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.
That entirely depends on the body in question. I would classify a lot as "comedy".
It doesn't matter where you are. The whole situation isn't about topless clubs, it is about property taxes and school finances.
Is she a demonrat or rino?
Neither, really. She is an opportunist demagogue. She and Perry have an ongoing feud, probably because she wants his job. Perry is what passes for a RINO in Texas, although elsewhere he would be considered pretty conservative.
Personally, I would like to seal both of them in a concrete box and drop it into a deep part of the ocean. But Perry is on the right side of this issue, and she is just taking potshots at the expense of Texas property owners for her own political gain.
AAAHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEIIIIIIIIIIIAAAAAAAAAAAA
I agree - the taxes are outrageous. I say that every family that has a student in school should pay pay a little something per head above and beyond whatever 'share-the-pain' tax plan we end up getting. Say, pay $20 per month per student.
We need to take the burden of funding public schools off the back of the property owner and then we need to fix the schools.
You see life through rose colored glasses, IMO.
As I said, I know, personally, a number of women who had to do this. It was their choice but it was, again IMO, their ONLY choice if they wanted to go to college and graduate in a normal time frame.
Their parents couldn't afford to pay for it. They made too much money working a normal job for a student loan. They didn't have the grades for a scholarship. What would you have them do? Try to work a normal job, go, part time, to college nights and graduate in 10 years? Yes, some have done that. Some have missed many years of good pay by doing it.
These women wanted to graduate in a normal 3 to 5 year time frame.
Personally, I don't think she could make a very good mother. Because she has shown that she does not value herself very high. So, can she raise a daughter to do so?
Personally, you shouldn't speak of things you don't know personally. Quite a number of these women have told me that one reason they did this was so their daughters, if they had one, wouldn't have to do it.
Because a women isn't afraid to show her body she doesn't value herself? As I said above, a number of these women are upstanding citizens at this moment, married, holding down good jobs, with children, someone that a young girl would do well to emulate.
They don't dwell on the fact that they succeeded by allowing others to view their nude bodies, neither do they try to hide it.
To them it's a fact of life just like someone that let their parents pay for their college education.
Let's see, I can be a slut and graduate in five years, or retain my virtue and take six.
Their parents couldn't afford to pay for it. They made too much money working a normal job for a student loan.
If she made so much money in a "normal" job, she didn't have to strip. I worked 40 hours a week in college. I still qualified for student loans. Actually, nearly anyone can qualify for student loans. The question is whether you can qualify for subsidized student loans.
They didn't have the grades for a scholarship. What would you have them do? Try to work a normal job, go, part time, to college nights and graduate in 10 years? Yes, some have done that.
Money or morals, money or morals, money or morals, who can choose?
Some have missed many years of good pay by doing it. These women wanted to graduate in a normal 3 to 5 year time frame.
It took me eight years to graduate. Would I like to have been out earlier? Sure, but not at the expense of my dignity or morality. When someone is willing to sell those things it boils down to one thing: She is a prostitute. And as long as she can look back on doing it without regret she is still a prostitute.
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.