Greg Abbott and Spanish language media

This is a very significant development.

In late August, the Austin Spanish-language TV station KAKW Univision 62 announced that it had topped all other broadcast stations, regardless of language, in July sweeps.

That station, along with the Univision stations in Houston and Dallas, was No. 1 among adults ages 18 to 49 in July for total day viewing, prime time and late local news, the network said, citing Nielsen Company ratings.

And nationally, Univision said it made history by finishing the July sweeps period as the No. 1 network in prime time for adults 18 to 49 and adults 18 to 34, the first time it had done so in any sweeps period.

“Número 1 is the NEW #1,” Univision wrote on Twitter in July.

As Texas’ 2014 campaign season heats up, candidates looking to reach Spanish-speaking voters are taking note (of the high viewer ratings Texas Spanish language stations earn), seeking out stations such as Univision even when they don't personally speak much Spanish.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican gubernatorial hopeful, appeared in late August on Conexión Texas, a public affairs show that debuted earlier this year on Univision stations around the state. Abbott, who knows some Spanish words but is not fluent, spoke in English as Spanish subtitles appeared on the screen. He talked about being married for 32 years to a Latina, and said he sees a connection between his values and Hispanic values.

Univision is a “huge platform for us,” said Avdiel Huerta, Abbott's campaign press secretary, adding that the campaign also regularly reaches out to the Spanish-language network Telemundo, as well as Spanish-language newspapers. 

Be sure you watch the video at the TxTrib link.

Abbott is demonstrating two things here: when you can raise a million bucks a month, you better not just sit on that wad; and if your party's sorest spot is correspondingly the opposition party's strongest, then go after it hammer and tong.

Oh, one more thing: if the electorate really is this stupid, then it's possible that someone as vile as Greg Abbott can persuade Latinos to vote for him because he's married to one.

Warmonger Thursday

Some objectionable language and images.

A bloglunch with Mayor Parker, and more on Medicaid expansion and Uber

-- As Neil has already mentioned on Facebook and at his new shop, a handful of us blogger types had lunch with the mayor at her office yesterday, and we covered a wide range of policy topics.  We promised Janice Evans and Jessica Michan that it would (mostly) be off the record, and nobody broached any politics or campaign issues.

So maybe I'll respond later with something about this, or this, but honestly... I doubt it.

There are so many better things to talk about that are meaningful, that would make a difference in the race, and the two front-running campaigns simply aren't going to discuss them.  This is why the lack of debates, or forums, or whatever they're called is so disappointing.

Just one example: the Texas Observer has more on the subject of Houston police brutality than you will ever read in the Chronicle, see on TV or hear on local radio, and much more than either of these two candidates will ever discuss.  The same is true of most every other topic you can think of that confronts the residents of Houston who are not wealthy.

Update: In a strange turn, Noah at Texpatriate inexplicably draws out mayoral challenger (and erstwhile also-ran in 2012 for Harris County Democratic Party chair) Keryl Douglas. That exchange, and a couple of Tweets from her, are as accusatory as you can imagine. For an attorney (I'm not one but she is), libel -- or something walking up to the line of libel -- seems a very weird way to open one's public communications as a candidate.

-- At the lobby day for expansion of the Medicaid program in Texas at the Lege last spring, I found a sympathetic Republican in John Zerwas. (His wife Cindy, just lost her battle with cancer a couple of weeks ago.)  Even if we have to wait a couple of years until the the next session, I'm holding out hope that Zerwas can persuade fellow R legislators with some financial math, and the Dallas News provides an assist.

Gov. Rick Perry’s rejection of Medicaid expansion will force private health insurance premiums to rise by an average of 9.3 percent for Texans buying coverage on their own, a new study finds.

GOP lawmakers, strongly encouraged by Perry, decided not to add poor adults to Medicaid’s rolls and that means about 1.3 million fewer Texans will have health coverage of some sort by 2016 than if the federal health law were fully carried out in the Lone Star State, according to a study by the nonprofit research organization RAND Corp.

Here's the breakdown.

With Medicaid expansion, the percentage of Texas’ non-elderly population that’s uninsured would drop in 2016 from 28.2 percent to 12.4 percent, they said. Obviously, that won’t happen. Still, the number of uninsured Texans will decline from more than 6 million currently to just over 4.2 million. With full implementation of the Affordable Care Act, the number would have shrunk to 2.9 million. Undocumented immigrants can’t gain coverage under the law, so in states such as Texas and Florida, the uninsured rate will remain high, the researchers found.  

