It's no surprise that Arizona's new immigration enforcement law is unpopular with Texas Democrats. But it's hard to find a high-ranking Republican in the state who'll endorse it, either.

Some lawmakers are all for it. Republican Reps. Leo Berman of Tyler and Debbie Riddle of Tomball say they'll file identical legislation when Texas lawmakers convene in January. Similar proposals have been filed — and left for dead — in previous sessions.

The ripple effects from the Arizona immigration bill have spread throughout the Southwest and could climax in Texas this weekend. Marches in protest to the bill and to champion for comprehensive immigration reform are scheduled in many of the state's major cities.

We asked some statewide officeholders and their challengers about the Arizona law to see where things stand now, at the beginning of the general election cycle that will precede the next session of the Legislature.

Gov. Rick Perry and his Democratic challenger, Bill White, both say the federal government isn't doing its job. White's flatly against the Arizona bill. Perry says he's got problems with it, too. Both spoke through staff or in press releases.

Perry started off his statement by saying the feds have failed to do their job on the border, but he added, "I have concerns with portions of the law passed in Arizona and believe it would not be the right direction for Texas."

He said law enforcement officers have enough to do without having immigration enforcement to worry about. "Our focus must continue to be on the criminal elements involved with conducting criminal acts against Texans and their property," Perry said in a press release.

He says he's asked the federal government for 1,000 National Guard troops to help police with border enforcement, and also for drone aircraft that can be used to monitor the border (Homeland Security officials say that air surveillance is coming soon).

Aides to White said he's against Texas having a law like the one recently signed into law in Arizona. And his reasoning is, in part, similar to Perry's, that "we can't have police officers taken off of answering 911 calls in order to stop cars on the street or ask for people's papers in a restaurant," said spokeswoman Katy Bacon. "... And how would police work to enforce this Arizona law, say, in a restaurant without racial profiling? Ask everyone to produce their passports and birth certificates?"

Linda Chavez-Thompson, the Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor, didn't have anything good to say about the new law in the West. “We learned from what happened in Arizona last week that the promise of the American Dream is not a guarantee.  We have to defend it.  The law they passed in Arizona is not only anti-immigrant; it’s anti-American," she said. "This law doesn’t distinguish between criminal and undocumented.  It doesn’t distinguish between undocumented and citizen.  And it ignores our history — because the founders of this country were not afraid of immigrants, they were immigrants.  And their dream wasn’t to raise the power of the state, but to safeguard the rights of the individual."

Chavez-Thompson said the Arizona statute will cost that state's economy, and that police are against it. "I’ll fight to ensure that Texas rejects the advice of those who don’t understand economics, who refuse to listen to law enforcement, and have little respect for the rights of citizens to be free of police harassment,” she said.

In his official statement on the question, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst never said whether he agrees or disagrees with the Arizona law. “I understand the frustration of the people of Arizona with the federal government’s failure to secure our borders and stop illegal immigration, drug trafficking and dangerous transnational gangs coming across from Mexico.  Texans are frustrated too... While Texas is doing its part, I think the federal government should do theirs by dramatically increasing the number of border patrol agents to secure our borders once and for all.”

The state's attorney general will have to enforce whatever the Legislature and the governor decide to do

Attorney General Greg Abbott hit all the talking points, spanking the feds, noting legal concerns with the new law, and saying the state will protect you. “The Federal Government's primary job is to protect our borders and the safety of our citizens — and they aren’t getting the job done," Abbott said in a press release. "Even President Obama acknowledged that Arizona acted out of frustration because of the federal government’s failures. There are legitimate concerns with the Arizona law and while those are sorted out, Texas will continue demanding that the federal government stop dithering while Texans' safety is at stake. In the meantime, Texas is redoubling its efforts to provide resources — including personnel and technology — to protect Texans and secure our border.”

His Democratic opponent, Barbara Ann Radnofsky, strongly opposes Arizona's approach. “The Arizona law should be declared unconstitutional," she said. "Any similarly worded Texas law should also be declared unconstitutional. The government should not be in the business of violating individual U.S. citizen’s rights, regardless of the citizen’s appearance. The sitting Texas Attorney General, consistent with his belief that he has the power to sue the federal government for fair treatment of Texas should now insist that Texas receive its fair share of federal funding and assistance for enforcement and security. Texas taxpayers should not bear the burden for enforcement and border security, including our vital ports.”

Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples didn't respond to requests for comment. But his opponent, Democrat Hank Gilbert, said the Arizona law would be expensive for people in agriculture.

“If you want to talk about driving up food costs, slashing tax revenues, and damaging our economy, then Leo Berman's bill is exactly what you want," Gilbert said. "I cannot imagine someone proposing something so irresponsible or damaging to Texas agriculture.”

According to Gilbert, some of Texas’ agriculture labor costs are currently as high as $26.50 per acre, which he said would undoubtedly increase after wages rose in response to the bill.

“The fact of the matter is this: undocumented immigrants make up a significant segment of the agricultural labor force in Texas. These men and women help Texas grow food not just for our state, but also for the rest of the nation. If you take away their ability to move freely within our society and survive without being under constant threat of police action, they will go somewhere else for jobs," Gilbert said.

“I personally do not want to live in a state where Hispanic Americans are constantly stopped and asked for their 'papers.' It is reminiscent of living in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union where identity papers were required at all times. Texas doesn't need that," he said.

This past week, the Texas Attorney General race heated up post primary. The incumbent Attorney General chose an interesting personal attack in lieu of any substance. On the front page of the Saturday, March 27 Dallas Morning News he chose to go immediately negative with personal attacks, including: “Radnofsky failed to grasp the issues.” My website pokes gentle fun at my love of issues and wonkiness. My 30 years as a lawyer and college debate training reflect longstanding interest in issues. Folks may disagree with my issue/policy analysis and opinions, but ordinarily come forward with reasons.

As the Democratic nominee I’ve made issue rich attacks, explaining that the incumbent had stumbled in litigation several times, including his incorrect claims to the EPA on his anti pollution record.  Our campaign emphasized his losing litigation against application of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Texas Attorney General's hypocrisy in his suit against health care reform.  We contrasted his current claims against health care reform with his successful advocacy for Texas Attorney General managed children's health care as an option. This advocacy followed the Texas Attorney General's long time embrace of federal mandates which he enforced against certain Texas parents required to make medical child support payments. These are serious criticisms of the Attorney General, who enabled Tom DeLay's mid decade redistricting and gave the opinion which allowed the controversial margin tax, which violated the Texas Constitution according to my legal briefing. 

The general campaign is less than one month old, and my campaign has made it issue rich. For example, when Mr. Abbott claimed Texas, in a public filing, to have "an acclaimed record" on environmental matters, citing the ASARCO pollution settlement, I pointed to the inadequacies of the settlement and Texas' number one pollution rankings.  State Sen. Shapleigh gave the Texas Attorney General plenty of notice that the 100 acre remediation omitted 250 acres of contiguous, ASARCO owned land upstream, impacting cleanup on site.  As Senator Shapleigh explained to the Texas Attorney General, protesting the settlement for its inadequacies, all of the lead, arsenic, and other heavy metals on the eastern acreage upstream flow to the smelter site, over 100 acres of impervious coverage, and down toward the Rio Grande and American Canal. The settlement also ignored ASARCO slag contaminated fertilizer sold in El Paso, affecting properties in the area. 

I’ve challenged Attorney General Abbott to a debate on the issues in January, when he claimed that the Helvering decision by Justice Cardozo was a warning to Congress on the limitations of its powers. I said he wrongly cited Helvering, which stands very much for the opposite proposition. He still hasn't responded on that issue. Are we reduced to seven months of personal attacks, with literally no substance< I will continue to call for reasoned debate on the issues. The Attorney General has made competence an issue; let’s debate competence too.

Congress passed an imperfect health care bill, with mandates offending many people. Does Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott have the power to sue to stop the signed law?

Abbott claimed in the American-Statesman (March 30, "Abbott offers explanations on challenge to health law") that Congress has no power to regulate "inactivity," "failure" or "refusal to be involved" in health insurance purchase, defining the situation: " ... we have people who are refusing to participate in the stream of commerce by choosing not to buy insurance."

