sine die.
It is now officially time to sort through the carnage and see what the unintended consequences will be from the bills that ultimately get signed by Gov. Abbott.
Oh, and wait for the inevitable special session on education funding that will be necessary when the judge rules.
*sigh*
Showing posts with label The Eighty-fourth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Eighty-fourth. Show all posts
Monday, June 01, 2015
Thursday, April 09, 2015
Texas Lock-Step Political Media: Opining (wrongly) on the proposed Texas Religious Freedom Act.
Whether or not you're for or against the wave of so-called "Religious Freedom Acts" that are popping up in state-houses (and the news) with much frequently lately, it's important to realize that some of the arguments both for, and against, are just not based in reality.
Unsurprisingly, the Texas Lock-Step is leading the charge in our fair state in getting this 100% wrong.
Hammond is one not like the others. R.G. Ratcliffe, Texas Monthly
The biggest problem with this argument?
For one, there's nothing in the law that compels a company to NOT offer same-sex partner benefits. In fact, I would think that, if these companies believe these policies are "good for business" they would view it as a competitive advantage that other companies are able to 'opt-out' on religious grounds.
As a market mechanism for drawing the best talent then, this should be a boon to American Airlines, Apple, Dell etc. To suggest that companies be forced through coercion to offer these benefits flies in the face of the very market principles that Ratcliffe is suggesting Hammond champions.
There are many reasons that I would never consider starting a business, in Texas, that serves the public directly. Groups like the Texas Association of Businesses are one of those, high-minded moral crusaders are another. What the TAB really wants to do is tilt the cost structure to favor their lager members. Almost every policy position that they espouse would add burdensome costs to small and medium-sized businesses. They are also not genuine in their reasoning for opposition to the sanctuary city bill (they like the below-market cheap labor) but that's a different story for a different post.
In theory I'm opposed to acts like the RFA*. I believe that, as a business owner serving the public, you have an obligation to do so fairly. I worry that people will use these to object to a variety of things outside of what the scope intended.(Yes, I realize that's a slippery-slope objection, guilty as charged) In practice, I'm opposed to the opposition to these bills. I don't see anything good resulting from a long-term program of coercion that forces people to accept the GLBTPC lifestyle if they feel it stands in direct conflict with their religious beliefs. I find the opposition tactics to be disingenuous and, at times, downright untrue. Perhaps I would be more sympathetic to them if they also stood in opposition to Muslim's who wouldn't cater to a Bar Mitzvah, or a GLBTPC baker who refuses to bake a cake for a Defense of Marriage rally.
And that's my biggest problem with all of this. It's not really about religious freedom or the right to believe as one chooses is the best fit. It's really all about providing protection to the groups the political sides have decided to allow most favored nation status. In the end, this is for-votes, what can you give me to make me feel good politics, on both sides.
The fact is this, Texas Democrats are trying to cater to two groups, upper-middle class to wealthy Caucasian progressives who currently form the back-bone of their party financing structure, and the GLBTPC groups who currently are among their most vociferous supporters and who they use to attack Republicans without getting their hands dirty. Republicans are also pandering to the evangelical right (NOT, it should be noted the "evangelical tea party" which doesn't exist, another of Ratcliffe's many erroneous assumptions in the piece.). Republicans have always pandered to the so-called moral-majority for votes.
The two parties are shouting over one another while the TLSPM has decided that they are going to insert their framing of the issue to further muddy the waters and, they hope, drive outrage and (most importantly) page-views. If anything Ratcliffe's piece suffers from two main faults. First, he clearly displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the underlying issues. More egregiously, he falsely applies the Great Man Theory to Hammond in all areas. Not only is Hammond "right" on the issues but Ratcliffe asserts that he is "right" in his motivations as well, subtly implying that anyone in opposition to Hammond and his fellow travelers is not. This is wrong-headed thinking at best, intellectual dishonesty at it's worst.
The biggest problem with the TLSPM is that they ALL think this way. Hence the term "lock-step". The second biggest problem is that, on most issues, they get it factually wrong.
