Media meltdown over Wilkins Ice Shelf collapse is over 0.01% of Antartica's ice sheet breaks off, while Antarctic ice mass has been increasing overall.
Speaking of meltdown, the IPCC is getting frantic over lack of actual warming and lack of ocean heating. A cold 2007 and 2008 is making trends look much less ominous than the hype predicted.
Global warming hot air is running up against cold, hard facts. Expect a storm front when the two finally clash in full.
Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams gives his support for nuclear energy (video). He asks what we think. I think nuclear energy is good energy. Nuclear Energy is as renewable and just as good an energy source as wind, solar, biomass, etc. and should be treated as such by the policy-makers. Texas needs nuclear energy as part of our energy future, and Austin can meet CO2 reduction goals by moving to nuclear, at lower cost than any other CO2 mitigation method. That's what I think.
The Railroad Commissioner website has a few key facts on nuclear energy in Texas:
Texas has 4 nuclear units that produce 8.8% of the state's electricity. The U.S. has 103 nuclear units - the most for any country in the world - that generate 20% of the nation's electricity. This is ahead of the world average of 16%. ...
At 4,768 MW, Texas generates the 7th largest amount of nuclear powered electricity (XLS) in the country.
Due to consolidation within the nuclear power industry, streamlined federal relicensing procedures and improved operating efficiency, operating costs have fallen from 3.31 cents per kilowatt-hour in 1988 to 1.7 cents, which is slightly lower than coal and much lower than the 3 to 5 cents per Kwh cost for natural gas-fired plants.
No, it's not just Reverend "God D*** America" Wright and his Black Liberation Theology church, pushing the Hamas manifesto and Giving awards to Nation of Islam leader Farrakhan (Farrakhan by the way endorsed Obama). After all, the Liberals have praised Obama for "standing by his man" Rev Wright.
But wait, there is more. There is Rep Chaka Fattah:
Obama went out of his way to endorse a pan-Islamist, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel bigot and one of the most radical Members of Congress--Congressman Chaka Fattah ... Fattah, for example, was one of 62 Democrats voting against a House resolution in favor of Israel's right to defend itself against Palestinian terrorism and also build a border fence to keep terrorists out.
Thomas Sowell notes that:
Barack Obama's own account of his life shows that he consciously sought out people on the far left fringe. In college, "I chose my friends carefully," he said in his first book, "Dreams From My Father."
These friends included "Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk rock performance poets" -- in Obama's own words -- as well as the "more politically active black students." He later visited a former member of the terrorist Weatherman underground, who endorsed him when he ran for state senator.
Supreme Court sides with Texas, in a dispute where the World Court ruled in 2004 that the convictions of Medellin and 50 other Mexicans on death row around the United States violated the 1963 Vienna Convention, which provides that people arrested abroad should have access to their home country's consular officials. The Bush administration was seeking to get the courts to go along with this ruling.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said the international court decision cannot be forced upon the states. SCOTUSblog via Michelle Malkin says:
"The Supreme Court, in a sweeping rejection of claims of power in the presidency, ruled 6-3 on Tuesday that the President does not have the authority to order states to relax their criminal procedures to obey a ruling of the World Court. The decision came in the case of Medellin v. Texas (06-984). Neither a World Court decision requiring U.S. states to provide new review of criminal cases involving foreign nationals, nor a memo by President Bush seeking to enforce the World Court ruling, preempts state law restrictions on challenges to convictions, the Court said in a ruling written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
The decision, aside from its rebuff of presidential power, also treats the World Court ruling itself as not binding on U.S. states, when it contradicts those states’ criminal procedure rules. The international treaty at issue in this dispute — the Vienna Convention that gives foreign nationals accused of crime a right to meet with diplomats from their home country — is not enforceable as a matter of U.S. law, the Roberts opinion said. "
PS. Those seeking an appeal for Medellin are asking for another chance for a brutal murderer (warning: graphic).
Via Texas Weekly, a 5 page spread on the Statewide and Texas House and Senate races.
CENTRAL TEXAS DIGEST
13 file to run for Austin City CouncilCOMPILED FROM STAFF AND WIRE REPORTSTuesday, March 11, 2008
AUSTIN
Thirteen seek City Council seats
Thirteen candidates will vie for three Austin City Council seats, according to final applications filed Monday.
Place 1 Council Member Lee Leffingwell will run for re-election on May 10 against mechanical engineer Allen Demling, real estate agent Jeffrey Hancock and Jason Meeker, who has an advertising and public relations firm.
In Place 3, Council Member Jennifer Kim will run against Internet entrepreneur Randi Shade and former Texas Army National Guardsman Kenneth Weiss.
Vying to replace Place 4 Council Member Betty Dunkerley, whose term ends in June, will be lawyer Robin Cravey, perennial candidate Jennifer Gale, urban planner Cid Galindo, disaster management consultant Laura Morrison, parole officer Sam Osemene and real estate agent Ken Vasseau.
The City of Austin Charter Revision Committee recently recommended City Council members be elected by single-member districts instead of at-large. This will be a bold change for Austin politics if Austin voters approve this change.
Currently, the Mayor and 6 City Council members are all elected at-large in Austin. There are currently no districts in Austin, each member represents the community at large. The reality of the situation is that the Central Austin environmentalist agenda controls the City Council as all of the members elected to the City Council are hand-selected to run. Due to low turnout in the May elections, the special interests of the pro-environmental, anti-business community in Austin elect the City Council.
If the State Legislature were elected through at-large districts, all 150 State Representatives would be attornies from Houston or Dallas as the largest number of votes and the most active voters are in those areas of Texas. The citizens of Texas would cry fowl if the State Legislature was did not represent their diverse interests. Citizens of Austin should do the same.
A proposal for single-member districts would allow for the diverse interests of Austin to elect their own representative to the City Council by district. Tarrytown will have one council member (instead of 6), Northwest Hills will have a member (instead of none), East Austin will have a member (instead of token representation), as will Southeast, Southwest, and Central Austin. The diverse interests of the community will be better debated by electing City Council members by district instead of collectively as a city.
The current composition of the Austin City Council is:
Mayor Will Wynn
Mayor Pro-Tem Betty Dunkerley
Mike Martinez
Jennifer Kim
Lee Leffingwell
Brewster McCracken
Sheryl Cole
Contact the Austin City Council if you support Single Member Districts to give the citizens of Austin better representation for our wide range of issues.
CALIFORNIA STATE COURT OUTLAWS HOME SCHOOLS
By Bob Ward
A California appeals court has effectively outlawed home schooling in that state by ruling that a home school does not satisfy the state’s definition of an adequate education and ordering a family to enroll their children in a public school or "legally qualified" private school.
It’s significant that the court’s decision was not based on a finding of abuse or neglect. The mere fact of homeschooling was ruled illegal. The state’s educational program, the court said,”was designed to promote the general welfare of all the people and was not designed to accommodate the personal ideas of any individual in the field of education."
The court agreed with the trial court that "keeping the children at home deprived them of situations where (1) they could interact with people outside the family, (2) there are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children's lives, and (3) they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents' 'cloistered' setting."
The judges noted that California law requires "persons between the ages of six and 18" to attend a public school, a "private full-time day school" or be "instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught." They concluded that the family failed to demonstrate "that the mother has a teaching credential” and that the supervision by Sunland Christian School's independent study programs was of no value
Also “of no value” in the judges’ eyes was the First Amendment. The court considered the family’s "sincerely held religious beliefs," to be "not the quality of evidence that permits us to say that application of California's compulsory public school education law to them violates their First Amendment rights."
The problem, as the court sees it, is that “any parent” could claim a right to religious freedom under the First Amendment. At least they got that part right. The First Amendment does apply to everyone.
