Houston Democrats

Good job Lyn, clearing this up quickly! Now we can all easily explain Rep. Edwards' vote if other Democrats have any question about it. Thank you.
Susan Gates

Thanks for taking the time to call Al Edwards. That certainly makes the logic of voting for HB3 much clearer.

Kudos to Lyn for communicating in a manner that helps us to understand "the method behind the madness." Your efforts to talk to Al Edwards personally is an important example for others to follow.

Something like this probably happened. But, it just raises questions about those as pass for Democratic Leadership. It does not answer questions about Al Edwards.

Edwards is a Craddick man, pure and simple. He represents himself in the Legislature and on the DNC. So, is Craddick the Democratic Leadership now? If not, who is this pathetic Democratic Leadership anyway? Where do they -- we -- stand on taxation relative to the GOP?

My guess is that our actual legislative leaders are no more than consultant/lobbyists who want a piece of the action from all the horse-trading on loopholes Yes, there will be some small-change left on the counter from bargaining over exemptions and abatements, and stuff. But, what is the Democratic Party or popular interest in any of that b...s?

Let me explain that "broadening the tax base" is just another GOP code-phrase for shifting taxation off of the rich and onto the poor, for making taxation "voluntary" for the wealthy, the very wealthy actually, and for imposing a comprehensive police-state on the rest of the populace. The GOP has an elaborate philosophy for this sort of thing and they are relentlessly pursuing it with the help of Vichy Democrats.

Collection of regressive and indirect taxes requires an extensive police-state and inherently corrupt monopoly rent-sharing. It is not just inefficient; it is oppressive and addictive. That is why we have a constitutional provision for uniform levy of a tax on real property ad valorem. These crack-cocaine alternatives Al Edwards voted for are extra-constitutional improvisation, self-administered suicide, in our case.

Democrats cannot keep entering into bargaining situations that we are bound to lose. Does anybody seriously think that Al Edwards is going to single-handedly extract anything for anybody but himself from the conference committee by siding with one Republican against another?

No, the GOP has a majority in the Texas House. They are going to get whatever the tax bill they can agree among themselves on. There is no constitutional or practical barrier to that whatsoever.

So, now, the GOP has Al Edwards to laugh at and refer complaints from their red-neck constituents to. And, more of the people that we purport to represent will be driven down into the underground economy where everybody seeks to avoid taxes and nobody wastes time voting for stupid or corrupt Democrats, as if there was a difference.

Thanks, Lyn. It certainly explains the after-session dealing that goes on in the halls of the Capitol. But if we are "required" to go along in order to just be included in the final discussion, well, we'll only be fighting to soften the blow. I would rather we take a stand and go down showing how bad they are.

I would think that taking this approach allows us the "political capital" necessary to stick it to them, without giving them the opportunity to say, "well, Al Edwards supported it." Ultimately our go along to get attention excuse won't work with the voters we hope to target in the future.

When it comes to this issue, Democrats provided a strong alternative that was beaten away by the Republicans. It is these opportunities that we must take advantage of in our campaigns. This is nothing against Rep. Edwards since apparently he points to the leadership (whoever they may be), I am just thinking about the political future of the Democratic Party.

Rather than cutting Al Edwards down and immediately calling for his expulsion from the Texas Delegation to the DNC, etc., let's try to look at why Al Edwards voted for HB3 from his and the Democratic Party's point of view.

The GOP certainly holds a majority in the House, 87 Republicans compared to 63 Democrats. Since it only takes a simple majority to pass a bill, as long as the Republicans are generally united in passing a measure, there isn't a whole lot that Democrats can do. In this case, whether we like it or not, Democratic votes basically become largely symbolic.

I don't think, and most people probably don't expect, Al Edwards to have much of a chance to achieve a great deal by being the lone Democrat attempting to work with the Republicans, especially since the Republicans have no apparent reason or need to compromise with just one Democrat.

However, I believe the outcome of the vote was fairly well-known before the vote occurred since most legislators don't appreciate surprises. Most Republicans would vote for HB3 and most Democrats would vote against it. Since the conference committee would not include any members that voted against the bill, the question then becomes, "Does one vote against the bill, precluding oneself from having any say in its final wording, or does one vote yes and attempt to do everything practicable to try and make it the best it can be given the circumstances?"

Clearly, the Democrats chose the latter option in order to make sure the Democratic Party had some voice, even if a small one, in crafting the final bill. Therefore, one Democrat would have to vote for it. With only one Democrat voting for it, the Democratic Party still presents a solid position to the people, which obviously had the intended effect since there were a lot of people ready to take Edwards to the meat grinder for not voting with the rest of the Democrats against HB3.