Abbott ignores the effect of the "choice" not to buy insurance. The attorney general must prove that the "choice" not to pay doesn't affect commerce. (Abbott might be incorrect that everyone makes a choice as to insurance purchase. Many folks can't afford it.

If "the choice" affects commerce, Congress might constitutionally regulate, if it has "rational basis." Under constitutional law, if Congress' findings demonstrate rational basis, the regulation will stand, even if it's not the best plan or imperfect.

Does "the choice" to be uninsured affect commerce? Congress spent many pages proving it does. The report from the Senate Committee on Finance concluded that "health reform is an essential part of restoring America's overall economy and maintaining our global competitiveness."

The report detailed 93 percent increases in average family premiums from 2000 to 2009. Rising health care costs play a huge role in bankruptcies affecting millions every year. Hospitals and clinics provide tens of billions of dollars yearly in uncompensated care. The result: a "hidden health tax" of larger medical bills and higher premiums. The average family pays $1,000 in increased premiums as a result of uncompensated care. Congress demonstrated uninsured persons affect commerce.

We live with federal mandates, including paying taxes. Congress mandated that health care providers in emergency departments and ambulances provide emergency care to anyone in need, including the uninsured and underinsured. The law applies in every hospital accepting federal payments, creating unfunded burdens on responsible units of government, taxpayers and corporations.

Congress mandated Texans donate gas tax dollars to the rest of the states. The 2005 Federal Transportation law resulted in Alaska receiving $1,500 per capita in highway benefits while Texas received $36.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, complained, "No state has a worse rate of return from the federal highway trust fund, as Texas continues to pay far more in federal gasoline taxes than they get back."

Former U.S. rep. Tom Delay's spokesman explained: "Texas has lost $5 billion over the last 20 years because of formula problems."

Why has the attorney general never challenged that mandate or the absence of federal funding of a VA hospital south of San Antonio?

Abbott's service as attorney general is notable for his long-standing embrace of federally imposed mandates in his federally supported child support program. As attorney general, he mandates certain parents provide medical payments or coverage. In January 2008, he championed even broader legislation. His vision: "A private insurance company would contract with the state to cover a pool of children; a court could order parents to buy the private insurance based on their ability to pay; the court could order the insurance premiums withheld from a parent's paycheck. Parents who provide proof of insurance could opt out."

Abbott's 2009 law mandated that the office of the attorney general "develop and implement a statewide program to address the health care needs of children for whom health insurance is not available to either parent at reasonable cost. Federal law requires parents in the child support system to provide health coverage for their children."

Our statewide elected officials now attack the policy and fact findings of Congress. While possessing the right to dissent and vote, Abbott cannot replace decisions made by an elected Congress with his opinions. Otherwise, he should have challenged the 2005 pork-laden transportation bill benefiting Alaska and its then-powerful Sen. Ted Stevens. Texans were forced to donate without setting foot on a bridge to nowhere.

Attorney general is a massively powerful position, but the attorney general lacks the power to stop the enacted federal health care bill.

His lawsuit diverts attention and resources from the causes he should champion to protect Texans on valid legal theories. The attorney general's job is to understand the law and be the people's lawyer. He poorly serves the people by pursuing loser litigation.

Radnofsky, 2010 Democratic nominee for Texas attorney general, is a Houston lawyer.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who joined a multistate lawsuit challenging the new federal health care law this week, is taking heat from Democrats who say he backed a plan that required non-custodial parents to provide medical coverage for their children.

The health-care overhaul enacted this week requires most people to buy insurance or pay a fine. Texas and a dozen other states are challenging the new law in part on that requirement, which they argue is unconstitutional.

Abbott contends there's no hypocrisy on his part in trying to boost compliance with child-support health insurance laws. His office says the program he supported is quite different than the health care overhaul bill that President Barack Obama signed this week.

But Abbott's election opponent, Barbara Ann Radnofsky, the Democratic National Committee and other Democrats disagree.

"It's really a beautiful example of hypocrisy," Radnofsky said. "The attorney general was happily acceding to the federal requirements of mandating the noncustodial parent, usually the dad, to pay for health insurance or making a medical payment. ... The ironic thing is he was promoting very broad health care mandates."

