Health – Happiness – Page 81

Texas has the anti-climate Governor: Greg Abbott signs Law Making EV Owners Pay for Their Gas-Free Cars

Gizmodo

Greg Abbott Signs Law Making EV Owners Pay for Their Gas-Free Cars

Lauren Leffer – May 19, 2023

EV drivers in Texas don’t pay at the pump, but will have to start paying a significant annual fee that critics are calling “punitive.”

Driving an electric vehicle in Texas is soon to become more expensive. Governor Greg Abbott signed a law (SB 505) on May 13 instituting new fees for registering and owning EVs in the state. Under the bill, electric car owners will have to pay $400 upon registering their vehicle. Then, every subsequent year, EV drivers will have to shell out an additional $200. Both of those fees are on top of the cost of the standard annual registration renewal fees, which are $50.75 each year for most passenger cars and trucks.

The law exempts mopeds, motorcycles, and other non-car EVs, and goes into effect starting on September 1, 2023.

At least 32 states currently have special electric vehicle registration fees, according to data from the National Conference of State Legislatures. These range from $50 in places like Colorado, Hawaii, and South Dakota to $274 (starting in 2028) in a recently passed piece of Tennessee legislation. Note: Tennessee lawmakers had originally proposed a $300 fee, but lowered it in response to pushback.

Like many other states that have instituted EV fees, the reasoning behind the Lone Star State’s new law is that electric car drivers don’t buy gas. Taxes at the fuel pump are the primary way that most states, Texas included, amass funds for road construction, maintenance, and other driving-related infrastructure.

“Currently, Texas uses the gasoline/diesel fuel tax to fund transportation projects; however, with the growing use of EVs, the revenue from the fuel tax is decreasing, which diminishes our ability to fund road improvements for all drivers,” said the bill’s author, Republican State Senator Robert Nichols, in comments about the legislation, per local NBC News affiliate KXAN.

But, compared with what gas drivers contribute, Texas’s EV fees seem a little out of whack. Charging $200 per year and $400 at the outset of EV ownership places Texas’s fee schedule at the higher price end of the policies out there. In comparison, Texas’s gas tax is among the lowest in the country, at just $0.20 per gallon. Just seven states impose a lower duty on gasoline than TX. Among the 10 most populous states in the country, additional fees levied elsewhere make Texas’s gas the cheapest.

The average Texas driver burned through ~55 million BTUs of motor gasoline in 2018, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That’s equal to about 440 gallons of gas. At $0.20 per gallon, the standard car owner in Texas is paying just $88 per year in gas taxes—far less than the hundreds more EV drivers will now be throwing into the pot. A 2022 Consumer Reports analysis determined that a Texas driver’s gas tax contribution is even lower, at just $71.

The new law says loud and clear that Texas is “fully behind oil and gas,” Kara Kockleman, a transportation engineering professor at the University of Texas, Austin, told local ABC News affiliate KVUE. “Electric vehicles should pay a gas tax – I just think the tax on the conventional cars should be much, much higher than it is. We pay less for gas in this state than almost anyone in the world… Texas is really behind the curve on trying to do the right thing by the environment. And so, that’s embarrassing, I think, for all of us.”

There’s no doubt that roads and other car infrastructure are expensive. Though it can be easy to forget that—every time a driver cruises down the asphalt, complies with a traffic signal, or reads a highway sign—they’re benefiting from a costly system constructed for their particular use and benefit. But compared with other forms of transportation in the U.S., car ownership is already heavily subsidized. So is burning fossil fuels.

According to a 2015 analysis from the nonprofit Canadian media outlet The Discourse, society pays more than $9 for every $1 a driver pays in commuting: Through infrastructure, accident liability, noise and air pollution, and congestion. Buses, biking, and walking all eat up much less public funds for the same amount of miles traveled. EVs presumably also have a slightly lower public cost, as they’re quieter and don’t directly emit air pollution.

Yet in Texas, the tax load for driving an electric car will far exceed that of a gas-powered vehicle. The new law is “punitive” according to Consumer Reports. “Consumers should not be punished for choosing a cleaner, greener car that saves them money on fuel and maintenance,” Dylan Jaff, a policy analyst at CR, wrote in an April statement. “The fees proposed in this bill will establish an inequitable fee scale for EV owners, and will not provide a viable solution to the long-standing issue of road funding revenue.”

Luke Metzger, director of the non-profit advocacy group, Environment Texas, echoed Consumer Reports’ findings in a statement from last month. “The Texas Legislature is pouring sugar in the tank of the electric vehicle revolution. This punitive fee will make it harder for Texans to afford these clean vehicles which are so critical to reducing air pollution in Texas.”

