Impolite Company

Beer Bill Revisited

The Chronicle notes that the beer bill that passed out of committee wasn't as good as the original bill and doesn't allow for general sales from a brewery, just sales to people who have toured the facility.  So not such a good bill as I originally hoped but not bad in the sense of damaging small breweries--it just doesn't help them as much as I'd hoped, The Revised On-Site Brewery Sales Bill:

(b) The holder of a brewer 's permit whose annual production of ale in this state does not exceed, together with the annual production of beer by the holder of a manufacturer 's license under Section 62.15 at the same premises, a total of 250,000 barrels may, at the end of a tour of the brewery premises, give ale to tour participants in unbroken packages for off-premises consumption without an additional charge.

(c) The total amount of ale a tour participant may receive in a single day under this section, together with the amount of beer the tour participant receives under Section 62.15 at the same premises, may not exceed 48 12-ounce bottles.

(d) This section does not authorize the holder of a brewer 's permit to sell ale to an ultimate consumer.

Hurray, Beer!

The Lege has passed out of the committee a bill that would allow small breweries to sell up to two cases of beer to people who come by the brewery--a similar measure died in committee last session.  Despite the fact that this wouldn't take much of a bite out of their profits, the beer distributors have consistently opposed this bill.  It still faces a stiff fight to get passed, Texas Breweries Go Closer to Selling Beer On-site:

A bill that would allow small brewers in Texas to provide a limited amount of beer directly to the public passed its first major hurdle Tuesday afternoon when a House committee approved sending it out for broader consideration.

The measure, introduced by a Houston legislator, would affect the local Saint Arnold Brewing Co. and other beermakers that produce fewer than 250,000 barrels each year. If the bill becomes law, people who tour the breweries could elect to take up to two cases of beer home with them.

Update:  Dan Keeney points out that the bill's next step is the Calendering Committee, which is in charge of the schedule for when bills are considered.  If you care about this issue and delicious, locally brewed beer follow the link Dan includes and let the committee know how you feel.

The Lege in Your Exam Room

Sen. Dan Patrick gets a fair amount of copy written about his abortion grandstanding every session and this year is no exception.  I've already posted about him or his legislation a number of times and this probably won't be the last word you get from me on the topic.  The Chronicle has a good update on an amendment he made to his original bill (which would have required a doctor to show a woman seeking an abortion the results of a mandatory ultrasound--he made the ultrasound voluntary in his amendment) and the monkey business related thereto.  Seems that the good talk show host senator didn't seem to want to go into the details, like how the new bill might require doctors to describe the stages of fetal development before a woman could get an abortion, Trust Me, I'm a Senator:

...Austin Dem Sen. Kirk Watson noted that the measure was not drafted with the input of any medical professionals – including from the Texas Medical Association, which opposes the measure. And Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Ft. Worth, wasn't at all impressed with Patrick's feel-good assurance that the measure is really just about helping women make best decisions. She pressed Patrick about details of the bill, including a portion that appears to require doctors to describe the phases of fetal development to a pregnant woman prior to performing the abortion. The current informed consent law, passed in 2003, requires doctors to provide the so-called Woman's Right to Know pamphlet, which describes fetal development and the alleged risks associated with abortion. Patrick's new language removes the provision that requires doctors to inform a woman of "her opportunity to review the information" contained in the WRTK pamphlet, instead requiring that the doctor provide and explain the information.

Docubloggers: The Gay

(Editorial Note:  Yes, I tried, I really tried to type out "teh gay" in the headline but couldn't do it.  Somehow, I can do it mockingly in everyday emails and what-not but when I tried to do it in a HEADLINE, it proved impossible.)

Two videos from the good folks at Docubloggers today, once exploring the opinions of Texans on the subject of same-sex marriages (including Ron Paul) and the other is a discussion with Rep. Elliott Naishtat about  a bill before the house that would allow partner benefits for same-sex partners from the UT and A&M systems. 

The legislation is HB 861, a very simple bill that would authorize the university systems to define who can be the beneficiary of benefits earned by system employees and gives them the power to allow such benefits to go to same-sex partners.  This is both a moral issue, as currently we have a system that discriminates against gays and lesbians in the distribution of benefits and it's also a practical issue, as it makes the university systems less competitive in recruiting faculty.  The best universities in the nation offer such benefits and if the Texas systems wants to compete with them for the best professors and staff, they need to offer these benefits.  Sadly, this bill appears to be stuck in committee--it deserves a vote (give your reps a call!):

The opinions of Texans on gay-marriage video isn't that surprising, with most folks saying it should be a state issue or that same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed.  It's on the flip side, if anyone's interested.

