Because of Obamacare, there are 1.1 million fewer uninsured Texans, and our uninsured rate dropped from nearly 25 percent in 2013 to 17 percent.

Of the 4.6 million remaining uninsured Texans, nearly 1 million could be helped by another part of Obamacare. These are Texans who make too little to qualify for the discounted health plans provided through the marketplace. Many work in the food and service industries; others can only work part-time because of disability or diseases like multiple sclerosis and cancer.

Unfortunately, the majority of the Texas Legislature refuses to deal with this issue.

This is shortsighted. Health care and the economy go hand-in-hand – a healthy workforce is a more productive workforce.

Two noteworthy statistics:

• According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, productivity losses related to personal and family health problems cost U.S. employers $1,685 per employee, or $225.8 billion annually.

• The No. 1 cause of homelessness and personal bankruptcies is health care costs. Both have a profound impact on the economic vitality of families and communities.

In the first case, the cost is in the form of lost earnings by businesses. In the latter, the cost is borne directly – first by individuals, and then by everyone around them, as communities take on the task of supporting people in hard times.

These costs can be avoided if we invested up-front in making sure that people have the opportunity to be healthy.

While the individual has a responsibility to take care of her/his health proactively through diet and exercise, unexpected events occur. Nobody can predict a car accident; disease can strike quickly. In those cases, access to affordable, quality health care is critical.

While there are many moral ways to describe this – as a social good, a helping hand, compassion – it’s also common sense from an economic standpoint.

Businesses understand this, which is why they offer health coverage; it’s an investment in their employees. It’s also why the Texas Association of Business, the Greater El Paso Chamber of Commerce, and numerous business groups favor expanding access to health care.

We can provide coverage for a million Texans while getting back tens of billions of our federal tax dollars by embracing Obamacare, and working on a uniquely Texas way of administering the program.

The details can be sorted out if we all agree on the core value of ensuring people have access to health care.

The situation is even more acute now, as the 1115 Transformation Waiver, a mechanism that has preserved payments to hospitals for uninsured care and provided incentive payments for improved health outcomes, is set to expire.

That means billions of dollars that the federal government sent to hospitals and local communities to alleviate the burden of uncompensated care will no longer come to Texas.

If the waiver expires without a plan in place, Texas would lose $1.3 billion in federal funding in 2018 alone, according to estimates by the Center for Public Policy Priorities. In El Paso, that means a loss of $86 million.

The federal agency in charge has made it clear that they will not continue these high uncompensated care payments that cover care in the most expensive setting (i.e., hospitals) when we can provide access to care for uninsured Texans in a much cheaper way.

State leaders can continue to choose politics over policy, and refuse to come to the table with solutions for our uninsured, but that doesn’t mean “federal taxpayers… have to underwrite that bad decision.”

We can make a dent in this massive problem with bold action by the state. It’s the right thing to do, and it’s good business.

José Rodríguez represents District 29 in the Texas Senate, which includes El Paso County.

Earlier this summer, in Texas Taxpayer and Student Fairness Coalition v. Williams ruling, the Texas Supreme Court failed to ensure access to a quality education for all children. The Court reversed the trial court’s ruling that the current system is “constitutionally inadequate, unsuitable and financially inefficient.”

Since 1989, Texas courts have been the final safeguard when the Legislature fails to provide sufficient and equitable funding for all children as required by the Texas Constitution. In this latest ruling, the Court abdicated this responsibility by punting it back to the Legislature, the source of the problem.

The school finance system has become outdated, inefficient, and worst of all, insufficient. The worst provisions include “hold harmless,” the result of political deals that should have expired long ago. This means that some districts with high property values can tax at lower rates and yet still obtain extra funding from the state, while districts with low property values have to tax at the highest rates. In effect, this is taxpayers in low-wealth districts subsidizing the wealthy districts that don’t need the money!

We need to address additional inefficiencies borne by financially-strapped districts, including:  providing equitable funding for all districts at all levels; closing the achievement gaps of English Learner (EL) students and economically disadvantaged students, and alleviating the burden of TRS-Active Care funding (teacher health benefits) on ISDs.

Unfortunately, the Legislature has historically refused to act until the proverbial “gun to the head” from the Court. In the absence of a court order, it’s uncertain what, if anything, the Legislature will do next session. The Texas House Speaker has ordered House Committees to study and recommend reforms for the school finance system. On the Senate side, the latest hearing involved a discussion of performance-based funding as an alternative to attendance-based funding. Performance-based funding is based on the premise that schools should be run like factories with high production and low costs, but school children are each unique; they are not “kidgets.”

