Texas Bank sold to Spanish firm with ties to Cintra, China

Link to article here.

Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria purchased Laredo National Bank in 2005, Compass Bank in 2007, and now Guaranty Bank in 2009. They’ve also partnered with China on a deal in 2006. Here’s the kicker, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria is a financial advisor to the parent company that owns a 100% stake in Cintra, known as Grupo Ferrovial. Cintra owns the development rights to the Trans Texas Corridor TTC-35 project.

Seized Texas Bank Sold to Spanish Firm
Guaranty Deal Shows FDIC’s Willingness to Broaden Search for Buyers
By Binyamin Appelbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, August 22, 2009

The federal government is casting more broadly as it seeks buyers for a growing number of failed banks, including entertaining bids from foreign firms and seeking to attract new investors to the industry by easing restrictions.

The results were on display Friday, as regulators seized Guaranty Bank of Texas and immediately sold its branches, deposits and most of its assets to Spain’s Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria.

The failure of Guaranty, with $13 billion in loans and other assets, was the 10th-largest in U.S. history and the fourth-largest since the financial crisis began last year.

Regulators have sharply increased the pace of seizures this summer after months in which they left many unraveling firms untouched. The resulting spike in failures appears at odds with other signs that the economy is starting to mend, but analysts say the failures actually are an important step toward recovery. The seizure of a bank is in many ways the end of a problem, as the federal government absorbs the losses before selling the healthy parts to a new owner, setting the stage for renewed lending.

The greatest threat to that process is the dwindling supply of buyers. Guaranty is the 106th bank to fail since the beginning of 2008, and some healthy banks have sated their appetites for acquisitions. Regulators liquidated a Nevada bank last week after failing to find a buyer.

“The more institutions they are able to sell, the more market demand is met,” said Karen Shaw Petrou, managing partner at Federal Financial Analytics.

Petrou said the government is moving too slowly to seize troubled institutions, allowing problems to fester and increasing the eventual cleanup costs. That adds urgency to the search for more buyers.

Casting a Bigger Net
The sale of Guaranty to BBVA is the first to a foreign buyer during this crisis. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which sells failed banks, also is considering rules that would make it easier for private investors to participate in the bidding, which is generally restricted to healthy banks. The agency already sold BankUnited of Florida to private investors in May.

Proposed rules issued in July were widely panned by potential investors as overly restrictive, but the FDIC’s board is expected to pass a less onerous version when it meets Wednesday. The agency is juggling its need for bidders against a concern that investors will use acquisitions as personal piggy banks. The original proposal required buyers to hold stakes for at least three years and to maintain significantly larger cushions against unexpected losses than the prevailing standard. The rules also strictly limit the use of acquired banks as a funding source for other investments.

The FDIC’s board may also reduce the size of the required capital cushion, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the proposal is not final.

Guaranty Bank, based in Austin, has its roots in the nation’s previous banking crisis, the savings-and-loan failures of the late 1980s. The company was created from the pieces of several troubled Texas savings and loans, and then later expanded into California.

Guaranty’s troubles stemmed mostly from its mortgage lending business. The bank made billions of dollars in high-risk mortgage loans in booming markets such as California and Florida, and it invested billions more in loans made by other companies. Spiraling losses ate through the company’s capital cushion, leading it to issue a highly unusual public prediction earlier this month that it would be seized by regulators.

The failure of Guaranty is another black mark against the Office of Thrift Supervision, the federal agency that regulates banks specialized in mortgage lending. Most of the largest firms to fail during the current crisis were regulated by the OTS, including Washington Mutual, IndyMac Bancorp and now Guaranty. As with the other OTS failures, Guaranty’s troubles derived in large part from the sale of “option ARM” mortgages, adjustable-rate loans that were specifically structured to allow people to borrow more money than they could afford.

Option ARM loans made up about one-third of Guaranty’s portfolio of mortgage loans, according to the company’s financial disclosures.

Financial analysts considered it only a matter of time until a foreign bank would prevail in the bidding for a failed U.S. bank. Several foreign banks have large footholds in the United States, including HSBC, Toronto-Dominion and the Royal Bank of Scotland, which owns Citizens Bank. Toronto-Dominion has made bids for failed banks through its U.S. subsidiary, TD Bank, but analysts said many foreign banks have been preoccupied healing their own wounds.

BBVA and its major Spanish rival, Banco Santander, are notable exceptions. Spain’s unusually stringent banking regulations kept both banks relatively healthy, and they have emerged from the crisis looking to expand. Santander bought struggling Sovereign Bank last fall.

BBVA expanded its U.S. presence with its $9.6 billion purchase of Compass Bancshares in 2007, giving the company almost 600 branches from Alabama to New Mexico. The Guaranty deal gives the company more than 150 additional branches split between Texas and California.

The company also owns the largest bank in Mexico, Bancomer.

3 Other Bank Seizures
Regulators seized three other banks Friday night, including Ebank and First Coweta Bank of Georgia, and CapitalSouth Bank of Alabama. The failures comes one week after regulators seized Colonial Bank of Alabama in the largest failure of 2009.