*Before the session started I opined that the Texas Legislature should just pass a solid budget (the only thing they are required to do by the Texas Constitution) and call it a day. When the Lege starts believing the key to Texas' problems lies in their legislative actions? That's when the problems start and the TLSPM rushes blindly forth.
Unsurprisingly, the Texas Lock-Step is leading the charge in our fair state in getting this 100% wrong.
Hammond is one not like the others. R.G. Ratcliffe, Texas Monthly
With companies such as AT&T, American Airlines, Apple, Dell, Chevron, BP, and Shell now offering same-sex partner benefits, it is easy to see why Hammond and the Texas Association of Business oppose the religious freedom law and other perceived anti-gay measures. “These amendments are bad for business. They’re bad for Texas. They would devastate economic development, tourism and the convention business,” Hammond said. “Major corporations across the board oppose this legislation. They would not want to come to Texas or expand in Texas. Conventions, the Super Bowl, the Final Four, all those things would be at risk in Texas if this was to become part of the constitution.”
The biggest problem with this argument?
For one, there's nothing in the law that compels a company to NOT offer same-sex partner benefits. In fact, I would think that, if these companies believe these policies are "good for business" they would view it as a competitive advantage that other companies are able to 'opt-out' on religious grounds.
As a market mechanism for drawing the best talent then, this should be a boon to American Airlines, Apple, Dell etc. To suggest that companies be forced through coercion to offer these benefits flies in the face of the very market principles that Ratcliffe is suggesting Hammond champions.
There are many reasons that I would never consider starting a business, in Texas, that serves the public directly. Groups like the Texas Association of Businesses are one of those, high-minded moral crusaders are another. What the TAB really wants to do is tilt the cost structure to favor their lager members. Almost every policy position that they espouse would add burdensome costs to small and medium-sized businesses. They are also not genuine in their reasoning for opposition to the sanctuary city bill (they like the below-market cheap labor) but that's a different story for a different post.
In theory I'm opposed to acts like the RFA*. I believe that, as a business owner serving the public, you have an obligation to do so fairly. I worry that people will use these to object to a variety of things outside of what the scope intended.(Yes, I realize that's a slippery-slope objection, guilty as charged) In practice, I'm opposed to the opposition to these bills. I don't see anything good resulting from a long-term program of coercion that forces people to accept the GLBTPC lifestyle if they feel it stands in direct conflict with their religious beliefs. I find the opposition tactics to be disingenuous and, at times, downright untrue. Perhaps I would be more sympathetic to them if they also stood in opposition to Muslim's who wouldn't cater to a Bar Mitzvah, or a GLBTPC baker who refuses to bake a cake for a Defense of Marriage rally.
And that's my biggest problem with all of this. It's not really about religious freedom or the right to believe as one chooses is the best fit. It's really all about providing protection to the groups the political sides have decided to allow most favored nation status. In the end, this is for-votes, what can you give me to make me feel good politics, on both sides.
The fact is this, Texas Democrats are trying to cater to two groups, upper-middle class to wealthy Caucasian progressives who currently form the back-bone of their party financing structure, and the GLBTPC groups who currently are among their most vociferous supporters and who they use to attack Republicans without getting their hands dirty. Republicans are also pandering to the evangelical right (NOT, it should be noted the "evangelical tea party" which doesn't exist, another of Ratcliffe's many erroneous assumptions in the piece.). Republicans have always pandered to the so-called moral-majority for votes.
The two parties are shouting over one another while the TLSPM has decided that they are going to insert their framing of the issue to further muddy the waters and, they hope, drive outrage and (most importantly) page-views. If anything Ratcliffe's piece suffers from two main faults. First, he clearly displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the underlying issues. More egregiously, he falsely applies the Great Man Theory to Hammond in all areas. Not only is Hammond "right" on the issues but Ratcliffe asserts that he is "right" in his motivations as well, subtly implying that anyone in opposition to Hammond and his fellow travelers is not. This is wrong-headed thinking at best, intellectual dishonesty at it's worst.
The biggest problem with the TLSPM is that they ALL think this way. Hence the term "lock-step". The second biggest problem is that, on most issues, they get it factually wrong.
