Dan Patrick -- the next big thing for the Tea Party

The WSJ editorial is behind a paywall; so here it is in full text....

Texas Goes Sacramento
Republicans spend their energy gusher, and then some.

During his brief campaign for President last year, Governor Rick Perry boasted that he would bring the "Texas model" of lean government, low taxes and pro-business policies to Washington. Now Austin is borrowing from Washington's playbook as the Lone Star State embarks on its biggest spending spree in memory.

Call it the downside of prosperity: The Texas growth spurt has produced a near $20 billion gusher of new tax revenue, and the Republican-dominated legislature, with the support of seemingly every lobby in Austin, wants to spread the bounty. The biennial general-fund budget that awaits the Governor's signature is $102 billion compared with $84 billion two years ago.

Those numbers understate the blowout because $4 billion more was snatched from the state's rainy day fund. Add various accounting stunts and the Texas Public Policy Foundation calculates a 26% spending increase for the biennium. A broad coalition of taxpayer and tea-party groups is urging Mr. Perry to veto.

Two years ago when the state faced a $15 deficit, Mr. Perry buried tax increase talk by signing a zero-growth budget. Mr. Perry's spokesman Rich Parsons tells us that the 26% estimated increase may be inflated because it doesn't take into account the underfunding of Medicaid and education in that 2011 budget. Mr. Parsons says that required about $7 billion of supplemental spending bills earlier this year. But even accepting this explanation, which is in dispute, the budget is still 16% higher.

Republicans defend the budget by noting that Texas has urgent public-works needs. Two years of droughts make new water projects a necessity, and with nearly half the new jobs in the U.S. over the last four years springing up in Texas, roads and school funding are priorities too. But the Houston Chronicle notes that nearly everything from mental health to family planning to Medicaid to Mr. Perry's pet corporate welfare program—the Emerging Technology Fund—won fat funding increases.

This may be the first time in history that a state experienced a rush of new tax collections and lowered its reserve fund. The supplemental spending earlier this year also allowed an end run around the state's constitutional spending cap. (Expenditures can't rise faster than the rate of personal income growth.) By spending more in 2013 the state can now appropriate more in 2014-15, because the baseline for calculating future expenditure growth is ratcheted upward. This is the kind of stunt one would expect from Nancy Pelosi. The budget contains a roughly $1 billion tax cut, but for every $1 of tax relief, $19 in new revenue will be spent.

The danger is that Texas will repeat the fiscal mistake that California has made repeatedly: spend during the glory days and, once the economy slows, raise taxes to cover the deficit. The Texas oil patch is riding high on $95 a barrel oil and a doubling in production in four years. But Texans shouldn't forget the lesson of the 1980s and late 1990s that oil prices are volatile and a decline can be painful and prolonged.

Mr. Perry traveled on a business recruiting mission to California in February and poked fun at the tax-spend-and-borrow cycle in Sacramento. He can fix the reckless Texas budget by vetoing all or most of it and insisting on deeper business tax cuts. He should not want people to start comparing him unfavorably to Jerry Brown.

Hopefully, Patrick won't be the big spender that Dewhurst has been...........

What is "dangerous" about Patrick? Originally Posted by Whirlaway

It is not his ideology, the economics side of it I largely agree with.

The problem is that he is, on a personal level, an enormous @$$hole, and he can't work with anyone. Personally, he is despised pretty universally by his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. He is a hot dog, he is arrogant, he is pompous, and he is holier-than-thou. That is a terrible combination of things to put in charge of something as important as the machinery of government in the State of Texas.

If you believe that we should put in charge of the Texas Legislature the same kind of confrontational approach, vitriolic personal animosity, and inability to function that you have in Washington, then by God, Dan Patrick is your man.

I think Dewhurst is a weak-kneed conservative on a bunch of things. And I think a guy like Dan Patrick has usefulness as a bomb thrower in the Legislature. But to put him in charge of it? Elect him and watch how the process grinds to a halt.

There may be those who say "Fine, gridlock in the Legislature is just fine with me." And I would agree that gridlock in DC would be a reasonable best case situation.

But Texas has functioned reasonably well for the past 12 years and more. When W. was governor he worked well with Bob Bullock (a Democrat) and things worked just fine here. You can dislike Dewhurst, but the Perry / Dewhurst tandem has gotten Texas into pretty strong shape.

Patrick will muck it all up. He is ego-centric to the max, everything will be a press event to him. Eventually, he will piss off enough voters that he will hasten the day that Texas turns purple.

Mark my words.

I'm certainly not excited about Dewhurst. But, you have to consider what kind of job we are about to hand Dan Patrick. It's too important to put a looney-tune, egotistical Bible-thumping douche bag in that kind of position. If he is the nominee in November, I will certainly not be voting Republican. It will be either the Libertarian or the (gasp) Democrat.

You should be very happy and not so pissed; Texas politics is already looking more like Sacramento than Austin........especially under Dewhurst - A fucking shame ! Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Wah, Wah, Wah!

You sound like a whiny crybaby! Cry me a friggin' river!

One RINO at a time.

One RINO at a time. Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

One RETARD at a time.

You support the end run around the constitutional spending cap that Dewhurst engineered - presided over ?


