Harris County Judge Ed Emmett's State of the County

As you probably know, Harris County Judge Ed Emmett gave his sixth “state of the county” address Monday. About a thousand people filled the grand ballroom of the downtown Hilton Americas to hear the speech, held by the Greater Houston Partnership and paid for with private funds. That last part is important because some people expressed to me that taxpayer dollars should not have been used and would have liked to have viewed the speech online. I’m sure that the GHP will eventually put the speech online for everyone to see at no cost.

First off, you should know by now that I’m a big fan of Judge Emmett because he is a man that gets things done and is always looking out for the best interests of the taxpayers in Harris County. So, if anything below seems critical, just know that it is only a political disagreement and that he is probably right because he is a whole lot smarter than me and more informed than I am.

Several things about the speech stood out but before I get to them, let’s listen to the national anthem as performed by Miss Harris County 2013 Niki Noblett:

Miss Harris County Niki Noblett singing the national anthem

[audio:http://www.bigjollypolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/niki-noblett-national-anthem-ghp-ed-emmett-DS300102.mp3]

Judge Emmett spent the first portion of his speech discussing the county and how well we are doing financially. He also thanked different groups of people for their help in the county’s success – various volunteer board members, local officials, and county employees, adding that he considers himself to be an employee of the Harris County taxpayers and is accountable to them. He then switched gears and discussed a few things that could harm the future of the county if they are not addressed. That is where I want to focus.

If you are a casual observer of Judge Emmett and county politics, and consider yourself a small government conservative, you could easily be swayed into thinking that the speech was an example of a big spending Republican. For those of us that are a bit more observant but still consider ourselves to be small government conservatives, the speech was an example of government focused at the correct level. As Ed Hubbard always reminds me, we need to make certain that we push all functions of government down to the lowest possible level because that insures the most accountability. Yes, without question, much of Judge Emmett’s speech was about spending money. But with one exception, and even then it is a matter of opinion, the spending that Judge Emmett discussed was spending that is at the lowest level of government for accountability purposes.

One of the topics that Judge Emmett discussed that is certain to put him in the crosshairs of a few special interest groups like Empower Texans and Americans for Prosperity is that he opposes a cap on budget growth based on population and inflation. He makes the case that this type of budget limitation prevents local government from planning for the future and insuring that we have the capacity to handle growth. In Pasadena terms, he is saying that waiting to build infrastructure until after people arrive is like putting the cart before the horse. It costs more in the long run and it prevents us from growing because people will see that the infrastructure is lacking and choose to live elsewhere. Here is that part of his speech:

Judge Ed Emmett on arbitrary budget growth limitations

[audio:http://www.bigjollypolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ed-emmett-state-of-the-county-ghp-budget-growth_2-25-13_DS300105.mp3]

Another area in which Judge Emmett is sure to anger a few groups is when he insists that the state needs to spend more money on mental health care. One of the buzzwords sure to cause him some trouble is that he thinks it is “shameful” that Texas is 51st in spending on mental health care. I’d ask – well, that’s all well and good, but are we shameful in per capita spending or total spending because they are two very different numbers. Could it be that we have fewer mental health problems because we have more freedom than most states? In any case using the “shameful” is a favorite tactic of the left when they attack those of us that prefer small government and maximum freedom: Judge Emmett needs to find a better way to express his policy concerns. Here is that portion of his speech:

Judge Ed Emmett on mental health funding

[audio:http://www.bigjollypolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ed-emmett-state-of-the-county-ghp-mental-health_2-25-13_DS300105.mp3]

Judge Emmett also talked about two outside forces that affect Harris County. First is immigration – he is for some type of immigration reform to get people “out of the shadows”. Listen in:

Judge Ed Emmett on immigration reform

[audio:http://www.bigjollypolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ed-emmett-state-of-the-county-ghp-immigration-reform_2-25-13_DS300105.mp3]

And last, but certainly not least, and you’ve undoubtedly already heard this one, Judge Emmett is for expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. I’ve been arguing with him about this one for several days but his position is that if the Federal government mandates counties to provide health care to indigent people, then the Federal government should pay for it. Listen in:

Judge Ed Emmett on Medicaid expansion

[audio:http://www.bigjollypolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ed-emmett-state-of-the-county-ghp-medicaid-expansion_2-25-13_DS300105.mp3]

Like I said, I completely disagree with Judge Emmett on this one. Those that say we can spend $50 million and get $4 billion back ignore reality. Texas is a donor state, meaning that we already send more tax money to Washington, D.C. than we get back. This Talking Points Memo chart shows that as late as 2010, we were getting only 91 cents back for each dollar we send:

Obviously, that chart is a bit outdated – I suspect that most states are now receiving more money than they send because of the huge deficits that President Obama has incurred. The left likes to say that the deficit is shrinking, and it is, but it is still estimated to be almost $1 TRILLION this year – and the left is happy about that because it is “shrinking”. The bottom line is that SOMEONE is going to have to pay that debt off one day and as a donor state, that burden will fall on the 50{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} or so of us Texans that pay federal income taxes and our descendants. Is it really a good thing for us to take a piece of candy today only to be treated for diabetes in the future? That is why I think it is a terrible idea to “take the federal money”.

But Judge Emmett isn’t in a position to effect change at the federal level. He is a county judge and thinks that it is “nonsensical” to turn down money from the federal government to take care of people that the federal government says he has to take care of. And he pointed out to me that even if the federal government has no money, the debt they send this way still spends like money. He did tell me that he is open to a property tax decrease if the money does come from Washington, D.C. Note to the left – I didn’t say that he said he would decrease property taxes, only that he is open to the idea. Note to the right – if Medicaid expansion is approved in Texas, we should INSIST on a local property tax decrease. Or better yet, elimination of the county hospital district – after all, if everyone has insurance, private hospitals can treat them.

Different strokes for different folks, which is why we have so many battles in politics. Reminds of the old commercial for oil, you can pay me now or pay me later. The left is mighty happy with Judge Emmett today but they don’t vote in Republican primaries. Just a thought.

Regardless of any disagreement I might have with Judge Emmett on this point, the fact is that Harris County is in great shape and much of that credit is due to his leadership over the past six years. So I’ll swallow my pride and trust that he knows what he’s doing, reminding myself that he is handling this at the lowest level of government possible.