An article appeared in the Austin American-Statesman this past week which focused on the new Texas Enterprise Fund and its critics. The Governor and others (correctly) cited my economic development study as support for this initiative. Yet critics cited (incredibly) my study of Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) cuts as evidence that we shouldn’t have the Fund. This story made its way around the country through the miracles of modern technology, and I received more than a few calls and emails.
This little incident provides me with an opportunity to answer an oft-asked question—“So just what are you, Republican or Democrat? Liberal or Conservative? Just when I think I have you figured out, you surprise me.” Let me try to set the record straight.
While I have very dear friends in positions of leadership and responsibility who answer to all of these labels, I can answer to none of them. (In fact, none of them as used today even constitute an internally consistent set of beliefs, but that’s a story for another time.) I examine individual issues with meticulous research, extensive modeling of underlying patterns, and the lessons from history and the streets. I am an unabashed advocate for what I believe to be in the best interest of Texas, irrespective of the labels others may put on them. I am often praised and criticized by the same groups within a matter of days, and I accept that as part of the role I am able to play.
The two issues mentioned above are a perfect case in point. In my Texas, Our Texas, I pointed out many areas where our incremental economic development efforts were lagging. The most significant of these was the need for a flexible, deal-closing capability as provided by the Texas Enterprise Fund. I also advocated simplifying the Enterprise Zone program, correcting certain aspects of the Economic Development Sales Tax, an Economic Development Bank, a more active role for the Governor, and several other items that were enacted (and a lot of others that weren’t). The Fund is just getting started, and it has already played a leveraging role in stemming the risk of losing Sematech, landing a major chip plant in Dallas, and spurring notable investments in next generation university research and technology initiatives. It has also put Texas back on the map for large new locations (before this year, we hadn’t had one since 1996), and we are now in the hunt for several more and have the resources to land them. These gains alone go a long way towards ensuring our future growth and more than justify the Fund.
In the same massive report, I also stated that Texas needed to ensure a number of “fundamental” factors to achieve our destiny—good roads and transportation systems, a clean environment, a fair judicial system to resolve legitimate disputes, high quality education at all levels, a viable healthcare system, and a tax system that was both equitable and capable of meeting the needs of a growing population. Within that framework, the cuts that were enacted in indigent healthcare funding were improper and inefficient. The loss of federal matching dollars at a time when resources were scarce and the direct effects on local taxes and insurance rates made any reported savings nothing more than an illusion. Many of the original proposed cuts were restored and newly available revenues may bring back even more. I certainly hope that happens; it’s good policy, and it makes sense.
The essential point is simply that the Enterprise Fund and Medicaid were not tied together in any way. It was never a case of having to sacrifice one for the other. The legislature could have fully funded both (or neither, for that matter). I suggested numerous other sources of potential savings and revenues (without raising taxes), as did many others. It was never even discussed as an “either/or” proposition. By that logic, we could link the decision to repair roads to the decision not to send a Texan to Mars.
I guess the closest thing I can offer to a label is practical common sense. It would be foolish to not do the things we must do to be competitive in the long run and thus gain prosperity and a permanent solution to our recent fiscal dilemma, as foolish as a farmer eating his seed corn. It is of equal folly to give up $2 or $3 in outside money from a cash-strapped system merely to perpetuate the myth that we are saving an internal dollar.
I believe passionately that Texas can achieve long-range growth, fiscal responsibility, and high marks in education, healthcare, transportation, the environment, judicial fairness and many other areas. That belief does not reflect the starry-eyed naïveté that was perhaps enjoyed by an intense young man from twenty-five years ago, whose skin I inhabit. It stems rather from many years of incessant study and active participation in the process and all the battle scars that come with the struggles. I have witnessed great strides during this time—reforms in trucking, insurance, retail electricity, workers’ compensation, infrastructure funding, and civil justice—to name but a few. I have also seen us move into a position where we can be genuinely competitive in our economic development initiatives. It has been my pleasure (mostly) to be involved in all of the issues, and there is much left to be done. The next year will bring a major debate on how we should fund our public schools, and with it an opportunity to reform and improve our antiquated tax system. I have weighed in on that issue before and will certainly do so again. The past successes and future prospects have filled me with optimism and enthusiasm about what can be and will be achieved in Texas.
Unlike my much admired and respected friends who must make the ultimate decisions, I do not have to answer to the voters or financial contributors with specific agendas. With that liberty comes the obligation to be objective and, in all circumstances, call ’em exactly as I see ’em. I don’t know how to do anything else, no matter what they call me.