For example, experts have found that EL and economically disadvantaged students need between 20 to 50 percent more funding than an average student, but they currently receive only 10 percent. Meanwhile, the District Court in the school finance trial found there was no generally accepted measure of efficiency that could be applied to proposals by the parties seeking to run schools like a business.

The Court also found that there was no solid evidence that a teacher merit pay system would have a positive impact on student achievement. Ultimately, a performance-based system would likely add to the inefficiencies of financing our public schools on the backs of the poor school districts. A for-profit model of winners and losers should never be the model for our children’s education, because all children deserve a quality education, not just some.

The other major problem with performance-based funding is that it would likely rely on standardized tests. The State Board of Education survey on standardized testing and accountability recently found as much of a consensus as you’ll find on any issue in Texas – 80 percent of the 27,000 respondents said they do not want high stakes tests tied to student assessments and 87 percent said the role of standardized state assessments in teacher evaluations should be reduced. Given the lack of public confidence in the validity and reliability of the state’s standardized tests, putting more weight on tests would move us in the wrong direction.

With the 2017 session fast approaching, it’s time to tackle school finance issues head on and do something about high-stakes testing. Ultimately, the state’s core constitutional obligation is to make sure adequate educational opportunity is efficiently provided for everyone. All legislators need to understand this responsibility. If we continue to do nothing, our children will pay the price.

***

José Rodríguez represents Texas Senate District 29, which includes the counties of El Paso, Hudspeth, Culberson, Jeff Davis, and Presidio. He represents both urban and rural constituencies, and more than 350 miles of the Texas-Mexico border. Senator Rodríguez currently serves as the Chairman of the Texas Senate Democratic Caucus, and is a member of the Senate Committees on Education; Health and Human Services; Veteran Affairs and Military Installations; Nominations; and Agriculture, Water, and Rural Affairs.

-30-

The Cardwell Collaborative – an office, research, and tech hub – occupies a spot alongside I-10 just east of Raynolds, as part of the Medical Center of the Americas (MCA) campus. In essence, it’s a dream factory for 21st Century entrepreneurs, and something every El Pasoan should be familiar with and speak of often.

Why, and what is the MCA? A quick refresher:

· The MCA campus is a physical location, encompassing important public assets such as University Medical Center of El Paso (UMC), El Paso Children’s Hospital, and Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (TTUHSC) El Paso, with a land use plan that contemplates public and private healthcare delivery, medical education, and research sector growth. It is operated by the MCA Foundation whose mission is “to improve access to quality healthcare in the Paso del Norte region by building a better healthcare infrastructure, providing superior healthcare educational opportunities and attracting researchers and healthcare providers to the region.”

· The concept grew out of the El Paso Economic Summit in 1998. There was agreement that El Paso had a unique opportunity to promote education, access to health care, and economic development by focusing on development of a four-year medical school and other health-related facilities. We saw a chance to address health access and outcome disparities, and the shortage of doctors, nurses, and other health professionals in the region, while developing a health care cluster that could rival the centers in Houston and San Antonio.

· Over the next two decades, our community reached milestone after milestone. First, we worked diligently to establish the Paul L. Foster School of Medicine. In 2009, the first class was seated in the only four-year medical school on the U.S.-Mexico border. In 2013, TTUHSC El Paso was established as an independent university, and consists of the PLFSOM, the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, and the Gayle Greve Hunt School of Nursing. We transformed R.E. Thomason General Hospital, now known as UMC, into a state-of-the-art hospital, shedding its previous reputation as a last resort for those who could not afford to go elsewhere. We built El Paso Children’s Hospital. As part of all these efforts, we’ve recruited top doctors and researchers to our community.

· And now, we have the Cardwell Collaborative.

The building, set on 36 piers drilled 75 feet down, is the first in El Paso outside of Fort Bliss that has fiber to every desktop and lab. It is a marvelous piece of engineering, design, and technology.

The 3rd floor contains the first private biomedical incubator in El Paso, available to technology start-up companies that spin out of our regional universities or that are attracted to the region. On the ground level, the High Performance Computing Room has steel-re-enforced, three-foot thick floors with two dedicated fluid coolers. The MCA also is expecting to achieve LEED Silver, which assesses a building’s energy efficiency and other factors.

