Mercury rising: the USGS report tells only part of the story

A new report released last week by the U.S. Geological Survey measuring mercury levels in fish is not the first such warning we’ve had about this. In fact, the report probably understates the seriousness of mercury contamination in America, and certainly in this part of Texas.

According to the report, one of every four fish caught in U.S. rivers, streams and wetlands is contaminated by so much mercury, it is unsafe to eat. That’s sort of like playing Russian roulette with a rod and reel. I mean, given four fish, how do you know which three are safe to eat and which one could leave you with brain damage?

USGS researchers found traces of mercury — a heavy metal that causes brain damage and, when eaten by expectant mothers, birth defects and autism — in every fish it tested. In more than a quarter of those fish, the level of mercury contamination exceeded the levels set by the Environmental Protection Agency as being safe. The fish tested were taken from nearly 300 American rivers, streams and wetland areas.Around here, it’s a lot higher than that. The main source of mercury released into the environment comes from burning low-grade lignite to generate electricity. There have been several studies in the last few years that linked burning lignite coal to extremely high concentrations of mercury in Texas' lakes, streams and marshes.

In 2004, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund released its report, "Reel Danger: Mercury pollution and the fish we eat," which found that 57 percent of the fish sampled in Texas contained unsafe levels of mercury and that 83 percent of both predator and bottom feeding fish, like several varieties of catfish and bass, had unsafe levels of mercury.

Last year, a University of Pittsburgh research group found that fish caught downstream of coal fired electric plants have been contaminated by dangerous levels of mercury. These fish had up to 19 times more mercury than store-bought, farm-raised fish.

Also last year, the University of Texas Health Science Center found the risk of autism is greater for children living near Texas power plants and that the incidence of autism increases as power plants increase emissions of mercury.

This most recent report warning that our lakes and rivers are contaminated with dangerous levels of mercury really shouldn't surprise us. After all, we share our immediate environment with several coal-fired power plants that, in the past, have individually pumped out more than 180,000 tons of airborne solid waste each year.

The new Sandow plant in Rockdale is permitted to emit 300 pounds of mercury annually but the two lignite plants being built near Franklin in Robertson County will combine to generate nearly 1,600 pounds of mercury annually, once they’re on line. The Bremond generating plant is permitted for about 600 pounds annually.

So, we have (or will have) four lignite-burning power plants within about an hour’s drive combining to release more than a ton of mercury into the atmosphere each year — and our state government condones it through its permitting process.

And this doesn’t even count the Limestone plant up in Jewett — about 70 miles away — that has been called the dirtiest power plant in America. The Limestone plant releases 1,800 pounds of mercury each year, more than any other plant in the country. To our shame, Texas is home to five of the nation’s top 10 dirtiest power plants.

I’m not saying that you should never eat fish caught in the Little River, or Lake Sommerville, or Stillhouse Hollow, or Lake Limestone … but, I’d think long and hard before letting my pregnant daughter or granddaughter eat any fish caught in Texas.

Sources on the Web …

The USGS report is here: http://www.doi.gov/news/09_News_Releases/081909.html
The “Reel Danger” report is here: http://agresearch.umd.edu/cfnap/realmercuryfacts/studies/reel.htm
A similar report from the Pew Trust is here: http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_report_detail.aspx?id=30683
The University of Pittsburgh report is here: http://www.upmc.com/MediaRelations/NewsReleases/2007/Pages/APHA2007VolzUpstream.aspx
The University of Texas Health Science Center report is here: http://www.uthscsa.edu/hscnews/singleformat.asp?newID=2732

I get it. Why don't you?

So, let me get this straight ...

You like your health insurance company so much, you'd rather pay more than twice as much per person than any other industrialized country for system that routinely fails nearly half of all Americans (well, the half of those not already on some sort of subsidized health insurance program).

Is that right?

I get it, I get it. You like your doctor. You like your therapist. You abhor the thought that some bureaucrat in Washington might tell you that you can't get a certain prescription drug or medical procedure or that you can only consult certain doctors ... I get it.

But you don't get it because your insurance company does that now. Your insurance company routinely tells patients which procedures they can have and which ones they can't, which doctors they can consult and how often. Your insurance company routinely bases prescription drug coverage on which big pharma companies they have contracts with.