The free money from the feds didn't work.  Perhaps a bit of complaining from constituents who pay insurance premiums might get their attention.

(I know: who am I kidding? All this BS from the GOP about stopping Obamacare has nothing to do with rational thought.  Still, I just can't abandon logic.  Even a few appalling ignorant Republicans like Jan Brewer get it, for Christ's sake.  So if you pray, pray for Rick Perry's soul.  It might be the only chance he has left to make it to heaven.  Nah; who am I kidding?)

-- My two-part series about Uber last week drew considerable attention; Charles Kuffner has also written some posts on the topic, most of them ahead of mine (including two more back in July, when the news broke).  Via OTK, here's another comprehensive look at what Dallas is doing now, as we wait for Uber to begin in Houston.

Per a late addition to Wednesday’s meeting agenda, the Dallas City Council is scheduled to vote on a substantial city code rewrite that will redefine everything from who can dispatch a car to who can drive a limo to the cost of a limousine’s off-the-lot sticker price (has to be more than $45,000). And the city doesn’t want you to be able to order up a limo whenever you want: The rewrite, says the addendum, will “require limousine service to be prearranged at least 30 minutes before the service is provided” and establish “minimum limousine fares.”

The addendum item doesn’t come out and say it’s aimed directly at Uber, only that “the use of computer applications and other technologies by some providers of limousine service has distorted certain distinctions between limousines and taxicabs,” and that it’s high time the city “establish those distinctions to help the public understand the differences between those types of passenger transportation services.” City Hall also wants to be able to regulate drivers being dispatched via app.

But in a memo sent to city council Friday night, assistant city manager Joey Zapata is quite clear: This rule rewrite is all about Uber, with whom the city has been tangling since September. Says Zapata, the city told Uber in November that in order to operate in Dallas, it needed 1500 Marilla’s OK. At the same time car-for-hire companies and drivers were told that working with Uber was a violation of city policy. Uber, says the memo, was cited for “advertising a transportation-for-hire service without first being granted operating authority by the City.” Zapata says 31 drivers have been cited 61 times for “driving for an unauthorized service.”

Lots more at the link.

Barry Smitherman: worse than Abbott

Greg Abbott is going to be a shittier but smarter version of Rick Perry if he makes it to the governor's mansion next year, no question. And now there's a clone of Abbott's that seeks to replace him in the TXOAG.

AG candidate Barry @SmithermanTX wants us to read this conspiracy site interview about "preparing for independence." http://t.co/VCw5gJlEYQ
— Bud Kennedy (@BudKennedy) September 2, 2013

Kennedy quickly reTweeted Smitherman's own self-promotion, then followed up with the above, and then in his column yesterday...

Talking about Texas’ resources, Smitherman said the state has “made great progress in becoming an independent nation, an ‘island nation’ if you will.”

And: “I think we want to continue down that path so that if the rest of the country falls apart, Texas can operate as a stand-alone entity with energy, food, water and roads as if we were a closed-loop system.”

Smitherman has made Brains updates previously; he was the guy who Tweeted out a picture of a hangman's noose beside the names of Republican senators who supported gun safety legislation last April, in the wake of the Newtown, CT school tragedy.

Smitherman was also the guy whose three children made 4-figure contributions to Rick Perry's presidential campaign in 2012. One of the Smitherman sons, a sophomore at Texas A&M at the time, joined his mom and dad in maxing out the federal limit of $2500.  Rick Perry, naturally, gave Smitherman his current job on the Railroad Commission after his loyal service on the Public Utilities Commission (to which he was also appointed by Rick Perry).

Barry Smitherman is as worthless overseeing Texas energy regulation -- that's the Railroad Commission's task, after all, and he's the chairman of it -- as tits on a feral boar. The Austin Chronicle had even more of Smitherman's TeaBagging atrocities...

(L)ast week Smitherman went hunting for anti-abortion votes with the Texas Alliance for Life. In a long-winded speech that started with comments about oil production (one must imagine the fundamentalists were agog for this), Smitherman suddenly took a sharp veer into conspiracy theory, blaming President Obama for China's one child per family policy. That was just the beginning.

In an extraordinary grab bag of extremist talking points, Smitherman predicted America's economic collapse unless attendees "encourage those of childbearing age (WHO ARE MARRIED) to have lots of children, and then support policies that support having lots of children." Note: That's his emphasis, not ours.

