A Texas Proposal

...with apologies to Jonathan Swift...

The average Texan, upon learning of our impending 13.5 billion annual dollar budget shortfall, is greatly distressed, even more so when they learn that education spending is almost certain to bear the brunt of the budget drafter's scissors. Politicians like State Representatives Leo Berman and Debbie Riddle have suggested, and rightly so, that the majority of our budgetary woes are due to the influx of illegal aliens who, shortly upon arrival in our fair state, begin immediately to produce so called "anchor babies" in the hope that their offspring's birth-right citizenship will guarantee their ability to remain in the United States.

It is frightening to behold the neighborhoods and towns these people have colonized: whole streets where nary a person speaks English, cities overrun with the children of illegals, classrooms where "Juans" outnumber "Johns". An acquaintance of mine, a man of unimpeachable character from our state's panhandle, tells me that in some of that region's towns taco stands outnumber burger joints five to one. Indeed, he recently reported to me that the city of Pampa's last Mom and Pop diner had been recently converted into a taqueria!

I have long struggled to find a solution to this problem, but have thus far found no lasting answer. It was, however, recently brought to my attention by a learned friend that the issue of a burgeoning young underclass is not new, nor is it unique to Texas. This friend pointed out a most insightful treatise (the title escapes me) which offered a solution to Ireland's overwhelming baby boom amongst its poor in the 18th century. The answer presented in this tract was so innovative, so unabashedly efficient that I am certain it could be applied to our state's current predicament. The solution is simply to convert the glut of anchor babies from annoying drain on our state's economy to vital foodstuff and linchpin of the state's economic engine.

A side benefit of this approach is that it is certain to reduce the demand for abortions. Current efforts to shame promiscuous women out of terminating their pregnancy by forcing them to listen to the beating heart of their fetus and view it's sonogram in full blazing technicolor are well intentioned, but certainly shame pales as a motivating force when compared with the universal motivator of monetary gain. By allowing those who reside legally in the state to "opt in" to the program we can provide financial incentive for reluctant mothers to carry their child to term. What women of easy virtue would pay to have a doctor murder her child while still in the womb if she knew that in a few short months that same child, now happy and born healthy and alive, could be traded to the butcher for a hefty sum?

Texas is estimated to have about 25 million residents, of which a reputable blogger and patriot I have great reason to believe (as his site was returned on the first page of Google results) estimates 1.5 million are here illegally. The United States Census Bureau believes that 8.6% of Texans are under the age of 5. It seems quite likely that illegals under 5 -- with their community's penchant for over-breeding -- occur at a much higher percentage. I estimate it to be approximately 10%, making a total of 150,000 young illegal immigrants, or children of illegal immigrants, which would be suitable for meat stock. If the average weight of this population is placed at 31 pounds (the average weight of an American three year old) and one assumes that half of that weight is bone or organ meat that would be unsuitable for consumption Texas is currently in possession of approximately 2 million pounds of readily available meat. My local grocery store sells a pound of beef for $4.49. Assuming the retail price of illegal immigrant meat to be similar to that of beef would put the potential retail value of the meat at almost 90 million dollars. Which, once sold, would generate over three quarters of a million dollars in direct sales tax revenue!

Some might argue that the potential retail value of illegal meat would certainly be greater than grocery store beef as the meat could be marketed as "free range" and "locally produced". These people are clearly not familiar with the culture of Texas. Texans are not, generally speaking, the type to have their retail habits easily swayed by such liberal marketing gimmicks as "free range" and "locally produced".

Of course three quarters of a million dollars would scarcely dent our current 13.5 billion dollar budgetary crisis. The added benefit of reduced spending on the children of illegals, however, would certainly make up a portion of the difference. How often have the good, honest taxpayers of Texas balked at what must surely be the profligate spending of our state leaders on such luxuries as childhood vaccination and nutrition programs? As the average Texan sees few, if any, benefits in exchange for their tax burden the assumption that those funds are being absorbed by the illegal population is forgone. Based solely on my observations is seems safe to assume that by consuming the primary consumers of these services we may see a statewide savings of at least one billion dollars.