In fact, your health insurance company is in the business of denying your claim, in assuring you get the cheapest drugs rather than the drugs you need, and in making sure you stay away from expensive medical procedures, even when they could save your life. If you’ve never had this happen to you, you are either extremely fortunate, have a premium policy or you are much more well off than you realize.

In other words, we already put up with most of the things you say you don't like about health care reform.

Oh, I get it. You don't want to pay for "socialized medicine" or for all those poor people. But, you already do. Roughly 40 percent of Americans have some sort of government subsidized health insurance whether it's because they are government employees, on Medicare, Medicaid, S-Chip or eligible for VA benefits. And, despite the occasional hiccup, most of those people seem to appreciate that coverage.

And, we subsidize the truly indigent because we won't turn them away from treatment of the last resort — the emergency room. (And, don't think for a minute they eventually pay for that treatment — taxpayers pay for it in the form of taxes to our cities and counties.)

In reality, we're not talking about making anyone change insurance companies (meaning you can avoid the dreaded government bureaucrat) or doctors (unless your current insurance company forces you to change) or limiting coverage (other than the limitations your insurance company already imposes).

In reality, this debate about the value of social medicine versus private insurance we're having is really about making sure everyone in this country has some way to afford needed health care.

In reality, our entire economy is hostage to the concept of employer-provided health insurance. It hamstrings entrepreneurship because people are locked into their jobs because that's the only way most of us can afford any health insurance whatsoever — good or bad.

It hampers small businesses because small companies can't afford to offer the same kinds of benefits (read: health insurance) as the mega-corporations and some mega-corporations (can you say: GM?) have experienced some rather catastrophic problems as a direct result of legacy health insurance costs.

In June, Pres. Obama asked why, if the free market was all that, insurance companies should fear the competition of a public option?

As long as insurance companies are for-profit, our health care delivery system will be no better than Cuba's (and you can make the argument that theirs actually provides for all their citizens). The bill the U.S. House passed last week is the best hope our country has ever had to ensure the vast majority of our citizens enjoy this particular liberty.

Have a little shame

It shouldn't surprise me, I suppose. After all, I live in rural Texas.

But, when an election official in my hometown told me that an awful lot of folks who identify themselves with the Democratic Party simply could not bring themselves to vote for a black man, I was taken aback. And disappointed.

After all, we've gotten past all that, haven’t we? Haven't we?

Well, perhaps I'm just naïve … because we haven't.

Many of these people should know better — should, at the very least, feel a little shame for uttering those words out loud ... and, I cleaned the statement up a bit for consumption in a family newspaper.

But, I suspect too many of them feel it's perfectly natural to distrust a black man in power, though I'm at a loss to explain why anyone should feel this way.

Over the last couple of months, I've wanted to look at my conservative friends (and I have many of them), pat them gently on the cheek and, in my best baby-talk voice, ask, "What's the matter, does the mean black man scare you?"

I think he does. I think Barak Obama’s obvious intelligence, grace and poise terrifies an awful lot of rural Texans. His very existence challenges the prejudices they learned growing up, then perpetuated at their own kitchen tables.

This week, I got an email from another close (conservative) friend bemoaning the fact that, unless the stories about his “character and past associations” don’t surface soon, Obama will win the election.

He may not have meant it that way but those are code words for “the color of his skin.”

It also appears to be the only real topic at the most recent rallies for the Republican presidential ticket. They can’t talk about the economy or the war so they indulge in race baiting. My friends, that’s plain scary.

No, I’ve heard neither John McCain nor Sarah Palin actually say the words “terrorist,” or “black man” or “Obama” in the same sentence but the angry vitriol spewing from those attending the rallies is enough to make sane people fear violence. And that neither of the candidates (and that would be John McCain, the war hero, and/or Sarah Palin, the devote Christian) slapped down those bigots yelling the racist and discriminatory slogans is unprecedented. Even the conservative arm of the mainstream media is appalled.

Desperation will allow otherwise reasonable people to commit heinous things but McCain’s lack of a reaction is tantamount to encouragement. When the ostensibly reasonable people at the top of the ticket of a major national political party tacitly encourage race-baiting and violent language toward any ethnic group, it won’t be long until we see actual acts of violence toward that ethnic group. Especially in places like rural Texas where we’re not even a couple of generations removed from Jim Crow and the mob.

I’d expect this from the tattered remains of Strom Thurmond’s Dixiecrat party, or from supporters of Gov. George Wallace’s aborted presidential run, not from someone like John McCain. Is he really so desperate?