When a bank fails, the FDIC repays depositors to the extent that the bank’s own coffers have been depleted. The money comes from a tax on the banking industry, not the general public, although the FDIC can borrow money from the Treasury Department if the need arises. The rising number of failures have drained the FDIC’s insurance fund. About $13 billion remained at the end of March, but the agency estimates it will spend $5.8 billion on the failures of Colonial and Guaranty alone.

The FDIC already has increased the assessments on banks significantly. The agency plans to collect $17.6 billion from banks this year, which it estimates is the equivalent of a 5 percent tax on industry profits. That is more than five times the amount collected in 2008.

The agency already has laid the groundwork for an additional special collection before the end of the year.

Report: Impose 65 cent per mile toll to access ALL metro cities in America!

Okay, if you thought selling our public highways to Spain using PPPs was bad, along comes a report that the FHWA, FTA, and EPA were a part of, that is advocating the government impose a 5 cent per mile minimum toll to use our EXISTING federal interstates and that it impose a 65 cent per mile toll to access ALL 125 metro areas in the country (their definition of metro includes Modesto, CA) in an effort to reduce carbon emissions! It also advocates a steep parking tax in downtown areas and a $400 biennial residential on-street parking permit. Innovation Briefs newsletter dated August 18, 2009 outlines the proposals in the report below. Link to pdf of a presentation about the report here. (To get a copy of the report done in part with tax-funded federal agencies, you have to pay $24.95!)

If we think for ONE MINUTE that tolling isn’t about stealing our freedom to travel (using behavior modification), this report is proof-positive it most definitely is. INCONCEIVABLE!

From the Innovation Briefs Newsletter –

August 18, 2009

A Tendentious Report Has the Transportation Community Up in Arms

While the nation at large and the political community are consumed by the current debate about health care, another controversy is being played out on a smaller stage but with no less intensity. The object of the controversy is a recently released report entitled “Moving Cooler”. The report, unveiled with great fanfare on July 28 before a large gathering of  the Washington environmental community, purports to estimate the potential reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that can be achieved from surface transportation. The report’s authors conclude that a combination of strategies and policy actions involving changes in vehicle and transportation system operations, travel behavior, land use patterns and level of transit service could reduce annual GHG emissions by up to 24 percent from the expected baseline levels in 2050. The authors further maintain that with “strong economy-wide pricing measures” (read, VMT fees and PAYD insurance), annual GHG emissions could be reduced by up to 47 percent.

The report was commissioned by a group of sponsors and written by a well-known transportation consulting firm, Cambridge Systematics. Sponsors included two environmental advocacy groups (Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council), several foundations, the American Public Transportation Association, the Urban Land Institute, ITS America, Shell Oil Company and three government agencies – Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), one of the original sponsors, withdrew its support after concluding that the study “did not produce results upon which decision-makers can rely.” Specifically, AASHTO expressed concern that decision-makers could be led to rely on the study’s conclusions “without understanding the drastic steps that would have to be taken” to achieve the promised reductions.

At an August 13 meeting convened by AASHTO to discuss the report, many of the study assumptions were described as “extreme, unrealistic and in some cases downright impossible.” A list of 37 specific issues challenging the report’s methodology and requiring clarification was presented by a team of researchers that analyzed the study. Transportation professionals reached after the meeting were equally blunt. “This is an advocacy document pure and simple, couched in the form of a pseudo scientific analysis,” one state DOT official told us. Other transportation professionals, speaking on background, criticized the study as “not meeting scientific standards,” “using implausible assumptions,” “failing to adequately disclose key analytical assumptions,” “lacking in objectivity,” ” a deeply flawed analysis,” and “following a questionable peer review process.”

Precisely what kind of assumptions did the report use to warrant such a severe condemnation? Here is a partial list of measures assumed by the report’s authors that would be needed to achieve the estimated reductions:

– Institute tolling of all interstate intercity highways throughout the U.S. by next year (2010). Minimum toll would be 5 cents/mile. As the presentation to AASHTO pointed out, this would require immediate Federal legislation to authorize tolls and a massive crash effort to install toll equipment on these highways within the next year. The tolls would likely shift some traffic to other roads and hit rural areas hardest. According to the analysis, a 5 cent/mile toll would be equivalent to increasing the gas tax for interstate trips by $1.10/gallon for vehicles that get 22 MPG and $1.75/gallon for high-efficiency vehicles.

– Impose congestion pricing in 125 metropolitan areas, at 65 cents per mile. The presentation to AASHTO pointed out that a 20-mile round-trip commute trip would cost an additional $26 each day . Service workers and delivery vehicles could face much higher increased costs. The top 125 metro areas where congestion pricing would be imposed include such small urban areas as Canton, OH; Jackson, MS; Flint, MI; Modesto, CA; Greenville, SC; and Lancaster, PA.