He had stuffed his policy blunderbuss with a plethora of applause points for the far right, not least that more fundamentalists breeding will cause the downfall of public schools. In Smithermanland, there will be new rules "making it easier for large families to leave failing public schools, pursue home schooling or online options, and eventually get a college degree. Moreover, he argued that people who don't have kids should take the brunt of the tax code. He said, "we should incent marriage and dis-incent single family households. … The federal tax code should reward large families, whose children will eventually pay lots of taxes, by increasing deductions for children, or placing families with children into a lower marginal tax bracket."

And he wrapped this all up with a pretty bow, in case you missed his point. "Don’t’ have sex until you get married, get married at a relatively early age, and then have lots of kids."

And this week, the secessionist talk. Smitherman is quite obviously trolling us all, TeaBaggers and the rest of Texans alike, with this Gohmert/Stockman mashup of the slimiest things he can pull out of his ass what passes for a mind in the Tea Party caucus.  Stay tuned; I'm sure he's working on next week's bulletin already, and there's still 8 weeks to go before election day!

But as Bud Kennedy notes, Democrats don't have a candidate yet, and the TXGOP has two other prospects for attorney general that are almost as freak-right-wing as Smitherman.

Rep. Dan Branch, R-Dallas, has got much of the Texas Legislature at his back, while Sen. Ken Paxton, R-McKinney, has the blessing of Kelly Shackelford of the Liberty Institute, Americans for Prosperity chief Peggy Venable, and Texas Eagle Forum boss Cathie Adams (he also incorrectly claimed for a while that he has been touched by the hands of self-appointed king maker Michael Quinn Sullivan of Empower Texans.)

Can Texas actually elect a worse attorney general than Greg Abbott has been over the past ten years? Sadly, the answer is yes.

Update: Wonkette.

And of course, it’s just “being prepared for the worst” that’s motivating Smitherman to ramp up oil and gas production, fight environmental and labor regulations, and do everything possible to “[enable] the industry to produce as much as it can, as quickly as it can.”

You know, so they can fill up the big gas tank before they close the gates to Bartertown to protect it from the motorcycle gangs with mohawks. Also something something Obama EPA unconstitutional usurpation states’ rights, and global warming is a myth.

Update: Lisa Falkenberg with some more.

Speaking of those selfish feminists, Smitherman has a few words for them, too, though not by name. Toward the end of his speech, he addresses the protests that erupted at the state Capitol a few months ago as lawmakers considered tough abortion restrictions.

"All you had to do was see our people, who were civil and polite but persistent," Smitherman says, "versus the other side, which was satanic, evil and crude."

Best as I can tell, the "satanic" reference began with a young female demonstrator with funny glasses who got cute with the wrong video camera, and muttered "hail Satan" to the screen. I took it as sarcasm; the conservative blogosphere took it as confirmation.

And the good Christian Republican who wants to be your next attorney general took it as an opportunity to out-kook his rivals.

If you want to send a message, call Western Union

Conservatives among the general public are about to learn something liberals and progressives have known for well over ten years now: when it comes to opposing military intervention, nobody cares what you think.

Two top Republicans warned Monday of catastrophic consequences if Congress votes against striking Syria and suggested the White House may be mulling a more robust military intervention.

Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, Republican hawks who have long advocated deeper US involvement in Syria's civil war, met President Barack Obama as part of his efforts to sell US lawmakers on military action.

McCain emerged from the meeting with a stern warning for fellow Republicans who may be considering voting against military action purely to damage the Democratic president.

"A vote against that resolution by Congress I think would be catastrophic," said McCain.  "It would undermine the credibility of the United States of America and the president of the United States. None of us want that."

Cover your ears and brace yourself for the "McCain is a RINO" caterwauling from the right.  The New Pacifists have a point; they just haven't connected all the dots yet.  Perhaps a cartoon will help.

Please note that the cartoon is a deep azure blue, and that the fellow portrayed is wearing large earrings.  In other words he's a classic Neoliberal, supporting the president in whatever he does... as Britney Spears once helpfully suggested.  He might have marched in an antiwar protest in the last decade or so, maybe even made the pilgrimage to Crawford and Camp Casey.  (Update: Yes, I understand the cartoonist possibly drew his subject with bifurcated ears and excessive lobes.)