It’s one thing to disagree with a politician’s stand on the issues. Frankly, if you’re really paying attention, you won’t agree fully with everything ANY politician says … if you do, you’re lying to yourself or that politician is lying to you.

Further, it’s perfectly acceptable to vote against a politician you disagree with — heck, I could make the argument that it’s your civic duty to get out and actively campaign against the candidate.

But, have the decency to admit to yourself, if to no one else, why you’ll cast your vote the way you will.

And, if that reason has more to do with the color of a person’s skin than it does with that person’s political philosophy, be very ashamed.

Democracy is pretty cool; register to vote

There’s a world-changing election coming up in about a month. But, if you aren’t registered to vote, you can’t take part.

Citizenship in this country is not simply a given. It comes with certain fairly simple obligations. Among them are serving on a jury, when asked, and voting. Registering to vote is the first step.

Monday is the deadline if you want to vote in the next election. If you aren’t registered to vote and you haven’t registered by Monday, your voice won’t be heard.

And, it’s crucial that your voice be heard, and not only because of the presidential race.
Make no mistake, that’s an important vote but some of the races further down the ballot are just as critical.

For example, Texans will cast ballots for one of two representatives to the United States Senate. John Cornyn, a former Texas Attorney General, is running for his second term against an upstart war hero by the name of Rick Noriega. Right now, it’s a surprisingly close race. With a narrow partisan division in Congress, I’m not overstating the case at all when I say who we elect as our Senator will alter the shape of the U.S. Senate.

Here’s another example of how important it is that you cast a vote. The people we put on the Court of Appeals and Texas Supreme Court will determine how much access — if any — you have to our state’s legal system. The phrases “tort reform” and “frivolous lawsuits” are merely code words for a bench weighted in favor of the defense of big corporations. Of course, “access to the courts” is usually a code phrase for the opposite position.

Vote a certain way in those obscure judicial races and we’re telling the courts that we’d rather see to the financial health of the business community, even if that means individual liberties are curtailed. Vote another and we’re telling them that our right to redress our grievances before the legal system is more important than a few more dollars of profit on the balance sheets of our state’s big manufacturers.

Which brings up the second step of being a full-fledged citizen and that is casting an intelligent vote. As I noted, those judicial races are pretty obscure. Few of the names involved are familiar — and, too often in judicial races, those that ARE familiar are suspiciously familiar.

Further, ideological purity is dangerous when installed in a courtroom. Along that path lies “legislating from the bench,” another one of those code phrases that can mean whatever the heck you want it to mean except that judges of both political parties are guilty.

This, combined with some frankly misleading political advertising, makes it very difficult for the average voter to become educated about a given race, especially judicial races.

So, how do you become educated? Well, that presidential election will suck all the air out of the room as far as the national press is concerned. If you can’t figure that one out, you aren’t trying.
For the rest, this paper is probably your best source for the county and local statehouse races. The Sunday issue of your regional metro daily is also a good source.

If that doesn’t work for you, the next best source I know of for non-partisan information about elections is the Texas League of Women Voters (www.lwvtex.org). They’ve published a 16-page guide to the elections, an awful lot of it concerning the judicial races.

But, before anything else, you have to register to vote. It’s probably a bit late to request an application by mail but they are available at almost any county, state or federal office. Your post office, for instance, or the County Clerk’s office. Put it in the mail for postmark by Monday, Oct. 6. You should get your voters registration card back in plenty of time for the election.

Then, read up on the election and join the rest of your fellow citizens at the polls. It’s called democracy and it’s pretty cool.

Public's right to know depends on press freedoms

I've worked as a reporter and editor for small-town Texas newspapers for over 15 years.

During that time, I've dealt with many sensitive or highly controversial topics, and even a confidential source or two, but never has a local prosecutor asked me to testify in front of a grand jury - or any jury - or to relinquish my notes or unpublished photos, or to reveal the name of a confidential source.

In fact, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that few local prosecutors have ever tried to compel a reporter to testify or turn over stuff like that.

There are a lot of reasons for this. One is few local reporters ever get credible information from someone demanding confidentiality. And, even when they do, few of the people who publish small-town newspapers ever use information like this, and certainly not without independent confirmation.

Another reason is, most prosecutors work very hard to develop their cases and resort to compelling testimony from the press only as a last resort.

