Beep! Beep!
Posted on 04/22/2004 5:59:52 AM PDT by Arrowhead1952
Another day, another squabble as Perry-Strayhorn fight continues.
By Ken Herman and Michelle M. Martinez
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Thursday, April 22, 2004
Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn, dabbling in subject matter a tad sexier than the usual daily number crunching, said Wednesday that the state should shut down all topless bars by prohibiting them from selling alcoholic drinks.
The proposal is the latest in what have become daily Strayhorn attacks on Gov. Rick Perry's proposed school finance package. The Perry plan, aimed at drumming up more money for public schools while reducing property taxes, includes a proposed $5 admission surcharge at adult entertainment venues.
What kind of state, Strayhorn said, would depend on that kind of money to pay for schools? What kind of governor, Strayhorn asked, would propose such a thing?
"I don't want my five granddaughters growing up in a state where the governor says partnering with sexually oriented nightclubs is an acceptable way to finance their education," she said.
Strayhorn is considering challenging Perry when he seeks re-election in 2006. Both are Republicans.
Perry defended the proposed fee, noting it aligns with his goal of increasing taxes on "unhealthy" behavior. He also wants a dollar-per-pack hike in cigarette taxes.
"There are a lot of activities that are legal in the state of Texas that some individuals find to be distasteful and not appropriate," he said.
Perry noted that "the question has come up: Why don't you raise the liquor tax?
"The fact of the matter is, drinking a glass of wine is not necessarily an unhealthy activity," he said.
Perry also wants to legalize slot-machine-like devices at the state's pari-mutuel tracks. He declined to categorize gambling as an unhealthy activity.
"The state has said clearly that it is going to accept gambling as a form of entertainment to be legal in the state of Texas," he said, pointing to popular votes that legalized the state lottery and pari-mutuel gambling at horse and dog tracks.
Strayhorn was adamant in her call for legislation barring alcohol at "sexually oriented nightclubs."
"If these clubs can stay in business selling lemonade and iced tea, at least I will feel better about the safety of the dancers," she said. "Alcohol can make the meek violent, the quiet loud and the passive aggressive. People can and do get hurt in these clubs."
Strayhorn, branding Perry's proposal as a "sleaze tax," said the true goal would be to put the clubs out of business.
Perry and Strayhorn have been going at it all week, beginning Monday, when, in numbers vehemently challenged by Perry, she said his plan would produce a $10 billion deficit after five years, provide little meaningful property tax relief and do little to help schools.
Perry on Wednesday criticized Strayhorn's analysis as a "shoddy, fly-by-night" effort based on "eye-popping miscalculations."
"It is an astonishing fact that the top number cruncher in this state could be so wrong on the numbers and the facts about my plan," he said.
Said Strayhorn, "How dare this governor question the integrity of this office?"
But Perry was not alone in questioning Strayhorn's operation.
Rep. Mike Krusee, R-Round Rock and a Perry ally, admonished her staff during a meeting of the House Select Committee on Public School Finance and questioned the comptroller's estimates of how much new money each school district would receive under Perry's plan.
Krusee put Perry's plan on the table Wednesday as a starting point for the committee, which can use any part of Perry's plan -- or none of it -- as it crafts the House's school finance bill.
Strayhorn's numbers, which showed many districts would get no additional money under Perry's plan, differed substantially from a similar report issued by Perry's office.
Krusee said the report inaccurately puts the Lexington school district in his district.
"You said you had a real high degree of confidence in your numbers. You got the school districts wrong," Krusee told James LeBas, the comptroller's chief revenue estimator. "You still have a high degree of confidence in your numbers?"
LeBas stood by his numbers and defended his boss: "I'm sure the comptroller had every intention, and still does, on being helpful to the Legislature."
Strayhorn's office said it plans to release new estimates, and House Appropriations Chairman Talmadge Heflin, R-Houston, said work will be needed to reconcile any differences between the two sets of numbers.
"We don't know right now whether it's apples and oranges, pears and oranges, kumquats and bananas or whatever," Heflin said.
I'll even admit (as a supporter) she's going overboard in going after Perry, but then again he brought it on himself when he decided he'd try to reduce the authority of the comptroller..you play with matches..
Regardless of what anybody says, I think Perry's plan is pretty idiotic. Like you said, this is Texas, we deserve better than this.
If you can't think up anything better when it comes to funding the state education budget (even just part of it) with funds from immoral practices, and introducing more gambling at the same time, you shouldn't be governnor.
I've got an idea, let's tie the pay of the upper members of the state government to booze, cigarettes, topless dancers, and gambling. If not enough people go out and smoke, drink, dance, and gamble, then we see a reduction in their pay. They would start coming up with a better budget, and cutting out the pork as well.
If Perry's plan were to go through somehow, I can hear it now. "Honey, I'm going down to the topless bar, and then the racetrack, and on the way I'm going to smoke a pack or two. Believe me, I'm just doing this to help pay for our child's education, normally I wouldn't do those kinds of things" ;-)
Affirmative! And if you happen to run across any topless women in the process, interact in the appropriate manner.
Ok, easy lesson as to why this is a real bad idea except as a way to illustrate a point.
"Thats what the Taliban say too."
Is what you posted, in reference to my assertion that morals are absolute. Who are the Taliban, and what are they primarily known for? Being autocratic murdering thugs. So throwing the Taliban out there is equating moral absolutism with autocratic murdering thugs. And no, actually the Taliban aren't moral absolutists at all. They aren't exactly moral relativists either, except in a wierd sort of reversed way.
What you are really saying is that you view moral absolutism as being autocratic and brutal in nature. It isn't. There are millions of moral absolutists across this nation, and we are one of the most peaceful nations on the face of the globe. So that equation is just so much garbage too.
Pronounce that line carefully - you probably don't want to say "Tit's for the children..."
Look how many states encourage gambling to fund schools. How much does the state of Nevada get from legalized prostitution? The real obscenity is how much revenue is squandered by the states.
Darling, Never come to Las Vegas or Reno, Nevada! We've got whore houses in the surrounding counties. (Unless you're looking to earn some cash on the side (or your back)
Beep! Beep!
Yeah, that George Washington was a real libertine.
Can you imagine a scenario in which a moral absolutist would allow something which they considered immoral to be practiced if they were in charge of making the laws and enforcing them? I can't.
Besides titty bars, what immoral things would you want the freedom to do?
Whether or not they are brutal depends largely on their morals, but I believe we can count on them to be autocratic. Every theocracy since the beginning of time has been autocratic. After all, what is the point of knowing the "one true way", if you cannot force those less fortunate to follow the "path of enlightenment"?
Probably the most libertarian society in antiquity would have been the ancient Israelites. There is more to being free than being able to screw your neighbor's wife. There is also the ability to start a business, own land, and keep your own wife without the king appropriating these things for himself.
One of the biggest mistakes of Libertarians is not understanding that freedom is not comprised of permission from the government, but limitations on the power of government.
They may not agree among themselves just exactly what those moral absolutes are, but they are far more consistent in their moral absolutism than you, and your millions of fellow moral absolutists, are in this country.
Why, because we believe in freedom and you think moral relativism is required for freedom? One of the cornerstones of moral absolutism is being bound by the morals you require of everyone else. The Taliban in particular and Islam in general do exactly the opposite. They have one standard for themselves and an entirely different standard for "infidels."
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.