the fact that they all spent the money. If it was a bad deal, why did they spend the money? I have not heard anybody say that the overall City Council would have funded the projects the discretionary fund funded. The people who need to stand tall on this issue are the folks who benefited from it the most. It certainly ain’t the Black community. At least that is how I see it from South of the Trinity.