That's why a bill working its way through the Texas Legislature establishing guidelines for such things sounds like so much “inside baseball” to most people who read weekly and small daily newspapers - and to most of the people who work at them.

But, it's not just some esoteric debate fit only for policy wonks. Not any more.

Over the last few years - and especially the last year - there have been several high-profile cases that illustrate the peril reporters invite when they offer confidentiality to a news source.

I don't have to detail those cases here - the Valerie Plame case and the BALCO steroids investigation have gotten tremendous coverage - but they seem to mark the end of an admittedly uneasy truce between the news media and the government that has existed since the end of the Watergate era.

Quite suddenly - at least, at the glacial pace of jurisprudence - the unspoken agreements and policies that have for years moderated relationships between the working press and prosecuting attorneys has begun to morph dangerously - at least from a standpoint of press freedoms.

Should journalists have at least some protection against subpoenas seeking to compel testimony or the surrender of notes and tapes?

In Texas, reporters will risk jail time if they refuse to hand over their notes and unpublished photographs or reveal sources to whom they have promised confidentiality. That threat, which was seldom ever invoked, is now very real.

Open government advocates, press associations and citizen-driven public policy groups in Texas say yes, there should be some sort of protection for reporters. County and district attorneys in Texas, along with other law enforcement officials, say no, there shouldn't.

Prosecutors' arguments boil down to: It is a citizen's duty to give truthful testimony when asked. Why should journalists be any different?

Advocates of the bill respond this way: The government has all kinds of incredibly persuasive tools to compel cooperation. It is important that the press have some protections - even if those protections are strictly limited - else it is little more than another arm of the government. If so, this creates a chilling effect on the ability of the public, for which the press is a surrogate, to criticize the government and look into governmental corruption.

The Texas Free Flow of Information Act (SB966 sponsored by Senators Rodney Ellis and Robert Duncan, and HB 382 by Rep. Aaron Pena and HB 2249 sponsored by Rep. Corbin Van Arsdale) seeks to strike a balance between these two positions.

It grants very specific and limited protections for confidential sources, work derived from confidential sources and related notes, and sets out a three-pronged test that, when met, allows a prosecutor to compel testimony.

Simply, it codifies the relationship that most of the press in Texas already has with most of the county and district attorneys in Texas.

When people have access to a free and unfettered flow of information, they make better decisions and can hold officials accountable. Allowing reporters a limited ability to protect confidential sources only strengthens the public's ability to get good information and that strengthens our democracy.

This is good legislation and deserves support.

This column was syndicated to Texas newspapers April 2007.

Access to public information unearthed TYC scandal

If you ever needed an example of the importance of our state's open government laws, you need look no further than the current scandals rocking the Texas Youth Commission.

Last month, the Texas Observer broke the story about how TYC officials ignored, then tried to cover up evidence that administrators at the Pyote unit in West Texas molested several boys in 2004 and 2005.

The Dallas Morning News broke its coverage Feb. 19, two days later and, the next thing you know, everyone knew about it.

Texans exploded in anger and the revelations touched off a legislative firestorm. The more the story came into focus, the more the vastness of the problem became apparent, the more enraged everyone became.

The governor appointed a special master and a new administrator. Last week, Texas Rangers, DPS troopers and attorney general staffers staged an unannounced occupation of TYC offices statewide. Newspapers carry tales of new, horrible discoveries every day.

There are allegations of physical abuse, extortion, and over 750 instances of sex abuse.

Certain TYC officials had managed to keep it buried - even though the Texas Rangers investigated early allegations - but, once people started digging, it just all spurted out like pus from a gangrenous sore. It shows no sign of abating any time soon.

And it all came to light because Texas has laws protecting your right to know what your government - and its various, labyrinthine agencies - are doing in your name.

A handful of diligent reporters heard a tip then used the Public Information Act to unearth all the documents, records and emails they needed to build the story. Then they started asking questions. Lots of them.

Before long, a different group of very powerful people started asking some rather pointed questions of their own.

And that shows no sign of abating either. Thank God and, apparently, it's about time.

We can't tolerate this kind of criminal behavior against people put in the state's care. Never mind that these juveniles are serious trouble, many of them. As individuals, they are very nearly helpless in the clutches of the State. No matter what they've done to earn their time in the TYC, they shouldn't have to fear physical or sexual abuse at the hands of the people who control their fate.

