Straus makes welcome call to House
Texans love to boast about their successes. The habit is even more true of the state’s politicians. But in a state with more than 27 million people and a budget of more than $209 billion, there is also plenty of work to do.
After four sessions as Texas House speaker, Joe Straus has proven that he understands the magnitude of the task, and his message to members with last week’s interim charges: “Get to work.”
Straus’ style stands in contrast to that of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who in October rolled out his interim charges to the Senate over a full week, signaling his priorities to his electoral base, as well as Texas senators. Patrick’s public relations rollout included multiple releases, grouping his charges thematically and highlighting the issues that he has made his hallmark: fighting abortion, school choice, police safety, border control and property tax reduction.
Straus, R-San Antonio, chose a decidedly more understated approach, releasing a single 65-page document that emphasizes information gathering and solution development rather than ideology promotion.
Don’t get us wrong; there’s plenty of red meat in Straus’ priorities, just in much more neutral language. Granted, Straus has a larger and more varied membership to wrangle, but the charges implicitly acknowledge that even the most ideologically steeped ideas like abortion, immigration and school choice require study and evaluation as the state’s protection against the law of unintended consequences.
And for those in his party who might doubt his seriousness about his conservative agenda, after issuing his raft of charges, Straus also created a new committee to speak directly to his tea party constituents: the Texas House Committee on Federal Environmental Regulation (read: President Obama and the Environmental Protection Agency).
In a contest over political sex appeal, Patrick’s messaging to the far right wins hands down. But in the battle to have a government that functions and represents the people of Texas, we’ll take Straus’ approach any day.
And it’s not just a matter of the tea party versus the rest of the state. The approach is broader than that and gives Austin, in particular, some legislative issues to watch closely in the interim. Here are a few:
■ Cost of Education Index — Urban and rural districts alike have complained that the formula used to determine education funding is woefully out of date. The index hasn’t been updated since 1991 and is part of the reason the Austin school district will send $273 million this year to the state. The index is supposed to account for the variations in district size, neighboring district’s teacher salaries, transportation costs and the percentage of low-income students.
■ Licensing requirement for boarding homes — As Austin rediscovered this year, there are limited avenues for regulating boarding homes that often house medically fragile and elderly low-income residents. Straus put the charge to both the Human Services and Urban Affairs committees, recognizing the potential impact of regulation by the state on urban homeless populations.
State Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Austin, unsuccessfully asked Patrick to include the issue in his list of charges, although it potentially could be included in Patrick’s broader charges involving Texas’ aging population. We are pleased that Straus has instructed the House to tackle the issue specifically.
■ Property taxes — Straus mentions “taxpayer dissatisfaction” with property taxes, which is putting it mildly. Everyone knows that the property tax exemption passed by voters last week is a Band-Aid at best. And in Austin last week, the courts threw out the city’s attempt to re-balance the property tax burden between residential and commercial properties. The issue is on Patrick’s list, as well, but Straus chooses wisely to frame it as a question of whether the system is working rather than a question of tax cuts for the sake of tax cuts.
■ Confederate statues — The word “Confederate” does not appear in Straus’ list, but after the dust up at the University of Texas over the removal of its statue of Jefferson Davis, the point of his request regarding the Capitol’s statuary is clear. Much as the South Mall at UT is the doorstep of the university, the Capitol grounds represents the heart and pride of the entire state. Reviewing “the artistic, social, and historical intent and significance of the statuary” on the grounds is a step in the right direction.
At least on paper, Straus does not presume to propose the solutions to the issues he raises. Rather, he asks his members to study, consider and propose. That is the hard work of governing, and we welcome it.
“I take my colleagues’ input very seriously,” Straus said in a statement. “It was important that these charges reflect not only issues that matter to me, but also those that matter to House members.”
And that is the point of representative government.