Capitol Letters

The national Hispanic unemployment rate is at 11 percent and according to the latest figures from the U.S. Census Bureau, the poverty rate for Hispanics is over 26 percent. A recent study conducted by the Texas Politics Project found that 25 percent of the Hispanic population in Texas is considered poor. But these depressing numbers don’t seem to faze the pull-yourself-up-by-your-Cuban-American-bootstraps Ted Cruz. Last week the former state solicitor general and Republican Senate nominee denounced the president’s welfare policies as keeping poor people “trapped in dependency” while attempting to gut the bipartisan welfare reform bill and welfare-to-work initiative passed under the Clinton administration.

“We are not doing anybody a favor by giving them welfare in perpetuity and making them dependent on government,” Cruz said. Apparently the clandestine radical socialist agenda being pushed by the Obama administration is slowly destroying the Latino community that Cruz purports to represent. Appearing on Fox News, Cruz stated with confidence that Hispanics share his conservative values and strong work ethic because he has never seen a Hispanic panhandler. This random non-fact serves to validate Cruz’s central argument that Hispanics may be unemployed, they may be struggling to put food on the table, they may have lost their homes but at least their cultural pride and sense of honor keep them from begging on street corners or, God forbid, accepting temporary government assistance. Throwing out unfounded quips about the ethnicity of panhandlers is just so much easier than addressing the real issues and challenges facing the Latino community. Especially when you’re a highly paid partner in a law firm with cushy benefits and health insurance.

The Texas Food Bank Network reported that 44 percent of its food applicants in 2010 were Hispanic. An estimated 38 percent of Hispanics in Texas lack health insurance. Naturally Cruz and his fellow Republicans have pledged to overhaul the Affordable Care Act and its Medicaid expansion even though 22 percent of Texas Hispanics are currently covered by the program. Does seeking assistance make Hispanics who were disproportionately hit hard by the economy any less honorable?

“[Cruz] is a pretty impressive gentleman with credibility and a great personal story,” said Brent Wilkes, the national executive director for the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). “But we certainly have disagreements with him about the role of [government] programs and the role of government in our society. He seems very focused on eliminating programs that help people contribute to the economy and are very much worth the expense.”

Cruz’s controversial positions on a range of issues from immigration to voter ID could also make outreach to the Latino community a significant challenge. During his campaign he said he opposes so-called “amnesty” for undocumented immigrants and came out against the DREAM Act, a cause which our own governor championed. Cruz also intends to introduce a bill that would triple the size of the U.S. Border Patrol. (See? The federal government isn’t always bad.) As an adamant supporter of photo ID legislation Cruz points to voter fraud as the main threat to our democratic process. As opposed to, you know, encouraging more Latinos to participate in that democratic process.

Democrat-turned-Republican Aaron Peña, who did not seek reelection this year, views Cruz’s victory as a positive thing for the Latino community. “The election of Cruz and other Hispanic conservatives forces the Democratic party to come into the 21st century,” Peña said. “We win when they compete for our vote. Now we have a real competition and Cruz is part of that. This debate will transform both parties.” And in Peña’s opinion Cruz’s win is yet another example of Republicans breaking down institutional barriers.

But LULAC’s Wilkes believes that more Latinos would support Latino candidates like Cruz if they weren’t so divisive. “On the issue of immigration, there certainly can be some argument on what the right level should be but you get the distinct impression that [Republicans] don’t like Latinos,” he said. “The way they talk about some issues like English-only legislation, they’re really talking about the [Latino] culture being inferior. They come across as a party pushing Latinos away.”

To expand Medicaid is “not unlike adding 1,000 people to the Titanic.”—Rick Perry on Fox News, July 9

In a strongly worded and entirely predictable letter Monday to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Gov. Rick Perry announced his intention to reject any expansion of the Medicaid program in Texas or the creation of a state health insurance exchange, two key provisions of the Affordable Care Act that Perry refers to as “brazen intrusions into the sovereignty of our state.” Looks like it’s time to dust off the muskets and prepare to defend Texas’s sovereignty! Again!

“We in Texas have no intention to implement so-called state exchanges or to expand Medicaid under Obamacare,” Perry said in a statement. “I will not be party to socializing healthcare and bankrupting my state in direct contradiction to our Constitution and our founding principles of limited government. I stand proudly with the growing chorus of governors who reject the Obamacare power grab. Neither a ‘state’ exchange nor the expansion of Medicaid under this program would result in better ‘patient protection’ or in more ‘affordable care.’ They would only make Texas a mere appendage of the federal government when it comes to health care.”

As for the health care act being “in direct contradiction to our Constitution,” Perry clearly missed the part where the Supreme Court ruled that the law is…constitutional. Although the court did rule that the federal government couldn’t penalize states that choose to opt out of the Medicaid expansion, the implementation of health insurance exchanges is mandatory. States refusing to create the exchanges will see the federal government stepping in and doing it for them. How embarrassing. Not that Perry is easily embarrassed.