Electric personal vehicles are not a perfect solution to the ongoing problem of petroleum-powered cars. Swapping every gas-guzzler for an EV still would use up an extraordinary amount of resources, that are likely to be ill-gotten. Public investment in mass transit would inarguably be a better environmental strategy. But, as long as the U.S. remains overwhelmingly car dominant and as long as most Americans lack access to adequate public transit, EV uptake remains important for lowering the nation’s carbon emissions.

Already, the upfront costs of purchasing an electric car are significantly higher than buying a gas vehicle. A disproportionate tax system adds to that burden, and it could dissuade people from transitioning to EVs.

Cognitive decline after retirement is a universal trend. Here are 4 ways to reverse it

Fortune

Cognitive decline after retirement is a universal trend. Here are 4 ways to reverse it

Erin Prater – May 19, 2023

Retirement—the word often conjures up thoughts of overseas vacations, bonus time with loved ones, and the discovery of new hobbies.

But the life milestone can be a stressful one—and, thus, “a potential trigger for cognitive aging,” according to a 2021 piece in The Journals of Gerontology, authored by researchers at the University of Cologne in Germany, and the University of California at San Francisco.

Researchers interviewed nearly 9,000 European retirees ages 50 and older, from 17 countries. Each completed six memory assessments over the course of 13 years.

Their findings: Retirement was generally associated with a moderate decrease in word recall, and memory decline “accelerated after retirement.” This was true in all countries involved—even in those with more generous welfare systems and higher pension benefits—like Germany, Austria, France, and Belgium—versus those with low public pensions, like Portugal, Greece, Israel, Estonia, Poland, and Slovenia.

Studies have shown that postponing retirement can protect against cognitive decline, especially among the more highly educated. But let’s face it—life is short. For those who can and wish to retire on time, here are four tips for staying mentally sharp during what should be the most joyous season of life.

Keep (or get) connected.

A quarter of Americans ages 65 and older are socially isolated, according to a 2020 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. While loneliness is miserable, it’s also more: It poses a health risk as deadly as smoking a dozen cigarettes a daily, U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy recently told attendees of Fortune’s Brainstorm Health conference. Retirement often means loss of the community you worked in, perhaps for decades. Keep connected to others by taking classes, volunteering, hanging out with friends, or picking up a sport.

Keep active.

It’s never too late to begin an exercise routine—even if you didn’t pre-retirement, or if you fell off the wagon at some point. Having been physically active at any point in adulthood, “to any extent,” is associated with better cognition later in life—though those with a lifelong habit of exercising see optimal results, according to a recent article in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry.

Aim for at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity activity—or 75 minutes of vigorous activity—a week, per the recommendation of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Keep stress to a minimum.

There are myriad ways to keep stress at bay. A few of them:

Sexual activity. Studies show that those who have sex less frequently report higher levels of stress. Of note: masturbation counts as sex; no partner required.
Sleep. It’s well known that quality sleep is protective against cognitive decline—and a host of other health issues like depression and obesity. Aim for seven to nine hours a night, according to the National Institute on Aging. If sleep is a struggle for you, talk to your doctor—a sleep study may be in order to get to the root of the issue.
Budget. Do your best not to introduce any new stressors in your life. For the vast majority, this will require keeping a budget. If you don’t have one, you’re not alone—and it’s never too late. A financial advisor can help you establish one and determine how much money you truly need to live on—not just how much you think you need.

Keep working.

Hear us out: Ideally, you’re in a situation where you don’t have the financial need for a typical 9-to-5. But you have just as much to contribute to society as the day before you retired. If it brings you joy, consider volunteering, contract work, or a part-time job in a field you love—regardless, perhaps, of pay. You’ll reap the benefits of connectedness and cognitive acuity and typically accompany work—hopefully without all the stress.

Psaki on debt ceiling talks: China probably ‘rooting for default’

The Hill

Psaki on debt ceiling talks: China probably ‘rooting for default’

Alex Gangitano – May 19, 2023

Former Biden White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Friday that China is probably “rooting for default” while talks in Washington over a debt ceiling compromise have been cut short.

“All of these world leaders and their teams are watching what’s happening in the United States. Is democracy going to last? Are they going to default? All of that makes the United States look weak on the world stage,” Psaki said on MSNBC.

“If you’re China, you’re probably — you’re rooting for default,” she added.

President Biden has also warned it could be a concern internationally if the U.S. were to default on its debt, arguing recently that world leaders have been wondering about the looming risk.

Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines said earlier this month Beijing and Moscow would use a potential default for propaganda purposes through “information operations” as evidence the U.S. political system is chaotic.