But Obama inherited Bush's mess, you see, and besides Congress has completely obstructed everything he's tried to do in the past 5 1/2 years.  So bombing Syria is really not (going to be) his fault.

This is the part where I write, again: if you need an example of what non-voters mean when they say "both parties are just alike", this would be it.

But we're peering into the conservative hive mind here, so let's get back to that.  For some fairly horrifying anecdotal evidence, read this Facebook post by Rep. Ted Poe -- who represents both the Montrose and Kingwood -- but most certainly read some of the comments.  As many as your toxicity meter will allow.

Poe was already going to vote 'no', as will many other Republicans in the House, but that really isn't the point.  As previously posted, Obama is going to launch Tomahawks no matter what Congress decides.  And maybe something more, if you believe John Lindsey McGraham.

Graham, who is facing a tough primary fight from his right for the Republican Senate nomination in South Carolina, warned of the wider consequences of a failure to back military action.

"I can't sell another Iraq or Afghanistan, because I don't want to," Graham said.

"It weighs on the president's mind strongly about the signals we send," Graham said.

"(What) I can sell to the people of South Carolina (is) that if we don't get Syria right, Iran is surely going to take the signals that we don't care about the nuclear program.

See, it's clearly about what a Republican hawk with a Tea Party challenger can sell to South Carolina Republicans. Oh, and Iran.  And also Russia.  Which is to say, Putin.  Because he's been disrespectful to Obama.

So that message is going to get sent. (Some of us dirty hippies have seen this movie before.)

Update: Poll: 2/3 Of Britons Don’t Care If Rejecting Syria Action Damages Relations With U.S. Who's going to start calling the English "crumpet-eating surrender monkeys", and call for a boycott of spotted dick? The Neoliberals or the Republican hawks?

Update: When the WSJ is busting Robert Taft and isolationism on ya, GOP peaceniks, you've already lost the battle to not fight a war.

The Weekly Wrangle

On this Labor Day, the Texas Progressive Alliance stands with fast-food workers in their fight for economic equality as it brings you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff covers the decision by Harris County Judge Ed Emmett to reject the petitions submitted by pre-kindergarten advocates to get a referendum on the ballot this November.

We don't just need jobs, we need -- as Theodore Roosevelt advocated -- jobs that pay a living wage. WCNews at Eye on Williamson says that no matter what Cong. John Carter says, a living wage is not a "dumb decision".

Horwitz at Texpatriate notes that Fox26's allegations of exuberant pay raises for Annise Parker's inner circle are a bunch of poppycock, and analysis by the Houston Chronicle article proves it.

The ride-sharing service called Uber is coming to Houston, and PDiddie at Brains and Eggs explored both the pros (Part I) and the cons (Part II).

Neil at All People Have Value made some more posts on his new blog. Please look around and offer your comment. All People Have Value is part of Neil Aquino.com. Please consider checking out the full website.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme knows Republicans don't care about the uninsured or about Latinos. That's why Hidalgo and Maverick Counties in South Texas have the highest numbers of uninsured Texans in the state.

=========================================

And here are some other posts of interest by Texas bloggers.

Offcite interviews HISD Superintendent Terry Grier about the design philosophy behind the construction of their new schools.

Flavia Isabel compares Amazon and Tesla.

Better Texas Blog goes on the road for Obamacare education.

Concerned Citizens liveblogs Rep. Joaquin Castro's town hall on immigration.

Equality Texas celebrates the effect that the demise of DOMA had on one bi-national couple.

Greg Wythe published a guide to Texas election code for the Kindle.

Harold Cook is not voting for Harvey Hilderbran.

The TSTA blog chastises George P. Bush for attacking teachers.

Texas Living Waters expresses ambivalence about the water infrastructure referendum.

Juanita Jean documents the lies of True The Vote.

Lastly, BOR keeps track of the abortion battle as it transitions to the regulatory agencies.

Thank a union thug today

After a new Funny and an excerpt from EJ Dionne's "New Life for Labor" at Truthdig -- on the state of play this year -- my Labor Day Facts and Funnies from a year ago. (Has it only been 12 months since we had Mitt Romney to kick around?)

Be sure and thank a union thug today for your holiday. And your vacation time, and your healthcare -- especially if you still have all those. And like Neil says, tip time and a half while you're at it. (Actually I think holiday pay is double time, but I never quarrel with my brother when he's got his Zen on.)