The court didn’t even dispute the family’s claim of religious motivation. They simply said that California law, as interpreted by them, trumps the First Amendment.
But the judges were just warming up. Justice H. Walter Croskey who wrote the opinion, said, "Parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children." That would be news to the U.S. Supreme Court. In Pierce V. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus, the court affirmed “the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children [268 U.S. 510, 535] under their control.”
The Supreme Court took this point a little further noting, “The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”
Requiring all children to be taught in a public school operated by the state, a private school deemed “qualified” by the state, or by a tutor credentialed by the state certainly amounts to an attempt by the state “to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only.”
It is particularly urgent that the Legislature amend this totalitarian policy in light of recent legislation making public schools hostile to families holding traditional moral and religious views. Specifically, SB777 and AB394, recently signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, which mandate the promotion of homosexuality and make any mention of mom and dad” suspect have caused serious concern among California parents.
It has long been obvious that parents who cherish their freedom and their children should remove their children from public schools. Now, it appears they must remove them from California.
Texas parents would be wise to make protection for the right to home school an issue in the upcoming election. Currently, the right to home school rests on a 1994 unanimous decision of the Texas Supreme Court in Leper v. TEA. But a change in the personnel of the court could result in as reversal any time. Parents need stronger protection in the form of explicit legislation or even a constitutional amendment.
Candidates for the Texas Legislature should be forced to declare their position on this important issue.
High oil price rattles Global markets. The consequences of the Fed's easy money policies is a retreat of the dollar, commodities inflation, in particular high oil and food prices, and further economic pain down the road. The other consequences include inflation and export dropoffs in Asia. We will have a slowing economy with accelerating inflation. Stagflation is here.
NBER study shows Tax Increases Reduce GDP: "an exogenous tax increase of 1 percent of GDP lowers real GDP by roughly 2 to 3 percent. ... The large effect stems in considerable part from a powerful negative effect of tax increases on investment. (Abstract of the Economics Study by Romer and Romer.) We need a reminder of this common-sense principle, proven by experience and economic study, in a week when the Democrats in Congress voted to increase taxes by 2012 by almost a trillion dollars. The Democrats have voted to send this country into a recession.
Iraq war veteran is a great choice for Congress, running in Florida's CD-22.
Price #1: We leave ANWR undrilled and leave offshore areas undrilled and consequently face higher oil prices and bigger trade deficits because of it. The cost in more exact terms is now about $1.5 trillion in oil we are leaving in the ground. USGS estimates 10 billion barrels of oil in ANWR, worth $1 trillion. Minerals Management Service director Randall Luthi makes the case for environmentally responsible energy exploration: " The National Academy of Sciences, in a 2002 study, reported that over the past 20 years, less than .001 percent of the oil produced in U.S. waters has spilled. The same study reported that 150 times more oil enters the ocean every day from natural cracks in the ocean floor than from oil and gas activities."
Price #2: Costly Ethanol subsidies ( aka "the stupidest subsidy") are leading to skyrocketing food prices and hurt chicken and beef producers and consumers. Not only does it do little to curb oil imports, it costs Costs $1700 per ton of CO2 saved. See also Taxpayers for Common Sense on this boondoggle.
Price #3: Environmentalist phobia of nuclear power has slowed development of a cost-effective and environmentally sound energy source .
Meanwhile, our faddism leaves the real problem of foreign oil dependency unresolved. Samuelson on how we help OPEC: "By doing so little to check its own thirst for imports, the United States has contributed to OPEC's present triumph." Teh result of our failure to have real energy independence policies means that oil prices are not coming down: "The savvy economist, investor, politician and consumer ought to be encouraging as much development as possible. However, with policies like the renewable fuel standard and corn-based ethanol, restrictions on drilling sites, and emissions standards that prohibit diesel cars, we cannot foresee anything that brings those prices down."
UPDATE: A smarter solution - use money from ANWR drilling to fund renewable energy.
UPDATE II: More stupidity from the Democrats - they want to close off the possibility of USA benefitting from commercializing the 800 billion barrels (thats $80 trillion worth) of shale oil.
Texas Conservative Review looks at lessons Of 2008 Texas Primaries:
The record Democratic turnout around the state if replicated in November spells real trouble for the GOP.
Party unity alone will not do it. Glen Bolger, respected pollster at Public Opinion Strategies says the GOP is not badly splintered and is solidly behind Senator McCain now. This is confirmed by a recent Pew Center poll, which showed in trial heats that McCain gets 87% of the GOP vote versus Obama and 91% versus Clinton.
The same Pew poll shows the real problem: 38% say they are Democrats and 24% say they are Republican and after adding in leans, it's Democrats 55% and Republicans 34%!
... why not have a Texas contract or compact with the voters? In the May 26, 2006 TCR Vol. V No. 9, we laid out ideas for seven issues to run on. They are certainly a starting point for 2008:
1. Residential property tax cap will be reduced to 5% less an index adjusted for inflation (just like income tax benefits are adjusted for inflation.)
2. TABOR type state spending controls limiting state increases in spending to no more than the increase in inflation and population.
3. Repeal the new gross receipts business tax (which could mean taxing a business that makes no money) and instead institute a broad based consumption tax at lower than the current rate.
4. End bilingual education in Texas to be replaced by an English First curriculum.
5. Support a constitutional amendment to require a super majority before the raising of any taxes.
6. Eliminate the top 10% rule on college admissions as it discriminates against students going to better high schools.
7. Institute a pilot program for school choice for students in under performing schools.
The best hopes for the GOP are getting back to basic issues to show the voters that their values, agenda, ideals and interests are in-line with what the Republicans offer, not what the Democrats offer. The GOP is going to have to aggressively market themselves in waysMedia brainwashing and the politics of personality and identity are being used to trump the real wishes of the voters.
In HD-52 runoff coming up, Bryan Daniel faces Dee Hobbs in the runoff. John Gordon has just endorsed Dee Hobb. In his endorsement, Gordon praised both men who are in the runoff, recognizing that they are both able and honorable men. Hobbs has local politics as a family business and has benefited from that pedigree in getting votes, but thats a different question than whether he is the best man for this job.
Bryan Daniel is the better man for the office. They both have unique experiences, Hobbs as prosecutor and Daniel in agricultural Govt service, business, and related issues. Yet Daniel will be a better officeholder and will be a more consistent conservative that fights for taxpayers. He's been unwavering in his conservative positions. That is why he’s gotten endorsements from taxpayer-friendly and conservative groups like Heritage Alliance PAC and Young Conservatives of Texas (YCT).
They will face off against an "Annie's List" (think EMILY's List)-supported pro-choice liberal Democrat Diane Moldanaro, and so whichever of these two Republicans wins will be a better Representative for Williamson than the Democrat.
This bill would shut down earmarks for the next budget cycle. Good for Cornyn. AFP has more.
What a Joke - Al Franken is likely Democratic candidate in Minnesota. Al Franken is a former comedian turned light-weight pugilist, both physical and political ( personal attacks a specialty).
Delegate math - this Forbes calculator shows how the delegates for the Democratic nomination are allocated and lets you construct scenarios. Result? Even if Clinton wins every upcoming state
except for North Carolina, Oregon and Mississippi, i.e., Clinton wins Pennsylvania and 5 other states and Guam and Puerto Rico, she'll need at least 60% of the remaining super-delegates to win. The more likely scenario of Obama winning the caucus and western states, as he has done in the past, leads to an Obama victory even if he only gets 35% of the remaining super-delegates. And all this assumes a 57% to 43% win for Clinton in Pennsylvania. The only thing that saves her is a sweep of the super-delegates.
She will fight it out until its mathematically impossible. By June, it will be time to sing the Munchkin song.
but then we have to face the spectre of Obama's first 100 days - "it is a bad sign for a candidate when the best we can hope is for him to violate his commitments."