Psaki outlined the situation with the president in Japan for the Group of Seven (G-7) summit, relying on Republican negotiators and White House officials to keep working to avoid a default until he returns to Washington on Sunday.

“So for the president, this is about — he’s there to project strength; the United States is back at the table,” she said. “But these negotiations, this being tricky and unresolved at home, is not great. And that’s important for people, Republicans, Democrats to really understand.”

She also warned against being overly concerned by the top Republican lawmakers negotiating a debt ceiling compromise with the White House cutting the talks short. The Republicans left a meeting with White House officials Friday in the Capitol, saying the two sides were too far apart and that the White House is being unreasonable.

“Sometimes, there are pauses where it looks like everything is going to explode and not come back together, and it does,” she said.

The White House had expressed optimism as recently as late Thursday, saying there had been “steady progress” in debt limit talks, and officials said Friday the president’s team is “working hard towards a reasonable bipartisan solution.”

Additionally, Psaki said there “will be no doubt legal challenges if the president were to invoke the 14th Amendment” in response to a letter sent earlier this week from 11 senators to Biden suggesting he prepare to invoke the amendment.

The president said last week there have been discussions about whether the 14th Amendment can be invoked, but he acknowledged it would have to go to the courts.

We Don’t Have to Accept Antisocial Gun Behavior Just Because the Guy Says It’s a Political Protest

Esquire

We Don’t Have to Accept Antisocial Gun Behavior Just Because the Guy Says It’s a Political Protest

Jack Holmes – May 19, 2023

a supporter of us president donald trump keeps a hand on his gun during a — Antisocial Gun Behavior Is Not ProtestKEREM YUCEL – Getty Images

We may have reached the pinnacle of Both Sides journalism with some coverage out of Maryland, where Governor Wes Moore signed a package of new gun control bills into law this week restricting who can carry guns in public and where they can do it. The Supreme Court conservatives created a constitutional right to carry guns outside the home last summer when they struck down a 110-year-old New York gun law, a decision which also functionally threw out parts of Maryland’s legal regime on guns. Moore and his allies in the legislature are presumably trying to prevent their jurisdiction from becoming another gun anarchy state now that the number of residents allowed to carry a concealed firearm in public has tripled.

Gun rights groups don’t like this—they’re also suing to throw out Maryland’s assault weapons ban—and it seems neither did one resident in particular. Tolly Taylor of WBAL in Baltimore reported Thursday that “a man with an AR-15 has been showing up for weeks to a school bus drop off for local elementary school students.” He teased a piece on that night’s local news in which viewers would learn that “parents say their kids are afraid, the man says he’s protesting @GovWesMoore’s new gun control law. You’ll hear from both sides at 5+6pm.”

Taylor may well just be trying to abide by coverage guidelines set by his boss(es), but in the process, this becomes really the apotheosis of the Both Sides affliction in the American press. There is no scenario in which some maladjusted creep who’s frightening children at an elementary school bus stop should be presented as just some guy with political opinions by the local news. This is antisocial behavior that should be ridiculed, including by normal people who own guns.

You wouldn’t ask some guy who menaced people on the subway with a knife for his thoughts on whether knife-menacing is cool and good, and make no mistake: this man is attempting to menace members of the public using a deadly weapon that’s capable of killing way more people in way less time. That this kind of weapon is a favorite of school shooters, and these are schoolchildren, only adds to the disgusting character of the events here. Carrying a gun like this in the public square is a way to constantly communicate the threat of deadly force to those around you. A gun like this exists for two purposes: to maim and kill, and to communicate the threat thereof. This loser could make the case that he has a right to carry a gun around via the standard political speech that normal people make use of on this and every other issue. He’s parading around a gun for a reason, the same reason that courts upheld the prerogative of local jurisdictions to restrict who can carry weapons in the public square for 700 years until the Supreme Court conservatives got involved.

This is a particularly eye-catching example of the wider phenomenon where, out of genuine belief in the principle of “objectivity” or fear they’ll be called “biased,” members of the mainstream press create a false equivalence between arguments and political opinions rooted in reality and those that are complete nonsense. Normally, the Both Sides phenomenon involves reporters—often some of the most well-informed, purportedly savvy people around—pretending to believe that bullshit has merit in order to present it as One Side of the Argument, and Who’s to Say Who’s Right? For about 20 years, Washington political scribes would present the Republican view on climate change—nuh uh, no, hoax—as just the other side of the coin to…the overwhelming scientific consensus on the matter.

people take part in a protest for — These folks could easily have demanded an end to pandemic lockdowns without guns. So why did they bring them to the statehouse steps? To communicate the threat of force if they do not get their way.JEFF KOWALSKY – Getty Images

