First is so the Lege could resubmit bills such as this passel vetoed by Gov. Helmethair, Rick Perry. (From the 2005 79th regular session; we do not have a full list of vetoes from this year yet.)
Second is as I mentioned in a newspaper column last summer, during the education funding crisis and multiple special sessions — you wouldn’t have monster craps like that being left on a special-session plate.
Third is so that well-meaning but somewhat badly written laws, under the press of time, wouldn’t get sent to the gov for likely veto.
Fourth and related is so that well-meaning but really badly designed bills wouldn’t get lost in a black hole for two years.
Fifth, and related to three and four, is that knowing a bill could come up again in a year, would allow more thought to be placed into it.
Sixth is knowing that someone like the Monarch of Midland, Tom Craddick, would be more accountable to the House with a session every year.
Seventh is that Texas, were it an independent country, would have one of the world’s 20 largest economies. Would you run a country like this?
Now, I know Texans will never sign off on a full-time legislature, though. But, take a lesson from the neighbors to the west, at least.
Be like New Mexico. Have a long-term session in odd-numbered years, and a shorter session, with a narrower focus, in even-numbered years. Say a 110-day session and a 40-day session, at minimum. That would be two more weeks than now, plus a slower pace over two sessions.
Governance would surely be more productive.
No comments:
Post a Comment