Opposition to Kathleen Sibelius for Secretary of HHS

The GOP's grumbling about Pres. Obama's pick for Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sibelius, is getting a little bit louder but it's not based on much.  I'm seeing three major themes that are being tossed around--her tax mistake, support from a Kansas doctor who performs late term abortions and her support for comparative effectiveness research on medical services.  Sibelius won the approval of the Finance Committee on a 15-8 vote and should win overall approval by the Senate, but it probably won't be a quiet process.

Civil Rights and Firefighters at the Supreme Court

There are a number of cases that touch on civil rights before the Supreme Court in the near future, from one involving white firefighters claiming they were discriminated against in promotion decision-making to a Voting Rights Act case.  Implicit in the cases is the question of whether the state needs to continue to take special steps to make sure that members of minority groups are able to compete without being discriminated against, because, you know, we fixed all that.  We have a black president now.  The Washington Post frames the situation well in its article, High Court Poised to Closely Weigh Civil Rights Laws:

The court will hear the arguments, along with the others, in the midst of an evolving national conversation about the role of race and diversity and in the wake of the historic presidential election.

"Each of these cases goes to the ability of our society to achieve opportunity, fairness and ultimately to our ability to be the democracy that we aspire to be," said John Payton, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. "We've made tremendous progress as a society, and some of that progress is having in place anti-discriminatory" laws to ensure it continues.

His organization calls for the court in each case to affirm a vigorous role for government in recognizing the need for race-conscious vigilance.

But Edward Blum, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, envisions a chance for the court to acknowledge the strides that the country has made, even if it decides each case narrowly.

The Post article looks the closest at the firefighter's case, in which a group of white firefighters are suing the City of New Haven for throwing out a a performance test that promotions were supposed to be based on because none of the twenty-seven African Americans taking the test scored above the promotion threshold.  The City has argued (and won) in the lower courts that under current law they cannot use evaluations that show a disparate impact against a minority group in making personnel decisions.  The firefighters argue that this is discrimination.  Who's right?

Corn-based Ethanol Smackdown

The CBO has posted a report and a blog entry on the short and long term costs of ethanol made from corn and whether it is beneficial to continue subsidizing and requiring it.  I'm glad to see it and hopefully it will give Congress the cover it needs to have  real policy debate on it.  Hat tip to Grist for publicizing the report (The Impact of Ethanol Use on Food Prices and Greenhouse Gas Emissions) and here's a bit from the blog post, Ethanol, Food Prices and Greenhouse Gas Emissions:

Most ethanol in the United States is produced from domestically grown corn, and the rapid rise in the fuel’s production and usage means that roughly one-quarter of all corn grown in the U.S. (nearly 3 billion bushels) is now used to produce ethanol. The demand for corn for ethanol production has exerted upward pressure on corn prices and on food prices in general. CBO estimates that the increased use of ethanol accounted for about 10 percent to 15 percent of the rise in food prices between April 2007 and April 2008.

Congressional Oversight Panel: Assessing TARP

The Congressional Oversight Panel overseeing the administration of the TARP program has made its April report and, thanks to an assist from Paul Krugman, I've got the goods on it right here.  Or actually, I just have links to the goods.  I've only had the time to very quickly breeze through the executive summary but there's plenty of loot there to dig through and so I'll give you links to the full report, the executive summary and embed video below.  Here's a couple of operative paragraphs from the executive summary:

One key assumption that underlies Treasury’s approach is its belief that the system-wide deleveraging resulting from the decline in asset values, leading to an accompanying drop in net wealth across the country, is in large part the product of temporary liquidity constraints resulting from nonfunctioning markets for troubled assets. The debate turns on whether current prices, particularly for mortgage-related assets, reflect fundamental values or whether prices are artificially depressed by a liquidity discount due to frozen markets – or some combination of the two.