Additionally, the MCA owns 10 more acres on the MCA campus, providing room to grow.

Taken together, the assets in place in the heart of the region’s urban core – TTUHSC, UMC, El Paso Children’s, the Cardwell Collaborative – are a visible marker of the progress we have made, and the future of the MCA, which still has a way to go to fulfill its potential and promise. We have the talent in the region, and the amenities – cultural and technological – to recruit entrepreneurs and scientists from elsewhere.

Our community has embarked upon a visionary effort to grow educational and economic opportunity, while increasing access to quality, affordable health care. This is no small vision, and when community leaders speak of the region’s major drivers – Fort Bliss, our universities, and international trade – and look for opportunities to ensure their future, we must also add the MCA to that list.

José Rodríguez represents Texas Senate District 29, which extends from El Paso to the Big Bend. Sen. Rodríguez currently serves as the Chairman of the Texas Senate Democratic Caucus, and is a member of the Senate Committees on Education; Health and Human Services; Veteran Affairs and Military Installations; Nominations; and Agriculture, Water, and Rural Affairs.

The ruling, Whole Women’s Health v Hellerstedt, is now regarded as the biggest abortion decision in a quarter century. It is expected to invalidate similar abortion laws in a number of other states.

El Paso figures significantly in the 5-3 decision. Between Justice Stephen Breyer’s majority opinion and Justice Samuel Alito’s dissent there are 21 references to the city as the justices hashed over the impacts of the law and supporters’ justifications for it.

“It’s a victory for common sense,” said Dr. Franz Theard, a physician who operates Hilltop Women’s Reproductive Clinic in El Paso, said of the opinion. “It’s a victory for abortion rights.”

Whole Women’s Health, which owns three Texas abortion clinics and one in Las Cruces, argued that Texas House Bill 2 places two unreasonable burdens on Texas clinics: that they be ambulatory surgical centers and that their doctors have admitting privileges at local hospitals.

Proponents of the law said its intent was to protect women’s health. But physicians’ groups, including the American Medical Association, said the requirements were unnecessary and might even harm women.

“It was never about women’s health and safety,” Texas Rep. Donna Howard, D-Austin, said at a press conference on Monday. “It was about creating barriers to access.”

El Paso Bishop Mark J. Seitz condemned the decision.

“I am extremely disappointed to hear that the U.S. Supreme Court has acted to overturn the will of the people of Texas to provide common sense protections to women who are seeking the serious medical procedure of an abortion,” he said in a statement. “An abortion results in the death and dismemberment of an unborn child but it also can have serious risks for the mother. A 2009 Finnish study reported that 20 percent of abortions had potentially serious complications.”

The majority opinion noted, however, that during oral arguments, lawyers for the state couldn’t point to “a single instance in which the new requirement would have helped even one woman obtain better treatment…”

Other city leaders praised the ruling.

“Today’s decision will allow Texas’ remaining clinics to keep their doors open, and for other clinics to open or reopen, improving much-needed access to care for women across the state,” said Texas Sen. Jose Rodriguez, D-El Paso in a statement.

Now the chairman of the Senate Democratic Caucus, Rodriguez is a veteran of the raucous 2013 legislative sessions which produced then-Sen. Wendy Davis’ filibuster, massive protests and, ultimately, HB2.

“Make no mistake – this is a victory for our Texas families and women’s rights,” Rodriguez said. “From its inception, H.B. 2 has been a thinly veiled attempt to restrict access to safe and legal abortion, offered under the condescending pretext ‘of protecting women.’”

The court agreed Monday that the intent of HB2 was to cut access to abortions – not to protect women.

It said the law violated 14th Amendment protections as interpreted in the 1992 decision Planned Parenthood v Casey. That ruling said states cannot place an undue burden on a woman’s right to abortion.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, whose office argued before the court in support of the law, implied that the Supreme Court’s decision was undemocratic.

“HB2 was an effort to improve minimum safety standards and ensure capable care for Texas women,” Paxton said in a statement. “It’s exceedingly unfortunate that the court has taken the ability to protect women’s health out of the hands of Texas citizens and their duly-elected representatives.”

Gov. Greg Abbott was attorney general when the Whole Women’s Health lawsuit was filed. In a statement, he also disagreed with Monday’s ruling.