Sometimes, reporters will lobotomize themselves for the period of time in which they’re working on a story. Anyone paying attention over the last decade has watched Republicans raise the debt ceiling without incident when a Republican is president. (Under the most recent one, they also added trillions to The National Debt to service a tax cut for rich people and corporations, part of a debt orgy under President Trump.) But when Republicans turn around and say the debt is a huge problem and we can’t raise the debt ceiling, Beltway reporters pretend they don’t remember anything that happened before—or even, at times, that raising the debt ceiling does not approve new spending. (It applies to paying off debts already accrued.) This goldfish-brain approach has been necessary for the last few decades because, while the Democratic Party has its manifest failures, the Republican Party no longer resides in reality. To present what they say in the full context of reality would involve losing the mask of Neutrality which is often conflated with Objectivity. The objective truth is that Republicans only care about the debt when they’re out of the White House, and they don’t even really care about it now. If they did, they would consider raising revenues as part of a debt deal. They’ve ruled that out.

What’s so unsettling about this Maryland incident, though, is that the adoption of a neutral stance legitimizes antisocial behavior and presents it as a fair form of “protest.” This guy does not have to point the gun at anyone for it to serve its purpose. This has been a steadily expanding problem throughout the country, as right-wingers show up heavily armed to statehouses in an explicit communication of the threat of deadly force if they do not get their way on matters of public policy. This is not normal political expression, just as breaking windows and vandalizing businesses is not a legitimate form of protest against police violence and racial injustice in our society. The fact is that certain things are out of bounds, and we’re really arguing over where the line should be. This guy’s conduct is on the far side of the line. He is leaving the realm of civil disagreement and discussion and entering a gray area where the potential for deadly violence is implied.

What we’re really reluctant to confront, however, is that there is a sizable faction in America who continually make explicit threats to engage in violence if the government—elected by the people to make public policy—makes public policy that they and their faction do not like. They brandish their weapons during these discussions, physically or rhetorically, and they’re never more aggressive than when anyone suggests that Thomas Jefferson did not envision an inalienable right to carry an AR-15 into Chipotle. It’s not hard to put all this together, particularly if you’re a reporter, but it’s scary to confront the fact that there’s a segment of the American population dedicated to the proliferation of deadly weapons—more guns, everywhere, all the time—and threatening to use the ones they already have if they don’t get their way. Easier, then, to stand to the side and offer the View From Nowhere, where every side has a case worth hearing.

Florida passes bill to prevent billionaires like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos being sued if their mega-rockets kill or injure people

Business Insider

Florida passes bill to prevent billionaires like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos being sued if their mega-rockets kill or injure people

Marianne Guenot – May 17, 2023

How SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Virgin Galactic plan on taking you to space

The SpaceX Starship lifts off from the launchpad during a flight test from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, on April 20, 2023. — The SpaceX Starship lifts off in Boca Chica, Texas, on April 20, 2023.PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP via Getty Images

Florida passed a bill protecting space companies in case of injury or death of a crew member.
Passengers will have to sign a waiver stating they understand the risks before boarding a spaceship.
The bill comes as more billionaires are trying to make commercial space flight a reality.

Florida has signed a bill protecting the billionaire owners of space companies against civil lawsuits in case of the death or injury of a passenger or crew member.

Passengers will have to sign a waiver stating they understand the risks of spaceflight before boarding a spaceship, the bill states.

“Under Florida law, there is no liability for an injury to or death of a participant or crew in a spaceflight activity provided by a spaceflight entity if such injury or death results from the inherent risks of the spaceflight activity,” the bill states.

For private sector companies like Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin, the bill “has the potential to limit the cost of litigation to businesses engaging in spaceflight activities,” a senate analysis of the bill said.

The bill extends protections to private space companies

The Spaceflight Entity Liability bill, which was sent to Governor Ron DeSantis and passed the Florida Senate and House with little opposition, was adjusted to reflect “the evolution of spaceflight,” said Republican Sen. Tom Wright, the bill’s sponsor, per Florida Politics.

“Astronauts are no longer government astronauts. These are commercial crew,” said Republican Rep. Tyler Sirois at a March 9 hearing, per Florida Politics.

The new bill states that space flight remains “an extraordinarily dangerous condition” and people should take responsibility for the risks before boarding the rocket, the Senate bill analysis states.

The bill doesn’t protect the companies in case of “gross negligence”

Florida lawmakers have every motivation to protect the spaceflight industry, which contributes $17.7 billion in revenues to Florida’s economy, per Florida’s Aerospace and Spaceport Development Authority.

SpaceX and Blue Origin have their primary launch sites in Florida. Jeff Sharkey, a lobbyist representing SpaceX, also stood in support of the bill at a March 26 hearing, per Florida Politics.

