Pending Vote on Redisticting Could Check Conservative Advance in Texas

Tomorrow is an important day in Texas politics. That is because the full House will be considering the Redistricting Committee's recommended map of 150 Texas House Districts that once agreed upon will endure for a decade (5 election cycles). If they vote for the committee recommendation they will be voting to keep conservatives in check in Texas for the next decade.

In lieu of the committee's map is a map chartered by and for the conservative members of the Texas House. Previously known as the Nixon Map (being put together by Joe Nixon and Trey Trainer) Rep. Cain will be offering it as a substitute to the committee's map and it is "PLAN H212 REP. CAIN STATEWIDE SUBSTITUTE CSHB 150" on the official map viewer.

It's worth repeating, Rep. Erwin Cain has filed this map as an amendment to the House Redistricting Committee's map CSHB 150 that will be voted on this Wednesday April 27th. Watch this video to learn more.

Below is a message I sent to Central Texas Republican Assembly members and friends this past weekend. I've updated the message by making reference to the version of the Nixon Map that will be laid on the table on Wednesday as a substitute to the committee's map.

Dear CTRA Members and Friends,

Late in the day on Good Friday, Texans for Lawsuit Reform (TLR) weighed in on the redistricting map passed out of committee last Tuesday. TLR expressed praise for the Solomons plan amended and adopted by the House Redistricting Committee (http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/ , PLANH153) and in so doing backhanded other plans. I think the Nixon plan--now called PLAN H212 REP. CAIN STATEWIDE SUBSTITUTE CSHB 150--may have been an intended target, though TLR never mentioning a plan by name.

In its redistricting plan “endorsement”, the TLR press release reads:

Texans for Lawsuit Reform is interested in redistricting because it will impact Texas elections for years. Politics impact policy. Elections matter. TLR PAC, in its campaign activities, has consistently worked to promote and maintain a majority in the Texas Legislature of conservative men and women who believe in a fair, balanced and predictable civil justice system.
...
Our judgment is that alternative statewide maps that have been proffered publicly recently are not likely to result in sustainable conservative majorities.
...
(emphasis mine)

Source: http://www.tortreform.com/news/tlr-statement-hb-150-house-redistricting-map

Understand that when TLR uses the word “conservative” it means the “conservative” values and interest of TLR (namely tort reform). For the record, I am for lawsuit reform, as are many challengers that TLR opposes every election, but I am not a one issue conservative like the leadership of TLR seem to be. This TLR backhand to Joe Nixon (PLAN H212 REP. CAIN STATEWIDE SUBSTITUTE CSHB 150) seems like just another attempt to neuter the TEA Party movement and true fiscal and social conservatives (i.e. Reagan Republicans like the members of the Republican Assemblies). If elections matter, then I believe the PLAN H212 REP. CAIN STATEWIDE SUBSTITUTE CSHB 150 better represents the will of the voters on Nov 2, 2010.

PLANH153 pairs some conservative Reps who backed Ken Paxton for Speaker of the House. This pairing is an attempt to reduce the number of Reps who oppose Strauss by combining their districts, thus making them have to run against each other. As I understand it, PLANH153 reduces the total number of Republican districts—down from the 99 elected in 2010 to only 92 (some say 82) electable Rs in 2012 and beyond. This Solomons plan (Rep. Bert Solomons is the chair of the committee) reduces Travis County from the potential 3/3, D/R that it was 10 years ago (and I believe still was last year in spite of the certified outcome) to 5/1, D/R. The Solomons Plan (which one Travis County Democrat who testified on Palm Sunday raved over) adopted by the House committee, as amended, truly cuts the conservative baby in half, sacrificing it on the alter of “can’t we [Republicans and Democrats] all just get along.” That is not the wisdom of Solomon, Rep. Solomons.