– Impose or significantly increase parking fees in the CBD and require $400 biennial residential on-street parking permits

– Reimpose a national 55 mph speed limit

– Invest $1.2 trillion over 40 years in expanding urban transportation. Increase transit operating subsidies by next year to allow transit fares to be cut by 50% in all regions.

– Increase highway capacity above the baseline by either $640 billion (“aggressive deployment”) or $1.2 trillion (“Maximum deployment”) over 40 years.

– Add bike lanes and paths at 1/4 mile intervals in high density areas (more than 2,000 persons/square mile.)

– Require at least 90% of new development to be in compact, pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly neighborhoods with high quality transit. The report notes that the land use measures “may require strong regional land use planning and oversight agencies,… may result in higher housing prices and…some people might need to live in smaller homes or on smaller lots than they would prefer.”

While the report’s authors acknowledge in the body of the report that implementing the strategies at their “maximum deployment level” would require a major shift in national attitudes and political will, the presentation and press releases distributed at the July 28 report rollout ignored this caveat. They also ignored the report’s conclusion that lower emission reductions would be achieved at less intensive — and more realistic– levels of deployment. Thus, an impression may have been created, says Allen Biehler, Director of PennDOT and AASHTO’s President, that emission reduction targets in the range of 24 to 52 percent are reasonably achievable. This, in turn, could lead to their adoption in EPA rulemaking and legislation pending in Congress.

Environmental sources contacted for this story allege that the threat of climate change is no less urgent  than the threat of air pollution was 30 years ago, and the means  to combat it happen to be largely the same: reduce reliance on  and volume of automobile travel, greatly expand public transit, support nonmotorized travel (biking and walking), and change development patterns to achieve more compact “walkable” communities.  They had to be reminded that improvements in air quality over the last 30 years have been almost entirely achieved  through changes in vehicle and fuel technology and not through changes in travel behavior and land use patterns. Indeed, urban air pollution has been substantially reduced from its 1970s levels despite rising vehicle-miles of travel (VMTs) and continued dispersal of homes and jobs.

Be that as it may, the present controversy is not about  challenging the legitimacy of the emission reduction strategies advocated in the “Moving Cooler” report. It is, rather, about using allegedly flawed analysis and unrealistic assumptions that could mislead policymakers and the public and raise unreasonable expectations about how much progress can be achieved using these strategies. Evidence from  the last 30 years shows that “travel demand management” and “smart growth” have been largely ineffective as a means of reducing auto dependency and automobile trips. There is thus good reason to question whether these two strategies, applied in a reasonable manner,  would be any more effective in reducing future vehicular-based GHG emissions.

Lance Neumann, President of Cambridge Systematics, the consulting firm that authored the report, responds:

Unfortunately, there has been considerable misinformation circulated regarding the Moving Cooler study.  Contrary to some reports, Moving Cooler does not advocate for any particular approach to reducing GHGs, nor does it assess the political feasibility or the overall merit of the strategies examined.  Rather, it presents estimates of how much GHGs might be reduced for a very large number of measures and under a very wide range of assumptions about how aggressively they are implemented.  For Moving Cooler, organizations with varying perspectives were invited to join the steering committee, and members collaborated in selecting the specific measures and the range of implementation assumptions for each measure to estimate strategy effectiveness in reducing GHGs.  It is intentional that the implementation aggressiveness of each measure reflected a wide range of assumptions.

Given the range of measures and implementation scenarios examined, it is not surprising that AASHTO disagrees with some of the assumptions used.  Many members of the Steering Committee  also disagreed with some of the implementation assumptions that were evaluated.  However, there was consensus among Steering Committee members that exploration of the strategies under the range of assumptions defined was a worthwhile exercise to inform public debate.  We believe that Moving Cooler provides additional objective information to inform the debate, whether you agree with all of the assumptions or not.

It should also be noted that, although the study did not explicitly analyze fuel efficiency, it did use for its baseline forecasts more aggressive estimates of future fuel efficiency improvements than were used by the Department of Energy in its forecasts of future fuel efficiency.  So,  Moving Cooler analyses clearly acknowledge the absolutely critical role of fuel efficiency improvements in reducing GHG emissions.

Ed. Note: The Steering Committee that Mr. Neumann refers to included representatives of the American Public Transportation Association, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, ITS America, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Shell Oil Company, the Urban Land Institute and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Additional sponsors (but not members of the Steering Committee) included the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, The Rockefeller Foundation, the Surdna Foundation and The Kresge Foundation.

Link to “Moving Cooler” web site here.
C. Kenneth Orski is the author of Innovation NewsBriefs
A reminder of who Orski is: He was one of 4 who were members of President Bush’s Transportation Policy Team & later transition team (Federal Surface Transportation Program input with recommendations in 1999 which were largely followed & later shaped Mary Peters’ policies at US DOT).  The 4 cheerleaders for transportation infrastructure privatization are: C. Kenneth Orski, Stephen Lockwood, Alan E. Pisarski, and Robert W. Poole Jr. (Reason Foundation Libertarian think tank founder & public member of the Sunset Advisory Commission).
Normally we’re on opposite side of Orski’s thinking, but we agree that these proposing are an OUTRAGEOUS threat to our freedom to travel.

