Unconstrained by the facts, the Star-Telegram breathlessly claimed in a recent editorial the "Texas AG's crusade against Obama administration drains taxpayers' pocketbooks."
This conclusion is supported in part by asking, "Did Texans really need to invest in Florida's challenge of the Affordable Care Act -- a law the Supreme Court left substantially intact?"In a word: Yes!The ObamaCare decision was a travesty for freedom and justice because it creates a new power that allows Congress to tax Americans who choose not to purchase healthcare insurance.But the decision also ruled in Texas' favor on the primary issue concerning the state's budget. The Supreme Court agreed that ObamaCare violated the Constitution by trying to coerce Texas to spend even more money on a struggling Medicaid program.According to state health officials' calculations, the savings to taxpayers from that ruling could amount to more than $10 billion during the next decade. Not a bad return for Texas taxpayers.To further support its thesis, the editorial says: "16 suits approved by Abbott have challenged environmental regulations. In August, the state won 2-1 appellate rulings on an interstate pollution rule and the agency's disapproval of Texas' flexible permitting on emissions."Published reports show that those victories against the Environmental Protection Agency saved hundreds of jobs in Texas. If the EPA hadn't overreached, Texas wouldn't have had to bear the cost of challenging its regulations.Most of the other legal actions the editorial decries involve defense of state laws that were challenged by the federal government and private plaintiffs.The editorial asks: "How much of that is defending the public interest -- and how much is an elected official with higher ambitions jousting with a Democratic administration Texas Republicans love to hate?" All of our legal actions defended Texas statutes, agencies and sovereignty -- the very sovereignty upheld by the Supreme Court's ObamaCare decision. In reality, the public interest has been vigorously defended from a federal government that has tried at every turn to tax, regulate and more deeply indebt the public.The editorial claims: "The AG's office remains truer to its mission when it's protecting the interests of all Texans: shutting down shysters; protecting consumers from fraud; enforcing state laws on open government and, yes, environmental protection."That incorrectly implies that our office has not been true to its mission. During the same four-year period invoked to criticize the cost of fighting federal overreach, we've recovered more than $750 million for the state. Almost all of that $750 million came from legal actions targeting shysters, protecting consumers from fraud, enforcing state laws and, yes, environmental protection.More importantly, the suggestion inaccurately narrows the true mission of the Attorney General's Office.My oath of office requires that I "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State." That's precisely what we've done in all of our legal actions against the Obama administration.Whether you agree or disagree with our legal actions, you can't say they haven't been a bargain for taxpayers. Saving billions of dollars and hundreds of jobs is exactly the kind of return on investment taxpayers deserve.When Texas challenges the federal government, it's about more than money. It's about defending the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution. Defending the constitutional principles that have made the United States truly exceptional: That's priceless.Greg Abbott is the Texas attorney general.Have more to add? News tip? Tell us