What is more, within twelve years my proposal would, if adopted, completely eliminate illegals and their offspring from Texas public schools. Turning again to the good and unimpeachable blogger of earlier record I find that the annual cost of educating illegals and their children is four billion dollars. Some may find it tempting to prematurely convert those school-age illegals over the age of five to consumable goods. At first I considered this option, but I am informed by a knowledgeable friend from the lesser American state of Wisconsin (which has already begun its own experiments in forfeiting the lives of children to compensate for budgetary difficulties) that children above the age of five become extremely difficult to process by modern meat packing equipment as they are quite squirmy and have by that age acquired a sufficient vocabulary of curse words to distress those noble workers who have been called upon to process them.

In order to realize the public education savings more expediently I instead propose that those illegals and children of illegals aged 5 to 18 years be employed at the numerous new meat processing facilities that this endeavor will necessitate. Some may balk at presenting such an employment opportunity to these surreptitious residents when so many true Americans are suffering the pains of financial hardship. To address these concerns I would create two important conditions of such employment. First that residence in a factory-adjacent dormitory be mandatory for all those so employed, with each dormitory required to include kitchens and dining halls to provide sustenance for residents and sufficient security to ensure the safety of its tenants with all the costs to be offset through automatic deductions from the compensation of residents. Secondly that such facilities be restricted to the State's many "sanctuary cities" so that any burden of lessened job opportunity be placed only on those Texans who have expressed a willingness to be put in harm's way for the sake of illegals.

The added benefit of such housing, if co-ed, is that the illegals, with their innate talent for venery, inherent fertileness and Catholic objections to prophylactics will undoubtedly breed copiously in their barracks. The issue of such adding to the state's food stock substantially. What is more, the franchise tax levied against the operations of such facilities would certainly yield, at a minimum, an additional one billion dollars per annum in state revenue. Proving, once again, that the miracle of the franchise tax, which only eight years ago lifted our state finances from the pit of insolvency, that fiscal marvel which our great governor, like Prometheus of old, brought down from on high to set aflame the economic engine of our state, can and will solve any number of appropriational conundrums.

Only now, however do we come to the true genius of my proposal, which makes it so well suited to the specifics of our fair state: Texas' unique culinary heritage. Texas has been blessed to inherit the rich traditions of Spanish, French, Czech, Cajun and Caribbean cooking. The addition of this new meat will undoubtedly spur a renaissance of epicurean delights informed by that unique Texas flavor. Imagine, if you will, succulent illegal alien baby back ribs, or the sweat tang of Texas barbecue paired with the earthly gaminess of a Mexican 2 year old. Not only will the already strong Texas tourism industry benefit from this innovation (which will surely draw large crowds to sample our bounty), but our state's many fine culinary schools are certain to become hard-sought centers for matriculation. Between revenue from hotel occupancy taxes, sales taxes on fine dining experiences and the additional tuition revenue at state schools I am confident that the remaining 7.5 billion needed to close our budget gap can be raised.

I anticipate that those lily-livered amongst us will no doubt argue that my humble proposal is too drastic, that simple steps like providing better access to family planning services, or fostering a more economically and socially stable environment for our neighbors to the south would more easily address the issue at hand. I am even told that there are those in our fine state who argue that it is the lack of access to legal relief from exploitation that depresses illegal workers wages and therefore the economy and that there is no innate reason why our state cannot accommodate these interlopers. I will hear no such nonsense. These theories, having been proposed and summarily dismissed by our state's leaders, are clearly bunkum -- unworthy of consideration or even acknowledgment.

I am certain that all reasonable Texans will find my proposal a quite pleasing and efficient solution to our pressing problem. Certainly no other endeavor thus far presented so neatly addresses both the crisis of culture that illegal immigration poses while closing our looming budget shortfall. I anticipate that it will, quite soon, be put into practice by the highest authorities of our state.

