I'm still wading through the Texas gubernatorial race and decided to peruse the web sites of Rick Perry and Tony Sanchez and here are some thoughts about what I've seen:

Homeowners Insurance

Both candidates seem to agree that homeowner insurance companies are using loopholes to avoid regulation. Their response actually seems pretty similar. In fact, Perry's seems more pro-active which is odd considering that Sanchez is hammering him for doing nothing. In fairness to Perry, this wasn't even an issue last legislative season therefore "doing nothing" is hardly a crime when no bills passed his desk (and he didn't try to kill any of them) as far as I know. In fairness to Sanchez, would Perry even be talking about it if he hadn't brought it up?

One interesting thing from Perry's site:

Texans purchase 3.9 million homeowner insurance policies each year that generate almost $3 billion in premiums. Three companies ? Allstate, State Farm and Farmers ? have a stranglehold on 66 percent of the market in Texas. Although those three companies are regulated, they have used a loophole in the law to move a substantial number of their policyholders into unregulated subsidiary companies. In this unregulated environment, Texas homeowners have seen insurance rate increases that range from 15 percent to 200 percent within the past year.

Well, there aren't three companies anymore. Farmer's insurance pulled out of the state (after this position paper was released). So, if they're part of a tri-fecta that has a "strangehold" and is abusing an unregulated environment, why weren't they making money? Are Allstate and State Farm rolling in the dough or is Texas just that undesirable for insurers? Neither Sanchez nor Perry seem to have much to say on that part. "We must do something" is the order of the day. I'm not sure how regulation is going to help here. Of course, unregulation hasn't either.

Advantage: Draw

Education

Tony Sanchez has one good idea surrounded by bad ones. His multimedia textbook idea seems promising and I'm not opposed to money going towards that if it's necessary. Is it? If the idea is as good as it is, why hasn't the private sector pounced on it? It seems like it would be a popular sell to school districts. On what computers would these be run? Twenty-eight computers in every classroom? That seems a long ways off and ought to be discussed first. The idea sounds good, but I'm not sure it holds up.

One big thing on the Sanchez education platform is a "different strokes for different folks" approach to teaching. Ostensibly I agree with that. That's why I support vouchers and charter schools. Sanchez doesn't (or at least doesn't say so). He prefers it on a micro level. The idea of different "learning styles" sounds great in theory. I know that the current system didn't serve my learning style well. However, on a micro level I don't know how workable it is. Is a teacher supposed to teach all 28 students differently? Or, if we were to follow typology temperaments, would everything have to be taught four times to accomodate each style or temperament? Would different teachers take on different styles and the students be fed in to them depending on the results of the assessment tests he proposed?

I may be nitpicking here, but he asks for something in return for this idea. He wants to minimize the TAKS standardized tests. Let students take it when they're ready. This would be gauged on progress assessment tests. This would create a reverse incentive in that the worse kids do on these tests, the less they would have to do in the tests that matter. This would either render the TAKS test pointless or it would leave students unprepared for them because they're still on the 6th grade tests in the eleventh grade. I have my suspicions of which and why, but either way it sounds like a loser.

When it comes to standardized tests, the flexibility he calls for is bad. To use my personal experience, when I was in the second grade or so we were supposed to take the CAT standardized test. My grades were pretty lousy at the time and I was an all around poor student. The counseller called my mother in for a special meeting to request that she exempt me from the test. They said I wasn't ready for it and that it would hurt my self-esteem to do poorly. It would also go into some infamous "file" that would scar me for the rest of my life. My mom denied the request because if I was behind, she had the right to know about it. The flexibility comes at the cost of an objective gauge of student progress (without the aforementioned reverse incentive).

He's in favor of raising teacher pay and lowering classroom size, both of which I support (the former more than the latter). He also wants to cut down on teacher paperwork, which I agree with but his intricate student auditing system seems to come in the way of that. To be fair, so does the TAKS, but at least with the TAKS we get objective information about how the students are doing on a statewide basis.

Lastly, he has some good ideas about increasing cooperation between universities and high schools:

*Develop a coordinated network of Laboratory Schools linked to all university and community college systems. University and public school professionals will work together to develop education initiatives.
*Re-direct to these Laboratory Schools some of the $150 million spent on remediation of incoming freshmen each year by our colleges and universities.
*The first laboratory schools should be located in districts whose students face the most difficulties. Over four years, the laboratory schools should be expanded to other districts, developing new educational techniques for all kinds of students.

Rick Perry has no less than 7 of 17 position statements allocated to education. Most of them deal with making college education more accessible and affordable. It's not as comprehensive as John Sharp's simplistic (and therefore inherently accountable) B-student plan, but it has some really interesting points. Particularly a proposal to beef up our distance education program. It provides maximum flexibility for students by allowing them to take distance education classes from colleges other than the one in which they are enrolled. The colleges like the idea and so do I.

Like Sanchez, Perry also has an idea on increased cooperation between community colleges and high schools, but Perry's is longer on specifics and proposed to increase a program that is apparently working in Dallas. I'm not completely sure I'm sold on this idea, though. Perry talks about existing private sponsorship, but it seems to me like they'd stop once the government took control of it. He also says that students participating in the program have the highest attrition rates. Well yeah, but that's probably more accurately stated in the reverse: Students with the highest attrition rates are most likely to participate in the program.

He also has a plan for enhanced math education. I'm little more than indifferent on this plan. His rationale is to boost our already impressive tech sector. However, if students are struggling in algebra and geometry, they're unlikely to excel in most computer related fields anyhow. Chances are it isn't their bag. In cases where it is, wouldn't it make more sense to beef up vocational training for the tech sector? What about a program that picks the most tech-minded students and put them in an environment where they can really learn about computers? Pasadena ISD has a program like this and it has done a lot of good. Still, it's hard to argue against increased training of teachers in the math fields.

