|
I'm excited about my child's 3 options for her future: college, career, or get shot in Iran.
|
#
?
May 23, 2019 22:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 19:47 |
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:This is so weird. Are they gonna let people read the bill before they vote on it? It's not weird at all, it takes a really long time to print those bills and they wanted to spike the football, it happens all the time. Also with West, Watson, and Mary Gonzales all on board, it's a pretty good signal to the Democrats that there aren't any secret shenanigans in the deal. One thing that I didn't see anywhere is the rollback rate reduction. Bettencourt was the only member of any of the 3 conference committees not present >_> e: listened to the presser again, Patrick says they're doing 2.5/3.5 rollback rate reduction Shifty Pony posted:"Bonnen, asked by a reporter after his remarks about how the two chambers had handled differences on the teacher pay issue, said he was going to “shut it all down right now” before diving into a football reference." What he shut down was framing of the story into which chamber won and which chamber lost, which is almost always how stories about big bills get written. THe football analogy was about winning as a team rather than focusing on who got what they wanted and how steamed up the other chamber must be about that. This is easily the least controversial session I've ever seen and the press is Big Mad about it. Read Scott Braddock's twitter account or see the two separate podcasts the Tribune has done on "the end of the Kumbaya session" over the Chick-Fil-A bill. When the chambers aren't in open warfare, it's harder on them to write stories and they get less engagement on their articles. While we must always acknowledge that anything can happen until the gavel comes down on sine die: the deal is as good as done. Even the biggest special session troll of the press corps sees it: https://twitter.com/scottbraddock/status/1131664454305886215 zoux fucked around with this message at 22:43 on May 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2019 22:21
|
|
|
I'm suspicious of their "dynamic" pay raises and merit-based raise system. Hopefully, the bill still includes just flat-out "here's $X,XXX more for every teacher".
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2019 22:27
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:I'm suspicious of their "dynamic" pay raises and merit-based raise system. Hopefully, the bill still includes just flat-out "here's $X,XXX more for every teacher". Oh for sure, I'd wager that this is going to be like the franchise tax poo poo in 2007, where they show back up next session to find out this poo poo didn't work out remotely close to how they thought. But as far as this session goes, those bills are going to be signed into law. It only takes a simple majority in both chambers to send it on to Abbott.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2019 22:29
|
|
|
Probably amazing raises for teachers in well to do districts who's 99.2% WASP population graduates
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:Probably amazing raises for teachers in well to do districts who's 99.2% WASP population graduates It's modeled on Dallas' ACE program which is like, the opposite of that. Y'all know you can google stuff before you lay down hypercynical hot rear end takes. Honestly the most surprising thing to me in the deal is the 2k 13th check for retired teachers, that's about 4x what has been discussed. zoux fucked around with this message at 22:44 on May 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2019 22:42
|
|
|
zoux posted:It's modeled on Dallas' ACE program which is like, the opposite of that. True, but flying off half-cocked is more fun
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2019 22:44
|
|
|
Zil posted:True, but flying off half-cocked is more fun Well, fair enough. Look, I get the mistrust but the plan is to redirect funding to low-income and ELL students an account for poverty density in those districts. Teacher groups were against it because of the merit pay program and of course everyone wanted more money, but as far as priorities, wealthy districts get recapture reduction and poor districts are going to see a greater share of funding. Like, full day prek for economically disadvantaged students and focus on early education in that population, it could of course be more but it's a whole lot better than what we got now. I'm not stanning the plan, the franchise tax scheme was a debacle and so too could this be, but from what we know right now it's a decent plan, at least as far as what is politically viable. zoux fucked around with this message at 22:50 on May 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2019 22:44
|
|
|
Hey what's that Beto guy up to these days? https://twitter.com/Forbes/status/1131318836576366592 Oh
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 01:21
|
|
|
poemdexter posted:I'm excited about my child's 3 options for her future: getting shot in college, getting shot during her career, or getting shot in Iran. ftfy
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 01:29
|
|
|
The Article posted:
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 06:00
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/1131752986340995072 Cool
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 14:42
|
|
|
I'm.... I'm approving of abbott????