HB 604: Repeal the State Sodomy Law

HB 604 by Jessica Farrar (D-Houston) would remove the crime of "homosexual conduct" from Texas' Penal Code as well as several rules based on that law that require Texas school children to be taught that "Homosexuality is not a valid lifestyle choice".

You may recall that in 2004 the Supreme Court of the United States declared the Texas sodomy law (which is Penal Code 21.06) unconstitutional in Lawrence v. Texas. What many people do not realize is that the law, although now unenforceable, is still on the books. While it might seem a simple matter of housekeeping to remove it thus far most state lawmakers have seemed too afraid of being accused of being "pro-sodomy" to do anything about it.

Last session Rep. Garnet Coleman (D-Houston) filed this exact bill (word for word) (HB 3028). It was sent to the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee which referred it to a sub committee. When a committee has a large number of bills to consider the chair may, at their discretion, appoint sub committees - which usually look at groups of bills on similar topics and then make recommendations to the whole committee.

The Chair of the Criminal Jurisprudence committee last session was Pete Gallego who has a solid record of voting for the best interest of the LGBT community. Gallego referred HB 3028 to a subcommittee - who then did nothing with it.

It's tempting to blame the subcommittee (which did include virulent homophobes Wayne Christian and Debbie Riddle) and it's tempting to blame Gallego for referring it to subcommittee, but the real culprit is the calendar.

The legislature meets for 140 days every other year. In that 140 days all of the business of the state must be completed. Anything left undone on day 141 must wait another two years. In addition there are many deadlines along the way. One deadline is the 60th day of the session: the last day to file new bills - which in 2009 fell on March 14. HB 3028 was filed just four days before the deadline, on March 10. After a bill is filed it must be read on the House floor and referred to committee, because of the shear volume of bills this takes a few days. HB 3028 was read and referred on March 17.

But it's not like HB 3028 was the only bill the Criminal Jurisprudence committee had to consider. By this point in the session there were hundreds of bills waiting in the committee for the chair to refer to subcommittee. Chairman Gallego referred HB 3028 on March 30, which is actually pretty fast in legislative terms. By this time another major deadline was looming, the 120th day of the session on May 14, which was the last day for bills to be considered on the House floor.

Between the subcommittee and the House floor were several additional steps the bill would have to surmount to meet the May 14th deadline: hearing in subcommittee - report by subcommittee to committee - hearing in committee - vote in committee - committee report filed with "calendar" committee (which decides the order bills will be considered on the floor) - placement on the House schedule and then waiting in line behind every other bill for consideration on the floor of the House. With only 6 weeks to go before the deadline there was not much point in the subcommittee pursuing the bill, especially not with all the work on other bills that lay before them.

Which is why I'm happy to see that Farrar has taken over this bill and decided to file it today, on the 2nd day of the session. Getting a bill towards the front of the line is a huge step in getting it passed.

It's still by no means a sure thing, there are at least 37 incumbent members of the House who have historically voted against anything that is good for the queer community, and with 34 first-time representatives in the 82nd legislature it's hard to predict how bills will do. There is hope, however, that this year this tiny little bit of housekeeping may finally be accomplished.

Bipartisan Votes Key to LGBT Legislative Successes - Part I

Last month The Austin American Statesmen reported that Representatives Pena and Ritter, formerly Democratic State House members, switched parties and are now Republicans. This change means that the Texas House now has 101 Republicans and 49 Democrats.

One-hundred is a key number in the Texas House, which has 150 members total, there are several key parliamentary procedures that require two-thirds of the members, including establishing a quorum, suspending the House rules, approving proposed constitutional amendments and even expelling fellow house members.