“The decision erodes states’ lawmaking authority to safeguard the health and safety of women and subjects more innocent life to being lost,” Abbott said. “Texas’ goal is to protect innocent life, while ensuring the highest health and safety standards for women.”

In the wake of the law’s passage in 2013, the number of clinics in Texas has dropped from 41 to 18 and was expected to drop further — to 10 or fewer — if the Supreme Court upheld House Bill 2.

At Monday’s press conference, abortion-rights advocates said that the closures swamped the clinics that remained open, creating long waiting lists and pushing some women past 20 weeks into their pregnancy – the deadline after which women cannot legally have abortions unless there are severe health risks.

Once closed, it will be difficult to reopen Texas clinics, advocates said.

“We have a lot to do to rebuild abortion access in Texas,” said Rebecca L. Robertson, legal and policy director for ACLU of Texas.

The effect of the law on the overall number of abortions is not publicly known. NBC News on Sunday published a report in which a source accused state officials of sitting on state data in advance of the Supreme Court decision.

State Rep. Joe Moody, D-El Paso, said he and other Democrats believed that was the law’s intent when it was passed three years ago.

“In 2013, we stood on the House floor and called HB2 exactly what the Supreme Court recognized it as today: an unconstitutional sham designed to restrict women’s access to healthcare, not to protect it,” Moody said in an email. “Unfortunately, the majority of our state leaders ignored us and wasted countless of dollars from Texas taxpayers to defend their lie. I hope that instead of more of the same, we can move forward with an honest dialogue that will improve women’s healthcare in Texas.”

El Paso is home to two abortion clinics. One was temporarily forced to stop offering abortions when a doctor there couldn’t get admitting privileges to a local hospital. Abortion doctors often have difficulty getting admitting privileges because the procedure is relatively safe and result in few hospital admissions, experts testified in the case.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court quoted the president of El Paso’s Reproductive Services Clinic.

“… it would be difficult for doctors regularly performing abortions at the El Paso clinic to obtain admitting privileges at nearby hospitals because ‘[d]uring the past 10 years, over 17,000 abortion procedures were performed at the El Paso clinic [and n]ot a single one of those patients had to be transferred to a hospital for emergency treatment, much less admitted to the hospital,'” the opinion said. “In a word, doctors would be unable to maintain admitting privileges or obtain those privileges for the future, because the fact that abortions are so safe meant that providers were unlikely to have any patients to admit.”

The requirement for clinics to upgrade to ambulatory surgical centers had been placed on hold pending the Supreme Court’s ruling, which found that the requirement was unnecessary.

In their opinion, a majority of justices estimated that it would cost between $1.5 million and $3 million for clinics to upgrade to become ambulatory surgical centers. The requirement was expected to reduce the number of Texas clinics as low as eight and to place millions of women hundreds of miles from the nearest clinic.

Theard said he would have had no choice had the requirement stood.

“We were ready to close because we would have had to,” he said.

Rep. Cesar Blanco, D-El Paso, said Monday’s decision was especially important to Hispanic women.

“Today is a historic victory for women and many others who fought tirelessly for women’s health and for the right of women to make their own health decisions,” Blanco said in a text message. “This is especially a win for the 2.5 million Latinas of reproductive age in Texas who were disproportionately affected by HB2, who face great barriers to access to health services – because of their immigration status, poverty, lack of transportation or childcare, or because they can’t afford to take time off of work.”

Seitz said that by overturning the Texas law, the Supreme Court was leaving the state open to abuses similar to those of a Pennsylvania doctor who was convicted of killing three infants who were born alive.

“Unregulated facilities such as the one in Philadelphia under the direction of the murderous abortionist, Kermit Gosnell, led to abuses that only a few years ago shocked the nation with his butchery of women for profit,” Seitz said. “Without oversight, what is to prevent this situation from taking place here in Texas?”

In his opinion, Justice Breyer said that Gosnell was ignoring existing regulations when he committed his crimes.

“Gosnell’s behavior was terribly wrong,” Breyer wrote. “But there is no reason to believe that an extra layer of regulation would have affected that behavior. Determined wrongdoers, already ignoring existing statutes and safety measures, are unlikely to be convinced to adopt safe practices by a new overlay of regulations. Regardless, Gosnell’s deplorable crimes could escape detection only because his facility went uninspected for more than 15 years.”