So, your opposition to Patrick is based on personality.........in your opinion he isn't congenial, he has an unchecked ego, and otherwise is an unlikeable guy ?

Your profile of his personality might be right; but even if it is, I would rather have his Conservative agenda in Austin than Dewhurst's accommodation to big spending............

I am curious...and want to hold you to your "mark my words" pledge....In your opinion, if we get gridlock in Austin because of Patrick's personality, what is the worse case scenario for us ?

And in my opinion, the prolific spending isn't a sign Austin has been "functioning pretty well"......unless you think Sacramento has been functioning well, while spending the residents into fiscal oblivion.

Please get to some specifics.

Thanks,

It is not his ideology, the economics side of it I largely agree with.

The problem is that he is, on a personal level, an enormous @$$hole, and he can't work with anyone. Personally, he is despised pretty universally by his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. He is a hot dog, he is arrogant, he is pompous, and he is holier-than-thou. That is a terrible combination of things to put in charge of something as important as the machinery of government in the State of Texas.

If you believe that we should put in charge of the Texas Legislature the same kind of confrontational approach, vitriolic personal animosity, and inability to function that you have in Washington, then by God, Dan Patrick is your man.

I think Dewhurst is a weak-kneed conservative on a bunch of things. And I think a guy like Dan Patrick has usefulness as a bomb thrower in the Legislature. But to put him in charge of it? Elect him and watch how the process grinds to a halt.

There may be those who say "Fine, gridlock in the Legislature is just fine with me." And I would agree that gridlock in DC would be a reasonable best case situation.

But Texas has functioned reasonably well for the past 12 years and more. When W. was governor he worked well with Bob Bullock (a Democrat) and things worked just fine here. You can dislike Dewhurst, but the Perry / Dewhurst tandem has gotten Texas into pretty strong shape.

Patrick will muck it all up. He is ego-centric to the max, everything will be a press event to him. Eventually, he will piss off enough voters that he will hasten the day that Texas turns purple.

Mark my words.

I'm certainly not excited about Dewhurst. But, you have to consider what kind of job we are about to hand Dan Patrick. It's too important to put a looney-tune, egotistical Bible-thumping douche bag in that kind of position. If he is the nominee in November, I will certainly not be voting Republican. It will be either the Libertarian or the (gasp) Democrat. Originally Posted by Texas Playboy

AssUP, you are fucking dumb ass liberal who prefers Dewhurst because he is a soft republican..you don't give a fucking shit about fiscal responsibility........but Dewhurst will lose against Patrick and you are pissed because your Lone Star Progressive Utopia isn't coming to fruition (as quickly as you hope).

Yeah; Texas will ultimately be turning blue...........because of massive illegal immigration that is changing Texas politics......the state is being flooded with voters who want more free shit paid for by others !

You should be very happy and not so pissed; Texas politics is already looking more like Sacramento than Austin........especially under Dewhurst - A fucking shame !

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...27193464764384 Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Are you talking about the same Texas I am, Whirlyturd? The one that gutted public education and Medicaid? Don't see the runaway spending there. Please point it out.

Pretty obvious that you favor the same kind of gridlock in Austin that we have in DC. However, since both Houses are overwhelmingly Republican, I curious to know what you're talking about? a scenario where Patrick is IBIdiot and the rest of the Senate is everybody else and they just call each other names and duck every issue.

ALSO, PLEASE REMIND US WHOS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TEXAS BUDGET SHORTFALLS... THE REPUBLICAN SENATE OR THE REPUBLICAN HOUSE.

Like I said; under Dewhurst's leadership Austin has become a big spending machine.........

FACT JACK !

ALSO, PLEASE REMIND US WHOS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TEXAS BUDGET SHORTFALLS... THE REPUBLICAN SENATE OR THE REPUBLICAN HOUSE. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I can answer that ...the Republican VOTERS! FACT JACK

Close, but no cigar !

Ultimately, it is the Texas voters who are on the line for the shortfalls, spending and debt!

FACT JACK !

I can answer that ...the Republican VOTERS! FACT JACK Originally Posted by WTF

One RETARD at a time. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

One "Shit Eater" Ozombie at a time.

If anyone on this board pays attention to the news or reads a newspaper, one would be able to make an informed decision on voting for or against DP. He is a religious crusader who will make our communitty less desirable. If you vote, vote with an open mind, and for Fuck-Sakes, use some common sense, who the fuck do you think is footing his campaing! Think people! THINK!

Like I said; under Dewhurst's leadership Austin has become a big spending machine.........

FACT JACK ! Originally Posted by Whirlaway

you are a fucking idiot.

FACT jACK!

Looks like Patricks gonna win anyway. that's like making IBIdiot a mod! Yeah, they'll be dancing in the SHEETS!

Well, it's a moot point now. Patrick has won the runnoff, and will win in The General Election.

If anyone on this board pays attention to the news or reads a newspaper, one would be able to make an informed decision on voting for or against DP. He is a religious crusader who will make our communitty less desirable. If you vote, vote with an open mind, and for Fuck-Sakes, use some common sense, who the fuck do you think is footing his campaing! Think people! THINK! Originally Posted by lugossi

The Tea-Party...