Geraldine Ferraro's comment to the Daily Breeze of Torrance, Calif.: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. ... He happens to be very lucky to be who he is." Once again proving, a gaffe is when a politician is caught accidentally telling the truth.
Parents Desperate for Choices
By Jamie Story, Texas Public Policy Foundation Education Analyst
Last month, dozens of Austin parents camped out on the cold concrete of the Austin Independent School District headquarters parking lot with one goal in mind: securing a better learning environment for their children.
For reasons ranging from better academics to safer learning conditions and less crowded classrooms, these parents sought transfers from their children’s assigned public schools to others within the district.
This campout has become an annual tradition for some Austin families. One Saturday each February, the district opens its transfer application period for the next school year. Some parents get in line up to 24 hours early to ensure their child’s first-choice school. This school year, 10 percent of Austin ISD students will transfer out of their assigned campuses.
Late that Saturday morning, a father hurriedly parked, jumped out of his car, and ran into the building with his son following close behind. Perhaps the babysitter was running late, or the oil change took longer than expected; whatever the reason, this man was clearly panicked at the possibility of his son not receiving the transfer he so desperately needed.
Another father left the administration building with his two sons, for whom he had just requested transfers. As he put it, “gerrymandering” by the school district had changed the school to which his home was zoned. “In the past, we have moved to get to a school that we wanted to go to,” he stated. But finances and other situations kept that from being an option this time around, he said.
The ability to transfer is especially important to his family, since one of the two boys is enrolled in special education classes due to a learning disability. This father’s transfer requests have always been successful, but he knows the mother of another special education student who has not been so fortunate.
While Austin ISD provides concerned parents with some degree of choice, parents should not have to camp out overnight in the hope that their child is one of the lucky few to be accepted for a transfer. At the very least, students should be allowed to attend the school of their choice within their local district.
Beyond that, the state must commit itself to offering meaningful choice between districts for students who are eligible for the Public Education Grant (PEG) program.
This program allows students in low-performing schools to transfer to higher-performing schools within or outside of their home district. Last year, more than 600,000 students were eligible for the PEG program, but unfortunately, a mere 188 exercised this choice.
It is not enough merely to create the options that allow children to transfer away from low-performing schools. Parents need to be aware of these options, and the system needs to be structured so that the schools have appropriate incentives to accept these transferring students.
But ultimately, unsatisfied parents need the opportunity to take their tax dollars to the public or private school of their choice. While public school transfers may offer a quick remedy for students in undesirable situations, they will never result in the systemic improvements associated with widespread school choice programs.
At Austin ISD that Saturday morning, a third father emerged from the administration building after requesting a transfer for his daughter, who “wants to go to a better school and wants to get a better education.” When asked if he would take advantage of a school choice program that would allow him to choose a private school instead, he said, “Yes! St. Ignatius [Martyr School] is very good, but is too expensive for my family.”
Perhaps someday, Texas parents will be blessed with a statewide school choice program that allows them to choose the public or private school that is best for their children. But until then, lawmakers should focus on ways to make school choice within the public system a viable option for more parents.
Jamie Story is an education policy analyst at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin.
Something is seriously amiss in America's economic policy. It feels like the 1970s again. The Democrats in Congress are raising taxes and threaten to do more, and now we have this troubling Bernake statement has indicates he's a believer in the dicredited Phillips curve, ie, slow growth cures inflation. It's phony flipside is that easy-money and cheap dollars cures slow growth. Wrong.
Taylor Frigon blog point to this Production versus consumption dichotomy. Productionists see the problem of economics as one of production; we are "supply-siders", if you take care of production, the rest takes care of itself because human wants and needs are unquenchable. The consumptionist sees idle factories and does not think "Why is production ailing?", they assume "Aha! There is not enough consumption." The consumptionist view is a wrong view of economic health. The giveaway 'stimulus' is pure consumptionism, giving an illusion of wealth since it displaces economic activity. But displacement is not creation, it is merely moving money from one pocket to another. The classic way to 'create consumption' in history has been to inflate the money supply. Like a drug, it creates a temporary high, but then a downside later; either you keep printing money to debauch the currency and create ruin, or you . You do not create wealth with such policies. A return to the Phillips curves, Keynesian myths and a cheap dollar is not the way to wealth. The way to wealth is through production and maximum productivity and utilization of assets.
UPDATE: Kudlow agrees.
Sol Stern says "School Choice is not enough":
During the 15 years since the first voucher program got under way in Milwaukee, university researchers have extensively scrutinized the dynamics of school choice and the effect of competition on public schools. The preponderance of studies have shown clear benefits, both academically and otherwise, for the voucher kids. It’s gratifying that the research confirms the moral and civil rights argument for vouchers. But sadly—and this is a second development that reformers must face up to—the evidence is pretty meager that competition from vouchers is making public schools better.
Clive Belfield and Henry Levin at Teachers College, no friends of school choice, conducted a systematic review of over 200 analyses in that literature, concluding: “The above evidence shows reasonably consistent evidence of a link between competition (choice) and education quality. Increased competition and higher educational quality are positively correlated.”
The Weekly Standard reported on the debate:
The school choice movement correctly recognized that the quasi-monopoly powers that school boards and teachers' unions exercise over public education is an anachronism in a society increasingly built around consumer power. Their mistake, however, was in thinking that you could be agnostic on what these schools ought to be teaching. ...
You can't be indifferent to the curriculum, E.D. Hirsch argues in his response to Stern. Without making content an explicit part of your education agenda, you abdicate to some third party--bureaucrats, textbook writers, political activists--control over what is actually taught every day. That's not only what parents really care about, it is the thing that matters most to educational achievement. "Grade-by-grade core substance of the curriculum is what schooling is," Hirsch writes.
Ultimately school choice deserves support for reasons more fundamental than markets and incentives. School choice is about getting parents involved in the education of children. Parental responsibility cannot be exercised without a level of parental choice, and parental involvement in a child's education correlates with higher achievement. We need to treat education as a parental responsibility, and one that parents delegate and decide, not as a Governmental responsibility that bypasses the parents.
A staggering 1169 bills and resolutions related to immigration or immigrants have been introduced in State legislatures in 2007. Krikorian at NR Notes:
State activity: Attrition is starting to work in Arkansas. Nebraska legislature moves forward on tax penalties for companies that hire illegals. Gov. Barbour of Mississippi expected to sign bill requiring employers to use the federal E-Verify system. A roundup of other state action.
So what can a state like Texas do about illegal immigration? Some ideas:
1. Make certifications as to whether borders are secure or not.
2. Forbid state contractors from hiring illegals.
3. Put tax penalties for companies that hire illegals.
4. Require employers to use the federal E-Verify system, i.e., mandates every employer in the state to participate in the Basic Pilot Program.
5. Allow state troopers to enforce immigration law. Push for inclusion in the U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement's 287(g) program. The program, named after the section of law it occupies, allows local and state police officers to perform immigration checks and take part in operations in the field.
6. Check the immigration status of every person in the criminal justice system. (Consider the participation in such program at the Travis county jail.)
7. Cut state funding to cities that are 'sanctuary cities' that do not enforce immigration law and allow flagrant violations of it.
8. Require government agencies to verify that those seeking benefits, such as unemployment compensation, be legal U.S. residents. Require verification of legal status for receipt of public benefits.
9. Restrict drivers licenses to legal residents and citizens only; require legal residency check for those seeking a drivers license. Require the expiration date for drivers licenses to be no later than legal visa expiration date if any.
10. Repeal the state law allowing illegal immigrants to attend college at in-state tuition rates. Mandate that a determination of the immigration status of persons be complete before they may participate in educational programs. This should include K-12 so that it is known, even though such children have a right (by Supreme Court ruling) to such education, how many illegal immigrants are in the education system.