In El Paso, speakers at multiple press conferences had different takes on Monday’s landmark decision.

Gabriela Federico is Reverence for Life coordinator for the El Paso Catholic Diocese.

As with Texas Right to Life, Federico accused the Supreme Court of putting profits over women’s health.

“We think that women deserve better health care,” she said. “When you go to an outpatient surgical center, you expect the highest standards of health care. Why can’t we have that for women?”

NPR reported, however, that Texas doesn’t require riskier procedures such as childbirth to take place in ambulatory surgical centers.

At separate event, Samantha Romero spoke about her experience at a crisis pregnancy center in 2013. She now is president of the West Fund, which helps low-income women afford abortions.

“I felt lied to,” Romero said of her visit to a crisis center. “They didn’t offer any alternatives to my pregnancy that did not result in birth. They talked down to me and talked about beliefs that were not mine.”

Theard, owner of El Paso’s Hilltop Clinic, said he was happy with the decision, but he added that he expected more restrictions from the Texas Legislature.

“At some point, they’re going to find another way to restrict access,” he said. “But we’ll deal with that when it comes.”

Marty Schladen can be reached at 512-479-6606; [email protected]; @martyschladen on Twitter.

The decision is perhaps the best illustration yet of the policy paralysis of our largely dysfunctional federal government.

Our nation’s immigration system is broken, a fact that virtually no one in government disputes. But deepening partisanship has prevented any congressional action.

Obama, frustrated by the inaction on immigration reform, issued executive orders that essentially clarified the enforcement priorities when it comes to deportation. Convicted criminals, national security threats and those who recently entered the country illegally were the top priorities; longer-term migrants with children who are U.S. citizens would not be deportation targets.

Obama acted under the executive branch’s longstanding authority to set priorities on clearly executive functions such as law enforcement.

The state of Texas and 25 other states sued to block the executive actions, and conservative-leaning federal courts ruled in favor of Texas.

The administration appealed to the Supreme Court. But it became clear after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia that the court was likely to divide 4-4 on the case, and that’s precisely what happened.

As a result of the tie, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling blocking the executive action stays in place, and a final determination will be left to a future Supreme Court.

The Republican-controlled Senate has refused to even consider President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to replace Scalia. Garland likely couldn’t have been confirmed in time to participate in this case, but Republican leaders see the 4-4 split as vindication of their obstinance.

Political paralysis is now feeding on itself.

This editorial board for years has urged that Republicans and Democrats work together to craft an immigration reform plan that would enhance border security, clean up disjointed policies that make it difficult for U.S. companies to attract needed talent, and create a path to legal status for millions of undocumented immigrants who have been contributing to our society in the shadows.

It is a position reiterated by Catholic Bishops Oscar Cantú of Las Cruces and Mark Seitz of El Paso in response to the Supreme Court deadlock.

“When Pope Francis visited our country and addressed Congress, he reminded lawmakers that ‘when the stranger in our midst appeals to us, we must not repeat the sins and errors of the past,’” the bishops said in a statement issued in conjunction with the Border Hope Institute. “Today’s sad ruling reinforces our commitment to work for truly comprehensive, permanent immigration reform. We call on Congress to do the same.”

Of course, there is no chance at all that Congress will take on immigration reform this year. Perhaps something may happen after this year’s election, but it’s difficult to see how this fierce campaign will lessen our nation’s partisan divide.

At some point, however, this nation and its political leaders will have to address its challenges. A convoluted and broken immigration system is at the top of the list.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 4-4 vote blocked Obama’s 2014 Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents plan and expansion of the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy intended to provide temporary deportation relief and work permits for about 4.3 million undocumented immigrants.

“Today’s ruling by the Supreme Court in United States v. Texas eliminates those protections, shatters hopes for over 4 million migrants now at risk of deportation, and injects unnecessary fear and anxiety of separation of families across the United States,” Bishop Oscar Cantú of Las Cruces and Bishop Mark J. Seitz of El Paso said in a joint written statement.

“When Pope Francis visited our country and addressed Congress, he reminded lawmakers that ‘when the stranger in our midst appeals to us, we must not repeat the sins and errors of the past.’ Today’s sad ruling reinforces our commitment to work for truly comprehensive, permanent immigration reform. We call on Congress to do the same,” they added.