Still, the bill doesn’t abrogate space companies from all responsibility. It states clearly that the company is still liable in case of gross negligence, if the company knew or should have known about dangerous conditions, or it intentionally tried to hurt or kill a crewmember.

Even in a case of negligence, the bill would be difficult to hold up in court, Mark Sundahl, director of the Global Space Law Center at Cleveland State University, told Gizmodo in an email.

The waiver, he said “assumes that there is ‘informed consent.’ It is questionable whether a passenger who is not familiar with the technology and history of spaceflight can truly be ‘informed’ as to the risks.”

More protections are needed as space tourism takes off

yusaku maezawa is seeing wearing a orange shirt, floating cross legged and waving in the International Space Station. — Japanese billionaire Yusaku Maezawa floats inside the International Space Station (ISS) as seen in this photo uploaded on December 9, 2021,Yusake Maezawa via Instagram/via REUTERS

The bill comes in the wake of a boom in space tourism led by private companies.

Multi-millionaire and billionaire civilians are hitching rides to low earth orbit and outer space.

“The fear is that the estate of ultra-wealthy passengers could bring massive claims for hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue due to the life of the passenger being cut short,” said Sundahl, per Gizmodo.

“The industry is still in its early days and such liability might stunt the industry,” he said.

These include billionaire Yusaku Maezawa, a Japanese fashion mogul who has already flown to the International Space Station and purchased all the seats on an upcoming SpaceX Starship flight around the moon.

250,000 Florida residents kicked off Medicaid; more expected

Tampa Bay Times – St. Petersburg, Fla.

250,000 Florida residents kicked off Medicaid; more expected

Christopher O’Donnell, Tampa Bay Times – May 17, 2023

Health advocate groups are calling on Florida to halt a review of the eligibility of Medicaid recipients after close to 250,000 residents were terminated from the program during the past four weeks.

The Florida Department of Children and Families began a purge of the more than 5 million people from the state’s Medicaid rolls on April 18 as part of the winding down of the public health emergency that took effect May 11. Since then, state workers have reviewed more than 461,000 people, taking Medicaid benefits away from more than half.

About 80% of those terminated — roughly 205,000 — were disqualified because they failed to respond to requests for information needed to renew their eligibility, the state report shows. About 44,300 recipients were referred to other programs because they earn too much to be eligible.

The high number of so-called procedural terminations has alarmed health advocacy groups, who fear families, including children who are still eligible, will lose coverage because they were unaware of the requirement.

The Florida Policy Institute, an Orlando nonprofit group, was among groups who earlier this year warned of a “looming tidal wave of health coverage loss for children, parents, and young adults.” CEO Sadaf Knight on Wednesday said the state should pause the process and re-enroll those who have been removed until it has checked their eligibility.

“We have consistently urged the state and administration to do everything in its power to ensure no eligible child or parent was kicked off of health coverage because of bureaucratic inadequacies,” she said. “Now, the first reports confirm our fears about unnecessary losses in coverage. There is no excuse for the loss of health coverage for over 200,000 Floridians due to procedural ‘red tape.’”

The state’s Medicaid rolls swelled by nearly 1.8 million people since 2020, when the federal government paid states extra money to keep people covered during the pandemic, even if they were no longer eligible. Similar checks on recipients are being conducted in every state across the nation in accordance with instructions from the federal government.

The Department of Children and Families earlier this year released a plan to send renewal notices to recipients through emails and letters.

The plan states those who lose coverage will be referred to alternatives, including Florida KidCare, a government-sponsored health insurance program, and federally subsidized health centers that treat low-income patients. Hillsborough County also runs a health care program for low-income residents funded through a sales tax.

Hillsborough County received 877 new applications for its program in April. As of Wednesday, more than 1,060 people had applied this month, said spokesperson Todd Pratt.

“The federal pause on Medicaid redeterminations for the last three years has been unprecedented,” said Department Secretary Shevaun Harris in an April 18 memo to health care groups. “This change reflects a return to normal operations.”

Florida is one of only 10 states that have not taken advantage of a provision in the Affordable Care Act that rewards states for expanding Medicaid to more low-income residents.

Florida’s Medicaid program covers children ages 5 and younger in households that make $33,408 or less and older children whose parents make up to $31,795. But there is no coverage for parents who earn more than $7,000 a year, and adults with no children are ineligible no matter how little they earn. Only four states in the nation have stricter Medicaid eligibility, according to the Florida Policy Institute.

The Florida Health Justice Project is also calling for a halt to the state’s Medicaid review process. Eligible families with children who rely on Medicaid could fall through the cracks and be disqualified, said Alison Yager, the project’s executive director. She also questioned whether the state was following its plan to prioritize reviewing people who no longer qualified and those who have not used Medicaid services.