|
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 15:23
|
|
|
Get me outta this drat building
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 15:27
|
|
|
Watermelon Daiquiri posted:I'm.... I'm approving of abbott???? Shows you how bad the problem of surprise billing was getting.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 15:28
|
|
|
It’s an improvement, but still doesn’t apply to self funded medical plans like many large employers (such as mine) have. Still happy to see it pass though.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 15:37
|
|
|
I'm not sure there's anything the state can do about ERISA plans because they are under federal jurisdiction. I know there was a bill moving that would allow y'all to opt in to TDI mediation but I can't remember the number and I don't know where it ended up. Garnet Coleman is having a special hearing of County Affairs to yell at Steve McCraw about withholding the Sandra Bland cell phone video and it's going swell https://twitter.com/James_Barragan/status/1131927409467580416 e: that tweet made me tune in and the first thing I heard was Coleman and McCraw calmly talking about better relationships between the Lege and DPS. Fuckin drama obsessed reporters!
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 15:41
|
|
|
Ooh and prohibitions on the out of network doctor drive-by. No more $60k bills from anesthesiologists you've never met who supposedly dropped in to "assist" their buddy after you were knocked out. Lol that the abusers of all this poo poo got so drat greedy they provoked the lege to go nuclear on them.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 15:56
|
|
|
One thing that irritates me about political coverage is the focus on inconsequential but extremely controversial culture war bullshit while actual poo poo that will affect people's lives goes unnoticed. The Born Alive bills got a ton of ink but they literally do nothing, because the thing they're trying to prevent doesn't happen and even if it did, it's already covered by multiple levels of law and professional ethics. The surprise billing thing is going to have a measurable impact on pretty much everyone who has a state regulated insurance plan. Another one, repealing the DRP, is going to help out poor Texans who get caught in this system of escalating fines that they can't pay, and also, it's just going to save people lots of money even if they have the means. Now, I'm not saying the press is ignoring good things the Legislature is doing, there are also plenty of bills every session that will have tangibly negative impacts that get ignored too. Media does have a bias, and it's for engagement and subscriptions, rather than favoring one political viewpoint over another. They frame politics as a zero-sum game, that's what that Bonnen thing was about yesterday, that some party, or chamber, or politician is winning at the expense of someone else, it's exactly the way that Trump, a creature born purely of media exposure, views politics and it's just loving wrong. e: https://twitter.com/evanasmith/status/1131941357130584064   (TX 21 is the north part of Bexar and like Comal and those other Hill Country Counties north of SA) zoux fucked around with this message at 16:23 on May 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 16:17
|
|
|
I really dislike Chip Roy, really disappointed when he was elected. Guy barely beat Kosper
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 16:50
|
|
|
skipdogg posted:I really dislike Chip Roy, really disappointed when he was elected. Guy barely beat Kosper https://twitter.com/jbendery/status/1131955233247121409 e: It didn't kill the bill, it's just they were trying to fast track it before the Memorial Day recess, so it'll have to wait a couple of weeks. Still, that's a long time when you're still waiting on help to repair your house. zoux fucked around with this message at 17:18 on May 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 17:09
|
|
|
skipdogg posted:I really dislike Chip Roy, really disappointed when he was elected. Guy barely beat Kosper Extremely same. Roy seems to be on a Shithead% speedrun of congress.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 17:52
|
|
|
zoux posted:One thing that irritates me about political coverage is the focus on inconsequential but extremely controversial culture war bullshit while actual poo poo that will affect people's lives goes unnoticed. The Born Alive bills got a ton of ink but they literally do nothing, because the thing they're trying to prevent doesn't happen and even if it did, it's already covered by multiple levels of law and professional ethics. The surprise billing thing is going to have a measurable impact on pretty much everyone who has a state regulated insurance plan. Another one, repealing the DRP, is going to help out poor Texans who get caught in this system of escalating fines that they can't pay, and also, it's just going to save people lots of money even if they have the means. Now, I'm not saying the press is ignoring good things the Legislature is doing, there are also plenty of bills every session that will have tangibly negative impacts that get ignored too. Media does have a bias, and it's for engagement and subscriptions, rather than favoring one political viewpoint over another. They frame politics as a zero-sum game, that's what that Bonnen thing was about yesterday, that some party, or chamber, or politician is winning at the expense of someone else, it's exactly the way that Trump, a creature born purely of media exposure, views politics and it's just loving wrong. Even when they do cover things that are likely to have an impact they do so from the most controversial perspective possible which encourages the legislators to hype that up to draw attention to themselves. The paid sick leave banning bill is a great example of that. On a lighter note autocorrect is wrong yet at the same time right: 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 18:14