Unfortunately for the Republicans, in order to exercise their new found power they will have to find a way to unite a party that is increasingly fractured and discordant. The same Teabagger movement that swept them into their 'super majority' has also emboldened the most arch members of their conservative wing and saddled them with 30 freshmen legislators, most of whom ran on such fevered opposition to federal issues it's difficult to know if they understand they've been elected to the state legislature.

While the current partisan break down of the House is certain to play a major role in issues such as voter suppression and redistricting, its influence on the fate of major queer issues such as bullying and ending insurance discrimination is hard to predict.

Attempting to understand the relationship between the partisan divide and the fate of legislation that affects the queer community I looked at 10 house votes from the last 5 regular sessions. What I found was that support or opposition to the best interest of the queer community never fell along partisan lines. In fact 15 of the 44 incumbent Democrats in the House this session have a record of voting against LGBT people at least once and 23 of 69 incumbent Republicans have a history of, at least once, voting for them.

Before we look at the historic votes more closely let's talk about the challenges of interpreting Texas House votes. According to the House Rules all votes are taken by voice vote, but any member can request that a 'record vote' be taken which will record specifically who voted which way (technically the rules say that every vote must be a voice vote but that after the vote is taken any member may request that a record vote may also be taken - historically the presiding officer of the house has forgone this formality and skipped right to the record vote if requested).

If only a voice vote is taken and the measure passes members who opposed the measure may enter their official opposition in the record. In that instance the House Journal only reflects those in opposition.

In cases of record votes each member of the house uses a voting machine embedded into their desk to record their vote. The machine allows them to vote either 'yea', 'nay' or 'present not voting' for each item before the House.

If a member is away from the House Chamber due to illness, family emergency or similar circumstance they can ask a fellow member to request that the Speaker excuse them, if a vote happens while they are away they are notated as being "Absent-Excused" in the record. Typically a member who is "Absent-Excused" will miss an entire day of votes.

The House often meets for hours on end without breaks. Members must often step out of the chamber the eat meals, meet with constituents or take bathroom breaks. If a member happens to be away from their desk and unable to vote when a record vote is taken they are recorded as being 'absent' from that vote.

So on any vote there are five different ways that a members position could be recorded: Yea, Nay, Present - Not Voting, Absent-Excused and Absent.

The issue is further complicated by a long standing tradition of members voting for each other. Many representatives feel that it is appropriate for them to record a vote on the machine embedded in the desk of a colleague who is absent, obstinately voting in the manner that member would and sparing them a record of being "absent" for a vote. The practice is strictly prohibited by House Rule 5, section 47, but it still happens (and was famously defended by Rep. Debbie Riddle after she was caught, on tape, voting for Rep. Kuempel).

These votes are jokingly referred to as "voting machine malfunctions". The House Rules allow members to enter a statement in the official house record explaining that their voting machine "malfunctioned" and stating how they intended to vote. Members can enter a similar statement if they are absent for a vote and would like a record of their position on the record.

For the purposes of analyzing historic House votes I have chosen to reflect member's "intended" vote if it differs from their recorded vote.

Up next in Part II - the James Byrd Jr. Hate Crime Act of 1999 and the power of committee chairmanship.

They're Wearing the Same Legislation, How Embarrassing

Yesterday Rep. Patricia Harless (R-Harris County) filed legislation that is almost an exact copy of the voter ID bill Rep. Riddle so notoriously camped out for two days to file first thing on that morning.

HB 112 varies from HB 16 by only a few words. Both bills list a court ordered sex change as an identifying document. I'm tempted to take my cue from Rep. Harless and just copy/paste what I wrote about the Riddle bill here, but instead here's the LINK.

The reason something like this can happen is that most legislators do not write their own legislation. "Legislative Council" is a team of lawyers who work for the Texas Legislature and write most of the bills filed. You can go to www.legis.state.tx.us to look up any legislation (I always try to link to that site when writing about legislation, so following the link is also an option). When you view at the text of the bill look to the upper left corner. If you see a series of letters and numbers that starts with 82R and ends with three letters a dash and a letter that means that the bill was written by Legislative Council.