At the center of the dispute is a new state law that created ChildLink, an alternative insurance program for parents of the 1.3 million children in the state's child support collection system, which is managed by the attorney general's office.

Federal and state laws since 1995 have required those parents to provide "medical support" for their children, Abbott spokesman Jerry Strickland said, and Abbott is simply carrying out existing law. Parents could provide insurance through their employer, through private coverage or through cash payments. ChildLink takes the place of those cash payments with a low-cost health insurance policy, Abbott has said.

"ChildLink does not establish a new mandate," Strickland said.

Asked whether Abbott was endorsing or facilitating an existing law that required certain parents to buy health coverage, Strickland said: "That's the law. It's no new mandate. And it's constitutional to do so."

But Abbott appeared before a conservative group in January 2008 and proposed making private sector health insurance available to uninsured children in Texas' child support system.

In a newspaper opinion piece he wrote in June 2009, as the Texas Legislature finished its session, he urged Republican Gov. Rick Perry to sign the ChildLink law. Abbott said it "does not impose new financial obligations on parents. Rather, it simply shifts their duty from an obligation to pay cash medical support to an obligation to pay health insurance premiums."

Perry signed the measure.

In the lawsuit filed by Texas and 12 others states in Florida on Tuesday challenging the new federal health care law, Abbott claims among other things that the federal law violates the Constitution by requiring citizens to buy health insurance and violates the 10th Amendment protection of states' rights.

Strickland said those legal claims don't apply to the child support health insurance law. For instance, he said, Texas can require drivers to purchase car insurance, but the federal government cannot.

Forbes.com

The big difference between the new federal health care law and the system in Texas is that we in Texas have a public option, suggested by and administered by the office of the Texas Attorney General, to provide a reasonable cost option to parents who are now mandated to provide medical care payment in Texas.

Does the Texas law mandating payment truly contain such an "option?" The Texas AG described the law he championed: "Abbott said Wednesday that while the ChildLink option offers parents another health care choice, the cash payment option remains one of their choices." Forbes.com/Associated Press March 24, 2010. "Abbott spokesman Jerry Strickland said... Abbott is simply carrying out existing law. Parents could provide insurance through their employer, through private coverage or through cash payments. ChildLink takes the place of those cash payments with a low-cost health insurance policy, Abbott has said." Forbes.com/Associated Press March 24, 2010. The mandate is long standing. The Forbes/Associated Press article continues: "Asked whether Abbott was endorsing or facilitating an existing law that required certain parents to buy health coverage, Strickland said: 'That's the law. It's no new mandate. And it's constitutional to do so.' "

The Texas Attorney General has long agreed to federal requirements for medical child support. What wasn't well known until the AG's health care lawsuit was the fact that, in 2008 and 2009, the Attorney General proposed, stumped for, and passed through the Texas legislature his plan for an Attorney General developed and implemented statewide program for children's health care, in child support cases where the parents didn't have and couldn't obtain health care insurance for their children.

The 2009 law, proposed by the Attorney General, directs the Office of the Attorney General to "develop and implement a statewide program to address the health care needs of children in Title IV-D cases for whom health insurance is not available to either parent at reasonable cost."

The Bill analysis explains the purpose: establish "an insurance pool for certain children in Title IV-D cases, authorizes the courts to ensure that eligible children have health coverage by ordering that the child be rolled (sic) in the pool and requiring the obligor to pay premium costs at a reasonable cost." The Texas law goes further in regulating insurers. An insurer that participates in the Texas state program "may not deny health care coverage under the program to eligible children because of preexisting conditions or chronic illnesses... "

Why is this important? The policy position of the Texas AG and the Texas system he embraced for years and then expanded to include a public option parallel the Congressional findings on the need to require people to cover their health needs and prohibiting insurance companies from discrimination for a pre-existing condition.

The U.S. Constitution's granting of power to Congress to regulate commerce, combined with the evidence of debate and findings of "the national welfare" make the Texas Attorney General's lawsuit a political statement, not a valid exercise of power. Unwittingly, the AG's long term conduct completely aligns with health care reform on the importance of regulating insurance and improving coverage.