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Even when they do cover things that are likely to have an impact they do so from the most controversial perspective possible which encourages the legislators to hype that up to draw attention to themselves. The paid sick leave banning bill is a great example of that. The Chick Fil A bill is like the Platonic example of that phenomenon. I'm fairly skeptical about the real world impact as y'all know but any impact is absolutely dwarfed by the coverage it got. And it's because it's a slam dunk as far as getting engagement: "What did you here the crazy libs are trying to ban Chick Fil A" versus "What did you hear the rethuglicans are trying to make it illegal to sell chicken sandwiches to LGBT people" and then they share the tweet with their echo chamber. @AP_politics is so bad about these disingenuous headline tweets, but I wonder how much of it is strategy. I don't think that the NYT editorial board thinks that Bret Stevens is a good columnist, but I bet that he gets way more engagement from people clicking on the article to dunk on him online than from people who agree with him. It's like that anecdote from Private Parts where they're talking about Stern's ratings, to paraphrase: "His average fan spends 30% more time listening than other programs." "What about people who can't stand him" "They listen 100% longer". It's essentially trolling: sustained by outrage. Also in case anyone was wondering the sick leave bills died in the House BUT it didn't matter anyway because municipal sick leave ordinances are currently under injunction and will likely be decided by SCOTX (can you guess what the ruling shall be) Case in point: https://twitter.com/scottbraddock/status/1131973935480877059 zoux fucked around with this message at 18:28 on May 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 18:17
|
|
|
Sardonik posted:Extremely same. Roy seems to be on a Shithead% speedrun of congress. I hope someone primaries him and he doesn't think he's going to be the next Lamar Smith and just cruise to victory for the next 20 to 30 years. I'll work my rear end off convincing all my R friends to vote against the guy. (I'm pretty sure I'm the only D in my entire neighborhood)
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 18:20
|
|
|
zoux posted:The Chick Fil A bill is like the Platonic example of that phenomenon. I'm fairly skeptical about the real world impact as y'all know but any impact is absolutely dwarfed by the coverage it got. And it's because it's a slam dunk as far as getting engagement: "What did you here the crazy libs are trying to ban Chick Fil A" versus "What did you hear the rethuglicans are trying to make it illegal to sell chicken sandwiches to LGBT people" and then they share the tweet with their echo chamber. So I didn't realize until this week that SB 1978 filed before that city council decision was ever made. The House author of the companion and bill sponsor said as much on Evan Smith's podcast. So it actually wasn't a reaction to Chick-Fil-A so much as just one of a large number of religious freedom bills that were introduced this session. Most of the other bills were moving at one point or another, so it was likely one of them was going to pass. Reading SB 1978, it was definitely not the most dangerous of those bills at this point since it doesn't explicitly say based on the person's beliefs, but it remains to be seen if it will have negative consequences. The other bills that received hearings were about preventing the government from taking literally any action, including denying contracts or licenses, against entities that were discriminating based on their beliefs. That included denying mental health services, emergency or otherwise, based on religious beliefs. Last session, we had the equivalent for foster care for HB 3859, religious freedom for foster care placements/providers. It was made out of simply limit the adoption agency options for gay couples (not great, but not as devastating), but what it really did was strip out rights of LGBTQ youth in foster care and the rights for foster care teens who needed contraception to be able to access it. Not only does a family or group care placement now not have to take in an LGBTQ youth or youth on birth control, the CPS caseworker also can't choose to not place a child with that family or group care placement based on these concerns. And there's no mechanism for the CPS caseworker to fully determine if a family or group care placement have these issues (beyond past experience). That's not theoretical. LGBTQ kids in Texas are disproportionately represented in foster care, and when I worked with them those kids had traumatic histories with anti-LGBTQ families or placements. Girls in foster care are also disproportionately way more likely to become pregnant as teenagers, and there's not really many placements to keep teen moms and babies together in foster care, so them not being able to stay on birth control just repeats the cycle. HB 3859 made it worse for a lot of kids in foster care. So I'd just be cautious to label it as meaningless, especially when SB 1978 is passed after a ton of these kinds of bills were getting hearings. Religious freedom has been the consistent code language now that it's harder to pass explicitly anti-LGBTQ laws.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 19:27
