Texas Lottery investigation, latest in legislative session: TWITP
The Brief
The Texas Lottery investigation and the latest discussions in the legislative session were hot topics in This Week in Texas Politics
FOX 7 Austin's chief political reporter Rudy Koski and our panel of analysts have a look at some of the top stories this week.
AUSTIN, Texas - This Week in Texas Politcs we saw several top issues that could turn into big fights, and a few topics that seemed to come out of left field.
FOX 7 Austin's chief political reporter Rudy Koski and our panel of analysts have a look at some of the top stories this week.
Local perspective
RUDY KOSKI: It was an extremely busy week This Week in Texas Politics. Let's get our headlines now from our panel. And we begin first with Patrick. Svitek with the Washington Post. Patrick, what's your headline?
PATRICK SVITEK: Well, here in Washington, it was another suspenseful and dramatic week for President Trump's legislative agenda. That's my headline.
RUDY KOSKI: Brad Johnson with the Texan. Brad, what's your headline?
BRAD JOHNSON: Meet the new legislature's whipping boy and the Texas Lottery Commission.
Local perspective
RUDY KOSKI: Well, a lottery reform bill did move out of the Texas Senate and to the House this week. But did the lotto avoid getting defunded or is it just game over for the lotto? Brad, what do you think?
BRAD JOHNSON: I don't think this is going away. I don't think the lottery commission is going to be sunsetted, but we might see some substantial changes in the Sunset Bill that they are currently under right now. They need to get renewed by the legislature in order to keep going. And if they don't, well, you know, that's, that's it.
PATRICK SVITEK: But something that has stood out to me, just watching it from a distance is how this does not bode well, you know, just I think, atmospherically, for the efforts to expand gambling in Texas.
Local perspective
RUDY KOSKI: Support in the House, we got that confirmed now for school choice. But the question is, is a which plan? Brad, the House has got a plan. The Senate's got a plan. They're not the same. Is that trouble?
BRAD JOHNSON: Well, I actually don't think this is the top candidate for calling a special session. I think that's bail reform, whether that can get across the line in the House. But on this issue specifically, I think we get something. They're going to have to figure out. There's no bridging that gap. They go with one or the go with the other. Maybe there's some other, other creative way to do this. But yeah, it's not across the line yet. There's a lot of negotiating to happen. This thing is definitely going to conference committee.
RUDY KOSKI: On Capitol Hill and D.C. The House passed its big budget reform bill. Some members of the Texas congressional delegation are catching a little heat on how they voted. Patrick, who stays on that hot seat?
PATRICK SVITEK: One of the most controversial parts of it was its instructions for federal spending cuts to a House committee that oversees Medicaid. Some vulnerable Republicans who voted for this said that they weren't voting for it to support cuts to Medicaid. And so when you talk about vulnerable Republicans in Texas, you're thinking about someone like Congresswoman Monica de la Cruz and South Texas and then some vulnerable Democrats who opposed this, were attacked for Republicans for being in favor of raising taxes.
RUDY KOSKI: We saw the return of drag show bans another DEI ban discussion and a package of parental right's Bills at the Texas Capitol. You know, guys, do all these Bills or just some of these Bills make it to the governor? What do you think, Brad?
BRAD JOHNSON: Yeah, you probably see most of them make it to the governor. But the question has always is, what do they look like when they finally make it to his desk?
RUDY KOSKI: And the biggest devil of a detail is defining what DEI is. Patrick, do you think that at some point in time, someone's really got to just sit down and say, this is what DEI is and get away from this broad definition?
PATRICK SVITEK: You know, I agree, there's certainly a definition that could be up for debate there. You've seen some institutions and Republicans have tried to call them out on this. You've seen some institutions realize how politically vulnerable they've become from just using those words they've tried to reclassify or re describe some of those positions just to get away from that language. And that's upset some Republicans even more.
RUDY KOSKI: Political Running Back Ken Paxton suited up and is taking on the NCAA this week. He wants a court to order the organization to revise its transgender rule and immediately start screening the sex of student athletes. Brad, who wins this fight?
BRAD JOHNSON: Well, I think ultimately right now, the Republicans and Paxton probably do. But I heard there's I heard rumblings of some controversy between the White House and the Attorney General or other random activists like Riley Gaines on this issue.
PATRICK SVITEK: But there are, you know, steps you can take, like this latest lawsuit by Paxton that could make it look like you're trying to, you know, steal some of the glory from the White House or try to push their policies a little further in terms of interpretation.
RUDY KOSKI: Certainly, a lot of political grenades being tossed and one of the most recent grenades landed here in Austin. HB2 74 was filed this week that would create Austin, DC. But Patrick, didn't we learn a lesson with Washington, D.C., that that's not exactly a good idea.
PATRICK SVITEK: Yeah, I mean, obviously, Republicans, state leaders and lawmakers in Texas have dreamed forever about having more control over Austin. As Rick Perry called it, I think, the blueberry and the tomato soup or something like that. But this idea of having a district controlled by the state still seems a little unrealistic to me.