11. Implement voter picture ID rules and make immigration status and residency check a part of voter registration.
12. Increase penalties for identity theft. Add penalties for false documents.
13. A Texas bill would prohibit inquiring into the immigration status of a patient in the context of emergency treatment. On the contrary, a bill should require collection of such status information to understand the impact and cost of illegal immigrants using such services.
14. Add criminal penalties for human trafficking and funding to better secure the border and eliminate border drug trafficking and human trafficking.
15. Restrict granting of business and professional licenses to citizens and legal immigrants and establish documents that are acceptable proof of identity.
16. More funding for border security and support Federal programs for "zero tolerance" of border crossing and 'catch and return' of criminal aliens.
There is energy, money, and passion behind Obama, yet the energy for Obama comes from a narrow slice of the electorate:
1. People too young to remember how bad a similar guy named Jimmy Carter was.
2. Liberal progressives, especially academic types.
3. Blacks
The real GOP weak spot is going to be the economy. We have prospect of near 0% growth and/or recession, and 2 out of 3 voters say the economy is going in the wrong direction. The Democrats will try an election like was done on 1992 grounds. The Democrats will make the economy the issue and run against McCain by tying him to a 'failed' Bush.
McCain needs to bone up to survive the attacks on those grounds. He will need to show not just that he is his own man, but have a clear and convincing vision on the economic future of this country. That vision of course must be grounded in conservative principles; his spending credentials are good, but he his tax cutting agenda will need to be convincingly sold. He needs Gramm and Romney and others helping him make the case. It may in fact suggest that there is a good case for putting Romney on the ticket with him.
Obama's friendships with hard-core leftists is the clearest indication we have of his extreme views, views which are not getting aired in the campaign. One example: Obama and Edward Said.
As for his corrupt pal, Tony Rezko the Syrian immigrant, Hot Air's Ed Morrissey points to a June 2007 article that shows that Obama failed to come clean on what Rezko gave him for his campaigns:
During his 12 years in politics, Sen. Barack Obama has received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted businessman Tony Rezko and his associates than he has publicly acknowledged, the Chicago Sun-Times has found.
One of Rezko’s associates turns out to be Ali D. Ata, who worked in Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s administration. Ata now faces fraud charges for writing a letter on state letterhead on behalf of Rezko that lied well enough to get millions of dollars in loans. Rezko brought Ata into Obama’s camp as a contributor.
Liberal Jonathan Chait laments what it would take for Clinton to wrest the nomination from Obama:
She isn't going to win at the polls. Barack Obama has a lead of 144 pledged delegates. That may not sound like a lot in a 4,000-delegate race, but it is. Clinton's Ohio win reduced that total by only nine. She would need 15 more Ohios to pull even with Obama. ... Clinton's path to the nomination, then, involves the following steps: kneecap an eloquent, inspiring, reform-minded young leader who happens to be the first serious African American presidential candidate (meanwhile cementing her own reputation for Nixonian ruthlessness) and then win a contested convention by persuading party elites to override the results at the polls. The plan may also involve trying to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, after having explicitly agreed that the results would not count toward delegate totals. Oh, and her campaign has periodically hinted that some of Obama's elected delegates might break off and support her. I don't think she'd be in a position to defeat Hitler's dog in November, let alone a popular war hero.
Home Schooling "Illegal" in CA
The Associated Press
California parents without teaching credentials can no longer home school their children, according to a recent state appellate court ruling.
"Parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children," Justice H. Walter Croskey wrote in a Feb. 28 opinion for the 2nd District Court of Appeals.
Noncompliance could lead to criminal complaints against the parents, Croskey said.
An estimated 166,000 students in California are home schooled, but it was unclear how many of them are taught solely by an uncredentialed parent.
To earn a five-year preliminary teaching credential in California, a person must obtain a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university and complete multiple examinations.
Until now, California allowed home schooling if parents filed paperwork to establish themselves as small, private schools; hired a credentialed tutor; or enrolled their child in an independent study program run by an established school while teaching the child at home.
The state left enforcement up to local school districts, but there has been little oversight.
The old system "works so well, I don't see any reason to change it," said J. Michael Smith, president of the Virginia-based Home School Legal Defense Association.
The ruling stems from a case involving Phillip and Mary Long, a Los Angeles-area couple whose eight children are enrolled or have been enrolled in Sunland Christian School in suburban Sylmar and occasionally have taken tests there.
But the children were educated at home by their mother, who does not have a teaching credential.
Attorneys for the state Department of Education were reviewing the ruling, and home schooling organizations were lining up against it.
Phillip Long vowed to appeal to the state Supreme Court."I have sincerely held religious beliefs," he said. "Public schools conflict with that. I have to go with what my conscience requires me.
There was an important conference on climate change held in New York this past week. The media tried to dismiss it, but the question is whether the concerns and points raised in the conference have scientific merit. Here is one view: Prominent Scientists Debunk Global Warming.
Marc Shepperd roundup of the conference.
A milestone report was presented at the conference: Nature, not Human Activity, rules the climate, a position statement on global warming by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). This is perhaps the most important document, on the global warming debate this decade, aside from the IPCC assessments. This report is a dissent from those assessments, pointing out the flaws and errors in those assessments. Since practically all the Global Warming is a Crisis crowd uses IPCC reports as a basis, this dissent is a powerful antidote to the hype.
UPDATE:
This email from Lord Monkton, a global warming 'skeptic', was posted as the pro-AGW blog RealClimate, in a thread that was highly dismissive of the conference. Yet the response forms a good summary of the "skeptic" position:
“Thank you for getting in touch. You do not explain what points in my published work on climate change you disagree with, though it seems that you do disagree. You ask what I have to offer the scientific community. When I first wrote publicly about the climate, I received 1,000 emails, of which a substantial proportion were from scientists round the world, some of them eminent, who have grave doubts about the official theory of anthropogenic “global warming” and were very grateful that these doubts had been expressed, since they themselves were under official pressure not to speak out. Several scientists, including the most eminent in the field, maintain regular communication with me to exchange ideas and to ask for scientific source documents. I have also assisted in the drafting of peer-reviewed papers to add clarity and logic to the presentation of scientific arguments, and my contributions are acknowledged in the text of the relevant papers. And I am conducting my own (admittedly rather inexpert) researches, which have revealed numerous errors and inconsistencies in the IPCC’s methodology for calculating the magnitude of the effect of greenhouse-gas enrichment on temperature. I attach a draft of a paper for the technically-minded layman that I’m currently working on. In parallel with this, I lead an international team of scientists which is currently working on a rigorous re-examination of the climate sensitivity question from the ground up, with a view to eventual publication in a peer-reviewed journal if the results prove compelling enough.
For what it’s worth, my provisional conclusions are as follows: that the science presented by the IPCC is in numerous respects demonstrably defective and in several areas dishonest; that it has substantially exaggerated the imagined problem; that it has excluded eminent scientists who disagree with it (one of whom, the world’s foremost expert on the malaria mosquito, will be visiting me next week); that it ruthlessly suppresses all dissent; that its publications are not peer-reviewed in the accepted sense of the term; that its reports provide no sound scientific basis for any alarm whatsoever about the influence of humankind on the future evolution of the climate, which will be negligible and largely beneficial; that the failure of global temperature to rise in a statistically significant sense over the whole of the past decade is no accident, but is a consequence of the ending of the 70-year-long solar Grand Maximum, during which the Sun was more active and for longer than at almost any similar previous period over the whole of the past 11,400 years; that it is only marginally more likely that the climate will warm over the next century than that it will cool; that the warming, if it occurs, will be unlikely to exceed one-third of the IPCC’s central estimate; that even if the IPCC’s central estimate were correct the consequences for sea level would be negligible; that all other consequences of warmer weather worldwide are generally beneficial; that, though there are many environmental problems, our influence on the climate is too small to be one of them; that it would be profoundly unwise to adopt any of the mitigative measures proposed by the IPCC, which would merely have the effect of transferring jobs, economic prosperity and carbon emissions away from the West and into China, India and other third-world countries where environmental controls are nothing like as stringent as they are here; that any attempt to restrict fossil-fuel use by third-world countries will have the effect of keeping them poor, so that their populations will continue to increase; and that, therefore, the net effect of attempted mitigation - which would of course have no appreciable effect on the climate and would hence be entirely futile - would be to increase the “carbon footprint” of humankind in the medium to long term, without reducing it in the short.