|
|
|
The Chick Fil A framing certainly helped it along. It wouldn't be getting Fox News segments from Laura Ingraham if it was just another RFRA bill. I'm not arguing that sincerely held beliefs/religious liberty bills aren't sneaky vehicles for anti-LGBT legislation, that's demonstrably true. The real bad "sincerely held beliefs" bills that moved were SB 17/HB 2827 which allowed people to use religion as an affirmative defense in disciplinary hearings before state occupational licensing boards, but it didn't get a hearing in the House. In fact if you look SB 1978 was the only"religious freedom" bill that moved out of a House committee this session; one wonders if it would have ended up like all the others if it didn't become a national hot button issue. e:I guess I can't link a TLO search but if you search for "religion" subject under the bill search it brings up the lot of them. e2: actually looking closer the only other RFRA bill even had a hearing in either chamber didn't ever come to a vote  Actually, HB 1035 got a hearing it looks like, but that was on that bonkers all night State Affairs "get yer press release hearing here" meeting they had zoux fucked around with this message at 19:58 on May 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 19:45
|
|
|
zoux posted:The Chick Fil A framing certainly helped it along. It wouldn't be getting Fox News segments from Laura Ingraham if it was just another RFRA bill. I'm not arguing that sincerely held beliefs/religious liberty bills aren't sneaky vehicles for anti-LGBT legislation, that's demonstrably true. Agreed. My point is that I think they wanted to pass a RFRA bill this session, and this was the only one that both had a narrative and was worded in a way that made it read as safer than the others. I guess at this point it's speculation on if they would have passed another one of these if SB 1978 had not been there and the Chick-Fil-A narrative wasn't available. I've also heard though that the San Antonio decision was largely about not wanting a business that was closed on Sundays due to traveler needs, but then one council member after the fact commented on their charitable giving. The one thing I'm most uncomfortable with on RFRAs is us giving tax dollars or benefits to entities providing fewer services or services to fewer people based on religious beliefs over other entities. HB 3172 was on that hearing schedule too. That ridiculous hearing went until like..8am the next morning. I don't know why they didn't just pick one bad topic and stick to it that night.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 20:15
|
|
|
Mistaken Frisbee posted:Agreed. My point is that I think they wanted to pass a RFRA bill this session, and this was the only one that both had a narrative and was worded in a way that made it read as safer than the others. I guess at this point it's speculation on if they would have passed another one of these if SB 1978 had not been there and the Chick-Fil-A narrative wasn't available. Like I said, that hearing was for red meat issues for both parties. There were like 3 SB 4 repealers, it was strictly for press releases. The fact that 3172 was on that slate only reinforces my belief that this was not a priority issue or one that was meant to pass. Only one other bill on that agenda even got so much as a vote in committee. And yeah, my whole point through this is this is because council member Roberto Trevino decided he wanted his name in the paper so he picked a fight with the Legislature. He wanted to make a statement. The day before the vote this article came out, and while the headline is sensational, the three orgs were the Salvation Army, FCA and a Christian Georgia boys home. quote:“With this decision, the City Council reaffirmed the work our city has done to become a champion of equality and inclusion,” Treviño said in a prepared statement. “San Antonio is a city full of compassion, and we don’t have room in our public facilities for a business with a legacy of anti-LGBTQ behavior.” I checked and pretty much every single licensed food vendor in the SA airport has had some donations or some dealings with the Salvation Army, so he's obviously not that worried about it. My problem with this whole thing boils down to this: Fame-seeking, and obsession with fame, is a real problem for the left-of-center. It's why there are 23 Democratic candidates for president instead of solid congressional candidates, it's why Democratic turnout is always lower in midterm years, it's why the GOP was able to take 2/3s of statehouses and gerrymander themselves into power, so when I see Democrats doing things that I think are meant to get them headlines rather than accomplish tangible policy goals, it pisses me off. It's also true I have a huge grudge against Bexar County Dems for losing SD 19 in a year when it really would've counted over institutional infighting (and having a corrupt