Whether or not you oppose the health care bill, the State AGs' lawsuit against the President's newly signed legislation will be analyzed on grounds of whether it holds up as a valid legal challenge to the power of Congress to regulate commerce. In 1944, the Supreme Court decided that insurance was part of Congress' Commerce Clause regulatory authority, exercised for "the national welfare." So, may the decision not to buy insurance be regulated for the public good? May the law's mandate to buy or pay a penalty, with its list of people exempted, be upheld? The U.S. Senate made a number of findings on the importance of coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions. To the surprise of many, these welfare regulatory goals are now known to be consistent with the philosophy behind the long standing Texas Office of Attorney General program, and the 2009 law adding a public option in Texas.

Barbara Ann Radnofsky, 2010 Democratic nominee for Texas Attorney General, has been listed for the past 17 years in "Best Lawyers in America". Currently, she is listed in four areas including health care law and medical malpractice.

Come to Texas for Current AG Managed Public Option and Mandates

Attorney General Greg Abbott, who joined a multistate lawsuit challenging the new federal health care law this week, is taking heat from Democrats who say he backed a plan that required noncustodial parents to provide medical coverage for their children.

The health care overhaul enacted this week requires most people to buy insurance or pay a fine. Texas and a dozen other states are challenging the new law in part on that requirement, which they argue is unconstitutional.

Abbott, Democrats note, has tried to boost compliance laws that require parents who don't have custody of their children to ensure that the children have health coverage.

"It's really a beautiful example of hypocrisy," said Abbott's Democratic opponent, Barbara Ann Radnofsky. "The attorney general was happily acceding to the federal requirements of mandating the noncustodial parent, usually the dad, to pay for health insurance or making a medical payment."

Abbott aides said that the programs are vastly different. The health care overhaul that President Barack Obama signed this week applies to virtually all Americans, while the state child-custody law is much narrower.

A new state law created ChildLink, an alternative insurance program for parents of the 1.3 million children in the state's child support collection system, which is managed by the attorney general's office. Abbott backed the creation of the law last year.

Federal and state laws since 1995 have required those parents to provide "medical support" for their children, Abbott spokesman Jerry Strickland said, and Abbott is simply carrying out existing law. Parents could provide insurance through their employers, private coverage or cash payments. ChildLink takes the place of those cash payments with a low-cost health insurance policy, Abbott has said.

"ChildLink does not establish a new mandate," Strickland said.

Asked whether Abbott was endorsing or facilitating an existing law that required certain parents to buy health coverage, Strickland said: "That's the law. It's no new mandate. And it's constitutional to do so."

As President Barack Obama signed a sweeping health care reform bill into law Tuesday, the partisan struggle against the legislation began shifting from Congress and the U.S. Capitol to the states and their federal courthouses.

The Senate still must pass a reconciliation “fix” promised when the House passed the Senate version of the bill on a party-line 219-212 vote. Meanwhile, an overwhelmingly GOP coalition of state officials immediately began preparing legal challenges against various provisions of the legislation.

In Texas, Attorney General Greg Abbott used the same talking points as his Republican counterparts in about a dozen other states, charging that by mandating that all adults have health insurance coverage or be subject to tax penalties, the new law violates both state sovereignty and individual rights.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry vowed “to do everything in our power to find ways to protect our families, taxpayers and medical providers” from the effects of the health care bill.

It was striking that neither official acknowledged that Texas, with the highest rate of uninsured residents in the country, would be among the major beneficiaries of expansion of coverage to an estimated 32 million Americans.

Constitutional challenges against groundbreaking legislation are not new, and rarely get very far in court. The taxing power of the United States government and its ability to regulate interstate commerce are long-established constitutional principles. The designers of Social Security relied upon them to defend the program from similar claims that its mandatory payroll deductions were unconstitutional.

University of Houston constitutional law professor David Crump told the Chronicle's R.G. Ratcliffe that a state challenge to health care reform would be “an uphill battle. It's one thing to say it's unwise, and it's another to say it's unconstitutional.”