These are among the points that will be reviewed and discussed at the climate conference in New York, where the emphasis will not be on proselytization and preaching but on quiet conversation about the science. Many of the world’s leading climate scientists will be present, and they will represent a wide range of disciplines and opinions. There will also be laymen like me, who are invited because their influence and experience as policymakers may help to clarify some of the issues.
Finally, you mention “disinformation” which you say I have been spreading. If you would be kind enough to make a list of any points in my published papers at www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org which are scientifically inaccurate, supplying in each instance a reference to a peer-reviewed scientific journal which establishes that what I have said is in error, unless there are scientific papers that give another opinion I shall of course be happy to make corrections and see to it that they are posted. That is how true and honest science is done. - M of B”
San Antonio Toll Party put out a Press Release on the Macias / Miller race. They are concerned that the race was not just 'stolen' through a very dishonest campaign, but there was vote tampering that gave Doug Miller the close win. At the very least, a recount is needed:
CITIZENS CALL ON SECRETARY OF STATE TO INVESTIGATE MACIAS vs. MILLER RACE
(Comal County, TX, March 7, 2008) – Concerned voters, including San Antonio Toll Party members in District 73, will request that the Secretary of State investigate the election results for the State Representative Nathan Macias (R – Dist 73) vs. Doug Miller race. A relative of Doug Miller, and other known supporters were reportedly the sole initial vote counters of copied paper ballots, the Republican Party Chair for Gillespie County (where possible improprieties took place) was repeatedly on the phone with former Macias opponent and former State Representative for District 73 Carter Casteel while ballots were being counted, and members of the “counting team” in Gillespie County took over 4 hours after midnight to hand-count the 160 copied paper ballots which changed the outcome of the election from a 58 vote win for Macias to a 38 vote win for Miller.
WHAT: Press conference to ask the Secretary of State to investigate Macias vs. Miller race
WHO: Extremely Concerned voters, including San Antonio Toll Party members
WHEN: 10 AM
WHERE: Commissioner Court Bldg (next to courthouse)
199 Main Plaza (corner of Landa & San Antonio), New Braunfels, TX
Jeb Bradley call for tax reform via a flatter income tax reminded me that I agree on the need for tax reform and have some ideas on the matter. We need to start laying out what principles we should have behind our tax policy. Moving to a 3 tiered rate is better, but is not enough of a change and does not take away the problems of complexity in the current system.
How about this for a radical idea: Abolish the income tax for everyone making under $100,000 and have a simple 15% flat tax for everyone above that. Impossible? No, very possible.
The flat tax is a good idea. The FAIR tax is a good idea. But both ideas are getting picked apart because the current complex web of taxes is hidden and obscure enough, and the proposals, ironically, dont attack the core issues: It's both the complexity and the cost of taxes (ie quantity) that drags us down.
So let us start with 5 principles for fundamental tax reform:
1. The Federal Government Costs too much, spends too much and taxes too much. Tax reform should include tax reductions.
2. We need a simpler, flatter, lower rate tax system.
3. We need to shift taxes to tax production less and consumption more
4. We need to fix entitlements through choice
5. We need legislative and constitutional protections for taxpayers to limit tax hikes, spending hikes and runaway deficits.
Let's look at these 5 Fundamentals of Fundamental tax reform
1) The Federal Government Costs too much and the burden of Government should be limited.
We can implement this by limiting Government Spending to 15% of GDP as long-term goal. Since WWII, the Federal Government burden has been between 18% and 23% of GDP. It has not shrunk even as Defense spending fell in the post-Cold War era. There is a simple way to cap the burden of Government spending: keep spending, including entitlements, at inflation rate plus population growth. Limit Government spending to that rate, and the Federal Government will shrink relative to the economy, until we reach 15% of GDP as long-term goal.
Without a long-term overarching goal of lessened burden of Government, tax reform is doomed to be ineffective, as the cost of Government pushes tax rates up.
2) We need a simpler, flatter, lower rate tax system.
The tax system needs to go in the direction of BROADER BASE and LOWER RATES. Our current system includes billions in compliance costs; people filling out forms, collecting income tax information, paying accountants, etc. A tax system with lower rates mean less tax avoidance and economic distortion; this maximizes economic efficiency and minimizes. An economist put it this way before Congress:
"the theoretical case remains valid for a tax system with a broad and clean base which minimizes the reward to tax-driven economic activity."
In other words, the broadest tax base with the lowest rates possible has the lowest economic drag. We don't do that because the Congress and politicians want to use the tax system to reward and punish behavior. However, that is not a valid purpose for the tax system. It should be used for revenue collection, not social engineering.
The solution the FAIR Tax proposes is to abolish and replace the income tax.
Out solution is less drastic, and it takes us in the direction of a "the rich pay 100%" simple, flat income tax. Abolish the income tax for all but 15% of Americans. The top 10% income tax payers would pay about 95% of the income tax (people making $100,000 or above). the next 5% would pay a fraction of the income tax. The remaining 85% of americans should pay NO income tax. With a simple flat 15% rate there would be a radically simplified income tax. We would have the same simple flat rate for corporate taxes, cap gains, income: 15%. This has huge benefits for the tax system in that it does not reward one type of income over another, making tax avoidance by shifting types of income a thing of the past. In this system, long-term gains over 4 years could be indexed to inflation if that is desired/useful.
The estate tax could also be abolished and/or replaced with a mechanism to shift capital gains from one generation to the next. Ie, heirs would pay adjusted basis for their inheritance, or may defer that until they sell assets acquired in inheritance, again at the 15% rate.
One simple flat rate of 15% that leaves most people alone to pay nothing would also enable the abolition of tax breaks, complicated tax rules and classification, complex depreciation and depletion rules. In short, the system could be massively simplified. We would allow expensing of items that today are under complex capital rules (it would not harm tax collections, as they would be paying BTT on purchases).
3) We need to tax production less and consumption more
There are many reasons why we must most to tax consumption instead of production. Our country is consuming its seed corn and diminishing its base of wealth by running very unhealthy and large trade deficits. These deficits are not a function of sloth, but rather a function of our tax system, which disfavors production and favors consumption. The trade deficit is an $800 billion gap of economic activity (consumption) that is taxed at a We need to fix the trade deficit over the long term; this is due to tax policy; shift taxation to include imports.
Solution: As we lower the corporate and personal income tax rates to 15% maximum, have imports and energy (oil,gas, coal) taxed at 15% flat rate. The 15% import tariff is not a protectionist tariff but a money-raising tariff on 20% of the economy. Free trade agreements might impinge on the tariff for goods from some countries. Then add a 5% Federal BTT/VAT (business transfer tax/value added tax), akin to the FAIR Tax NRST, but at a much lower rate. All goods bought and sold are subject to 5% Federal sales/value-added tax.