To refresh your memory, TLR’s President and PAC chairman is Mr. Richard Trabulsi, Jr who helped (with lots of TLR PAC money) get his nephew, Mark Strama re-elected in HD 50 last year (which will be easier to do in 2012 under redistricting PLANH153—though HD 50 also loses R voters in the Nixon Plan). I live in HD 50 and did not appreciate “Uncle T” backing (with $$$$$ and TLR endorsement) my non-representive-of-my-values Representative, Mark Strama. TLR PAC also backed Obama Strama’s “twin”, Patrick Rose, in HD 45 who fortunately Jason Isaac soundly defeated. I would not put it past Mr. T, who is a Democrat, to be using this TLR endorsement of the Solomons plan, to further consolidate TLR’s, and thus his own, powerful control of the Texas House through the ruse of Lawsuit Reform, which did I mention I and many of those who run against TLR backed incumbents are also in favor of? TLR maintains its influence primarily through the perpetuation of TLR friendly incumbents.

DISCLAIMER: I’ve been told that PLANH153 is better for Williamson county Republicans than the original Nixon plan is. I believe HD 20 is the main issue there. However, PLANH153 makes HD 20 a three headed hydra, containing the northern half of Williamson with all of Burnet and Milam counties. From the testimony I heard on Palm Sunday at the committee hearing, I believe Burnet County objects to this arrangement and Milam county prefers to identify with Georgetown and not with Burnet. I’m just pointing out that there may still need to be some tweaks, but the Nixon plan is a better place to tweak from than PLANH153.

The above is my opinion and I am sure that wiser and more informed people than me will be arguing on both sides, but one thing is a given, this is a political struggle and in the end the shrewdest political heads will prevail. In the mean time, prep your Rep for the upcoming vote by the full House (that means tell them to support Rep. Cain's substitute PLAN H212 for CSHB 150). You have less than 24 hours left to do so. The vote is calendared for Wednesday. I am suggesting that on the question of CSHB 150 you tell him or her to vote for PLAN H212 REP. CAIN STATEWIDE SUBSTITUTE CSHB 150.

Conservative Redistricting Regards,

Timothy E. Bradberry, P.E.
Immediate Past President of the Board, Central Texas Republican Assembly (CTRA)
Committeeman to the National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA) for the Texas Republican Assembly (TxRA)

CTRA Website
TxRA Website
NFRA Website
Twitter

The Anti Grover-Khan Fatwa at CPAC-2011

-By Timothy Bradberry, NFRA National Committeeman from Texas

On the morning of the first day at CPAC-2011, I was confronted by a major controversy that permeated the 38th annual gathering of conservative activists and wannabes. That is, the question of whether firstly moderate Muslims and secondly conservative gays are worthy of our embraced as fellow conservatives, assuming that they indeed are conservative on the major issues. Here’s my story:

The low down

I was walking into CPAC’s main meeting venue (the Marriott Ballroom) for the first time when a man handed me a goldenrod colored sheet(s) of paper with print on front and back (btw, I got the same offer every time I walked through that area and several other ingress/egress areas throughout the Washington Marriott Wardman Park hotel during the three day long conference). There were a number of questions on the sheet with two columns for answers (conveniently supplied), plus a bunch of paragraphs accusing the persons being targeted (sorry for the vitriol, but “target” is the best word to describe the purpose of this attack piece, this fatwa against assimilation). The first column, the “yes” column, had the first or last names of Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan. The second column, the “no” column, was headed “Reagan Republicans.” The questions were worded in such a way that all Reagan Republicans (as I joyfully confess to being among) would answer in the negative. In the Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan column all answers were listed as affirmative. Thus, these two American Conservative Union board members were presented as anything but “Reagan Republicans.” They were the primary targets of the fatwa (the severe denunciation).

Because it would be helpful to reference right now, I wish I had a copy of the fatwa in hand (here is a picture of the cover sheet) but I was a purest and refused to participate (in deference to Reagan’s 11th commandment) in the obvious character assassination of someone who has a long history as a staunch fiscal conservative and friend of the NFRA, Grover Norquist, along with his fellow American Conservative Union (ACU) board member, Suhail Khan. Instead, I gave my copy to Grover (who, upon me asking about them, denied the accusations) and at my own initiative I refused to accept additional copies offered to me during my many wanderings around CPAC. As I recall, the fatwa painted Grover, who serves on the Advisory Council to GOPride (a conservative gay Republican group), as sort of the conductor of an underground railroad transporting gay and Muslim (i.e. Muslim Brotherhood members and sharia law) sleeper cells into the ranks of the conservative movement and American society, thereby destroying the family through gay marriage and the imposition of a caliphate over our Judeo—Christian based society, via the radicalization of American Muslims.