The three letters are the initials of the drafter. So looking at HB 112 and HB 16 we can tell that they were drafted by the same person - "JRJ" (which is not surprising since the lawyers who work for Legislative Council tend to specialize). Legislative Council lawyers are not allowed to tell lawmakers about the bills they are writing for other lawmakers so JRJ would not have been able to let Riddle or Harless know they wanted to file the same bill. It would seem that JRJ got almost identical instructions from two Representatives and drafted almost identical bills.

This is also the real reason that Rep. Riddle camped out to file her bills first. While it's true that a lower bill number makes a bill more likely to pass the difference between 16 and 112 is nominal when there are over 5000 bills filed. The real reason to be first in line is so the press will talk about you, and not the person 96 bills behind you who filed the same legislation.

Debbie Riddle - Trans Advocate?

Today was the first day for filing legislation in the Texas legislature - 64 days until the start of the 82nd session.

Rumor is arch-conservative Rep. Debbie Riddle of Harris County camped out in front of the filing office so she could be first in line. Her camp-out was successful and her block of 6 anti-immigrant bills will be some of the first out of the gate when the legislature convenes.

HB 16, the first of these*, is a voter ID bill - one of the favorite rallying calls for the anti-immigrant crowd. Under current law voters can present either their voter registration card or state issued ID at the poll to prove their identity. Many anti-immigrant activist (including Riddle) are convinced that undocumented immigrants are forging voter registration cards to vote illegally (despite a study by the republican state Attorney General Greg Abbot that could not find a single instance of voter fraud at in-person voting locations). The anti-immigrant activists want to require a state-issued voter ID be presented in order to vote.

The populations least likely to have a state issued photo ID are low-income and predominately African-American or Hispanic: groups that are more likely to vote for Democratic candidates. So it's no surprise that Republicans love this idea. Attempts to get similar legislation to pass last year caused the legislative session to grind to a halt.

Hidden in HB 16 is an uncharacteristically decent bit of legislation from Rep. Riddle - who is perhaps best known for her fear of terrorist babies and calling children's health care programs a plot from the "depths of hell".

HB 16 would create a two tier system for voter identification. Voters would either have to present a photo ID, or preset two forms of non-photo ID. With-in the delineated list of acceptable forms of non-photo ID is this:

"court records of the person's adoption, name change, or sex change;" (emphasis added)

Currently Texas law only recognizes a court issued sex change in one other area, in the family code where a court record of sex change is listed as an identifying document for applying for a marriage license. In fact the list of identifying documents in HB 16 is almost identical to the list currently in the family code. I suspect that the drafter of this bill simply copied the list over, probably without realizing its significance.

The ability of Texas courts to issue a legal sex change is at the core of the Nikki Araguz case currently being fought in Warton County (Mrs. Araguz's firefighter husband was killed in the line of duty - his ex-wife is suing Mrs. Araguz for the widow's benifits claiming their marriage was invalid because Mrs. Araguz was originally legally recognized as male by the State of Texas before receiving a court ordered change of sex).

This is a vitally important issue for the Transgender community in Texas. The ability to be legally recognized as their gender of identity is crucial to obtaining employment, housing and navigating the legal system. An additional recognition of the ability of courts to issue that legal document would benefit the community tremendously.

There will likely be several versions of voter ID legislation filed this session. It is probable that some elements of each will be included in the final version of the bill - which will likely be carried by a major player in the Republican Party. Riddle is a little too extreme for the Republican leadership, it seems unlikely to me that she would carry the final version.

The question now is - how long before Riddle discovers what she, almost certainly accidentally, filed; at what point will she or someone else try to remove it from the bill and will anyone have to guts to try to stop them?

_____________

*bills are numbered in the order they are filed except for the first 15 bills which are reserved for the budget and the speakers priorities - so HB 16 is the first bill filled.