“It raises all kinds of questions about whether people are getting their correspondence or are having trouble getting through to (the Department of Children and Families),” she said. “People still don’t know this is happening.”

Many Texans must work for food stamps. But no work required for $92,000 payout.

Austin American – Statesman

Grumet: Many Texans must work for food stamps. But no work required for $92,000 payout.

Bridget Grumet, Austin American-Statesman – May 17, 2023

People in need wait to receive food from a mobile food pantry in Kyle. Texans who receive food stamps for their families must renew their status every six months.

If you’re on food stamps, you can be sure the state of Texas will check up on you. Every six months, in fact.

You have to fill out new forms proving that you’re still poor and working at least 30 hours a week (unless you’re over 60 or physically unable to work). You have to demonstrate that your car isn’t worth too much, and, in some cases, show your housing and health care costs.

Every six months.

Just to get help to buy food — up to $939 a month for a family of four.

I kept thinking about that as I read a stunning story last week about government spending on the other end of the spectrum. As my colleague Tony Plohetski reported, Victor Vandergriff resigned from his post as a Texas Department of Transportation commissioner in 2018 — but the state continued to pay him for five years, in payments totaling nearly $92,000.

No one was checking up on Vandergriff. He didn’t have to justify himself every six months. The paychecks kept flowing, even though he stopped doing a job that, in fairness, he had quit.

When it comes to social safety net programs, our state is so worried that people might get something they don’t deserve. Where is that concern when it comes to someone drawing a state paycheck they didn’t earn?

The focus has been on the “holdover” provision in state law that allowed this to happen. To ensure the government keeps operating, original language in the 1876 Texas Constitution says that state officials remain state officials until they are replaced by someone else. So even though Vandergriff resigned, he remained a transportation commissioner on paper — and on the payroll — until Gov. Greg Abbott named a replacement this March.

Victor Vandergriff resigned in 2018 as a Texas Department of Transportation Commissioner, but he continued to be paid for five years until his replacement was named.

In such a system, the onus is on the governor’s office to ensure that appointees who resign are replaced in a timely way. Abbott’s office didn’t respond to follow-up questions about why it took five years to name Vandergriff’s successor.

It’s worth noting that the governor’s office handles more than 1,500 appointments to various boards and commissions during each four-year term, and finding people with the right expertise and willingness to serve in these roles can take time.

Still, it’s striking to see that Texas’ systems are designed to provide grace periods and continued resources to those in power, while imposing rigid deadlines and an obstacle course of justifications for Texans in need.

The car conundrum

Consider the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, more commonly known as food stamps.

Most food stamp recipients must prove they’re working. Getting to and from a job often requires a car. To get food stamps, though, your car can’t be worth more than $15,000 — a value that hasn’t been updated since 2001 to reflect inflation.

Heaven help you if you’re a two-car household: The second car can’t be worth more than $4,650, a value set in 1973.

“The wrinkle is, through the pandemic, when used car prices accelerated, it meant people’s existing vehicles became worth more,” Rachel Cooper, director of Health & Food Justice for Every Texan, told me. “So it also made it harder for (people) to qualify for SNAP.”

And some people actually lost their food stamps in the past couple of years because their used cars grew too much in value, she added.

Last month, the House passed a common-sense bill — House Bill 1287 — to provide a one-time adjustment to the allowable car value for food stamp recipients, and to create a process for considering future adjustments. The measure could be heard by the Senate Finance Committee this week.

Technically, it’s legislation about car values and benefits calculations. But really it’s about whether some Texans on the margins can qualify for the food their families need.

Difficult by design

Food stamps are just one example.

Consider Medicaid: Prior to the pandemic, some of the poorest kids in Texas routinely lost their health care coverage because the state used a flawed system to conduct random spot-checks for eligibility. New moms on Medicaid — nearly half of the women giving birth in Texas — lost their health coverage just two months after the baby arrived.

Federal COVID-era policies provided temporary relief, preventing anyone from losing health coverage during the pandemic. Lawmakers last session shifted Medicaid eligibility checks for kids to once every six months, and lawmakers this session are considering HB 12 to keep uninsured women on Medicaid for 12 months after they’ve given birth.

Meanwhile, as the pandemic-era protections lift, 2.7 million Texas women and children must once again prove to the state that they deserve health care coverage.

Applying for government assistance is notoriously tough. Nonprofits often have staffers dedicated to helping Texans navigate the bureaucratic maze, Cooper said.

The process is difficult by design.