Could this Labor Day mark the comeback of movements for workers’ rights and a turn toward innovation and a new militancy on behalf of wage-earners?

Suggesting this is not the same as a foolish and romantic optimism that foresees an instant union revival. What’s actually happening is more interesting.

Precisely because no one in organized labor expects the proportion of private-sector workers in their ranks to rise sharply anytime soon, unions, workers themselves and others who believe that too many Americans receive low wages are finding new ways to address long-standing grievances.

At play here is “Stein’s Law,” named after the late conservative economist Herb Stein who shrewdly declared: “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” The steadily declining share of our economy that goes to wages is one of those things.

As New York Times labor writer Steve Greenhouse has noted, until 1975, “wages nearly always accounted for more than 50 percent of our nation’s GDP.” But in 2012 they fell to a record low of 43.5 percent. Those who make the economic engine run are receiving less of what they produce. And it’s not because employees aren’t working harder, or smarter. From 1973 to 2011, according to the Economic Policy Institute, employee productivity grew by 80.4 percent while median hourly compensation after inflation grew by just 10.7 percent.

Last Thursday’s one-day strike of fast-food workers in dozens of cities is one of the new forms of labor creativity aimed at doing something about this. The folks who serve your burgers are demanding that instead of an average fast-food wage of $8.94 an hour, they ought to be paid $15. Assuming two weeks of unpaid vacation, this works out to $30,000 a year, hardly a Ronald McDonald’s ransom.

The protests have the benefit of putting low-wage workers in the media spotlight, a place they’re almost never found in a world more interested in the antics of Miley Cyrus and Donald Trump. “They want a raise with those fries,” the New York Daily News cheekily led its story on the strike.

==============

The first Labor Day holiday was celebrated on Tuesday, September 5th, 1882, in New York City, in accordance with the plans of the Central Labor Union. The Central Labor Union held its second Labor Day holiday a year later, on September 5th, 1883.

On September 5th, 1882, some 10,000 workers assembled in New York City to participate in America’s first Labor Day parade. After marching from City Hall, past reviewing stands in Union Square, and then uptown to 42nd Street, the workers and their families gathered in Wendel’s Elm Park for a picnic, concert, and speeches.

Labor Day parade, Main Street, Buffalo, NY, ca. 1900.

This first Labor Day celebration was eagerly organized and executed by New York’s Central Labor Union, an umbrella group made up of representatives from many local unions. Debate continues to this day as to who originated the idea of a workers’ holiday, but it definitely emerged from the ranks of organized labor at a time when they wanted to demonstrate the strength of their burgeoning movement and inspire improvements in their working conditions.

In 1884 the first Monday in September was selected as the holiday, as originally proposed, and the Central Labor Union urged similar organizations in other cities to follow the example of New York and celebrate a “workingmen’s holiday” on that date. The idea spread with the growth of labor organizations, and in 1885 Labor Day was celebrated in many industrial centers of the country.

Here are some quick tips on how to celebrate labor the union way:

• Fire up your Weber grill, made by the International Union of Allied Novelty and Production Workers.

• Grill some all-beef Butterball patties. If you are in the mood for hot dogs and brats, Oscar Meyer, Nathan’s and Johnsonville have what you are looking for.

• Add some Heinz Ketchup, Gulden’s Mustard and Vlasic pickles.

• Throw it all on a Wonder Bread bun.

• Funyuns, Fritos and Doritos are good side options.

• Wash it all down with a cold Budweiser or any other union-made brew. And there’s Minute Maid juices for the younger set.

Update: The Agonist has some good reading about Eugene V. Debs, who ran for president in 1920 from his prison cell.

When Republican Warren Harding was elected, he commuted Debs' sentence and invited him to the White House. The day after leaving the Atlanta Penitentiary, Harding greeted Debs at the White House with these words: "Well, I've heard so damned much about you, Mr. Debs, that I am now glad to meet you personally." It was a different time.

CNN's John King on the Houston mayoral race

Sunday Funnies

Obama pantsed the Republicans today

President Obama announced on Saturday that he will ask Congress for authorization to launch military strikes against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s military in response to his alleged use of chemical weapons last week.

Obama reiterated that the United States has concluded that Assad’s forces gassed civilians and opposition fighters in a rebel-held suburb of Damascus on Aug. 21 and said “this menace must be confronted.”