He's also got some plans that focus on college afordability. One program for picking out possible first-generation college students and giving them extra attention. I'm not so sure about this one, either. Is trying to convince people to go to college the best idea? We have enough people who want to go but can't afford it. The college-is-not-for-me mentality is dying quickly and I don't think it needs the government's help to kill it off. In fact, I think the state government needs to start looking at vocational school alternatives to college for those that want and need training but don't want or need a liberal arts degree. That's probably just me, though.

He's also got some things to say on work-study and student loans that are some good ideas. I still prefer Sharp's plan, however.

I expected Sanchez to really shine in this area and Perry to fall short. Perry unfortunately doesn't call for vouchers, but he comes up with some intriguing ideas nonetheless. Sanchez's platform is much more fuzzy and I'm less confident in the rationale behind it.

Advantage: Perry

Economy

Sanchez wants a statewide business plan. He wants to assemble a commission of Texas's "best and brightest" to craft such a plan with agoal to Texas businesses, maximize economic growth, increase employment and efficiently use state resources." Thus far, he wants to promote Texas businesses with contract preferences to "recognize our most important assets in the new economy are well-educated and skilled individuals." He also desires to partner with companies to help them do a better job.

Not too keen on this, though not adamently against it. My first question is whether this is a solution in search of a problem. He talks about widespread economic concerns and fears that our talent pool is moving away. I haven't seen too much evidence of this, however. The economy is hurting all over and this is hardly a Texas problem. Is there another state with such a plan that is huritng less right now? Are people moving from this state to there? If so then we definitely need to do something. I haven't heard that to be the case.

Absent of a specific problem, it strikes me as little more than meddling. Why does the government need to help businesses do their job? The market should handle that for the most part. Some businesses will succeed and others will fail, but that's the way the wild wind blows. Maybe I'm not understanding what he wants to do correctly, but I'm not that impressed with it.

He also seems interested in helping displaced workers learn new skills. Great idea. His rationale is that people are leaving the state and I just don't see that happening, but I think it's a good idea regardless. We live in a tech-oriented state where jobs are more transient than in other places. Helping people move around to where they're needed sounds like a winner.

While Sanchez focuses on the bigger picture from the top down, Perry is looking more from the ground up. He wants to get input from small businesses about making our state more amenable to them. Cynically, this is a convenient way for Sanchez and the GOP to push tort reform (which I am against), but there are some good ideas there, too. Tax exemptions for small franchises seems like a good idea and keeping our economy as unregulated as it is (or making it moreso) is also a worthy goal. We got where we are with our flexibility. Let's keep it that way.

Perry also touts the Internet exemption tax, which is one of those little things that that is more publicity than substance.

Advantage: Perry

Transportation

Rick Perry has some plans to increase our freeway system. Tony Sanchez doesn't mention any. There are some areas where I think it's best for the government to take a hands-off approach. Roads isn't one of them.

Advantage: Perry

Ecology

Perry, as one might expect, has nothing to say on the subject. Sanchez stakes some honorable ground against the lowered speed limits, but it's rather tepid. Since I was expecting less from Sanchez, I'll give credit where credit is due. Perry, meanwhile, strongarmed the TNRCC into backing off of the limits (though the EPA still stands firm). Sanchez wants to make the TNRCC stronger. I am not their biggest fan right now. Sanchez wants tax rebates for low-emission and alternatively fueled cars, which I can support. He also supports the "Pollutor Pays" principal, but he's a little too adament on the subject and I don't want the refineries leaving for greener better pastures.

Advantage: Perry

Guns

Sanchez not only opposes any new laws, but takes pride in the gun culture in which he was raised. I suspect Perry's position is substantively no different, but I give Sanchez points on style.

Advantage: Sanchez

Utilities

Perry doesn't have anything to say here, but I like Sanchez's proposal a lot.

Advantage: Sanchez

Health Insurance

Perry has a plan to give health insurance to employees of small businesses, where it is most lacking (among the working folks, that is). I don't mind the state chipping in for that. Sanchez is more interested in sticking it to insurance companies than increasing insurance among the working. He's also worried about red tape for our children's programs and wants to cut down on that. Of course, it's always easier to say you want to cut down on red tape than to actually do it. He wants to speed up payments from the companies, which I believe is definitely important.

What I found most impressive, however, was Sanchez's overt threat to medical malpractice lawyers. Waste our time and we'll fine you:

Medical Liability and Lawsuit Abuse. "I will support aggressive measures to sanction lawyers who pursue malicious and frivolous suits. In fact, the State Bar of Texas will be reviewed by the Legislature next session and I will work to ensure they change the way they do business."

Impressive... but not impressive enough.

His initiative on providing incentives for doctors to reside in rural Texas puts it firmly in the "draw" category, though.

Advantage: Draw

Crime & Punishment

Perry says nothing one way or another, which I accept as the status quo. Sanchez has some interesting ideas on prison reform. I support raises for cops and teachers, and I'd include prison guards as cops. One thing, though. He calls for increased training and so forth, citing recent jailbreaks (which are a problem). However, most guards in Huntsville, as I understand it, are Sam Houston State students in their criminal justice program. Maybe that needs to be changed or we simply need more guards. Sanchez doesn't go into much detail, but I'll give him credit for bringing it up.

Advantage: Sanchez

Conclusion

So what now? It's one in the morning. Bed time.