Posted on 08/31/2010 8:37:06 AM PDT by ChrisBoundsTX
Texas Governor Rick Perry has apparently struck a hard nerve with a member of Congress. I am not talking about immigration or the EPA regulation, which also has the Obama Administration butting heads with the Lone Star State. Instead, I am referring to Texas being singled out in the $26 billion state and education aid package. Hidden in the aid package that recently passed Congress and was signed into law by Obama is an amendment that requires Texas, and only Texas, to commit to maintaining or increasing the inflated level of education spending over the next three years if it accepts the federal money.
This quarrel started last year. In 2009, Governor Perry accepted $3.2 billion in federal stimulus money for its education fund. However, Perry did not use the money to supplement the state’s education fund as the federal government had intended it. Instead he cut the state’s education funding and used the stimulus money to fill the gap. That allowed Texas to boost its rainy day fund, bringing it to a little over $9 billion.
Perry’s actions infuriated Democrats who wanted states to increase their spending, not cut back and save. Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat Congressman from Austin was one of the biggest critics of Perry’s actions. In order to ensure the same thing does not happen with the $26 billion package, $830 million of which was pledged to Texas, Doggett drafted an amendment that requires only Texas to certify that it will not reduce the state’s education spending at any time within the next three years in order to receive the funds. Unfortunately, this mandate attempt by Doggett to punish Texas for fiscal responsibility is unconstitutional. Article 8, Section 6 of the Texas Constitution states:
"No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in pursuance of specific appropriations made by law; nor shall any appropriation of money be made for a longer term than two years."
Therefore, the governor cannot bind the next legislative session to an assurance as the Doggett Amendment requires. Perry blasted Doggett for the amendment, which could prevent Texas from receiving its share of the education funds:
"This amendment mandates that the governor guarantee the Legislature will provide a certain level of state funding through 2013, a funding scheme prohibited by the Texas Constitution. It will be at least June 1, 2011, before the Legislature passes and the Comptroller certifies the 2012-2013 budget. That means Texas – the only state singled out with this mandate – might not be able to use any of these funds provided to states."
Texas State Republican Senator Dan Patrick added to the exchange in an address on his Facebook page:
"The Governor of Texas does not write the budget and cannot guarantee expenditures now, or in the future. The legislature also cannot guarantee spending beyond the 2 year budget cycle we pass each session. You can plan to spend money beyond two years, but you cannot guarantee it…It is not possible, practical, or allowed by the Constitution, to guarantee monies beyond the budget cycle, Texas House and Senate Democrats understand this, but apparently Texas Democrat Congressmen do not."
It remains clear that Congressmen in Washington do not know their federal or state Constitutional limits. The $26 billion package was a bad idea to begin with, but Doggett took it to the next level by requiring an unconstitutional act by Governor Perry to receive Texas’s share of the funds. Perry stood up to Doggett’s actions, bolding stating:
"It is unfortunate that Washington continues to play partisan games with Texans’ tax dollars and the very future of our children … Texas will not surrender to Washington’s one-size-fits-all, deficit-spending mindset or let Washington do to the Texas budget what they have done to the federal budget."
"We’ll continue to work with state leaders, including the attorney general, to fight this injustice."
Perry is carrying the state’s slogan “Don’t mess with Texas” very well in this battle. He has the backing of Texas’s Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst, Attorney General Greg Abbot, and other top Texas officials, but it remains to be see how this will play out. My San Antonio suggests that Congress could appeal the Doggett Amendment, which Doggett strongly opposes. The Department of Education could also interpret the bill’s language that takes the Texas Constitution into account. Regardless, with elections a little more than two months away you can bet this will remain in the political spotlight in Texas.
Something feels unconstitutional about singling out a state for special requirements. Equal protection clause, due process, 10th Amendment, commerce clause. There’s something unconstitutional there.
Congress can not stand responsible government
Congress/UH_Bummer out of control
Hmmm ... first, a lawsuit against Arizona. Now this.
McCain is from Arizona. And Bush is from Texas. Think there might be a bit of Obama-imposed vengance on these two states?
Now if Perry would obtain a spine in regards to illegal immigration, we might have something.
"No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in pursuance of specific appropriations made by law; nor shall any appropriation of money be made for a longer term than two years."
But... but you forgot Dems "make up the rules as they go along" /sarcasm
--
It is TIME to DownSize DC! Eliminate entire departments and we can start with the U.S. Department of Education.
I should know this and I do not. I feel ashamed.
Does Texas have the right to secceed as per it’s treaty with the U.S.?
Just a question.
Educate me Freepers.
I should know this and I do not. I feel ashamed.
Does Texas have the right to secceed as per its treaty with the U.S.?
Just a question.
Educate me Freepers.
I should know this and I do not. I feel ashamed.
Does Texas have the right to secceed as per its treaty with the U.S.?
Just a question.
Educate me Freepers.
Federal Money is a form of RAT Drug. The provide it to “hook” entitites on over-spending and create dependency on the Federal teat.
Think there might be a bit of Obama-imposed vengance on these two states?
Perhaps, but I smell more of lefty Austin and their puppet Lloyd Dogget trying to pour more money into education unions.
The unusual part here is actually naming Texas. They are getting bolder.................
My thoughts exactly!!
“Does Texas have the right to secceed as per its treaty with the U.S.?”
As a result of the American Civil War (aka The War of the Rebellion, aka “The War Between the States, aka The War of Northern Agression, aka “The Late Unpleasantness — did I miss any?) the answer is no, unless Texas regains that right through a second and successful American Civil War (or Texas War of Independence).
Frankly, if Texas is going to go to the bother of another war I would favor Texas fighting a war to re-liberate the United States rather than one where it goes it own way. Otherwise Texas is going to be plagued by refugees from the former United States for years and years. It will be worse than the current illegal alien problem. Better to fix the whole country so that Texas doesn’t get swamped.
It remains clear that Congressmen in Washington do not know their federal or state Constitutional limits,no kidding.
No, but Texas was granted the right to split into multiple states, thus greatly increasing its representation in Congress.
However, there are those who argue strongly that the 1845 document was nullified when Texas left the Union during the Civil War and replaced by the re-admission to the union thereafter.
From: http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/annexation/index.html
“Texans voted in favor of annexation to the United States in the first election following independence in 1836. However, throughout the Republic period (1836-1845) no treaty of annexation negotiated between the Republic and the United States was ratified by both nations.
When all attempts to arrive at a formal annexation treaty failed, the United States Congress passed—after much debate and only a simple majority—a Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States. Under these terms, Texas would keep both its public lands and its public debt, it would have the power to divide into four additional states “of convenient size” in the future if it so desired, and it would deliver all military, postal, and customs facilities and authority to the United States government. (Neither this joint resolution or the ordinance passed by the Republic of Texas’ Annexation Convention gave Texas the right to secede.)”
I presume E B Johnson (Tx-30),a former Texas Legislator, voted in favor of the unconstitutional Doggett Anti-Texas Education Amendment at the same time she was doling out scholarships to her grandkids - “but I didn’t know!?!” didn’t know it was unconstitutional; didn’t know it was a violation of the fund rules; didn’t read the stimulus bill; didn’t read Obamacare Bill - doesn’t belong in Congress!
Maybe Texas could become a ‘sanctuary’ state from the Federal teat. You know, we won’t suckle on it but we won’t feed it either......
Thank you for your input. It would be better to reform the U.S. as a whole,
and I am wholeheartedly behind my state leading the way.
I hope Perry keeps his resolve and testicular fortitude standing up to Washington.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.