“The United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets,” Obama said, adding that while he believes he has the authority as Commander-in-Chief to order strikes, he “will seek authorization for the use of force” from Congress. Obama also outlined what the campaign would entail, saying that any U.S. military action in Syria would not be an open ended intervention but one that is meant to hold Assad accountable and to deter him and degrade his ability from using chemical weapons in the future. 

For the record, I am dead set against any action in Syria, even "limited" action (which is probably defined as a hundred or so Tomahawk missles fired from ships and jets).

But, echoing comments from Secretary of State John Kerry on Friday, Obama asked: “what message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children and pay no price? … We are the United States of America. We cannot and must not turn a blind eye to what happened in Damascus.”

The president also said that Congress will debate and vote on the authorization for force in Syria when it returns from the August recess. “I am ready to act in the face of this outrage,” he said. “Today I’m asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move forward together as one nation.” 

I've already posted my opinion on Hawk Kerry, who is acting like a Secretary of War and not State. What a disgrace, and he seems completely oblivious to it.

But that's not the news. Today Obama put the GOP in a trick bag. Painted them into a corner. And they don't know whether to shit or wind their wristwatch.

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, yesterday.

“There are potential repercussions,” Paul said on Fox News Channel. “If he launches this little piddly attack with a few cruise missiles, it won’t stop chemical weapons, but it may well insight a gas attack on Israelis. I think it’s a big mistake.”

Paul said that if military action is undertaken, it should only happen after Congress signs off.

Cong. Peter King of New York, today.

"President Obama is abdicating his responsibility as commander-in-chief and undermining the authority of future presidents. The President does not need Congress to authorize a strike on Syria. If [Syrian President Bashar] al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons against civilians deserves a military response, and I believe it does, and if the President is seeking congressional approval, then he should call Congress back into a special session at the earliest date. The President doesn’t need 535 Members of Congress to enforce his own red line."

The Senate will pass whatever the president wants -- and with Republican votes like John McCain and Lindsey Graham -- but there's enough anti-war liberals and tea partiers in the House that a resolution to strike Syria will probably fail (without lots of strings attached).

Can you imagine a tough-talking Republican -- like say, my Congressman, John Culberson -- trying to explain his vote when he gets primaried from the right?

If he votes 'yes'...he obviously can't criticize Obama for taking action. 'Support the president in a time of war' and all that.  If he votes 'no'... he looks like a pussy. Bowing down to Assad.

To be certain, this has ALWAYS been the dynamic when military strikes are on the table. Hawks and doves, tough guys versus pantywaists. And a few other categories.

A 'no' vote isn't going to make Obama look bad, because he'll just fire the Tomahawks anyway if he feels like it (and he obviously does). See, he's not up for re-election next year. And besides, some Americans think war presidents are hot.

What Republicans are not grasping is that you have to be against war on moral principles, not because you're tired of fighting wars or because you don't want to spend any more money. You have to be against -- or for -- war no matter who's in the White House. Otherwise you just look like a partisan hypocrite.

Not that it bothers them to be one of those...

What's also disgraceful is John Boehner not calling the House back into session until September 9. TEN DAYS from now.

Nothing gets in the way of the Republican House avoiding work. Not even voting on military action in Syria.

House leaders issued a statement saying that “serious, substantive” questions were being raised regarding Syria and they are so glad that the President is asking them to vote because this is so important, constitution, blah blah – oh, and they are going to take the measure up on September 9th, which is another way of saying they are not coming back early from vacation for this “serious, substantive” matter.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) today issued the following joint statement.

“Under the Constitution, the responsibility to declare war lies with Congress. We are glad the president is seeking authorization for any military action in Syria in response to serious, substantive questions being raised. In consultation with the president, we expect the House to consider a measure the week of September 9th. This provides the president time to make his case to Congress and the American people.”

Can you imagine if Democrats had told Bush they’d get back to him on Iraq when they were done with vacation?

This was to be expected by this House, after all, they are only planning on working 9 days in September.

Obama has bamboozled them.  Every last one of them.

Update: The New York Times has the backstory on how it all went down, focusing just on the policy and not the politics.

Why the mayor's pay raises are a BFD

Because perception is reality.  Altering the perception is why so many people are trying to spin the matter one way or another.

Those who have followed the previous reporting on this topic don't need to be caught up, but let's provide a one-paragraph summary anyway for casual observers.