“If you have a mentality that folks who need these programs are taking from everybody else, or somehow they’re not working, somehow they’re lazy, and now they’re abusing the system, then then you build a system to lock people out, to make it so that it’s only the desperate or the very well-resourced who make it through the gauntlet to get services,” Cooper said.

Contrast that with the ease with which Victor Vandergriff collected $92,000 from the state without doing a thing.

Vandergriff’s case might reflect one extreme example, but it still provides an instructive view. Our state systems are designed to maintain Texas government, to keep officials and their compensation in place.

Imagine if our systems were equally focused on maintaining Texans themselves, ensuring the most vulnerable can get the essentials they need.

Grumet is the Statesman’s Metro columnist. Her column, ATX in Context, contains her opinions.

Grumet: Many Texans must work for food stamps. But no work required for $92,000 payout.

Austin American – Statesman

Grumet: Many Texans must work for food stamps. But no work required for $92,000 payout.

Bridget Grumet, Austin American-Statesman – May 17, 2023

If you’re on food stamps, you can be sure the state of Texas will check up on you. Every six months, in fact.

Every six months.

Just to get help to buy food — up to $939 a month for a family of four.

No one was checking up on Vandergriff. He didn’t have to justify himself every six months. The paychecks kept flowing, even though he stopped doing a job that, in fairness, he had quit.

The car conundrum

Consider the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, more commonly known as food stamps.

Heaven help you if you’re a two-car household: The second car can’t be worth more than $4,650, a value set in 1973.

And some people actually lost their food stamps in the past couple of years because their used cars grew too much in value, she added.

Technically, it’s legislation about car values and benefits calculations. But really it’s about whether some Texans on the margins can qualify for the food their families need.

Difficult by design

Food stamps are just one example.

Meanwhile, as the pandemic-era protections lift, 2.7 million Texas women and children must once again prove to the state that they deserve health care coverage.

Applying for government assistance is notoriously tough. Nonprofits often have staffers dedicated to helping Texans navigate the bureaucratic maze, Cooper said.

The process is difficult by design.

Contrast that with the ease with which Victor Vandergriff collected $92,000 from the state without doing a thing.

Imagine if our systems were equally focused on maintaining Texans themselves, ensuring the most vulnerable can get the essentials they need.

Grumet is the Statesman’s Metro columnist. Her column, ATX in Context, contains her opinions.

Texas passes bill stripping authority from cities

The Hill

Texas passes bill stripping authority from cities

Saul Elbein – May 16, 2023

A sweeping Texas bill stripping authority from cities passed the state Senate on Tuesday and is now headed to the governor’s desk.

House Bill 2127 takes large domains of municipal governing — from payday lending laws to regulations on rest breaks for construction workers to laws determining whether women can be discriminated against based on their hair — out of the hands of the state’s largely Democratic-run cities and shifts them to its Republican-controlled legislature.

According to the Austin American Statesman, Gov. Greg Abbott (R) has been a vocal supporter of the bill.

Progressive critics argue the legislation — which one lawyer for Texas cities called “the Death Star” for local control — represents a new phase in the campaign by conservative state legislatures to curtail the power of blue-leaning cities.

Opponents of the bill include civil society groups like the AFL-CIO — and representatives of every major urban area in Texas, along with several minor ones.

They argue the shift in power it would enable would hamstring cities’ abilities to make policies to fit their unique circumstances.

“Where the state is silent, and it is silent on a lot — local governments step into that breach, to act on behalf of our shared constituents,” state Sen. Sarah Eckhardt (D) told the Senate on Tuesday.

“We should be doing our job rather than micromanaging theirs.”

But the bill’s Senate sponsor, state Sen. Brandon Creighton (R), said it was necessary to protect “job creators” from “cities and counties acting as lawmakers outside of their jurisdiction.”

Both the legislation’s sponsors and the principal trade group that backed it — the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) — have argued local regulation poses an existential threat to Texas businesses.

“As prices escalate, property taxes increase, and workers remain in short supply, small business owners are continuing to struggle in this economic environment,” said Annie Spilman, state director of the NFIB, in a statement earlier this month. “Arduous local ordinances, no matter how well-intended, exacerbate these challenges.”

The NFIB’s solution to that problem: one set of rules governing business across the state, which it says will cut costs by preventing the “patchwork” of local and county regulations that govern Texas’s sprawling cities.

While the NFIB and the legislation are officially nonpartisan, support for the bill has been overwhelmingly Republican.

The bill passed the state Senate 18-13 on a nearly party-line vote after passing the House in April with the votes of just eight out of 65 Democrats.

If enacted, the legislation would have a wide reach, banning — technically “preempting” — broad swaths of the state code.

It would nullify many existing ordinances, like Austin and Dallas’s heat protections for construction workers.