If its assumptions are correct, Treasury’s current approach may prove a reasonable response to the current crisis. Current prices may, in fact, prove not to be explainable without the liquidity factor. Even in areas of the country where home prices have declined precipitously, the collateral behind mortgage-related assets still retains substantial value. In a liquid market, even under-collateralized assets should not be trading at pennies on the dollar. Prices are being partially subjected to a downward self-reinforcing cycle. It is this notion of a liquidity discount that supports the potential of future gain for taxpayers and makes transactions under the CAP and the PPIP viable mechanisms for recovery of asset values while recouping a gain for taxpayers.

Vermont!

Vermont has legalized gay marriage!  Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage:

Vermont has become the fourth state to legalize gay marriage -- and the first to do so with a legislature's vote. The Legislature voted Tuesday to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry. The vote was 23-5 to override in the state Senate and 100-49 to override in the House. Under Vermont law, two-thirds of each chamber had to vote for override.

Adam, Eve, Steve, Iowa and Texas

While Iowa has taken one of those awe-inspiring steps in the fight to recognize that gays and lesbians deserve equal protection under the law, Texas politicians continue to remind us why the Lawrence v. Texas case in which the Supreme Court overturned sodomy laws originated in Texas.  Capitol Annex has posted some heart-warming video of US Congressman Louie Gohmert from Tyler, TX making some tired and specious historical assertions that are lacking in proof of causation about societies that accept same-sex relationships going belly up. 

Who's Gohmert?  And why am I tempted to pronounce his name "Gomer"?  This is what Capitol Annex has to say about him, Gohmert Says Iowa Gay Marriage Decision Signals Downfall of American Civilization:

Gohmert, a former state district judge in Smith County, is well-known in Texas as a staunch ultraconservative. Among his most recent antics was a bill to relocate detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to the lawn of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. Gohmert introduced the legislation in response to a ruling by the high court that Guitmo detainees were protected by the United States Constitution.

Concealed Carry on Campus

Yesterday I dreamt of writing a lucid, witty and revealing expose on why the legislation the Texas Lege is considering on allowing licensed concealed carry folks to carry on college campuses in order to prevent a V. Tech situation here.  But I balked at the thought of looking up statistics and such and so I just let it lie.  The Edge of the American West picked up the challenge in an open letter to the Texas Lege (that I doubt any members will read) that clearly lays out the lack of policy sense the law makes.  Also, It Would Make Grades More... Final, if Profs were Packin':

Here’s the thing.  School shootings are exceedingly rare events.  They are great exemplars of the maxim “hard cases make bad law”, because they’re impossibly difficult to contain within a policy, whether that policy is how a school should respond to a student struggling with mental illness, or what safety measures a college should enact, or whether guns should be permitted on campus.

I have a very responsible friend who packs heat and so I know that not all of the gun-toters (and probably not even too many of them) are like The Rich Texan character on the Simpsons.  But I'm stll not convinced that concealed carry makes good policy sense.

Needle Exchange Legislation

Thanks to a post at Capitol Annex, I just learned that Texas is the only state in the nation that doesn't allow some form of needle exchange program to fight against the spread of HIV/AIDS and other diseases.  We've got a bill up before The Lege to allow such programs and, of course, Gov. Perry just came out against it.  I'm not going to copy any of Vince's post because it's very short and I'd rather just direct you there--he's got an overview of what such programs accomplish and the misguided but very brief statement from Perry at Perry Doesn't Support Needle Exchange.  And it looks like Floor Pass got this particular story out first (though their post pre-dated the Perry statement), so I better give them props for that:  Needle Exchange Bill Poised to Pass Senate.

Senator Kirk Watson's Speech Against Voter ID Law

Sadly, the last time I wrote about Sen. Kirk Watson it was in response to his abysmal performance on MSNBC back during the Obama v. Clinton portion of the election--he's a good man, a good legislator whom I've never thought of as being over-the-top political.  Chronic:  Habitually Updated Buzz has posted the full text of Watson's speech before the Texas Senate on the Voter ID Law that was about to be passed by the Senate.  It gets to the crux of the matter better than anything else I've seen so I'll reproduce some of it here and encourage you to go read it in its entirety if you want to know what our Senate hath wrought, Watson's 3/17 Speech Against Voter ID:

There remains only the flimsiest evidence that voter impersonation – the only type of fraud addressed by this bill – even exists. Not counting 60-year-old history and the unverified testimony of a controversial witness for a partisan elections administrator, nothing at all we’ve heard demonstrates that this is actually occurring any more than anecdotally in Texas.

And let’s be honest – if someone had the goods on a case that was going to settle this fight once and for all, they probably would have been testifying at some time other than 4 in the morning.