*Before the session started I opined that the Texas Legislature should just pass a solid budget (the only thing they are required to do by the Texas Constitution) and call it a day. When the Lege starts believing the key to Texas' problems lies in their legislative actions? That's when the problems start and the TLSPM rushes blindly forth.
Tuesday, April 07, 2015
Texas Leadership Vacuum: A National Beer Day Shotgun
Shot: The Distributors speak out on Houston Matters
Chaser: The Craft Brew Lobby Answers Back.
As someone who's been watching this go on for a while now it's no secret that I'm sympathetic to the craft brewers. When you consider that some (although not all) distributors are subsidized in part by the big brewing companies you have what basically amounts to a rigged market. The "deal" that passed in 2013 was both a win and loss for craft brewers. Yes, they won the ability to sell a small amount of product out of their tasting rooms but they also lost the financial rights to their local distribution.
I'm not going to quote too heavy from either argument but I will close with this from the Craft Brew Lobby.....
Yup.
Happy National Beer Day. I'm going to go enjoy one of the craft variety.
Chaser: The Craft Brew Lobby Answers Back.
As someone who's been watching this go on for a while now it's no secret that I'm sympathetic to the craft brewers. When you consider that some (although not all) distributors are subsidized in part by the big brewing companies you have what basically amounts to a rigged market. The "deal" that passed in 2013 was both a win and loss for craft brewers. Yes, they won the ability to sell a small amount of product out of their tasting rooms but they also lost the financial rights to their local distribution.
I'm not going to quote too heavy from either argument but I will close with this from the Craft Brew Lobby.....
In addition, The Beer Alliance's characterization of the changes in 2013 being something they 'allowed to happen' borders on ludicrous. Senators Eltife and Carona and Rep. Wayne Smith were the architects of the 2013 compromise that resulted in the package of bills including SB 639. In addition, Open The Taps and the Texas Craft Brewers Guild played large roles in helping to advocate and advance the benefits of those same bills. The very idea that the distributors feel they have the power to 'allow' or 'deny' things to happen in Austin IS THE PROBLEM - for too long they have been the only voice heard in Austin, and have a misguided sense that they make the rules, they are the gatekeepers, and that progress only comes from back room deals held outside of the public eye.
Yup.
Happy National Beer Day. I'm going to go enjoy one of the craft variety.
Saturday, March 28, 2015
Texas Leadership Vacuum: We don't understand it. Let's Ban it!
Texas, your elected idiots are at it again.....
Lawmakers trying to ban powdered alcohol before it reaches Texas. David Saleh Rauf, HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)
The pertinent quote:
The purpose of this post isn't to pick on Democrats, that quote comes from the Houston Chronicle. The article (and I suggest you go read the entire thing) states that the main driver of this movement is Rep. Charlie Geren, a Republican.
So, the next time you hear Republicans like Geren talk about "limited government" and how dedicated they are to the free markets remember nonsense like this. Most elected politicians, even Republicans, have a first instinct within them to legislate and create new laws.
Even stupid laws like this, with no basis in fact or reality.
Lawmakers trying to ban powdered alcohol before it reaches Texas. David Saleh Rauf, HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)
The pertinent quote:
"I've never in my life seen powdered alcohol, but it scares the heck out of me and I've got a big concern," said state Rep. Roland Gutierrez, a San Antonio Democrat, who sits on the panel considering the bill. "I think the rest of the committee has a big concern."
The purpose of this post isn't to pick on Democrats, that quote comes from the Houston Chronicle. The article (and I suggest you go read the entire thing) states that the main driver of this movement is Rep. Charlie Geren, a Republican.
So, the next time you hear Republicans like Geren talk about "limited government" and how dedicated they are to the free markets remember nonsense like this. Most elected politicians, even Republicans, have a first instinct within them to legislate and create new laws.
Even stupid laws like this, with no basis in fact or reality.
Thursday, December 11, 2014
Texas Politics: Why does the State have a say on the distribution rights of a private company anyway?
Yesterday (or, earlier today at the time I'm writing) the news broke that 3 Texas craft brewers are suing the State of Texas regarding a 2013 law that required them to relinquish their local distribution rights to distribution middlemen for no compensation.