widow-robbing conman necessitating a special in the first place), so that's for sure coloring my opinion here. I also absolutely understand why a member or ally of the LGBT community would be prima facie suspicious of any religious freedom action on the part of the Texas Legislature. But my argument is: If Trevino had truly wanted to simply keep CFA out of the SA airport, if that was the goal, he could've easily accomplished it with the "closed on Sunday" rationale that every other Democrat on the San Antonio city council did. I say it wasn't his goal, and while we can't say one way or another that this bill wouldn't have passed absent his grandstanding, it is the only significant religious freedom bill that moved, and it didn't start moving until after the March 21 vote. zoux fucked around with this message at 20:47 on May 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 20:39
|
|
|
I thought they both passed the thing saying doctors could deny services to gay people? I must have misread a story.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 20:48
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:I thought they both passed the thing saying doctors could deny services to gay people? I must have misread a story. You're probably thinking of SB 17, which passed the Senate but not the House, and referred to disciplinary actions on the part of occupational licensing boards. Or was it 2892? Never got a hearing. You probably saw some "Texas on verge of banning doctor services for LGBT" clickbait article which is typically how these filed stunt bills get framed in the media. zoux fucked around with this message at 20:54 on May 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 20:50
|
|
|
zoux posted:Like I said, that hearing was for red meat issues for both parties. There were like 3 SB 4 repealers, it was strictly for press releases. The fact that 3172 was on that slate only reinforces my belief that this was not a priority issue or one that was meant to pass. Only one other bill on that agenda even got so much as a vote in committee. I still don't buy that there wasn't a drive to pass one of these RFRAs this session, and it's not really fair to put the blame on Democrats for fighting it. We've seen major national trends towards passing RFRAs, and we easily passed one last session. It gets a lot of press attention and party credibility, but that doesn't mean there's not intentions to see it pass. It was clearly a priority on the Senate side with SB 17 moving it within the week. And not allowing protections for LGBTQ people to be added onto SB 1978 made it clear it was a coded discrimination bill. And I will agree on that the headliner for that story was really misleading because of what he said, when the charities named are not highly political. That doesn't change the implications of this law for everything else. But it's also aggravating that local governments are always having to interact with a highly reactive state government, and then getting blamed for passing any laws that impact their own jurisdictions (the rideshare regulations in 2017, for example). State regulations are fine and good, but we shouldn't be basing all of these major laws on "a city said or did one thing we didn't like, now we need rapid overhaul to take away their power to do x, y, and z." If you're arguing about that specific city councilman, sure. I think considering we now have an LGBTQ caucus fighting this, that hardly seems like a fame-seeking endeavor. And it seems bizarre to target the left on this. The House Democrats have worked pretty aggressively on sound public policy, especially around Medicaid expansion, benefits, and maternal health, and gotten stonewalled because of Dan Patrick's priorities and the Republican need to oppose Medicaid expansion. Passing these flashy anti-abortion, RFRA, anti-PP, anti-election fraud laws are about these Republican legislators getting seen as acting on these culture war issues. I don't buy that they wouldn't seek media attention if it wasn't being given to them, and I don't buy that it wouldn't pass if Democrats didn't raise attention to them or fight them.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 21:08
|
|
|
Yeah I'm just talking about the one guy, and I don't even think that most Democrats and leftward are like that, but I think that it doesn't take many to undermine policy goals. If there's anything that LGBT activists proved last session, is that they are the most potent, passionate and effective lobby on the left in Texas. And let me be clear, once that bill started moving, the caucus and activists had every reason to fight it tooth and nail, just insofar as it represents a statement about tolerance in Texas. Also the final version is fairly watered down compared to the filed version, which was really, really bad. I just don't think this is a battle that they should've had to fight. Dan Patrick is gonna Dan Patrick, but it's pretty clear that they got shook af after 2018 and if you compare the push for culture war bullshit in 17 with this session, it's night and day. Also when you control a state for 20 years and have completely changed everything to match your ideology, who is there left to fight? Conservatives can only exist as a party in opposition to something, and for 8 years it was Obama and they were all geared up for another 8 against Hillary. Now the only liberal bugbears they can go after are the cities. e:  Uh better check with your former CoS there champ zoux fucked around with this message at 22:15 on May 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 21:17