In 2011 Mayor Annise Parker laid off around 750 city employees because she did not want to raise any taxes or fees in order to balance the budget, but about the same time she began granting -- and has accelerated since then -- significant salary increases to high-level staff members.  The city's firefighters, no pal of the mayor's, have heavily criticized the move, and the president of one of the unions representing city employees called it "heartbreaking".  But the police officers' union (big supporters) stood behind her, contending that 'the market' dictated that the key people around the mayor were underpaid compared to similar jobs in the private sector, and were thus worthy of the increases once the city's financial footing was secured.  Even Richard Shaw, head of the local AFL-CIO, backed Parker up, saying (somewhat unnecessarily, unless he's extending a private fight into public view), "The firefighters need to quit whining".

For the record also, Noah at Texpatriate led the reaction in the left blogosphere, calling it a "phony" issue, and has supplied considerable inside information to support that POV.

Parker's highest-profile challenger, Ben Hall, has -- as with several other opportunities -- tried and failed to make this much of a campaign issue so far.  A couple of the local uber-insiders have the best interpretation of the affair for today...

GOP communications consultant Jim McGrath said the issue will be little more than water-cooler fodder at City Hall unless Hall can show a pattern of such decisions.

"Taxpayers and voters care about their well-being and their future and if the mayor has failed in some regard as it relates to that, that's something you can get traction with," McGrath said. "This inside baseball stuff will not fundamentally alter the dynamics of a race that isn't looking good for Mr. Hall at present."

Democratic political consultant Mustafa Tameez agreed: "This is not going to be seen well by the public, but something like this doesn't make or break the election."

So for everyone who thinks it's no big deal -- or hopes it won't be -- here's a news flash: it should be, and it ought to be.  And while Hall cannot find any traction with the topic, it appears that another of Parker's challengers, Don Cook, has.  This is from his campaign bulletin last night, via text message.

"It is characteristic of the insensitivity of this administration that Ms. Mayor Parker would give these massive pay raises to staff members while the 747 people she laid off in 2011 have not been rehired.  Parker claims credit for turning the local economy around, although an outside observer might conclude that has more to do with the city's position atop the carbon energy food chain.

"But Houston's economic recovery, as with the rest of the country, has been limited to those at the very top," Cook said.  "In fact, the highest 7% of wage earners have seen increases in their incomes of an average 28%, while the lower 93% of Americans have experienced real income deductions of 3%.  This business of the Mayor's is just more feather bedding for the elite while the rest of us tighten our belts.

"As Mayor, I pledge that not only will I rehire those 747 employees, I will only claim $31,138 of the current mayor's salary of $209,138, and find something better to spend the remaining $178,000 on."

The 31K figure is based on current estimates of a 'living wage' as being $15 per hour, a 40-hour work week, and a 52-week year.  "I figure the mayor, along with everybody else, deserves a living wage," said Cook.

That is how you make a mountain out of a molehill.  Alas, I predict the corporate media will overlook this candidate's statement... seeing as how we're headed into a holiday weekend and all.  After all, "nobody pays attention to political campaigns until after Labor Day".  Right?

Update: I'm delighted to see that the HouChron e-board proved me wrong and referenced Cook's press release Saturday morning. They did so as they justified the pay raises and slammed Ben Hall, but their mention of Cook's name and pledge still qualifies as progress, however minute it may be.

In other news, here's the ballot order for all local candidates standing for election in November.

Uber ridesharing service coming to Houston (Part II)

(Part I is here)

Mike Morris' piece at the Chron names the power players for the two sides involved in Uber's entry into the Houston market. We'll pick it up where the battle lines are drawn.

Yellow Cab CEO Roman Martinez and Joe Jordan, president of the Houston Limousine Operators Networking Group, labeled Uber a rogue operator.

Martinez, whose Yellow Cab and affiliated companies field 1,400 vehicles, said Uber's service will skim the best trips in the city, hurting the taxi industry and curtailing its ability to give rides to the poor or disabled.

"We don't understand why Uber would want to change existing law instead of operating under current ordinance just like all of us have been doing for years," Martinez said. "It's unfair for them to come in the market and say, 'Now we're going to get rid of all these rules and regulations so we can get into the market.' "

Yellow Cab affiliate Towne Car operates sedans at the same price as cabs, said lobbyist Cindy Clifford. She is joined on the cabs' lobby team by Felix Chavelier and former council member Sue Lovell. Uber has hired lobbyists Jeri Brooks, David Gonzalez, Robert Miller, Neftali Partida and Nancy Sims.