State Sued for "Stifling the Texas Craft Beer Renaissance". Reeve Hamilton, Texas Tribune
For conservatives this should be a no-brainer. However, it should also be taken further to question why the State has laws on the books regulating many private-businesses anyway.
When the bill was passed it was clear that it was a hand-out to the distribution companies, some of whom are owned or are subsidiaries of the large, multi-national brewing companies with whom the craft brewers are taking market share. For Republican legislators who campaign on the so-called "free-market" and other politically hollow terms this was an all-to-usual anti-free-market action. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the large alcohol distribution companies throw law-makers a big "welcome to the session" gala before each legislature convenes.
Of course, real reform would mean looking at a host of silly laws like this. For example: Why must car dealerships only be open on Saturday or Sunday, but not both? Why can't liquor stores be open on Sunday?
When you hear so-called conservative policy makers talk about waste in the Government you rarely hear them mention laws such as these.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg. If you look down at the municipal level you can find many ordinances in cities across the state attempting to regulate something the State has no business regulating.
In an era where the State rushed head-long to supposedly de-regulate utilities and higher education (two areas that are not really free-markets [in reality they're either regulated monopolies or oligopolies]) it's amazing that in Texas, where our politicians constantly beat into our brains that they're more business friendly than anyone else, these types of laws are viewed as solutions.
The best outcome, for consumers, would be for the courts to strike the law down and decimate Texas three-tier system when it comes to alcohol sales. Even better for consumers would be the newly (very) Republican legislature to take a look at all areas where market-stifling restrictions* exist.
Fat chance though because there's a lot of money at play in Texas' legislative system.
*It will be read as thus by people of a progressive bent, but OF COURSE I'm not calling for a relaxation of safety or (in most cases) environmental standards. This is specifically related to the State interfering in legal, commercial enterprise or sales transactions.
State Sued for "Stifling the Texas Craft Beer Renaissance". Reeve Hamilton, Texas Tribune
Three Texas breweries filed a lawsuit against the state on Wednesday seeking to to overturn a 2013 law they say violates the Texas Constitution by forcing them to give away their territorial distribution rights for free.
In their complaint, filed in state district court in Austin, the heads of Live Oak Brewing in Austin, Peticolas Brewing Company in Dallas and Revolver Brewing in Granbury say that were it not for Senate Bill 639, they would be expanding. Instead, their plans to bring their beer to new markets around the state have been put on hold.
For conservatives this should be a no-brainer. However, it should also be taken further to question why the State has laws on the books regulating many private-businesses anyway.
When the bill was passed it was clear that it was a hand-out to the distribution companies, some of whom are owned or are subsidiaries of the large, multi-national brewing companies with whom the craft brewers are taking market share. For Republican legislators who campaign on the so-called "free-market" and other politically hollow terms this was an all-to-usual anti-free-market action. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the large alcohol distribution companies throw law-makers a big "welcome to the session" gala before each legislature convenes.
Of course, real reform would mean looking at a host of silly laws like this. For example: Why must car dealerships only be open on Saturday or Sunday, but not both? Why can't liquor stores be open on Sunday?
When you hear so-called conservative policy makers talk about waste in the Government you rarely hear them mention laws such as these.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg. If you look down at the municipal level you can find many ordinances in cities across the state attempting to regulate something the State has no business regulating.
In an era where the State rushed head-long to supposedly de-regulate utilities and higher education (two areas that are not really free-markets [in reality they're either regulated monopolies or oligopolies]) it's amazing that in Texas, where our politicians constantly beat into our brains that they're more business friendly than anyone else, these types of laws are viewed as solutions.
The best outcome, for consumers, would be for the courts to strike the law down and decimate Texas three-tier system when it comes to alcohol sales. Even better for consumers would be the newly (very) Republican legislature to take a look at all areas where market-stifling restrictions* exist.
Fat chance though because there's a lot of money at play in Texas' legislative system.
*It will be read as thus by people of a progressive bent, but OF COURSE I'm not calling for a relaxation of safety or (in most cases) environmental standards. This is specifically related to the State interfering in legal, commercial enterprise or sales transactions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)