It’s also far from clear that Senate Bill 362 will stop whatever irregularities might conceivably be out there. We’ve heard of concerns about absentee ballots – this bill does nothing about them. We’ve heard about suspicious voter registrations – this bill leaves registration procedures entirely in place. We’ve been showered with hypotheticals about how much could possibly go wrong if some shadowy figure decided they’d rather steal a voter registration card than an election.

Yet we’ve heard of no instances in memory where our elections failed our democracy because people impersonated voters.

Food, Glorious Food Legislation

Wow.  La Vida Locavore just posted a rundown of the different food-related bills currently being considered in Congress and I find the list rather staggering.  The thing to consider is the possible law-interaction effects of all of them, which ones are best at addressing the problems they purport to fix and which ones have hidden agendas that aren't immediately recognized by the lay reader.  My favorite title has to be The Sewage Sludge in Food Production Consumer Notification Act, which seems like a sort of hyper-truth in labeling act.  (Which, of course, reminds me a Python sketch, Crunchy Frog, which will make an appearance at the bottom of the page)  Check out the list and an RSS feed to keep track of their progress at A Rundown of Food Bills in Congress Now:

I thought everyone might appreciate a quick rundown of all of the bills that are currently in Congress dealing with food or agriculture. The major themes you see over and over are food safety and food assistance. In other words, our Congresscritters totally get that we need safe food and the economy's in the toilet, but they aren't quite in agreement on how to fix either problem.

Voter ID Law in Texas

I didn't talk about it much the first time around at the beginning of The Lege session, back when the GOP was bending over backwards and jumping through hoops to try to pass new rules to allow them to bring a Voter ID law to the floor.  The maneuvering seemed a bit inside baseball, but it's important to note the lengths to which the GOP is going to make sure that they can pass a Voter ID bill. 

Quickly, here's what happened.  Texas Senate tradition has, for the last fifty years, required the consent of two-thirds of the senators to debate a bill on the floor.  This is a way to ensure a certain level of consensus before the Senate spends time on bills.  Back at the opening of this legislative session, the GOP senators went to work to get around the two-thirds rule and eventually succeeded:  Two-Thirds Rule Debate.  That early success will bear fruit next week, as the Senate will consider the Voter ID bill starting on March 10. 

Pres. Obama: I'm Ready to Fight the Lobbyists

Pres. Obama sounded a populist and challenging note in his weekly radio address yesterday, acknowledging that the lobbyists are gearing up for a fight in the upcoming budget battle and that he is too.  As Ari over at The Edge of the American West put it, he was channeling Teddy Roosevelt.  The first three minutes is him going through the list of campaign promises that he's made concrete in the budget he submitted to Congress; after that, he begins to point out the major areas of conflict with the status quo that the monied special interest groups will be up in arms aabout.  The insurance companies will be fighting against his proposals to open federal insurance programs to competitive bidding; the banks and student loan industry will be fighting against the end to federal subsidies of their programs; the oil and gas industry will be fighting against longstanding tax breaks that seem incomprehensible in light of recent profits.

Here's the video (about five minutes):

More from the White House on the Budget

Before I get to the White House handouts, let me begin by offering you a link to Dan Froomkin's excellent index of the reactions to the budget so far.  Froomkin is far more than an aggregator, he gets good articles from across the political spectrum and produces a representative summary of what each is about.  He provides a great one-stop location to get the scoop.  For his work on the budget, check out The Robin Hood Budget:

Obama's budget would dramatically increase taxes on the wealthy, while cutting payments and subsidies to insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, agribusiness and defense contractors -- and mandating a system to charge polluters for their carbon emissions.

It would, in short, reverse the redistribution of wealth that took place during the Bush era. This time, the rich will be subsidizing the poor, not the other way around.

