Digging for gold

Governor Perry reminded the federal government on Friday that you don’t mess with Texas—or with Texas gold.  Seems the governor wants to bring gold that is being held  in New York back to a vault in Texas. The governor has some political back-up from Tea Party supporter Rep. Giovanni Capriglione (R-Southlake) who has introduced legislation to set up the Texas Bullion Depository—where the state’s gold could be held. Right now the 6,643 bars are underground in a New York facility guarded by the Federal Reserve Bank—the U.S. system comprised of 12 federal banks in various districts around the country. The Federal Reserve Board has broad regulatory powers (authority to enact measures to protect the money supply through the use of monetary policy). One component of that is making sure that banks have enough assets on hand to cover financial needs.

The purpose of the measure is really more of a symbolic policy—policies which have no tangible effect on the population, but which have political leverage with public opinion.  Why bring the gold home?   The psychological reassurance that the gold would be here—presumably the state is more financially secure in the event of a national or international crisis like a run on the bank.

Someone else who is hoping to strike it rich—George P. Bush–announced this week he will run in 2014 for Texas Land Commissioner-the person who heads up the Texas General Land Office.  The office provides oversight (management and supervision) for all state-owned lands including leasing for gas and oil production, operating the veterans’ loan program for land purchases, mining, grazing, and ensuring the environmental quality of public lands and waters. If there is exploration to be authorized on Texas lands, the Land Commissioner is the person to see.

Make no mistake, George P. Bush is not exploring public office, he has his eyes on the prize. The nephew of George W. Bush and son of Jeb Bush (former Florida Governor) has already raised $1.3 million for his campaign.  The Spanish speaking Ft. Worth consultant and  U.S. Naval Reserve officer (who was deployed in Afghanistan for 9 months) is considered to be a rising star in the Republican party—he was just appointed deputy finance chairman of the Texas Republican Party. He made his speaking debut as an official candidate this week, and while there were a few awkward moments, he seems well on his way. By all accounts he was comfortable with the audience and addressing key issues.

Here’s to going for the gold.

You’re cut off?

The statutory restriction on the number of terms an official or officeholder may serve (term limits)—have been popular since the late 1980s-90s as the federal government implemented reforms focused on legislative accountability (the extent to which legislators pursue the interests of their constituent supporters).  While the U.S. Supreme Court struck down federal term limits in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (1992), today 15 states have limits for elected state representatives.  Five liberal justices in the U.S. Term Limits case found that federal government must pass a Constitutional amendment to enact limits. Why?  The Articles of Confederation (our country’s first Constitution considered a terrible failure, but which led to our current Constitution) had term limits, so the majority reasoned that the founders’ omission meant they did not intend for such provisions to be enacted.

Nonetheless, the recent surge of Tea Party support in Texas brought to power officials who want to change the system, including establishing term limits for state offices.  Ironically, the measures introduced in the next legislative session will target fellow Republicans who do not share the Tea Party’s more conservative values.  Proposals for term limits range from a Constitutional amendment limiting statewide, non-judicial officeholders from running for a third consecutive term (most statewide offices are four years) to other proposals which limits lawmakers to serving six biennial (two year) legislative sessions.

That certainly would limit the incumbency effect (the perpetual re-election of representatives because they have the advantage of using their elected office to accumulate support and name recognition).

Speaking of trying to put a stop to something, the Attorney General Greg Abbott has raised concerns about stopping school campus violence.  In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary school shootings,  Attorney General Greg Abbott warned 78 of the state’ s 1025 school districts that they were not in compliance (had not met state requirements) for having proper campus security arrangements.   Of great concern is that 38 districts do not even have a safety plan on file which is mandated by a 2005 state law requiring schools have policies for emergencies and crises.   The law could be considered a symbolic policy because it has no fines or penalties attached—there are no enforcement mechanism requiring schools carry out state policy.

One district that has a unique form of compliance is Harrold ISD-a rural school near the Oklahoma border which allows teachers to carry guns on campus.  Most folks don’t know that both federal and state laws allow for schools to obtain permission for arming teachers.  Harrold’s “Guardian Plan”—put in place after the 2007 Virginia Tech shootings—requires teachers complete the concealed handgun class, obtain the approval of the school board, and agree to use only “frangible ammunition” (which breaks apart when it hits hard surfaces thus preventing ricochets).

So for perpetual incumbents facing term limits and guns in schools, have they been cut off?  The answer is a definite “maybe”.