First TX road under foreign control underway

Link to article here. This article bills this leg of the Trans Texas Corridor TTC-35 project as a way to avoid congestion to Houston when the original sales pitch for the loop was to relieve traffic on I-35 (which the segment from Georgetown to the airport has not done). However, the first leg of SH 130 (the name of the TTC loop around Austin under the control of a foreign company for the next 50 years) is sooo empty, that a plane landed on it during peak traffic. It begs the question, if no one can afford to use it, why are we building it? We also need to ask: will it truly relieve congestion?

Construction revs up on new tollway toward Seguin
New section will offer less congested route to Houston.
Monday, August 17, 2009

You have to know what you’re looking for to see the beginnings of construction on yet another Central Texas toll road, at least at the part nearest Austin.

Crews have dug the holes and laid the foundations of some of the columns that will be the interchange between Texas 45 Southeast and the new, 40-mile-long extension of Texas 130 as it heads to Lockhart. Near Maha Creek, the median between the north- and southbound lanes of U.S. 183 is a mishmash of black-dirt hillocks as crews work on future bridges over the creek.

Further south, near where U.S. 183 crosses Texas 21, owners of an Exxon station recently moved it several hundred feet east of U.S. 183 to make way for the wide tollway and access lanes to come. And down near Seguin, where Texas 130 will meet Interstate 10, concrete pillars for an interchange are poking out of the ground.

Construction of Texas’ first public-private toll road began quietly several weeks ago, with a lack of fanfare given all the controversy such tollway agreements have generated over the past five years. A consortium called SH 130 Concession Co., led by Spanish toll road operator Cintra and Zachry Construction, is financing the $1.35 billion project and will operate it (and, it hopes, profit from it) over the next 50 years. It should open to traffic in 2012.

Just two other public-private tollways in Texas are in the works, both at least two years further back in the development process and unlikely to break ground soon. Cintra is the lead actor on both projects, which involve adding toll lanes on Interstate 820, Texas 183 and Texas 121 in Tarrant County and on the LBJ freeway in Dallas.

The new section of Texas 130 (the Texas Department of Transportation built the first 49 miles from Georgetown to Mustang Ridge) will offer a new possibility: getting from Austin to Houston without having to drive through the traffic lights and growing congestion on Texas 71 in Bastrop. But that may be a tough sell.

From east of the Austin airport, it’s about 85 miles on Texas 71 to Columbus, where Texas 71 meets Interstate 10. Take Texas 130 and I-10 there instead, and the trip will be almost 135 miles, at a cost of more than $7 for a car, close to $30 for big trucks, plus extra gasoline or diesel.

Even with higher speed limits — as much as 80 mph on the tollway — that alternative is unlikely to entice many people. It might make sense for people bound for Corpus Christi and the Rio Grande Valley.

But Texas 130’s main reason-to-be was as a bypass of Interstate 35 in the San Antonio-to-Georgetown corridor. So far, traffic on the 49-mile piece east of Austin that opened in 2006 and 2007 has been light, about 9 percent below projections this budget year. And for an 18-wheeler to take the entire 89 miles, once it’s open, the one-way price will be more than $50.

Stout. Truckers may need a bypass when they see that, the kind that requires a surgeon.

Obama's envoy refuses to pay tolls

Link to article here.

Obama’s Envoy in London Won’t Pay Traffic Congestion Fee, Either
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
By Patrick Goodenough, International Editor


London’s traffic congestion charge has been credited with reducing traffic in the center of the British capital by 21 percent in its first five years of operation. (Photo copyright Transport for London)
(CNSNews.com) – The new U.S. ambassador to Britain, like the Bush-appointed envoy before him, will not pay London’s traffic congestion fee. The revenue dispute between the U.S. government and city authorities in London has been going on for four years, with no resolution in sight.

Advocacy groups in the U.K. are astonished that President Obama, whom they consider much more environmentally friendly than his Kyoto Protocol-rejecting predecessor, will not reverse the stance.

The State Department confirmed in a statement Monday that the ambassador switch will not affect “longstanding” U.S. government policy not to pay the traffic levy.

“The Congestion Tax is prohibited by various treaties, including the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations; the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations; our 1951 bilateral Consular Agreement with the United Kingdom; and the NATO Status of Forces Agreement,” it said.

Under the scheme launched by London’s former mayor Ken Livingstone in 2003, the city charges drivers eight pounds ($11.10) a day to enter demarcated central areas. Enforcement is by camera.

The charge rises to ten pounds ($16.40) if the congestion fee is paid the day after the trip. Failing that, defaulters are subject to a fine of $197, rising to $295 if the levy is not paid in 28 days.