The FAIR tax shifts the tax code 100% to consumption, replacing all other taxes. In doing so creates its own issues: First, the rate is very high, as high as 30% sales tax (or 23% when viewed as portion of final price); to avoid having this tax be viewed as regressive, there is a need for a rebate, but this rebate becomes the equivalent of a universal subsidy payment to every family in America, thus requiring some interaction with the taxing authority. (In our plan there would still be a limited EITC program to rebate for social security and sales taxes, but it would be for a limited section, the low income households.) Last, the FAIR Tax has to consider whether to tax capital good sales, like houses (only if new), and in that dividing like is possible mischief with the tax code or some possible economic distortions. In the housing example, new home sales would be taxes but not existing home sales. Renovations would be rewarded over new construction.
No tax system can avoid the distortions, and it may be that the culprit is not what is taxes, but the rate itself. Would it stay simply and clean when the rate is so high? Consider excise taxes: they can and are different on different types of goods. The FAIR Tax could fall prey to that complexification if interest groups beg for 'relief' of the high rate.
Simplicity in the tax code is a virtue, and there needs to be some way of locking down the simplicity. Our approach is simply to point out that simplicity, a wide base, and low rates are three aspects that go hand-in-hand. A wide base means to exempt as little as possible. Simplicity likewise means few or no exceptions and treat as many things alike as possible. Thus we believe the FAIR Tax rate itself is the flaw
But a lower FAIR Tax rate won't raise enough revenues by itself. So we fall back on a combination of a very scale-down, stripped-down flat fair income tax that only the rich pay, combined with a reduced social security wage tax rate, and a stripped-down BTT tax rate and income/energy excise tax. These four taxes, combined, can raise 15% of GDP at low rates. A maximum rate of 15% on all taxation.
This proposal is more balanced; it shifts us about 40% of revenue in the consumption tax direction. There are equity or "fairness" objections to flat taxes and the FAIR tax. This proposal keeps the good ideas of the FAIR and flat tax, but provides it in a more balanced way of achieving it and does it in a way where working and middle class families have a very reduced tax rate.
The rich pay a lower rate overall, but pay a great share of total taxes.
THE NEW TAX SYSTEM
15% - personal income ($100,000 exemption level for family of 4, so only top 15-20% pay); corporate income; cap gains
15% - import tariff; energy excise taxes
5% - BTT/VAT/Federal sales tax
10% - soc insurance tax; all visible to wage payer
4. We need to fix entitlements through choice
Part of the impediment to tax reform politically is that the majority of workers are now actually paying more into social security tax rate than income tax, thanks to prior efforts to cut the income tax rates for middle income payers; the social security tax, if left alone, is too high and too regressive. Alas, flat tax attempts on the income tax leave this behemoth alone. But to attack the social security tax rate, we have to answer the questions about addressing social securities' future.
One fundamental is this: We need to lower the Social Security tax rate. And we can do this, if we raise the limit on contributions: Set the rate to 10% from current 15%; increase contribution limit to $1 million or even make it unlimited so this is a real flat wage tax. What this does is shift a lot of the taxes that the rich were paying into income taxes at the 28-35% rate into social security. The benefit of this shift is that this enables keeping the fundamental tax reform from resulting in an overall regressive tax system.
This would be a dramatic tax reduction for working class and middle class, but will beg the question: How to keep social security afloat? The answer is simple. Get people who have their own means to fund retirement to opt out, while they continue to pay some contribution to the system.
Have Choice in social insurance - #1 opt-out options for all programs.
Solution: Reduce from 10% to 7.5% for those who choose to opt-out of social security. Opt-out means that they are deciding they will not partake of the benefits of social security when they retire. We will require a 401(k) plan for those who do. With no cap on social security tax, there will be a big incentive for high income people to opt out, and thereby have zero reliance on the govt for their retirement security. we can evolve social security to be a safety net program.
Solution: Have Choice in social insurance - #2 medicare choice. By letting people opt out, we encourage less Government dependency.
The tax proposals I outline above are NOT regressive, while at the same time providing lower tax rates at all income levels. A low flat tax plus a regressive social security tax equates to a regressive tax scheme wherein the tax rate on millionaires could be less than on someone making $50,000, and has been opposed by liberals on those grounds. The problem has been that social security has been this hybrid tax and retirement scheme. What we need to do to ultimately reform social security is to separate out the portion of social security that is a redistribution/safety net and the portion that is a retirement security mechanism. A personal account based on individual contributions can be and should be the method. That can be based on the 2.5% add on to the 7.5% tax on wages. Such a scheme will be fair and workable.
The 15% solution tax system is based on four key taxes: Income tax, wage tax, sales tax, import/energy tax. The virtue of the system is that all rates are low. One objection to a proposal that adds one more tax but does not abolish another is that all tax rates can become greater,
getting raised by tax-hikers incrementally without great injury all at once, but a drip-drip of accumulated burden. We must avoid creating a powerful mechanism for large Government. We must instead restrain the tax rates and the tax system so it cannot simply grow back. This is one reason why we cannot do the above scheme without taxpayer protections ...
5. We need constitutional protections for taxpayers
We need a Taxpayer Bill of Rights
- repeal and replace 16th amendment with a constitutional limit on tax rates, putting in a constitutional maximum of 15-25%. Similar limit of 7.5-10% on BTT/VAT could be put into the amendment
- 2/3rds vote in both Houses of Congress required for tax increases
- spending limitation, tax limitation
- line-item veto
- balanced budget amendment
If these items cannot be made into constitutional amendments, they can be made into law or as Seante and House rules in such a way that Congress will be constrained in spending and in new taxes. Just as today there is a point-of-order on budget-busting, a similar point-of-order on any tax increase, or a House and Senate rule that requires 2/3rds approval for tax increases is required.
In summary, tax reform is vital for America and it needs to start by agreeing to the basic principles for tax reform: Less taxation overall; simpler, flatter tax code; tax production less; address entitlements; put in taxpayer protections. These principles are satisfied with a balanced "15% solution" package that brings the best of the Flat Tax and FAIR Tax ideas. The 15% solution package that would be harder for liberals to demagogue, since it lowers taxes for the working class and maintains the 'equity' of having those who make more to pay more. At the same time, in shifts taxation towards consumption to a signficant degree, enabling America to level the competitiveness playing field.
Most importantly, if we went in this direction, our economy would take off like a rocket. The tax rates would encourage production and investment at much higher levels, and the economic boom would lead to higher revenues that would enable us to reach the goal of a Government that could live on 15% of the nation's total GDP.
WASHINGTON - House Democrats neared initial approval of an election-year budget blueprint late Wednesday that would produce sizable surpluses by 2012 by allowing President Bush's tax cuts to expire as scheduled.
if Democrats make the Bush tax cuts expire, they will have effected a huge tax increase at a time when the economy need less burdens on production, not more. This will be a huge blow to the economy and send it reeling. Why are the Democrats' threatening the economy like this? Because to do anything else would force them to give up on their giveaway programs and promises. It took the Republicans 12 years to get a bit too comfortable with earmarks, special interest politics and lavish spending, a habit that cost them their majority ... But it took the Democrats barely 12 months to do the same. Speaker Pelosi, Senator Reid and the Democrats in Congress have approved 276 BILLION in new spending above the increase Bush has approved. There are few signs that their bad habits are being noticed.
Texas State Senator and radio talk show host Dan Patrick (SD 7) just became the most influential politician in Texas. Hailing from Northwest Houston, Dan Patrick has established himself on the Texas landscape and it is time that Texas elected officials watch out.
In 2006, State Senator Jon Lindsey retired, leaving SD 7 open. This became a four person Republican Primary, featuring State Representative Joe Nixon, State Representative Peggy Hamric, Houston City Councilman Mark Ellis, and local radio talk show host Dan Patrick. The Republican establishment rallied behind Nixon and Hamric. Local government officials rallied behind Ellis. The people of SD 7 rallied behind Patrick. It is seldom seen in a four person primary, that any individual wins that primary without a runoff. Dan Patrick not only won the Republican Primary without a runoff in 2006, he earned nearly 70% of the votes! The Republican establishment was beaten bad. Dan Patrick won with such big numbers that the potential Democrat challenger withdrew from the race.