State Sen. José Rodríguez, D-El Paso, said he was deeply disappointed in the U.S. Supreme Court split vote and said the decision will have negative economic consequences because immigrants contribute to the Texas economy.

“In this state, undocumented youth paid $51.6 million in university/college tuition and fees in 2013, as well as an estimated $1.6 billion in state and local taxes. In 2011, immigrants of all status in Texas contributed $65 billion in economic output — wages, salary, and business earnings,” Rodríguez said. “With that, it is and has been imperative for Congress to do its job by passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” he added.

In February 2015, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen, of Brownsville, granted a preliminary injunction against the president’s executive orders, stating that they were unconstitutional and bypassed the U.S. Congress to implement new laws.

The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed Hanen’s ruling in November.

The Supreme Court’s tied vote leaves intact the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling, which makes millions of American children and parents vulnerable to deportation, said The Border Network for Human Rights in El Paso.

“In the wake of today’s ruling, the moral and practical need for Comprehensive Immigration Reform that includes a path to citizenship for all 11 million undocumented Americans becomes ever clearer,” the organization said in a statement.

Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center said Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and the expansion of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals had the potential to benefit millions of undocumented immigrants with no criminal records who have been living in the United States since at least 2010.

“This tie in the courts is a direct result of the unwillingness of Congress to take initiative in the nomination of a new Supreme Court justice following Justice Scalia’s death. We are extremely disappointed that Congress is not doing its job, and is instead blocking a replacement from assuming the vacant justice position. Today we have witnessed the direct effects of this inaction,” the organizations said in a statement.

Las American Immigrant Advocacy Center reminded the public that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals originally announced in 2012 remains intact. Undocumented immigrants who arrived to the United States on or before June 2007, prior to turning 16 years old, who are currently enrolled in high school or a GED program or have graduated from a program and were 31 or younger in 2012 may still qualify for the plan.

Aileen B. Flores may be reached at 546-6362; [email protected]; @AileenBFlores on Twitter.

Trump said that the judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, a former federal prosecutor who was born in Indiana, was biased against Trump because he “is a Mexican.”

With this one comment, Trump encapsulates the ignorance and lack of character that have been at the core of his candidacy. Trump, the Republican candidate for president of the United States — the most powerful position in the world — stoops to attack the ethnic heritage of a federal judge who has an impeccable record of service to the country and is just doing his job. Why? Because, simply put, the judge did something that displeased Trump. Instead of apologizing for these racist remarks, Trump followed up by saying that he would similarly question the ability of a Muslim judge to do the job.

Once again, Trump shows himself to be petty, thin-skinned, and too self-absorbed to understand, care about orrespect the legal process or the judiciary, which is essential to the constitutional function of our Republic.

Policy differences are one thing, but Trump’s incoherence and disrespect for our system of government — the foundation of what makes America great — goes beyond that. He is a demagogue who only has strength when people bow down to his bullying, which is all he has to offer. The fact that this appeals to enough people to make him the Republican presidential nominee is frightening, and something every responsible public figure must reject.

He has excused violence at his rallies, called for banning Muslims from entering the country and promised the impossible and the infuriating — a wall between the U.S. and Mexico.

It is sad that this unrealistic policy proposal is what jump-started his candidacy, along with his comments that Mexican migrants are murderers and rapists. But he’s not a racist, right? After all, he did allow that “some, I assume, are good people.”

In the case of Judge Curiel, Trump is putting a personal business matter over his country, as politicians who back him are putting their party over the country. Legal experts know how destructive Trump’s attack on the judge is to the justice system, a hallmark of American exceptionalism.

Trump’s own lawyers have not filed any recusal motions. That is because they know, as we all do, that there is no legal basis for Trump’s ridiculous assertion. Neither is there a strategic reason, as the judge will not be intimidated by Trump. The only possible benefit is that Trump’s casually derogatory use of the word “Mexican,” and now “Muslim,” feeds the toxic passions of some Trump supporters.

That might have worked in the primary, but it will not work when all of America is watching. We will never accept as commander-in-chief a failed businessman who depended on reality television to have relevance.

Texans will not be bullied. The eyes of Texas are on Trump, and we are seeing, like everyone else, that the would-be emperor is unclothed on the great stage.

This incident is only one of many — and without doubt one of many more to come — that expose Trump’s continuing candidacy as a dangerous farce that is as bad for Texas as it is for America as a whole. For the good of the country, those who have endorsed Donald Trump must denounce his shameful targeting of a federal judge, and the poison well from which Trump draws.