A group of Democratic Texas legislators, including Houston's state Sen. Rodney Ellis and state Reps. Sylvester Turner, Jessica Farrar and Garnet Coleman, sent Abbott a letter contesting the legal basis for a health care suit. It quoted a recent comment by President Ronald Reagan's Solicitor General Charles Fried that the bill's insurance mandate on individuals is not unique. “We have tons of laws that impose obligations on people,” he said, citing examples such as the Internal Revenue Code, the draft in wartime and Social Security.

The legislators criticized the proposed suit as a political gambit unauthorized by the Legislature. As Texas taxpayers, they wrote, “we ask you to quit wasting taxpayer money with threats of lawsuits … and shelve these divisive, extreme and losing ideas.”

We endorse those sentiments. At some point the losers in the health care debate will have to face up to the fact that a congressional majority has passed and the president has signed binding legislation.

Texas has so much to gain from the bill's implementation.

Rather than devoting the legal resources of the state to waging a partisan rear-guard action to overturn it, our elected officials should be focusing on facilitating the upcoming expansion of medical insurance coverage to millions of our citizens who desperately need it.

Bad day for the Republican Party of Texas: They're having to shift into high dudgeon over the passage of the federal health care bill. Oh, well, anything to distract from the fact that, in this Republican-run state, 26.9% of residents are uninsured.

Gov. Rick Perry wrote that he was "[exploring] the state’s options, including legal action, to challenge the constitutionality of this national health care bill." Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst called its passage "a slap in the face of the clear majority of Texans." It must be tough, knowing that they couldn't derail one of the core policies that got President Barack Obama elected, so the claim is that they're really defending the Constitution.

To that end, Attorney General Greg Abbott is part of a suit filed in Florida based on the idea that the bill violates the Commerce Clause and the “fundamental principles of nondiscrimination that are at the heart of the U.S. Constitution." The Texas Conservative Coalition has issued a letter supporting his move. "By challenging the constitutionality of the legislation," they gush, "you offer fresh hope that Texans can be protected from this damaging legislation and that the framework of the US Constitution may be restored."

Of course, the Democrats are firing back on the suit. Democratic National Committee Regional Press Secretary Ricardo A. Ramírez wrote a lengthy rebuttal of the basis for the case. If the GOP opposes health care reform, he said, "that's their choice to make but they'll find they're on the wrong side of the American people." DNC Chair Tim Kaine followed that meme when he joked in Georgia on Monday, "'Bring back pre-existing conditions' is one helluva bumper sticker." Attorney general candidate Barbara Ann Radnofsky put it bluntly when she wrote, "Abbott today sued to block 4.3 million Texans from receiving health care insurance."

Even the Libertarian Party of Texas has weighed in. Obviously, they savage "the audacity of the Democrats to pass an unconstitutional healthcare reform law." However, LPT Chair Pat Dixon said that audacity "is only matched by the Republicans' recent posturing as anti-government crusaders."

It will be particularly hard for Republicans to claim the Constitutional high ground with reality-challenged Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert proposing the removal of the right of citizens to vote for their U.S. Senators. Yes, Gohmert wants that power handed back to the state legislatures.

So, in one busy day the leading lights of the Texas GOP have proved that they oppose people having access to affordable health insurance, are very selective on which bits of the Constitution they like, don't trust the democratic process, and are quite happy to engage in a frivolous lawsuit to get their way.

Remember that time when Greg Abbott was ok with insurance mandates?

Forget ObamaCare.  Barbara Ann Radnofsky says we should talk about AbbottCare.

The main point, says Radnofsky, "AbbottCare is inconsistent with Mr. Abbott's lawsuit against the federal health care bill.  I call on Mr. Abbott to withdraw the lawsuit."

From the Radnofsky Campaign's press release, regarding legislation that Attorney General Abbott had proposed:

    The Attorney General's proposal, deemed AbbottCare by Democratic nominee for Texas Attorney General Barbara Ann Radnofsky, was the source of a 2009 law, which mandated the Office of the Attorney General to "develop and implement a statewide program to address the health care needs of children in Title IV-D cases for whom health insurance is not available to either parent at reasonable cost."

    The Bill analysis reflects the goal of the 2009 Texas law: "to ensure that children in the child support system are covered by health insurance. Federal law requires parents in the child support system to provide health coverage for their children."