The complete collection of budget documents is available at FY 2010 President's Budget.  This includes about 44 pages of introductory material, addressing the misplaced priorities of past budgets and policy and the policy goals and programs laid out in the 2010 budget (including the steps toward transparency and fiscal discipline outlined in this budget).  Beyond the introductory material linked to above, the budget page includes links to the portions of the budget for each department of the government, with individual links to each of them (I forgot this is government material!  I'll just include those links below as well):

• Department of Agriculture (6 pages, 174 KB)
• Department of Commerce (2 pages, 99 KB)
• Department of Defense (4 pages, 86 KB)
• National Intelligence Program (2 pages, 75 KB)
• Department of Education (4 pages, 109 KB)
• Department of Energy (4 pages, 80 KB)
• Department of Health and Human Services (4 pages, 108 KB)
• Department of Homeland Security (2 pages, 78 KB)
• Department of Housing and Urban Development (4 pages, 89 KB)
• Department of the Interior (4 pages, 96 KB)
• Department of Justice (2 pages, 210 KB)
• Department of Labor (4 pages, 98 KB)
• Department of State and Other International Programs (4 pages, 134 KB)
• Department of Transportation (2 pages, 87 KB)
• Department of the Treasury (2 pages, 72 KB)
• Department of Veterans Affairs (2 pages, 111 KB)
• Corps of Engineers – Civil Works (2 pages, 98 KB)
• Environmental Protection Agency (4 pages, 91 KB)
• National Aeronautics and Space Administration (2 pages, 88 KB)
• National Science Foundation (2 pages, 80 KB)
• Small Business Administration (2 pages, 92 KB)
• Social Security Administration (2 pages, 72 KB)
• Corporation for National Community Service (2 pages, 78 KB)

If you'd like to read the conclusion to the introductory material, it will be reproduced in full after the fold.

Food Stamps at the Farmers Market

Vince from Capitol Annex is reporting a new bill filed by Sen. Elliot Shapleigh would allow food stamp recipients to use their Lone Star Cards at farmers markets, Bill Would Allow Use of Food Stamps At Farmers Markets.  This is outstanding news--it helps support our local farmers by broadening their customer base and it gives food stamp recipients an excellent source of nutritious food.  I would imagine you'll see a bunch of diverse groups lining up behind this bill, from those of us in the slow food movement, to minority groups and groups that are focused on good nutrition and preventive health concerns.  Hopefully it will provide an impetus to make sure farmers markets are accessible to those with limited transportation or who rely on public transit.  Here's how Vince put it:

This is a good bill because it helps Texas’ most needy families by making sure they can access wholesome produce and prices cheaper than in chain markets (and probably of better quality than in most markets, and helps small farmers who sell produce as well as the markets themselves by generating more business for them.

I've found Capitol Annex to be the premiere site when it comes to tracking bills and other goings on at The Lege--give them a visit if you haven't done so before.  You can read the full text of the bill via a link at Capitol Annex.

Bailout Stimulates Solar Production

Wired Science is reporting today that a couple of utilities have announced plans for production facilities that would produce a total of 1 Gigawatt of solar power, Utilities Jumping into the Solar Game.  As a standalone announcement, that's really cool but what I think is even more important is the answer to why now?  And apparently, it's a direct result of tax provisions included in last year's bailout plan:

In the last 24 hours, two power producers ordered up a gigawatt of solar power. That's twice the total solar capacity the United States had installed in 2007...The original bailout bill, passed last year and filled with energy provisions, changed the law so that utilities like PG&E became eligible to receive the 30 percent investment tax credit for solar projects. Five utilities from New Jersey's PSE&G to San Diego Gas & Electric have now announced plans for utility-owned solar projects.

Good policy can encourage good results.

Supreme Court Affirms Domestic Violence Gun Law

If you hit your wife or your girlfriend and get convicted for it, you cannot buy a gun.  That's the law passed by Congress back in 1996 as part of an update to the 1968 Gun Control Act that extended the general ban keeping felons from owning guns to those who have committed misdemeanor domestic violence or a misdemeanor assault against a person they are in a relationship with.  A challenge was before the Supreme Court saying that the law really required the offense to specifically be a domestic violence offense, one identified as such, and couldn't apply to garden variety assault, even if it was against your wife, your husband or your significant other.  The Supreme Court denied the challenge (United States v. Hayes) in an opinion relying a lot on proper reading of legislation and the technicalities of doing so--it's not an opinion that sings, one that eloquently defends rights or protects civil liberties.  But it's an important decision--folks who are abusive to their spouses or significant others shouldn't have access to guns that can up the level of terror in their abuse.  The Washington Post has more of an analysis here:  Justices Uphold Ban on Guns for Abusers.

In a week when Justice Ginsburg returned to the bench after surgery two weeks ago and made a glorious entrance at Pres. Obama's speech to the Joint Session last night, it was fitting that her opinion in this case would be released.