If lawmakers want to reduce tuition, we must first look to ourselves.

Historically, Texas struggled to keep up with increasing higher education costs. Tuition and fees at Texas’ 38 academic institutions climbed 239 percent between 1993 and present, according to an analysis of Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board data provided to my office by the Center for Public Policy Priorities (CPPP), an Austin think tank.

But since then, the state has cut funding. Per-student general revenue funding declined 6 percent between 1993 and deregulation in 2003. Sure, lawmakers gave universities a modest 8.8 percent increase this biennium, but the fact remains, overall funding declined 27 percent since deregulation. According to CPPP, in 1993, students spent $0.33 on tuition and fees for every $1 the state spent. By 2015, students spent $1.63 for every state dollar.

An argument could be made that universities have actually done a betterjob controlling costs. A 2015 Texas Tribune analysis found only nine universities raised tuition faster than pre-deregulation.

Before deregulation, families could rightly hold lawmakers accountable. Now, lawmakers are in the enviable political position of shifting blame forany tuition increase to unelected university boards.

Meanwhile, lawmakers also under-funded financial aid programs. TEXAS and Texas Educational Opportunity grant programs — our two largest need-based grants — saw increases last session, but not enough to meet demand, CPPP reports.  Lawmakers appropriated no new money to work study, reduced funding for Top 10 Percent Scholarships, phased out zero-interest B-On-Time loans, and almost gutted Hazlewood tuition waivers for veterans and dependents.

Further, eliminating the mandatory tuition set-aside that helps fund financial aid would likely take away more opportunity for low- and middle-income kids than it would add in tuition reduction.

Still, our expectations for universities continue to increase. The state set a goal for 60 percent of 25-34 year olds to have some post-secondary certification by 2030. We’re only about half way to that goal.  The legislature also wants to elevate several universities to Tier-One status, and the Governor has made recruiting world-renowned faculty a priority.

Well, it takes money to attract top faculty. It also takes money to ensure students complete college, increase course offerings, lower student/teacher ratios, enhance academic and career services, and provide financial aid not covered by the state.

Plus, there are simply some costs beyond universities’ control, like utilities, healthcare, and competitive salaries to retain faculty.

We can’t expect universities to make these big lifts while also covering budget shortfalls caused by dwindling state support.

To be clear, I don’t believe all university spending decisions are right and prudent. Rather, I join a growing chorus of voices calling for tuition re-regulation. Universities should make their case for tuition increases in the budget-writing process just like other state agencies, and the buck should stop with elected lawmakers.

I’m encouraged that the Governor takes this issue seriously, creating a tri-agency taskforce to study college affordability.  I hope universities bring innovative solutions to the taskforce — as well as stress the need for greater state investment.

As elected officials, our instinct can’t be to trim education to the bone — and it certainly can’t be to prioritize tax cuts over education services. From public schools to community colleges to universities, we need a first-class education system, not only as a social good in and of itself, but as an investment that secures Texas’ place in the global economy. Texas higher education should be the capstone of a world-class system.

If we fail to make this investment, and tuition costs still price low- and middle-income students out of higher education, we lawmakers will have failed our students and should be held accountable.

José Rodríguez represents Senate District 29, which includes El Paso County, in the Texas Legislature.

During the next legislative session, we should expect debate on rising tuition costs and tuition deregulation, Hazlewood Act benefits and performance-based funding for universities.

One issue that doesn’t need to be rehashed is Texas’ top 10 percent rule, or TTTP.

TTTP was created in 1997 following Hopwood vs. Texas, which temporarily ended race and ethnicity considerations in university admissions.

Minority enrollment plummeted in the aftermath of Hopwood. TTTP offered a simple solution: Reward performance in the classroom , rather than standardized test scores alone.

In the first decade after TTTP was implemented, African-American and Latino freshmen enrollment at the University of Texas at Austin rose from 15.3 percent in 1997 to 25.5 percent in 2008, a 67 percent increase.

Under TTTP, students in the top 10 percent of their graduating class gain automatic admission to any Texas university. For most universities, this wasn’t a problem because these students would have gained admission with or without the rule.

However, what followed at UT-Austin, and to a lesser extent at Texas A&M, was one of the most successful shifts in admissions policy. As expected, minority enrollment increased dramatically at UT-Austin partly because Texas has a high number of de-facto segregated high schools.