Secretary of State Hillary Clinton swears in the new U.S. Ambassador to Britain, Louis Susman, on July 29, 2009. Mrs. Marjorie Susman looks on. (Photo: Dept. of State)
As Louis Susman, Washington’s new ambassador, began his duties on Monday, the embassy was reported to owe the city some $5.7 million in unpaid charges and fines.

Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, foreign diplomats are exempt from paying local taxes. Transport for London, the agency supervising the scheme, argues that the congestion charge is a “service” akin to a highway toll rather than a tax, a position backed by the Foreign Office.

The U.S. is not alone in refusing to pay what it considers a tax, although it tops the list of “offenders.” Russia owes $4.2 million and Japan $3.7 million, according to Transport for London.

The U.S. Embassy’s refusal in 2006 to pay the charge prompted Livingstone, an outspoken left-winger, to label then Ambassador Robert Tuttle, who was appointed by President Bush, a “chiseling little crook.”

“I think it stinks that he’s weaseling his way out of paying his fair share to London because it makes Londoners have to pay more because he’s not paying his way,” Livingstone complained to the BBC.

It was particularly unacceptable, Livingstone said, at a time when we’re basically the only serious ally that America’s got, and our young people are putting their lives on the line for George Bush’s foreign policy every day.”


The symbol for the congestion charge zone, painted on a street in central London (Photo copyright Transport for London)

The key objectives given for introducing the charge were to reduce traffic congestion and to raise revenue for the city’s public transport system.
 
Last year, Livingstone planned to adjust the scheme to make it greener: Vehicles with higher carbon dioxide emissions, such as SUVs, would pay a considerably higher daily charge ($41) while some lower-emission cars would enter the congestion zone for free. (CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” are blamed for climate change.)
 
But in May 2008, Livingstone lost his bid for a third term to Conservative Party candidate Boris Johnson, who scrapped the CO2-based plan, saying it would have hit families and small businesses the hardest.
 
Although Livingstone’s departure removed an irritant in relations between the city and the U.S. Embassy, Johnson – who regularly cycles to work – late last year declared himself “disappointed” that a number of embassies were refusing to pay the congestion charge.
 
With the arrival of Obama’s appointed envoy, Transport for London had hoped the policy would change – and that it would get the lump sum payment it says is due.

“Despite the change in U.S. administration, the manner in which they contemptuously sweep aside the laws of their so-called closest ally is yet another example of the unequal relationship between America and the U.K.,” said lawmaker Norman Baker, spokesman on transportation for the center-left Liberal Democrats, Britain’s third largest political party.

“If the U.S. continues not to pay, the danger is that more and more countries will follow suit,” Baker added, saying he would be writing to Susman on the matter.

The Labor Party’s spokesman for the environment in London’s governing Assembly, Murad Qureshi, wrote recently to President Obama, urging him to “reverse a mean-spirited decision taken under your predecessor’s administration by the former U.S. ambassador to the U.K., not to honor the embassy’s financial obligations to their host city with regard to the cost of driving in central London.”

Qureshi asked Obama to “issue a presidential decree that the new ambassador should reverse Mr. Tuttle’s decision.”

Hutchison announces for Governor: "Time to return to our tradition of free, quality highways"

Remarks by Kay Bailey Hutchison Officially Announcing Her Historic Campaign for Governor

Hans Klingler, Communications Director

Austin, TX – Officially announcing her historic campaign for governor, Kay Bailey Hutchison delivered the following remarks as prepared for delivery in La Marque, Texas, at 8:00 a.m. CT:

“It is with pride and humility for history that I announce today that I am a candidate for Governor of Texas.

“Texas is like no other place on earth.  It started on March 2, 1836 when our forefathers declared an end to tyranny with the Texas Declaration of Independence.  Among the signers was my great, great grandfather, Charles S. Taylor.  The great men who signed that document put their lives on the line, and their fate in the hands of God.  Why did they do it?  Because they yearned for freedom and they believed in Texas.  Today, 173 years later, I’m running for Governor because I believe in Texas.  And I know we can do better.

“Let me start by saying this about Rick Perry.  He’s a dedicated public servant.  I know he loves Texas.  But now he’s trying to stay too long – 14 years, maybe longer.

“And after ten Perry years, where are we?

“Property taxes?  Highest in the country.

“State debt?  Doubled.

“Tuition?  Skyrocketing.

“Dropout rates?  Among the highest.

“Uninsured children?  Leading the nation.

“Private property rights?  At risk.

“Ten years is enough.  We can do better.

“In my administration, we will tackle these challenges.  We will be specific, and direct. We will lay out a clear, conservative vision for the future of Texas.  As Governor, I will focus on five areas:  Fiscal policy, education, transportation, health care and government reform.

“For starters, I will spend less, tax less, and borrow less.  Just look at Governor Perry’s new tax on business.  It’s been called a ‘job killer’.  More than 200,000 Texans lost their jobs this year.  In the month of June alone, Texas lost more lost jobs than any state but one.  And now we have the highest unemployment in the region.  The Governor said he was ‘proud’ to sign his record tax increase.  Well, I don’t call a job killing tax increase something to be proud of.  I call it a tragic mistake.