Fast-forward to 2008. The State Representative from the same region of Harris County is Corbin Van Arsdale. Representative Van Arsdale first won his Texas House seat in 2002. Over the course of three Sessions, Van Arsdale climbed the leadership rung in the Texas House. Van Arsdale's voting record on most issues is praised by conservatives. But...
Corbin Van Arsdale led the charge in the Texas Legislature on the business tax in the Special Session in 2006. The business tax has put a hindrence on local small businesses in Houston and the property tax cuts that were guaranteed by the new business tax were not delivered by the local school districts.
Dan Patrick, now a State Senator and a radio talk show host, began decrying the new business tax. Allen Fletcher was recruited to run against Corbin Van Arsdale for State Representative in 2008. With Dan Patrick's support, Allen Fletcher won the Republican Primary 52-48 %. Corbin Van Arsdale received the endorsements and financial support of most statewide conservative organizations. None of this mattered as the "Voice of Texas," Dan Patrick, rallied his loyal supporters to vote for Allen Fletcher.
The dust is beginning to settle, but the outcome is this. State Senator Dan Patrick has just made himself one of the major players in Harris County and potentially in Texas statewide races in the future. There are probably many sitting State Representatives that are afraid of mis-stepping now for fear of losing in their own primary to a candidate that Dan Patrick is supporting. The open State Senate seat in Harris County, recently vacated by the retiring Kyle Janek, will be interesting to watch as Dan Patrick will be looking for additional allies in the State Senate.
Dan Patrick has become the Voice of Texas for conservatives. With his media abilities and his ability to articulate the issues, he was already a force to be reconned with. Now, with his ability to defeat sitting State Legislators, his power has come full circle. Legislators seen as being Austin insiders may get many endorsements from great conservative organizations, but the endorsement that matters most to Dan Patrick and his allies is the endorsement from the people in the election. Allen Fletcher just received an endorsement from the people in HD 130. Who will Dan Patrick challenge next?
Technically, this blog is dedicated to the conservatives in Travis County. But, considering the number of Republicans who became Democrats on March 4, I do want to comment on the Travis County District Attorney's race.
After nearly three decades in office, Ronnie Earle has retired as Travis County District Attorney. This is one of the most important offices in Travis County as the Public Integrity Unit is within the DA's office. The Public Integrity Unit is responsible for bringing charges against and prosecuting state elected officials in Texas, including the Texas Legislature, the statewide elected officials, and Congressmen. The Public Intergrity Unit has a lot of clout.
In the Democrat Primary, the two top vote-getters of the field of four were Rosemary Lehmberg, with 35.5%, and Mindy Montford, with 31.1%. These two will face each other in the runoff on April 8.
Rosemary Lehmberg has been endorsed by Ronnie Earle as his hand picked replacement. She led the Public Integrity Unit for a time in Travis County and has been an assistant DA in Travis County for many years. She will continue on the policies of Ronnie Earle...policies that most Republicans are not fond of.
Mindy Montford has also worked as an assistant DA in Travis County, though not as long as Lehmberg. She has the leadership skills and personal integrity to run an efficient and fair DA office.
For those Republicans that "crossed-over" to become Democrats this year, I ask you to vote in the runoff for Mindy Montford for Travis County DA. The Republicans do not have a candidate in the general election this year, so the winner of the Democrat Primary will be the new Travis County District Attorney. Put your new voting power as a Democrat to good use, and vote in the runoff for Mindy Montford.
The Texas GOP legislative primary results are a mix of good and bad for conservatives.
In CD-22, the conservative vote was split and Shelley Sekula-Gibbs and Pete Olson led the field. Of the two, Pete Olson would be the much better Representative. Gibbs was such a disaster in her 7 days in office prior, that she got the Congressional office staff to quit en masse.
In the SBOE, the incumbent Pat Hardy beat back a challenge from religious right Maddox.
The State Senate - Incumbents Williams and Estes both survived challenges.
The State House races - Most challenged incumbents were returned. Conservatives like Phil King and Frank Corte Jr won handily. Betty Brown beat Wade Gent by a small margin. Charles "Doc" Anderson beat back Jonathan Sibley. Bill Zedler. And RINOs Charlie Geren (challenged by Tom Annunziato) and Delwin Jones (challenged by Joe D. Hnatek) beat back conservative rivals.
But Pat Haggerty lost to Dee Margo.
One heartbreaking loss was Nathan Macias in HD73, who lost his primary to Doug Miller by just a 40 votes! Macias was attacked by dishonest ads that were actually declared illegal and pulled by a Judge because it was using corporate gambling money. The Early vote showed that Miller was ahead of Macias by 700 votes, then Macias gained most but not all of it on election day.
The only other notable incumbent loss was Corbin Van Arsdale losing to Dan Patrick-backed Allen Fletcher.
In open races: Here in Travis, Pam Waggoner won her primary handily for HD48. In HD52 Dee Hobbs and Bryan Daniel were the top vote-getters for the runoff. In HD55, Ralph Sheffield and Martha Tyroch will be in the runoff.
A decidedly mixed bag, as a lot of good conservative hopefuls were not promoted to the major league, and a lot of non-conservatives were. Where this leaves key initiatives in Texas lege will require further study.
UPDATE: Corrected HD52 runoff choices. It's Dee Hobbs and Bryan Daniel.
My wife and I went to the voting location last night at 7:30 in an attempt to find the Republican Precinct meeting. The voting location was at the Renaissance Retirement community center, nestled in the midst of apartment complexes off of Jollyville Road. When we got there at 7:30, we found people parked in the streets, up and down the road, and walking up to 5 blocks to get to the voting location.
As it turned out, all of those folks were Democrat voters who wanted to caucus for their candidate. While it is great to see voter participation, this turned into a logistical nightmare. The manager of the retirement center asked all the Democrats to caucus in the parking lot as there were 650 Democrats in attendance last night and the retirement center was in violation of the fire code to have that many people inside the building. After all the Democrats left the building, there were 32 of us lonely Republicans left in the polling place, 8 of whom left after signing in.
In the process of the mele, the election judge took the voter data list, leaving us without a way to vet candidates except by affidavit and the stamps on our respective voter registration cards. The election judge said, "You mean the Republicans are caucusing today, too? I didn't think your election was today."
In the process of listening to Democrat activists yelling at each other in the parking lot, we were arguing over Roberts' Rules of Order over how to credential the Republicans in the room. When it was all said and done, Precinct 328 had 27 available delegate slots to the Senatorial Caucus and we sent 19 delegates.
After the caucuses were done, I asked the Democrat Precinct Chairman who won their caucus, Hillary or Obama. As of 10:30, he still did not know who won. They had so many Democrats to credential and so many votes to count that they were not 100% sure who won the caucus. This is the same Democrat Precinct Chairman who held the Democrat Precinct Caucus by himself, with no other Democrats in attendance, in 2006.
The record turn out should not be encouraging to Republicans.
These are some of the returns for the Republican Primary from around Travis and Williamson Counties:
State Rep Dist 52 (Will Co)
Bryan Daniel 29.98 % 3102 votes
John Gordon 29.18 % 3,019 votes
Dee Hobbs 31.75 % 3,285 votes
Viv Sullivan 9.06 % 938 votes
Looks like the run off is between Daniel and Hobbs, barring a recount.
State Rep Dist 48 (Travis Co)
Dr. Joe Donnally 38.06 % 3,066 votes
Pam Waggoner 61.93 % 4,989 votes
Travis County Republican Party Chairman
Rosemary Edwards 70.34 % 19,754 votes
Joe Gimenez 29.66 % 8,329 votes
I'll post more later, but these are the three big races I've been following.