This awful circumstance is exactly what our open government laws were intended to uncover. It's a shame that not everyone really understands importance and intent of those laws.

According to an Associated Press story published Sunday, a handful of Texas newspapers recently conducted an informal public records audit and the results weren't encouraging.

Reporters went to nine local agencies across the state and asked for copies of the community's emergency response plans. Congress mandated that these plans be available to the public so, except for some very narrowly defined security information, confidentiality wasn't an issue. Indeed, in the wake of the state's struggle to absorb evacuations that resulted from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, public scrutiny of local emergency response plans is entirely appropriate.

But, of the nine requests, three were denied completely. Three other requests were granted, but only after a great deal of information was redacted. At only three of the nine agencies were reporters granted full access to the emergency plans, as the law requires.

That's sad. All it took was for someone to shine a little light on the cesspool the TYC had become to uncover the abuses of that system Š but someone had to shine that light.

Who knows what might be found buried in local emergency response plans? Perhaps we'd simply find that our public officials are doing a good job preparing for the worst.

Perhaps not, but it doesn't matter. When any government official or agency decides it's okay to determine what's good for us to know and what isn't, that constitutes an abuse of our state's open government laws and an abuse of public trust.

As the TYC scandals point out, government simply works better when the people's business in conducted in the public.

This column was syndicated to Texas newspapers March 2007.

Record votes a clear path to good state government

If it's good enough for Craddick, it's good enough for the rest of us!

Folks in the Austin press corps got a big chuckle in January when Tom Craddick pushed his fellows to record how they would vote in his effort to be re-elected Speaker of the Texas House.

You see, Craddick has been a staunch, behind-the-scenes opponent of record votes in the Texas House but, when his political power was threatened, he jumped on the bandwagon - temporarily, at least - because it gave him a way to intimidate recalcitrant legislators.

The rhetoric and debate leading up to that vote was a bit dizzying. Suddenly, some of the same people who de-railed last session's record vote legislation were heard arguing forcefully in favor of record votes!

It's too bad those arguments were disingenuous. Neither Craddick nor any other House leader has any intention of actually putting into law a measure that would require all substantive votes taken in the Texas House of Representatives be on the record. In their opinion, the concept is too much trouble, good only as a tool of intimidation not as a method to ensure transparency.

Here's the issue: There is nothing in the law that requires Texas legislators to state, on the record, how they voted on important legislation. And, unless the issue is forced, legislators won't go on the record with their votes.

In just one example from the 2005 session, representatives voted to exempt themselves from a bill requiring candidates to file campaign contributions and expenditures electronically - but not their future challengers. But, you can't tell who voted how because the vote wasn't recorded.

Now, before you say that all you expect of a Texas Legislator is that he votes his conscience, know that whether or not a vote is on the record has a profound impact on the outcome. A motion to table that bill - essentially killing it - appeared headed to easy passage until a record vote was requested. Suddenly, the vote flipped, and the motion to table failed.

In other words, Texas legislators often have one set of ethics when the vote is on the record and another when it's not.

Sadly, many legislators believe this issue is important only to the media. The disdainful comments legislators made during committee hearings make that clear, and the same comments make it clear many legislators don't take this very seriously.

It's true, the media - specifically newspapers - have pushed very hard over the last two or three sessions for this kind of legislation, not because it makes our jobs easier - though, in some ways, it does. Newspapers are in favor of this legislation because it makes it easier for citizens of Texas to hold lawmakers accountable.

Ironically, legislators are all in favor of accountability (especially for educators) but not so much where it comes to their own actions.

As it did in 2005, the Texas Senate will likely approve some type of legislation mandating record votes. But, unless they can pass the House State Affairs Committee in the next week or two, none of the several bills filed will make it to the House floor for debate and that means the fate of this legislation rests in the hands of nine state representatives (see sidebar).

Texas is one of only 10 states that does not have some sort of requirement that votes on major legislation be on the record, and it's easier to find out how your U.S. Congressman or city council member voted than your state representative or senator.

Good government advocates all across the state - including the League of Women Voters and nearly every citizen advocacy group you might name - have called for this kind of legislation in Texas.

Indeed, in the run-up to the Speaker's vote, 80 Texas legislators voted in favor of record votes, at least on the Speaker's race. That some of the same people who've quashed previous attempts to mandate record votes are among these 80 legislators merely adds to the irony.