“Taxes have increased and government has grown.  Over the last ten years, Texas has added 30,000 new workers to the state payroll.  And to make a political point, we turned down half a billion in federal money, sacrificed it to other states, and now we’re borrowing three times as much and sticking Texas business with the tab.  That’s not conservative.  That’s irresponsible.  We can do better.  It’s time for results, not politics.

“As governor, I want to help create an education system that prepares our children for the jobs of tomorrow.  To begin, we will no longer accept one of the highest dropout rates in the country.  Our students deserve quality teachers who are well educated and trained, and schools where bad teachers aren’t just transferred, but let go.  But good teachers should be rewarded and they should have continuing opportunities for professional development.  I will propose incentives for math and science teachers to earn a degree in what they teach.

“In Texas, discussion of basic education should no longer be K through 12, but pre-K through 14.  We have to look for ways to support early childhood education efforts on the front end.

“And every child should have the support and encouragement to attend college.  But those who don’t, must be trained with marketable skills to find a good job.

“Ignoring these fundamental challenges is a recipe for mediocrity.  Or even worse: failure.  We can do better.  And our future depends on it.

“Today, TXDOT is the most arrogant, unaccountable state agency in the history of Texas.  I will reform and expand the Commission.  It should be more representative of all regions of our state.  And it will seek and embrace local input.  It is time to return to our tradition of free, quality highways and roads.

“Then there’s the Trans-Texas Corridor.  The biggest land grab in the history of Texas.  And the Governor wanted to turn it over to a foreign company to build toll roads.  Well, they can call it the Trans-Texas Corridor.  Or they can call it something different.  But here’s what I will call it when I take the oath of office, dead, buried, history.  We can do better.

“We must build a health care system that will leverage the vast resources of our state to bring health care options to the uninsured, and assistance to business owners so they can afford to provide it.  And know this, while I’m in the Senate, I will spend every moment fighting this massive government takeover of our health care system.  If you want to know what health care in Texas will look like when I’m governor, just imagine the exact opposite of what is proposed in Congress today.  We will offer carrots, not sticks.  Help, not fines.

“There’s another reality here in Texas.  Too often our state government is doing what it shouldn’t, and isn’t doing what it should.  When we have systemic abuse at the Texas Youth Commission, and fight clubs at state schools for the disabled, the last thing we need is government mandating vaccines for 6th grade girls or playing politics with a great university like Texas A&M.

“We need results, not politics.  And that starts with term limits for Texas governor.  For any Governor, eight years is enough.  We can’t afford fourteen years of one person appointing every state board, agency and commission.  It invites patronage.  It tempts cronyism.  And it has to stop, now.

“As Governor I will give our agencies a top to bottom scrubbing.  I will appoint a Commission 2025 – respected scholars, business, agricultural representatives, and community leaders – to look at Texas state governance.  What we should keep, what should go, and what should change.

“Finally, let me say this to every Texas Republican.  For the last decade, the Republican Party in Texas has been shrinking.  We’re losing elections we used to win easily.  In Austin, we’ve gone from 88 seats in the House to 76 – just two away from losing the Texas house.

“As Republicans, we can continue down the road of shrinking majorities.  Or we can inspire, unite, and grow our party.  Rebuild it from the bottom up, and reach out to Texans and say, ‘If you are for limited government, lower taxes and less spending, we want you in the Republican Party, we welcome you and want you to be active in our cause.’  That’s how we will win elections, keep the majority and be worthy to lead our great state.  And that’s what we’re going to do if I’m heading the Republican ticket.

“It’s time for a governor for all Texas.  Join me and together we will make the Texas of tomorrow everything our children deserve.

“This is a special time in Texas.

“A time for principled leadership.

“A time for reform.

“And a time for results.

“We can do better.

“And together, we will.”

Hutchison takes on "Big Kahuna of Tollways"

U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison

It was beautiful to hear a candidate for Texas governor actually take-on the detested and failed policies of Rick Perry in a crowd full of those who make a living off such policies. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison finished off the 12th Annual Transportation and Infrastructure Summit in Irving Friday with a speech outlining her positions on transportation.

Hutchison head and shoulders above the crowd
Don’t let Hutchison’s sleight build and gracious manner fool you. She’s as tough as nails and made some very bold statements in a crowd with a vested interest in a road-building slush fund, including a few jabs at Perry whom she referred to as the “Big Kahuna of tollways.” She repudiated tolling existing freeways calling it DOUBLE TAXATION and touted her many amendments to prevent TxDOT from doing so.

Her major theme was what she called highway fund “parity.” Texas has been what’s called a donor state, meaning Texas “donates’ some of its federal gas taxes collected to other states. Since Hutchison was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1993, Texas’ share of its federal gas taxes has gone from 73 cents of every dollar up to 92 cents of every dollar sent to Washington. With Texas handling 20% of the commerce coming through U.S. ports, it’s past time for Texas to get 100% of its gas taxes back.