It would also ban new restrictions on payday lending or puppy mills, although — after a long fight — existing city laws will be preserved.

Urban advocates say other specific local laws without state or federal analogs — like an Austin law banning discrimination based on hair texture or style — would also likely be struck down.

The bill failed to pass in the 2019 or 2021 sessions — in part because it was seen as too broad, Austin City Councilor Ryan Alter told The Hill.

But with every failed passage, Alter said, “The bill has only gotten broader.”

Alter listed the state preemption of the Property and Business and Commerce codes as two domains that would lead to unforeseen consequences for cities.

“We do a lot of things as the city as relates to property, land use and issues concerning land, and we make a lot of decisions that impact business and commerce,” Alter added.

The bill also preempts city and county ordinances relating to the Agriculture Code, Finance Code, Insurance Code, Labor Code, Natural Resources Code and Occupations Code.

One worry among the legislation’s opponents is procedural.

The state legislature only meets every two years, making each session a logjam of potential bills, most of which never go anywhere. In 2022, for example, the Legislature passed about 38 percent of the nearly 10,000 bills introduced.

That low frequency of meetings and state-level focus make the Legislature a body opponents argue is ill-suited to managing the day-to-day affairs of cities.

Under the new law, “cities and counties across Texas will have to rely on the state’s part-time Legislature, which meets for only 140 days every two years, to address various issues and problems of local concern,” Adrian Shelley, Texas director for public interest advocacy group Public Citizen, said in a statement.

Spilman of the NFIB has argued the law was necessary to rein in out-of-control municipal governments.

The long campaign for the legislation that became H.B. 2127 began in 2018, when Dallas, Austin and San Antonio passed ordinances requiring employers to offer paid sick leave.

Those laws were later shot down by state and federal courts as a violation of state bans on raising the minimum wage above the federal standard.

But the ordinances would have given city governments subpoena power to investigate potential violations — powers which worried the NFIB, Spilman said in an April statement.

“I just don’t know why a city ordinance would have something in there like that. That’s very frightening to a small business owner, with no compliance officers.”

The need for the legislation was urgent, she added at the time. “You go another two years without this protection — we just don’t know what cities might propose next.”

Opponents, meanwhile, argue the bill would present challenges to businesses because its scope is so broad as to make it impossible to say how far it will reach.

“If there is one thing businesses hate it is uncertainty,” Houston city attorney Collyn Peddie wrote in an April statement.

“Because 2127 barely attempts to define the fields that it purports to preempt, [self-governing] cities will not know what laws to enforce and, more important, businesses will not know what laws to obey,” Peddie continued.

Another source of concern for bill opponents is the method of enforcement, which — as in the case of the state’s “bounty” abortion ban — would occur through lawsuits.

The bill would authorize “any person who has sustained an injury in fact, actual or treated” to sue cities and counties for passing ordinances in areas now officially under the domain of the state.

Winners of such suits would get damages and attorney’s fees covered.

Whenever cities pass big ordinances, “people get clever in their lawsuits to challenge anything they don’t like,” said Alter, the Austin councilor.

“And because the bill is so broad there are a lot of opportunities for people to poke holes in any bills the city passes.”

The NFIB’s position is that the newly preempted powers aren’t being taken away from cities: They’re ones the cities never had to start with, as Spilman explained to The Hill.

The legislation’s GOP sponsors agree. “It’s a ‘stay in your lane’ bill,” Rep. Dustin Burrows (R) said at a February event hosted by the NFIB. “If you’re a city, do your core functions. If you’re a county, do your core functions.”

Burrows has dismissed critics of the bill as “taxpayer-funded lobbyists” who he told the Texas Tribune in March were “out in full force trying to undermine this effort.”

In those remarks, Burrows took a tack familiar from statehouse Republican messaging nationwide.

Groups opposing the bills, he added, “are beholden to special interest groups who cannot get their liberal agenda through at the statehouse, so they go to city halls across the State, creating a patchwork of unnecessary and anti-business ordinances.”

But bill opponents argued that local laws are a “patchwork“ because local conditions are, too.

“Lawmakers who voted for this must explain to their constituents why they gave away local authority to lawmakers hundreds of miles away in Austin who may have never even set foot in their community,” said Adrian Shelley, Texas director of advocacy group Public Citizen.

Eckhardt, the state senator from Bastrop, argued the legislation “obliterates the local balancing of interests that creates the distinct local flavor from Lubbock to Houston, Laredo to Texarkana.”

Bills like House Bill 2127 “excuse the Texas legislature from leading,” she added.

“We are wasting our precious 140 days — when we could be doing statewide health, education, justice and prosperity policies — barging into bedrooms, locker rooms, boardrooms examining rooms and now city council meetings.”