"Every place they go, they say, 'We're only going to use established, licensed operators; we're clean as choir boys.' And as time goes on they start using anybody with a pulse and a running vehicle," Jordan said. "If there's an issue with the city or a ripped-off client, where are you going to go? You going to go complain to a website? It'd be chaos if they let Uber come in."

That's really the best word to describe Uber: chaos. Another clarifying adverb is 'disruptor'. More on disruptor companies here, here, and here.

The Original Disruptor, as both Jen Sorensen above (and perhaps you) surmise, is Wal-Mart. Or rather, Walmart. In attaining their goal to compete solely on the basis of price, they succeeded in bullying both their suppliers and employees into accepting the lowest price Walmart was willing to pay, which has culminated in the wholesale destruction of the retail industry's mom-and-pop stores across the United States. This also resulted in the scions of Sam Walton becoming some of the wealthiest people on the planet. They have pushed workers onto welfare, bought off politicians in countries around the world... you probably already well understand the Walmart 'success' story.

Still, before we get back to the business of Uber and how it will affect us both positively and negatively in the Bayou City, more local background is essential.

Yellow Cab and a few other Houston brands (like Fiesta and United Cab) are owned by Texas Taxi Inc., a corporate parent to the Greater Houston Transportation Co. and others. The Houston affiliates currently hold about a 60% market share here, according to their own data, and Texas Taxi also serves Austin, San Antonio, and Galveston. They are in competition with several other smaller taxi and limousine operators, not to mention outfits like SuperShuttle, the jitneys and even pedicabs. In Houston the company employs about 250 dispatchers, mechanics for their fleet of cars, administrative and support personnel as well as nearly 2000 cab drivers as independent contractors. Many employees are long-termers, with 30 and 40 years' service. The companies have a long history of supporting the community, from scholarships to free rides to the polls on Election Day.

By contrast, Uber -- a company with only a smartphone app, no actual cabs or dispatchers, no customer service personnel, no phone number to call if you leave your briefcase in one of their cars, no long-term reputation to protect and no ties to the local community -- got in hot water with New York City after they doubled their rates in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. They called it "surge pricing".

This is the kind of thing that results when there isn't sufficient regulation to protect consumers from gouging. The kind of regulation Uber's CEO calls 'draconian'.

Let's be clear that the argument in favor of ordinance compliance is not naive to the premise that many laws have been written to the prejudice of large corporations seeking to protect their market share. The big banks own the Congress; the oil companies have bought off the Texas Legislature and most of our statewide office-holders, and even the beer distributors in the Lone Star State have long used the Lege to keep a boot on the neck of the microbreweries. But city ordinances compelling taxi cab companies and operators to high standards came about many decades ago primarily as a result of two things: unsafe transportation and unethical operators taking advantage of customers. The public safety of citizens -- and not manipulation of the market by influencing lawmakers -- is why taxis operate in a regulatory environment. Houston's ordinances have not restrained the many and varied competitors listed previously.

Uber's model, simply, is not to play by the rules. They don't want any employees except for a few at the top of their pyramid, they aren't going to have a fleet of cabs that they maintain and service, they don't wish to train, license, insure or support their drivers (except to the barest minimum standard). They simply want to profit by offering a service designed to cut every single cost of doing business... except for the lobbyists to get them their way in the beginning, and the lawyers to clean up their messes after the fact.

Here's a checklist that describes the differences in greater detail.

Comparison Chart r4

It is not restraining commerce to ask the city to enforce laws already on the books. But in the spirit of "letting the market decide", go read some of the reviews at Uber's Google Play page. You'll find some really good ones and some really bad ones. Then do something you rarely, if ever, do: carefully read the terms of service. Among the eye-widening disclosures, you'll find that in order to litigate a dispute with Uber, you must file your case in The Netherlands. The damage limit for a successful tort claim of this type in that country is... wait for it... 500 euros.

You might also be aware that just as Uber gives their passenger a quick customer-satisfaction survey at the end of the ride, its drivers are also rating you.

In my humble O, Uber should be able to easily comply with the city of Houston's long-standing and generally accepted good business practices in regard to providing transportation services -- or brokering such, as they claim. If they decide they can't, then there are lots of other sandboxes they can play in.

The matter will likely be resolved by Houston city council sometime after the November election, so now would be a great time to quiz your favorite candidate for mayor or council about whether they support -- or oppose -- Uber's "disruptor" business model.