Stage Five: Texas' Rainy Day Fund

The Rainy Day Fund is a savings account that Texas can use to cover a budget deficit, an unexpected revenue shortfall, or a natural catastrophe. Under Governor Rick Perry, this fund has been staunchly protected from being utilized during these tough economic times. One event was the Bastrop County wildfires of 2011. The Rainy Day Fund was also considered to fill budget gaps in public school education and Medicaid, particularly gaps affecting the elderly, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and providers of those services. Since Texas is sitting on a hefty nest egg of approximately six billion dollars, is there any reason why it should not be utilized for such emergencies as it was intended to cover?

The probability of natural disasters such as wildfires occurring during a drought season calls for urgent measures to pay for it through available revenue. Perry has repeatedly stated he is protecting the fund because it is an insurance policy in case of a major natural catastrophe. If the wildfires are not a major unforeseen act of nature in the same category as hurricanes and floods, what kind of event are they classified under? The Bastrop County wildfires alone have cost the Texas Forest Service over a million dollars while this agency has seen dramatic budget cuts as it battles blazes in the middle of its wildfire season.

Another issue affecting many Texas students is the quality education they deserve through the public school system and the means to provide it with an appropriately funded budget. How can legislators justify slashing school budgets more when they are already operating on a shoestring budget? This is an inequality to Texas schoolchildren and presents a quandary for public school administrators.  Faced with substantial expected staff layoffs, these cuts will have an adverse effect on the education students receive.

Additionally, Medicaid recipients and providers cannot continually withstand reduced benefits which they were forced to accept under the mandate of Governor Perry in order to balance the state’s budget deficit. Medicaid’s reduced benefits are felt on a vulnerable population – the elderly and children. Slashing aid on someone with a serious ailment could be detrimental to the quality of their life and a costly financial burden to sustain. Decreasing CHIP funds unfavorably affects children and pregnant women mostly in rural communities where many Texans are financially needy. Physicians are unable to offset their costs and forced to turn away Medicaid patients. Hospitals, which are paid additional disproportionate share funds for Medicaid patients, will see their revenue repayment decline in the proposed budget cuts.

While public school education and Medicaid are controversial and important issues affecting many Texans, these entities have a continual need for increased revenue funding as their growth expands. Public schools can find different approaches to raise revenue by property tax increases, trimming administrative costs, or possibly closing schools failing to meet academic achievement standards. Medicaid should be categorized as a national problem, serving the needs of the economically disadvantaged whose eligibility and population growth will continue to rise. Its reform must take place at the national government level due to the complexity of the many healthcare areas it encompasses. Public school education and Medicaid simply cannot be fixed with increased spending or budget cuts alone and requires much more careful deliberation with their respective interested parties.

Stage Four: The Keystone XL Pipeline Project Controversy in Texas

Author Dave Montgomery has written an article titled, Texas becomes a battleground in Keystone XL pipeline controversy in the Lone Star Strong blog dated February 21, 2012. The article is written from a conservative blog that leans toward the Republican Party’s affiliation. Montgomery explains several issues dominating the proposition to move forward with a crude oil pipeline extending from Canada through several states including Texas. Arguments in opposition include complaints from landowners and environmentalists, concerns over water safety, and eminent domain. These issues make the proposition a controversial and political topic of dispute for Texans who are directly impacted by the Keystone XL Pipeline project encroaching upon their properties.

 In my opinion, the author offers equal perspectives from both sides of the issue by pointing out the apprehensions of several Texas residents and businesses whose lives could be positively or negatively impacted by the project. For instance, in opposition, Montgomery cites Julia Trigg Crawford, whose farm is in the pathway of the pipeline and her fear over the land she oversees as well as possible water contamination for the Bois d’Arc Creek. Additionally, the author notes businesswoman, Debra Medina’s stance against TransCanada, XL Pipeline’s company bullying tactics used in coercing property owners to sell their land. He further writes about a small town mayor, Harlan Crawford, whose complaint also echoes that of Ms. Crawford about possible water contamination while Texas is already in a drought condition. Another grievance highlighted in the article is eminent domain. TransCanada has received almost all of the necessary easements needed to build the Texas pipeline. As with any eminent domain controversy, money to successfully win a lawsuit against a company such as TransCanada can be an intimidating and daunting task for many people to fight and win. As a result, many residents have given in to the demands for property acquisition through eminent domain on this East Texas project.

Conversely, the author presents a case for the overall healthy economic future Texans can enjoy as he cites support from Republicans Governor Rick Perry, Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn. There is no question that a project of this magnitude would bring thousands of jobs and an economic boom to Texas, especially as it faces budget shortfalls in areas such as education and Medicaid and these leaders are eager to point this out to their constituents, especially during reelection campaigns. If this project was to fail, Republicans can claim that Texas would have been in a much better financial situation had Keystone XL Pipeline been allowed to proceed as planned. Furthermore, Montgomery quotes Bill McCoy, president of the Greater Port Arthur Chamber of Commerce as stating, "There is not a politician in Texas in their right mind -- I don't care if you're a Democrat or Republican -- that doesn't know the importance of this to all of Texas." The political implications of the Keystone XL Pipeline project can be summed up in the Republican Party’s ability to influence Texans to accept a project without fully understanding the critical environmental concerns it faces. This issue was addressed when President Barak Obama initially rejected TransCanada’s application over a region in Nebraska’s Sandhills. Texans can continue to form grassroots organizations and exhibit their strength through lobbying, peaceful demonstrations and writing their legislators to express their concerns on a project that could potentially have a hazardous effect on the environment and the communities in its area.