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/dylmcguinness/status/1132047829214683136 Good job Roberto quote:Federal requirements “prohibit airport operators from excluding persons on the basis of religious creed from participating in airport activities that receive or benefit from FAA grant funding,” the FAA said. https://twitter.com/DamonMarxDMN/status/1132079329792405504 That's up near Tyler  
zoux fucked around with this message at 02:17 on May 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2019 01:00
|
|
|
Because we absolutely need more people who've proven they can look the other way when their players rape other students.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2019 02:35
|
|
|
Excellent references
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2019 02:45
|
|
|
TropicalCoke posted:Someone earlier called it a paperboy legislature and man are they correct Bringing this back because as I'm finishing up my first session, it's alarming to me how much of that building is run by actual 20-year olds. And how clumsy the process is that a single legislator could kill a $100 million governor emergency item over some information missing in the paperwork for the bill, not even the bill itself, and the only way it was saved was from an amendment added at the last minute (that was actually really hard to get them to agree to add beforehand).
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2019 17:35
|
|
|
I just want my life back
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
Mistaken Frisbee posted:Bringing this back because as I'm finishing up my first session, it's alarming to me how much of that building is run by actual 20-year olds. And how clumsy the process is that a single legislator could kill a $100 million governor emergency item over some information missing in the paperwork for the bill, not even the bill itself, and the only way it was saved was from an amendment added at the last minute (that was actually really hard to get them to agree to add beforehand). Now realize it's the same in every state house and congress too! Hell of a system. When I worked up there way back when, I recalled teachers telling me how my procrastinating ways wouldn't fly in the real world only to find out the most accomplished people in the whole goddamn state were Olympic-level procrastinators. There's no reason for this end of the session crunch, it leads to really bad bills, but they don't want to make it more streamlined because this logistical two-week clusterfuck that happens at the end of every May is an important tool for killing bills you don't like. Oh and also they go out and get wined and dined while staffers stay up til 3 in the morning reading 500 page bills. They have a grand old time down here. zoux fucked around with this message at 18:49 on May 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2019 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 19:47 |
|
|
zoux posted:Now realize it's the same in every state house and congress too! Hell of a system. Yeah, working on the other end it's aggravating how slow everything is until mid-April (taking weeks to get a response regardless of how often you ask), then how much you get chastised for not getting a bill or amendment through sooner. It also leads to good bills that are noncontroversial and cost-neutral to die for absolutely no reason. We lost a really important data collection bill due to the House running out of time to set bills from the Local & Consent Calendar. We lost another noncontroversial, cost neutral bill because an opposing office took two weeks to tell us they wanted specific clarifying language in the bill that was totally fine with us. I get they set this all up to intentionally kill bills so they don't have to take critical votes or been seen as "too regulatory", but it's so drat stupid and wasteful of everyone's time and money to have to keep fighting for noncontroversial stuff for years. And yeah, the staff do everything, and to their credit the 20-year old interns are sometimes harder working and better informed. I really didn't talk to an actual legislator outside of testimony more than a handful of times all session, and two of our bills that were successful were managed by a 20-year old intern the entire time. Never spoke to any other staff or the legislator. The biggest thing I learned this session was to ignore the advice other folks gave me about only filing bills with established Republicans in leadership roles. If your bill isn't partisan or a major change to law, the key is to just find someone whose office knows enough about moving legislation (freshmen can be okay sometimes if they have veteran staff), without high staff turnover, who cares about your issue, hasn't filed way too many bills, and who doesn't regularly piss other legislators off. Very little to do with party for bills that aren't partisan or major changes. At least, this is what I'm taking away for next session. TropicalCoke posted:I just want my life back I will probably end up coming back in two years in some way. I don't even want to think about it anymore for at least a week though, and don't want to return to the Capitol until the fall.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 00:49
|
|