In fact, Hutchison recently introduced legislation to allow Texas and other states to opt-out of the federal highway trust fund. She then slammed Perry’s Trans Texas Corridor as the biggest land grab in Texas history, calling it ill-conceived and an abuse of private property rights.

Hutchison also railed against Perry’s beloved CDA contracts because they basically create permanent toll roads (50 year contracts) and make the taxpayers pay a penalty to the private toll operators if any new roads are built surrounding the tollway.

Her sentiment is unequivocal: “I disagree with it 100%.”

She also decried the recent payment of $3.6 million to Cintra, the Spanish company that was the losing bidder on the hotly contested SH 121 tollway, which eventually was wrested from foreign-ownership by the public tollway authority. Hutchison said: “I call it a tax on arrogance.”
Perhaps most importantly was her clarification that the $60 million she helped secure for environmental studies for I-69 is for a FREE interstate within the existing right of way already purchased, not a continuation of Perry’s universally despised Trans Texas Corridor concept that would make I-69 a foreign-owned tollway.

Her parting words give the clearest indication as to how she would govern: “I will work with you, not dictate to you.”

Now that would be like a breath of fresh air to clean-up the stench coming from Perry and his highway department.

State lawmakers promise to push for tax hikes


Texas State Rep. Jim Dunnam

Tax, tax, and more tax
On the final day of the 12th Annual Transportation and Infrastructure Summit in Irving, TX, attendees got an earful from state legislators, most of whom endorsed a local option menu of taxes to fund roads and rail as well as endorsing more toll roads. Rep. Jim Dunnam, Chair of the House Select Committee on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), had the chutzpah to come right out and say he opposed the local option tax because it would fracture our state highway system and make it impossible to ever raise the statewide gas tax again, endangering rural areas. He instead offered what he feels is the best and most affordable solution, a referendum to raise and index the gas tax.

Rep. Joe Pickett - House Transp. Committee ChairRep. Joe Pickett, Chair of the House Transportation Committee, announced his committee is putting out a call for any new ideas for funding options, hoping to get consensus through a more collaborative process than Perry’s usual dictatorial style — cramming toll roads, particularly privatized toll roads (called CDAs or PPPs) down Texans throats.

Senator Kirk Watson, Vice Chair of the Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee, acknowledged that pushing toll roads has been “one of the most vitriolic processes I’ve ever been a part of.” He also quipped, “In fact, I can only mention the word toll because I’m out of my district.” Watson also reflected on the fact that “we take credit for our successes as if we did it, but really our success today is largely due to decisions that were made before us, generations ago.” He warned the next generation may not inherit the excess capacity on our roadways as we have.Senator Kirk Watson

Watson actually told the transportation businesses and employees in the room “to elect into office those who reflect what the people in this room want to see happen…we’re going to have to make people take the ‘responsible action.’”

“Make people” vote to raise taxes, Senator? He was referring to the local option menu of new tax hikes that the tax-averse Texas legislature failed to pass, and “responsible action” is code for passing it. Apparently Senator Watson is in need of a Town Hall meeting for a reality check.

While we know there is a funding problem at TxDOT, giving the State a free pass on its responsibility to fund STATE HIGHWAYS and to give local governments the ability to regularly put tax hikes on the ballot, essentially guarantees no road will EVER get fixed until government strong-arms taxpayers into voting for an array of tax hikes.

We’re all too familiar with the tactics of government and how it stuffs its coffers…starve all necessities (teacher pay, police/fire, roads) so that they can continue to use it as an excuse to raise taxes. Heaven forbid that our bloated government actually trim the fat and tighten its belt as we have to!

Senators Robert Deuell, Eliot Shapleigh, Florence Shapiro and State Representative Larry Phillips rounded out the panel moderated by Irving’s own Rep. Linda Harper-Brown. Shapleigh and Shapiro made forceful pleas in support of local option taxes.

With more transportation tax hikes promised and with no indication that any lawmakers intend to curb the reliance on tolling, the sale Texas highways to private corporations, or even ending the gas tax diversions, the grassroots army needs to be ready for battle for the next legislative session in 2011.

It's about PEOPLE…TURF covers Transportation Summit

Link to Terri Hall’s Examiner article here.

“Transportation should be about people, not projects,” advised Congressman John Carter, who addressed the 12th Annual Transportation and Infrastructure Summit in Irving today. I couldn’t agree more. However, when I asked him afterwards what his position was on toll roads and the sale of our infrastructure to foreign entities through these public private partnerships (or PPPs), his impassioned speech ended-up just that, a speech.

Anyone with a pulse knows Rick Perry’s push for privatizing public roads just got soundly defeated during the special session in July. Carter repeatedly called himself a Texan first. Congressman Carter, Texans DO NOT want their roads sold to Spain! It’s breathtakingly UN-Texan! While he was quick to disavow the Trans Texas Corridor (which affects his district), he was more than happy to stick it to urban commuters with 75 cent a mile toll taxes or $13 a DAY to get to work through PPPs. It’s the “not in my backyard” syndrome that pro-tollers routinely use to pit rurals against urbanites.