In an interview Monday on Fox News, Perry was caught off-guard by a hard-hitting question posed by one of the many interchangeable female blond newscasters there: “If part of your goal is to keep the federal government out of the lives of Texans, then why give them that power?” Perry responded by not responding, saying only that Medicaid is a failed program and increasing enrollment is “like adding 1,000 people to the Titanic.” When asked what his solution would be to the health care crisis, he suggested that if the federal government “was serious about working with the states” they would provide the funding in no-strings-attached block grants, the default conservative proposal on how to best fix (or, more accurately, cut) Medicaid. Block grant funding would provide Texas greater leeway in how it allocates its resources while stripping poor and disabled Texans of their benefits. Well someone’s got to be the loser.

But where Perry really got it wrong in the Fox interview was his assertion that “every Texan has health care in this state from the standpoint of being able to have access to healthcare.” That’s like saying that every Texan has food in this state from the standpoint of being able to have access to the grocery store. It doesn’t mean the more than six million Texans who are uninsured can actually afford it. And who but our governor has access to experimental adult stem cell spinal infusions? According to a new study released by the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, Texas ranks dead last in health care services and delivery. Texas Medicaid is also one of the most limited and strictest programs in the country. The Texas Health and Human Services Commission projects that the state would actually see a net gain of $70 billion over five years if it expanded its Medicaid program. That sounds like some sort of trick.

In the end it looks like Perry would rather go down with the ship than work with the federal government on health care. And he’s taking millions of uninsured Texans down with him.

In a landmark decision this morning the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act as constitutional, including the controversial individual mandate requiring most citizens to purchase health insurance if they don’t already have coverage. But what makes the ruling even more historic is that Chief Justice John Roberts joined the majority in its opinion. Sure, it’s not as unbelievable as Justice Antonin Scalia having drinks with Justice Sonia Sotomayor but it’s close.

Republican opponents had nervously awaited the court’s decision, their staff poised to send out one of two press releases, either praising the court for its infinite wisdom and undying patriotism or slamming the court for being stacked with liberal activist judges. Will Roberts replace Justice Anthony Kennedy as the swing vote?  Even worse, will Obamacare now be known as Roberts-care?

In ruling that the health care act is constitutional, the court upheld not only the centerpiece of the law—the individual mandate—but also other key provisions such as protecting Americans with preexisting conditions and allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ health insurance. The mandate was upheld by the court as a tax. which would only affect a small percentage of the population. Americans who don’t buy health insurance will face a penalty of one percent of their income. Employers who don’t offer insurance could also face penalties. While most people would argue that the individual mandate is a huge victory for President Obama, Republicans can also claim victory by repeatedly referring to it as a tax, thereby providing a new mantra for the conservative media.

Naturally Texas Republicans in the House quickly weighed in on this national travesty, just as they did following initial legal arguments back in March. (These actually may be recycled press releases, slightly edited for content.) Congressman Pete Sessions said that he’ll continue to fight for a full repeal to “restore the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship and put an end to Washington bureaucrats’ power.” Congressman Sam Johnson cited the law’s $500 billion in tax hikes. (See? At least someone has read the footnotes!) Congressman Jeb Hensarling upped the ante by saying that the Affordable Care Act “assaults religious freedom” in some kind of inane shout-out to the Conference of Catholic Bishops.

So what does the decision mean for Texas, the state with the highest percentage—one in four—of uninsured people in the country? Apparently the prospect that more Texans would be eligible for Medicaid, enabled by increased federal funding, was bad enough that Attorney General Greg Abbott joined 25 other states in suing the federal government over the expansion of the program.  The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Medicaid expansion, but ruled that the federal government cannot penalize states who opt out by withholding their existing Medicaid funding. This means that Texas can continue screwing Medicaid patients at will despite the new Medicaid expansion. Everyone’s a winner!

Leave it to Gov. Rick Perry to use the most forceful albeit absurd language in his official statement:

“This ruling will be a stomach punch to the American economy. It is a shocking disappointment to freedom-loving Americans desperate to get our country back on track … Americans have made clear their overwhelming opposition to its convoluted, burdensome and overreaching mandates. 

“Freedom was frontally attacked by passage of this monstrosity—and the Court utterly failed in its duty to uphold the Constitutional limits placed on Washington. Now that the Supreme Court has abandoned us, we citizens must take action at every level of government and demand real reform, done with respect for our Constitution and our liberty.”

Does anyone else smell another golden opportunity for secession?

Last Friday the Obama administration announced that it would ease enforcement of current immigration deportation guidelines to allow certain young immigrants who came to the U.S. as children to apply for work permits, effectively bypassing Congress. The Congress, of course, hates being bypassed. It makes small and insignificant elected officials look small and insignificant. Take Congressman Lamar Smith, who immediately responded to the policy change in a same-day op-ed (no doubt activated by the emergency anti-immigration press release template) blasting the president for granting amnesty to potentially millions of immigrants. If you look in the Republican dictionary, the definition of “immigration” is “amnesty.” The definition of “amnesty” is “terrorist plots carried out by well-trained anchor babies.” Don’t even get them started on “backdoor amnesty.”