All I hear on the media today is Hillary, Obama, and the long lines of people looking to vote for one of the two. Even the local TV stations do not even list the Republicans in the primaries. That makes me ask the sarcastic question, do Republicans have a primary today or is it at a later date?
Whose vote "counts" more this primary season?
by Michele Samuelson (michele.samuelson@gmail.com)
With all the anecdotes (and possible proof in the pudding) about the mass numbers of "crossover" voters in the Democratic primary, I'm left wondering what the effect will be on the Republican party. Starting, of course, with today's primary, where there are many important races down ballot.
The reasons given for crossover voting have ranged from wanting to ensure Barack Obama isn't the Democratic nominee because Republicans can't beat him in November, to the opposite, voting for Hillary Clinton, etc. Of course, this reasoning shows a basic lack of understanding about the primary process in Texas - first we primary, then we caucus. You have to participate in all of it to really have a say. Haven't you heard the "vote twice" commercials and robocalls? Plus, after you cast that ballot in a misguided attempt to help the eventual Republican nominee, you will be labeled a Democrat for two years. You will not be able to attend the Republican precinct, county/senatorial, and state conventions to help shape the platform and elect the leaders of our party this year. You will not be able to vote in any run-offs that occur down-ballot between Republicans vying for state legislative, county, city, etc. seats. There are Republican clubs that will exclude you henceforth because you voted in a Democratic primary.
Remember, in Texas, we don't register with a party. Our open primary system means that you can, by law, switch between parties at will. But this isn't about the law - it's about which party you want to be counted as a member of at 7:01pm today.
If you live in a county, like Travis, where there are few contested Republican races and the real decisions are being made down-ballot on the Democratic ballot, and you have no reason to believe you'll one day run for office, and you have no desire to be a participating Republican for two years, then by all means vote in the Democratic primary. If you don't meet those qualifications, however, you're risking an awful lot to vote for a person who doesn't even hold your values.
Now to the main point, concerning whose vote "counts" more this primary season. I'll venture to say that it is the Republican who votes Republican who matters. The Republican who looks down the ballot and casts a vote in important state legislative races, or in county commissioner, district judge, and even county chairman races. You will help decide if Texas remains a red state by choosing candidates who represent conservative values down the ballot.
If the only people who turn up to vote in Republican primaries in places like HD 61, where a good conservative is facing a liberal interloper with a pro-big-government agenda, are the tax-and-spend moderates and liberals of the party.....well. So long taxpayer agenda, so long conservative values. You'll end up with a RINO legislature if you're lucky and a liberal Democrat legislature otherwise.
Leave the Democratic primary to the Democrats. Republicans need to stick together in order to effect change at all levels. Then in November, cast your vote for the Republican nominee and get your friends to do the same. If you want to defeat Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, there is no other way.
-- Michele J. Samuelson
The Patton of Counterinsurgency - "With a sequence of brilliant offensives, Raymond Odierno adapted the Petraeus doctrine into a successful operational art." A great read.
Here in Travis County, we urge Republicans to vote for Rosemary Edwards for Travis County Republican Party chair.
For President and all the races, Vote your principles. If you are a conservative, that means it may not be a good idea to vote for one liberal Democrat in hopes of stopping the other liberal Democrat. It's a fools errand and neither Clinton nor Obama deserve a leg up towards the White House.
There are key Republican races around Texas, e.g., in Congressional district CD-22 (Robert Talton got the YCT endorsement) and elsewhere. In HD48 and HD52, in Travis and Williamson, Republicans have contested primaries. Several good conservative Reps - Phil King, Nathan Macias, and Frank Corte Jr - face challenges, as do some RINOs like Charlie Geren and Delwin Jones. Freemarket.org voter guide may help you decide.
Taxpayers Win One for the Gipper; Texas Association of Counties loses lawsuit
For Immediate Release: February 28, 2008
Contact: Peggy Venable – 512.476.5905Texas Association of Counties Loses Lawsuit to Taxpayers
Today, Williamson County served an order against the Texas Association of Counties (TAC) commanding them to refrain from lobbying using dues paid by counties. TAC has also been ordered by the court to pay attorney fees for the plaintiffs.
The lawsuit filed by Williamson County taxpayers in 2005 was decided in favor of the taxpayers in October 2007, when the judge found that TAC has been in violation of the law using association dues paid by Texas counties in their advocacy and lobby work.
“TAC realized they were breaking the law and after we filed the lawsuit, the organization claimed they were no longer collecting dues,” said plaintiff Peggy Venable. “However, they still purport to represent counties. We don’t know what constitutes a TAC member county if they don’t pay dues.”
“This legal victory is a vindication of our lawsuit which TAC called frivolous,” said Venable. “Texas counties and TAC had been in flagrant violation of the law for years.”
Venable, Texas director of the taxpayer group Americans for Prosperity filed the lawsuit along with fellow taxpayers Janice Brauner and Judy Morris. The taxpayers filed the suit stating that state law prohibited taxpayers from funding a county association that lobbies.
“The Texas Association of Counties has consistently lobbied against taxpayer protections and legislation which most taxpayers support,” said Venable. “It took a lawsuit to get their attention.”
Venable said taxpayers cannot spend much time celebrating this victory.
“TAC has made clear that they are considering segregating dues from other fees so they can continue lobbying, or not collect dues from counties while continuing to fees. This type of shell game may be acceptable to the court, but it is not acceptable to taxpayers,” said Venable.
“As TAC may be able to segregate their dues, they continue to collect large fees from counties, and other local government entities and organizations are openly using tax dollars to hire lobbyists,” said Venable. While not collecting dues, TAC collected well over $500,000 in fees from Williamson County during the time of the lawsuit.
Just this month the Austin City Council voted to spend a total of $987,000 to hire 12 lobbyists and lobbying firms, and the City of Denton is also approving $81,000 to hire a lobby firm to prepare them for the 2009 legislative session.
“In their meeting, the City of Denton cited three issues they opposed: property appraisal caps, city spending limits, and a sales tax holiday for textbooks. Those are things most taxpayers want,” said Venable.
“We expect our elected officials to communicate with one another, not to hire lobbyists to serve as intermediaries,” said Venable. “We may have won a victory but we have a lot of work ahead of us to end our tax dollars going to pay lobbyists to lobby against taxpayer interests. “
To view the Writ of Injunction issued today, click here: http://www.americansforprosperity.org/includes/filemanager/files/tx/venable_writ_of_injunction.pdf
# # #
Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is a nationwide organization of citizen leaders committed to advancing every individual’s right to economic freedom and opportunity. AFP believes reducing the size and scope of government is the best safeguard to ensuring individual productivity and prosperity for all Americans. AFP educates and engages citizens in support of restraining state and federal government growth and returning government to its constitutional
Continued cold weather this winter is even causing the keepers of the AGW flame to take notice. The NY Times puts out a pro AGW CYA memo, printed to look suspciously like a news story, which in short says "Pay no attention to the thermometer, its not meaningful to the global warming debate.":
The world has seen some extraordinary winter conditions in both hemispheres over the past year: snow in Johannesburg last June and in Baghdad in January, Arctic sea ice returning with a vengeance after a record retreat last summer, paralyzing blizzards in China, and a sharp drop in the globe’s average temperature. ...
According to a host of climate experts, including some who question the extent and risks of global warming, it is mostly good old-fashioned weather, along with a cold kick from the tropical Pacific Ocean, which is in its La Niña phase for a few more months, a year after it was in the opposite warm El Niño pattern.
The threat has been postponed until next season due to inclement weather.
There is nothing so sad as to see a beautiful theory torpedoed by an ugly fact.
Posts
All Comments