Al Edwards being the one to vote for it makes some sense. First, with 26 years of experience, he is the fourth most senior Democrat in the House, after Paul Moreno (36 years), James Laney (32 years), and Senfronia Thompson (32 years) (Source). Additionally, Edwards has run unopposed for at least the last two election cycles in District 146, so the Democrats did not risk a close seat (Source). Furthermore, he believes in broadening the tax base to include businesses that are currently exempt from the franchise tax, and HB3 does maintain an exemption for small businesses that make less than $150,000 per year. Therefore, since Edwards is a senior member, has strong constituent support, and had reasonable cause to support the bill, regardless of whether we think that reason should have out-weighed all other negatives, he was the logical person to vote for HB3.

As it turned out, one more vote against HB3 would not have changed the outcome. According to the House Journal, HB3 passed with 73 Yeas, 68 Nays, 4 Present, not voting.

Given what we know, it is apparent that the Democrats came to a consensus that Edwards would take one for the team. Now let's see what Al Edwards can accomplish, knowing that the Democratic Party has done everything in its power given the current balance of power in the Texas House of Representatives.

Thanks again to Lyn for her investigative reporting

Once again, this "official blog's" well-spoken apologist comes up with another fawning rationale for this county's leading Vichy Democrat. Marc's most dubious premise is "the Democrats chose". Actually, the Speaker offered and Edwards decided. It is that simple.

There is no Democratic leadership in the Texas House that Edwards follows. In fact, there is no Democratic leadership in the Texas House.

So, what is Marc's game here? Plainly, it is to support "broadening the tax base". Just remember, that phrase is nothing but fatuous spin on regressive, discriminatory, and indirect taxation -- the GOP program for which the Vichy Democrats have no alternative. This party has supported that tax program for the better part of thirty years now and steadily declined.

Yes, it was a sort of mellow liberalism, at first. But, it is getting to be harder and harder stuff. The GOP is importing the crack-cocaine of public finance wholesale. The Vichy Democrats are taking it to the street watered-down and marked-up.

So, when do we stop our slow suicide?

MODERATOR's NOTE: This is an important discussion of how ideology and practicality conflict in the political process. All of us want to further the cause of the Democratic party, whether or not we agree on the best way to go about that. We need to respect and discuss each other's points of view.

"Broadening the tax base" actually has a great deal of bipartisan support. There are, to be sure, several non-sticking points with HB3 - some that are even beneficial. But the net effect of the bill and the push to make Texas the not-so-proud possessor of the nation's highest sales tax, more than make up for that.

But still, Mark ... let's be real. The "vichy Democrat" slam just doesn't carry any water. This isn't really the crowd to be labelling that with, so save it for the Van Os campaign rallies.

I'm more than willing to let Al Edwards explain his votes and the rationales behind them. Even though I may have more scepticism than Marc, I'm at least going to offer Al a fair hearing. The biggest part of what strikes some of us who are sceptical of Al's actions here is that it doesn't quite mesh fully with the Al we've known to represent his constituency in the past.

Now, that said, there's a way to get to the bottom of it and deriding your own party's leadership as "no more than consultant/lobbyists who want a piece of the action from all the horse-trading on loopholes" will only hasten a "slow suicide" rather than accomplish anything to avoid it. In short, keep the criticisms relevant and save the overboard material for lifeboats.

We can argue or debate, or in some cases, insult as much as we want. Ultimately, Rep. Edwards must answer to his own constituents and not to those of us that do not live in his district. At this point all we can do is do our part to lobby against HB2 and HB3 as they make their way over to the State Senate--which has its own ideas on how to move forward.

The bottom line is that the battle isn't over. Even if we come out at the losing end during this session, it is our responsibility to collect all of these Republican doings toward utilizing them in 2006 for Democrats' benefit. Let's be proactive!

p.s. If this is about Edwards' DNC seat, then take it up at convention!

Actually, Stace ... there are provisions for removal of DNC members for a reason: so they can be taken up outside of conventions.

I don't see anywhere in the rules of the House or Senate that concurs with Mr. Edwards explantion. The rules talk about 5 members appointed by the presiding officer for each chamber.

Now if Mr. Edwards cut a deal wtih Mr. Craddick, let's hear about it. Did it have anything to do with s statue with Mr. Edward's likeness that is rumorred to be placed on the Capitol grounds? What do Craddick and the Republican's get out of having Edwards on the conference?

In my humble opinion, Mr. Edward's excuses have not justified the subsequent inability of every Democratic candidate to declare in a loud voice, "Not one Democratic voted for this corrupt tax scheme. Vote Democratic to bring back common sense and balance to Austin. The large corporate interests have bought and paid for their Republican representatives, but working people's interets have been ignored. These republicans have proven that when they have the majority -- they can't govern. They are no longer RepubliCANS -- they have corrupted themselves in RepubliCAN'Ts!"

Instead, now the Republican't can say that this bill came out of a "bi-partisan" conference committee.

When are we as a party going to quit paying games and instead stand up in strong opposition to Republican thuggery?