TTTP ensures the best and brightest students attending under-resourced schools get the same opportunity to compete as students attending the best-resourced schools that serve predominantly Anglo students.

TTTP also increased socioeconomic and geographic diversity. Previously, a small number of suburban high schools dominated admissions at UT-Austin. After TTTP, students from rural and inner-city schools were admitted in much greater numbers.

One question remained: Could these students compete with their non-top 10 percent peers?

The answer is yes.

In fact, TTTP students have outperformed non-top 10 percent students in terms of GPA, retention rates and graduation rates. Not surprisingly, students who do well in high school also do well in college.

Parents and students are beginning to realize that standardized tests are not the end-all, be-all that institutions claim, whether it’s high school end-of-course exams or the SAT.

Following the success of TTTP and the reinstitution of diversity considerations at UT-Austin after the Grutter vs. Gratz decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, UT-Austin became concerned that TTTP was dominating its admissions policy.

An increasing number of students sought admittance to Texas’ flagship university. As a result of these concerns, in 2009, a legislative compromise was struck that allows UT-Austin to restrict access to TTTP students to 75 percent of their freshman class.

This means UT-Austin only admits students in the top 8 percent, or sometimes top 7 percent, of their graduating class.

It should be clear that any student graduating in the top 8 percent has proven she has the grit and academic capability to succeed.

Unfortunately, UT Chancellor William McRaven recently told the Legislature that TTTP is holding UT-Austin back in its rankings. However, according to U.S. News & World Report, public universities ranked higher than UT-Austin generally enroll more top 10 percent students than UT-Austin.

Although the state has Texas A&M at College Station and a number of emerging public Tier One universities, UT-Austin is a clear preference for Texas students. Three things should happen before the Legislature further modifies TTTP.

First, for a state of our size, we need more competitive placements in Texas for high-achieving students.

Second, public schools need equal funding so students can more fairly compete in the admissions process.

Finally, UT-Austin must reform its admissions process, which continues to skew in favor of suburban high schools.

TTTP works for Texas. It provides an equal opportunity to all Texas high school students, regardless of race, socioeconomic status, school funding, school size or who their parents know.

With all the critical issues facing this state, we shouldn’t waste time trying to change a process that isn’t broken.

->—<- José Rodríguez represents Senate District 29, which includes El Paso County, in the Texas Legislature. He is chairman of the Senate Democratic Caucus and sits on the Senate Education Committee.

The Governor’s Texas Military Preparedness Commission on Thursday awarded a $2 million grant for a plant that will remove minerals from the 15 to 20 percent of the wastewater that is left after the desalination plant cleans brackish groundwater up to drinking water standards.

The desalination plant was built during a time when El Paso leaders sought to assure the Army that the city would have sufficient water for a growing city and for Fort Bliss.

“Adequate, reliable sources of water are critical for ensuring Fort Bliss remains one of the largest physical military installations in the country,” Texas Sen. Jose Rodriguez, D-El Paso, said in a statement. “The Army’s investments of infrastructure, and troops and support personnel from around the nation are vital to El Paso’s continued economic prosperity. I’m grateful that the state values El Paso’s special relationship with Fort Bliss.”

The grant will help fund a $65 million facility that will process super-salty wastewater and market minerals that are removed, such as milk of magnesia. The new plant, which is being built by the Enviro Water Mineral Co., also has received more than $2 million in tax abatements from the city.

When it’s operational next year, it is expected to add 2.2 million gallons a day to El Paso’s water supply.

The most recent grant was awarded as part of the Texas’ Defense Economic Adjustment Assistance Grant program, which is intended to help cities show federal authorities that they are partnering with military facilities in their areas.

The program was almost defunded in last year’s legislative session, but lawmakers in military communities, including El Paso, led the drive to have $30 million for the program built into the state budget.

“The Defense Economic Adjustment Assistance Program provides resources to military cities such as El Paso to support infrastructure projects and also creates jobs,” Rep. Cesar Blanco, D-El Paso, said in a text message. “I am proud to have authored the House companion bill for this grant. The El Paso delegation has worked together to ensure that our city has a seat at the table when it comes to defense, veterans and military installations.”

Marty Schladen can be reached at 512-479-6606; [email protected]; @martyschladen on Twitter.