Texas legislators must end the hypocrisy of using voice votes to avoid accountability. If it's important that folks back home know how legislators voted in the Speaker's race, it's important for them to know how they voted on other important issues.

Texas House State Affairs Committee
Chairman: David Swinford (R-Amarillo)
Vice chair: Ken Paxton (R-McKinney)
Committee: Corbin Van Arsdale (R-Houston), Wayne Christian (R-Center), Jessica Farrar (D-Lindale Park), Byron Cook (R-Corsicana), Dan Flynn (R-Canton), Tan Parker (R-Flower Mound) and Marc Veasey (D-Ft. Worth)

Of this committee, all voted in favor of having a record vote for Speaker of the House, except Jessica Farrar and Marc Veasey who were only two of 16 legislators to vote against Rep. Tom Craddick for Speaker of the house.

This opinion column was syndicated February, 2007.

Perry’s orders are out of bounds

You might almost feel a bit of sympathy for Rick Perry. Almost.

After all, it isn’t often that the leader of one of this nation’s greatest states get his hand slapped by both the legislative and judicial branches of government, all in the same week.

Last Tuesday, State District Judge Stephen Yelenosky rebuked Gov. Perry’s executive order to “fast track” the permitting process for a clutch of new coal-fired electrical generating plants.

Then, the very next day, the House Public Health Committee repudiated Perry’s mandate that all sixth-grade girls be vaccinated for the human papilloma virus. Since the bill the committee was considering had 90 sponsors, it’s probably a lock for passage when it goes to the House floor for debate.

It’s as if Perry had said, “Hey, guys … let’s go this way! Talley Ho!” and the state’s legislators and judges turned around, looked at him askance and replied, “And, who are you, exactly?”
And, really, that’s as it should be. In these two cases, at least, Perry overstepped his authority, and the folks against whom he trespassed told him so.

On the one hand, the state’s judiciary ruled the governor can’t just set aside processes and procedures, designed to curb the damaging excesses of big polluters, simply because the permitting rules take danged near one year to observe. On the other, legislators took serious umbrage at Perry’s decision to bypass the legislative process in favor of a flat mandate for a health issue that probably deserves a great deal of public debate.

You have to wonder a bit at Perry’s “fast track” order, especially after the furor raised in rural Texas by the proposed Trans Texas Corridor. I agree we’ll need the power in the not-too-distant future (just like we’ll need to address our highway system) but is this really the best way to go about it?

And, why are we in such a hurry?

And, do we really want to return Texas to the bad old days when power plants belched thick, black smoke into the air, refineries pumped toxic sludge into our bays and trucks drove through our residential streets spraying DDT to control mosquitoes?

I don’t think so. While the process to permit a new power generating plant can be expensive and excruciating, that process is there for some very good and very sound reasons.

Besides, the plants will probably get approved anyway. It’s Big Bid’ness, after all. This just gives us all a chance to get used to the idea.

On the other issue, I have to admit a grudging respect for Perry while at the same time wondering at his incredible hubris. If his heart’s in the right place (and, on this issue, I believe it probably is), that decision took a lot of courage. There are few orders he could issue more likely to profoundly upset his base than one mandating a vaccine, that controls the spread of a sexually transmitted disease, be given to sixth-grade girls.

On top of that, we’re Texans, by gum! We don’t kowtow to just anyone. I mean, who is this guy to tell us how to raise our kids!? (Never mind that the vaccine will also likely prevent the most common form of cervical cancer in a tremendous number of women and, like the power plants and highway, be approved anyway.)

Perry must miss his days as lieutenant governor. The Governor of Texas barely has the authority to blow his nose on his own, much less make sweeping, unilateral changes to environmental and public health policy. Texas may be one of the greatest states in the nation but everybody knows its governor is among the weakest.

The lieutenant governor is the state’s most powerful elected official and even he has to bow to the appearance of a legislative process. But, even then, the lieutenant governor is only as powerful as the Senate allows, which it usually does (for modern examples, see Bob Bullock, Bill Hobby, et al.).

Oh, uhh ... as I recall, the Senate curtailed the lieutenant governor’s power those two years Perry held the post.

Instead of side stepping the rules, Perry should encourage vigorous public debate on issues that are sure to be controversial. This is laudatory and well within his purview as governor. Anything else smacks of overweening pride and behind-the-scenes deal making.

This column was syndicated Feb.2, 2007.