“The administration’s amnesty policy…is a magnet for fraud,” Smith said. “Many illegal immigrants will falsely claim they came here as children or are under the age of 30 and the federal government has no way to check whether their claims are true.” He’s right. How could an amateur government agency like the Department of Homeland Security possibly tell if a 50-year- old man is trying to pass himself off as a tween by sporting a Justin Bieber t-shirt?

Not surprisingly most Texas Republicans had similar reactions, according to the Houston Chronicle. Congressman Ted Poe likened the change to an “imperial decree,” making the president sound somewhat Darth Vader-ish. Congressman Michael Burgess called it a “reckless decision” and Congressman Kenny Marchant called it “appalling.” If you’re being called imperial, reckless and appalling by the Texas congressional delegation, you know you’re doing something right.

But it’s really Lamar Smith who has taken this on as his own personal crusade. In a letter to the president on Wednesday, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee complained that the administration’s decision “raises serious constitutional questions about the legitimacy of the policy.” Smith is asking for “any legal opinions from the Justice Department regarding what authority the Administration has to impose immigration policies without congressional approval.” Lucky for Smith, the House is already holding Attorney General Eric Holder hostage so that should make the interrogation much easier.

As with any hot-button issue, you can’t fully analyze the pros and cons without considering the Gohmert angle. Appearing on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal this week, Congressman Louie Gohmert expressed grave concern that the president’s latest move is simply “another incentive to come in here illegally and vote for [him] illegally.” He’s right. Most undocumented immigrants can’t wait to show up to the polls.

Gohmert did say, however, that he “really sees the Hispanic culture as being able to get us back to embracing the things that made us great.” The congressman is also sensitive to the needs of the African-American community. When a listener called in wanting to know why there is a Congressional Black Caucus but not a Congressional White Caucus, Gohmert responded that there would never be a Congressional White Caucus because “there’d be too much fussin’” but quickly added that it would be a bad idea. Hopefully he doesn’t find out that there’s a Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

According to statistics from the Immigration Policy Center, more than 16 percent of Texans are foreign born. Forty-one percent of immigrants are Latino or Asian and 32 percent are eligible to vote. Over 87 percent of children in Texas with immigrant parents are U.S. citizens. No wonder the Republicans are terrified.

In July, Texas will face off with the feds over the state’s voter ID law, one of the most stringent in the nation. Our governor deemed voter ID an emergency issue during the last legislative session and a more-than-willing Legislature passed the measure. In March, the law was blocked by that perennially overreaching and meddling Justice Department which cited discrimination against minorities in general and Hispanic voters in particular. Rick Perry blasted U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision, saying that the law required nothing more than the type of photo ID needed to board an airplane, receive a library card or secure a concealed handgun license. (People who don’t carry shouldn’t be allowed to vote anyway.) At the time Sen. John Cornyn claimed that the decision “reeked of politics” and was intended to help the president’s reelection campaign. Clearly the administration was also using the issue to sink Perry’s campaign. It worked nicely.

“The Texas proposal was based on a similar law passed by the Indiana legislature, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2008,” said Congressman Lamar Smith, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. “The administration’s actions aren’t just wrong, they are arrogant, undemocratic and an insult to the rule of law.” Curious use of the word undemocratic, which at its core refers to something not based on the principles of democracy and social equality. Like, perhaps, the right to vote.

Texas is one of 10 states that passed new voter ID laws in 2011 or 2012, and far from the only one battling it out with the Holder. This week the Justice Department filed a high-profile lawsuit against Florida’s controversial “voter purge,” which would remove voters that “may or may not be citizens” from its voter rolls, saying it violates federal law. The state of Florida then filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security for refusing to provide access to a database that could help them hunt down those elusive potentially-ineligible-but-potentially-eligible voters.

The Texas voter ID lawsuit will be heard by a three-judge federal panel on July 9. State Attorney General Greg Abbott sought to block the Justice Department from deposing lawmakers involved with the voter ID bill. However bill authors Sen. Troy Fraser and Rep. Patricia Harless, along with other lawmakers, have already been deposed. No doubt they will be treated as hostile witnesses.

Naturally both Senate candidates looking to take Kay Bailey Hutchison’s seat and become Cornyn’s junior have weighed in on the issue. Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and Ted Cruz feature online petitions on their campaign websites encouraging their supporters to oppose the actions of the Justice Department and the Obama administration. As solicitor general, Cruz successfully defended a lawsuit filed by the Texas Democratic Party to prevent the enforcement of the voter ID law or, as he refers to it, the “voter fraud” law. He also defended Indiana’s photo ID law before the Supreme Court. Point Cruz.

Meanwhile, voter ID finally passed the Senate under Dewhurst’s leadership after he aggressively pushed for it over two legislative sessions. Counterpoint Dewhurst. Clearly this is an issue close to their hearts and one that will surely win over the Hispanic voters their party is so desperate to reach.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, roughly 11 percent of eligible voters do not have a government-issued photo ID. Whether or not the new law could be implemented here in time for the general election remains to be seen. But it sure would be a bummer for Republicans to see that 11 percent show up at the polls.