When billions in gas taxes and public money are pouring into these PPP deals, the sale of Texas highways impacts EVERY Texan. This urban-rural divide has got to STOP. We’re running out of money for ANY free roads in this state (if we’re not there already), and rural lawmakers have the most to lose. They’re facing the very real possibility that NO funding will trickle down to their areas as urban areas gobble up ALL available funds for highly leveraged toll roads.
Carter noted the summit wasn’t about adopting European or Pan-American transportation policies, but about Americans creating a uniquely American concept of transportation. Newsflash: road privatization started in Europe, and it’s failing in Europe. Now they’re transporting their risky leveraged debt, pension-raiding schemes overseas to spread the misery around! Investors write themselves sweetheart deals, thanks to their willing accomplices in government, at the expense of the taxpayers.

Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson fared even worse on the taxpayer index. She said: “Nobody wants to do anymore taxes. There are taxes and there are tolls, We have to do one or the other. We can’t build roads without tolls and public private partnerships.”

Whoa, oh yes we can build roads without tolls. Dust off the Texas Transportation Institute’s report that said precisely that! To summarize, it stated we could raise the gas tax 8 cents and index it to inflation or simply index the gas tax and we wouldn’t need to do a single toll road in the state of Texas.

Toll are taxes. They think we’re stupid and can’t figure that out. Politicians tell you with a straight face that they’re NOT raising taxes when they charge you a toll to access public roads (built with gas taxes, stimulus funds, and heaps of public money), and many of which are existing roads you’ve already built and paid for! I’m sick and tired of the mentality in Austin and Washington. They won’t fight for something that’s politically tough, so instead they shove the most EXPENSIVE transportation tax down Texans throats like it’s somehow a more palatable solution.

Congressman Ralph Hall and Pete Olson fleshed out the panel, both pro-toll. Most surprising of the bunch was Olson’s support for Perry’s “innovative financing” schemes when he’s from Fort Bend County where there is tremendous opposition to both the Trans Texas Corridor (or TTC) and the Grand Parkway, which is being considered for privatization and likely a leg of the TTC.

The keynote speaker, Congressman John Mica of Florida, ranking member of the House Transportation Subcommittee, floated a proposal to abolish the federal gas tax and levy a sales tax on the total sale price of gasoline each time we fill-up at the pump. He, too, noted that any straight gas tax increase is a non-starter. Are you beginning to see it’s because they want to find excuses to enact new taxes that charge you much higher transportation taxes?

Even more frightening is the reality that the road building industry is seeking to raise a whole litany of taxes in order to fund roads. Judging by the plethora of sessions dedicated to financing options (code for taxes), taxpayers are about to be hit with a tidal wave of higher taxes. With diversions of the gas tax still alive and well and with a highway department that’s run amok, our elected representatives clearly need a reality check.

Perhaps another front in the heated tax revolt brewing all over the country is necessary to help them get the message that taxpayers first demand accountability with the money they already take from us, then a curb on tolling, and lastly that they properly fund roads with the MOST AFFORDABLE solution, like indexing the gas tax.

Cintra BAILOUT: firm snags $3.6 million payment for LOSING BID on SH 121

Link to article here.

Wanna know why there’s no money for roads? Here’s your answer…
Hold your breath or at least resist the urge to throw things at your computer or kick the dog…despite public opposition, Texas Senator John Carona and State Rep. Charlie Geren carried the bill to lift the cap on payments to losing bidders on certain toll contracts called Comprehensive Development Agreements or CDAs. The original limit was $1 million, then in 2007 it was reduced to $250,000, and now since SB 882 passed, there is no cap on how high these payments can go. The amount of taxpayer money is solely at the discretion of government bureaucrats and politicians who bow to foreign interests, like the Spanish firm Cintra. So we’re paying LOSERS for not even building the roads! I warned you…the cronyism is only getting worse, and it’s at the expense of the taxpayers!
Thursday, Aug 13, 2009

Spanish firm to receive $3.6 million after losing road project

Perry dodges question on the Trans Texas Corridor

Link to more background info here. Watch the video of the “dodge” below…

The Victoria Advocate asked a simple question of Rick Perry August 6, but this video shows a long-winded “dodge” to the reporter’s question (because he’s still pushing the Trans Texas Corridor (or TTC) and knows it’s political suicide to admit it).

In fact, he intentionally misleads the public into thinking the Texas Legislature killed the TTC last session when, in fact, it did not. The TTC-35 contract was signed in 2005 and has not been revoked or bought out. The entire TTC-69 was excepted out the moratorium so segments of it can go under contract with foreign entities through 2011. The bill to repeal the Trans Texas Corridor (introduced by Rep. David Leibowitz) never made it out of committee, and it was later attached to a bill that died.

Texans for Kay launched a web page with a clock keeping track, in real time, of how long it takes for Texans to get a yes or no answer from Perry. We’re still waiting…