Local perspective
RUDY KOSKI: All right, you can catch this discussion, our full discussion on FOX 7 YouTube and Fox Local. But let's wrap it up now with our final word for the week. And we'll begin with Brad Johnson.
BRAD JOHNSON: Budget.
PATRICK SVITEK: I'll say Medicaid, as an extension of that budget fight, because that was the most politically hot issue this week in D.C.
RUDY KOSKI: And that is This Week in Texas Politics.
The Source
Information from interviews conducted by FOX 7 Austin's Rudy Koski
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's $1,000-per-baby investment accounts: What to know
President Trump has lauded the House-approved spending bill for the 'pro-family initiative' tucked inside the legislation, which creates investment accounts for newborn babies. 'They'll really be getting a big jump on life, especially if we get a little bit lucky with some of the numbers and the economy,' Trump said at a Monday event at the White House that touted the accounts. The 'Big, Beautiful Bill' lays out rules for the Trump accounts. To qualify, a child must be a U.S. citizen, born within the next four years to at least one parent with a Social Security number. The money could be withdrawn starting at age 18. Here's what you need to know about the proposed federal program: Under the current bill text, the program would be available to families of all income levels, with babies born after Dec. 31, 2024, and before Jan. 1, 2029. A one-time $1,000 contribution would be provided by the Treasury Department and deposited into a diversified U.S. stock index fund or its equivalent. Families, guardians and private entities will be able to contribute no more than $5,000 per year to the account. An estimated 7 percent return on the $1,000 would compound to roughly $3,570 over 18 years, according to the Associated Press. The legislation does not provide a limit on the amount of money a nonprofit or company can donate to a child's investment account within the $5,000 annual contribution limit. Several businesses, including Uber, Dell, Goldman Sachs and Altimeter have committed to setting aside billions to invest in the accounts of company employees who become new parents. 'It's not just an account; it's a launchpad. It puts the unstoppable engine of compounding to work for our kids, building a future for them from day one,' Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said about the initiative during a White House roundtable. Children enrolled in the investment program are eligible to withdraw half of the cash value amount between their 18th and 25th birthdays, according to CNN. Families and beneficiaries would pay a penalty for early withdrawal as there is no allowance for emergency use of the funds, the outlet reported. Funds withdrawn for anything other than 'qualified expenses,' including paying for higher education, buying a residence or starting a business, will be taxed. Researchers have said the investment accounts could widen America's wealth gap. 'Under the current proposal, every child starts with the same amount, and families can contribute up to $5,000 annually,' the Urban Institute, a think-tank focused on social policy, wrote in a late May report. 'But relatively few households hold substantial liquid wealth in the United States, meaning higher-income households are far more likely than their lower-income counterparts to have the means to contribute additional funds,' it continued. The study noted that Trump accounts are likely to only benefit those who have already maxed out existing tax-preferred savings opportunities, like 529 accounts. Instead, they suggested low income families with job insecurity are more likely to gravitate towards investing in traditional accounts that offer flexible guidelines. Trump's 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' still needs approval from the upper chamber. Senators considering potential changes or cuts to the legislation, hoping to pass the bill before July 4.
Fox News
22 minutes ago
- Fox News
Diddy's ex-girlfriend preps for cross examination after 'graphic, days-long' testimony
All times eastern FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: SecDef Hegseth testifies before House subcommittee as active-duty Marines deployed to LA
The Hill
22 minutes ago
- The Hill
Hegseth filibusters on cost of Trump's Los Angeles deployments
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday declined to discuss the expected cost of deploying National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles to suppress immigration raid protests, instead attacking Democratic leaders for their handling of current and previous incidents of civil unrest. Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), House Appropriations defense subcommittee ranking member, asked Hegseth about funding the deployment of the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles. He instead defended Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as having 'the right to safely conduct operations in any state and any jurisdiction in the country.' He also referenced the George Floyd murder protests in 2020 in Minneapolis, attacking Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) for his actions at that time and arguing that the National Guard was 'eventually far too late mobilized.' 'President Trump recognizes a situation like that, improperly handled by a governor, like it was by Governor Walz, if it gets out of control, it's a bad situation for the citizens,' Hegseth said. The answer prompted McCollum to interrupt him to press him to address her original question. 'Chairman, I have limited time, I asked a budget question,' McCollum interjected. McCollum also asked Hegseth whether any trainings were being pushed off due to the troop deployment, but grew frustrated at his lack of answer. 'I will yield back my time if the secretary refuses to answer the budgetary questions I put before him. They're important,' she said. 'What training missions aren't happening? Where are you pulling the money from? And how are you planning this moving forward? These are budget questions that affect this committee and the decisions we're going to be making in a couple of hours.' Hegseth only replied that the Pentagon has the funding 'to cover down on contingencies, especially ones as important as maintaining law and order in major American city.' In her opening remarks, McCollum criticized President Trump's decision to call in some 4,000 California National Guard troops as 'premature,' and the decision to deploy 700 active duty Marines as 'downright escalatory.' 'I ask you Mr. Secretary, and I ask the president, follow the law,' she said.