    Why would the Texas Attorney General embrace federal mandates to require individuals to purchase health insurance?  Money. Federal money. The Office of Attorney General explained "the imperative" to produce more orders for medical support in the Request for Proposal for services for the Texas Child Support Enforcement System. Buried at page 151 under section 4.4.8.8 of  T2 TXCSES is the following language:"...beginning FFY 2009, the establishment of medical support will be one of the performance metrics by which the Office of Attorney General will be measured to garner incentive funds. Therefore, it will be imperative to increase the percentage of cases with a medical support order."

Burnt Orange Report

Since neither was in a contested primary, there has not been much ink spilled over Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott and his Democratic challenger Barbara Ann Radnofsky. She's hoping to change that by raising the issue of Abbott's financial connection to controversial GOP sugar daddy Bob Perry.

Democrats know Perry as the money machine behind the astroturf Swiftboat Veterans for Truth smear operation, a multi-millionaire builder who has sunk seemingly endless cash into maintaining a business-friendly (read: kow-towing) Republican majority in Texas.

But in the last few days, he's hit headlines because of his business practices. A Tarrant County jury hammered him with a $51 million lawsuit after he spent a decade trying to avoid paying to fix a broken house even after he had been ordered to in arbitration. Perry's people claimed that the homeowners had waived the right to arbitration, and then dragged them through the court system. Seems that was a $51 million error on Perry's behalf.

In a screeching rebuttal, Perry's spokesman Anthony Holm called the ruling "jackpot justice". He then disappeared over the horizon completely when he said it was "equivalent to every single resident in Texas depositing $2 into the lawyer’s bank account." Which seems reasonable, if he believes that Perry in some way equals the state of Texas.

Now Radnofksy, noting Perry's all-too-chummy relationship with state government, and the $1 million Abbott's campaigns have received from Abbott in that time, and the fact that it was an Abbott opinion that allowed the broken, worthless, despised, business-backing and now disbanded Texas Residential Construction Commission to stay open, has demanded that the AG hand back the cash.

Hey, if he did, then Perry would only need to find $50 million to settle his debt.

Full press release below.

    Houston, Texas. March 2, 2010. Barbara Ann Radnofsky, the Democratic nominee for Texas Attorney General, commented on the incestuous [i] relationship between Attorney General Abbott and Bob Perry, the Houston homebuilder ordered Monday to pay $51 million to a Mansfield couple who purchased a defective home from his company.

    Radnofsky: "Bob Perry was protected for years due to his incestuous relationship with Greg Abbott. The Attorney General acts to protect his own political interests as funded by his patrons."

    Since 2001, Greg Abbott has received in excess of $1 million in campaign donations from Mr. and Mrs. Bob Perry, of the huge Bob Perry Homes building giant. In return, the Attorney General has been active in coddling homebuilders.

    Radnofsky explained how the Texas Attorney General shielded Bob Perry and other homebuilders, historically:

    "The Texas Attorney General is a massively powerful position.

    "It was an Attorney General opinion which enabled the wasteful, bureaucratic and industry-dominated Texas Residential Construction Commission (TRCC) to flourish, until the legislature eliminated the Commission.

    "I call on Attorney General Abbott to return every penny of the million plus dollars he received from Mr. and Mrs. Perry."

    This includes, particularly, the $170,000 from July 29 through December 15, 2005 the Perrys paid to Attorney General Abbott. After the Perrys paid $100,000 of this amount on December 15, 2005, the Attorney General was sent a December 16, 2005 request from the Chairman of the House Committee on State Affairs questioning the Comptroller's Review of the TRCC. The Attorney General went on to thwart and quash the Comptroller's Review in a May 3, 2006 opinion, effectively shielding builders.

    The Attorney General prevented investigation of the TRCC, a wasteful and intrusive government agency, by the Texas Comptroller.

    John Cobarruvias, of Houston, Texas, an active member of Homeowners of Texas approved of Radnofsky's call for Greg Abbott to return the Perrys' campaign contributions, noting:

    "Bob Perry and his wife gave well over a million dollars to Greg Abbott as Attorney General. In return, Mr. Abbott has done nothing for the homeowners of Texas who need his help. When you are stuck with a bad house, it wrecks you financially, and your family relationships suffer as well."