But is that really GOPride’s and Grover/Khan’s agenda?

The heart murmur

I knew a bit about Grover, having met him at the 2007 National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA) National Endorsement Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, but I had never heard of Khan. It didn’t help much that I could only attend CPAC on Thursday and then, after that, not again until Saturday afternoon (due to a research panel meeting on Friday that was unrelated to and displaced from CPAC, and due to an NFRA Board meeting on Saturday morning). So, I missed the opportunity to attend a session Khan chaired on Friday as well as the counter-insurgent session his opponents (the ones handing out the fatwa) held that day.

Having little or no information in hand I guess you could say I was flying blind by the seat of my heart, and my heart murmured to me that something did not add up about the fatwa. You see, Khan was identified widely as a moderate Muslim and I had spent the better part of Friday in a meeting facilitated and co-chaired by one such Muslim. I’ve known and worked/associated with many Muslims (from all over the world) throughout my over two decade career in structural engineering. I can only think of one that had a bad attitude about America (and he is long since gone—or been sent—back to his country). Actually, I am confident that there are many more Muslims I have associated with through my career whom I have not even tagged as Muslims (and even when I have so identify them, I forget their affiliation thereafter) because frankly the matter never comes up, unless they choose to explain why they can’t partake of the ham sandwich provided for lunch. :-) These Muslims are peace loving people like you and me who want to provide for their families and live their lives in freedom and prosperity (I do not mean to say that I think Islam is a religion of peace only that there are millions of moderate, peace loving Muslims in this world.)

The fallout

By late Friday afternoon, though very exhausted, I was looking forward to the NFRA dinner at The Capitol Hill Club and had pretty much put the Grover-Khan controversy out of my very weary mind (weary from too little sleep on top of my day of research project oversight). I went back to the CPAC hotel (from the Courtyard Washington Convention Center where I was staying), only to lose my multi-day metro pass in the process :-(, and was once or twice again offered the goldenrod sheet of paper. After hanging out at CPAC a bit, I headed back to the metro (but not before being offered the goldenrod paper again) to buy a trip pass and take the metro from Wardman Park to the Capitol South station (right across the street from The Capitol Hill Club). I entered the club around 7:00 pm—excited to have the privilege—found the right room and sat down and began to socialize with the NFRA Board members and guests assembled. After a somewhat stilted conversation (stilted on my part) with a former legislator from South Carolina (very animated and quick witted man), who was sitting to my left, about why we should back the liberals in Taiwan (as the conservatives—the KMT—there were busy compromising Taiwan’s sovereignty and otherwise sucking up to China) I overheard my neighbors to my right talking trash about Muslims and how none of them could be trusted.

I did not think about the effects of the CPAC panel sessions that had been held earlier in the day since I was quite unaware of them—I have a bad habit of not reading meeting agendas, especially when I’m not planning to be in attendance. So, I don't blame them. I expect that my neighbors’ “fire in the belly” may have been stoked by this controversy at CPAC, perhaps by the aforementioned fatwa. As a Christian who has sutdied the world Christian movement (i.e., the spread of God's message of redemption throughout history through many different mechanisms by many different peoples), and as one who avoids conspiracy theories like the plague, I found myself at odds with my neighbor’s characterization of all Muslims as wanting to impose Sharia law on non-Muslims, though I’ve stumbled into that line of thinking myself before. I began to argue with my right wing neighbors (the ones on my right wing) over the question of “are there any moderate Muslims in the world?” I knew that there indeed are such Muslims because I have met, associated with, and collaborated professionally with many such before. I admitted that the Koran, if taken literally and in historical context, does not seem to leave open that possibility, but just as there are liberal Christians who read the Bible like it is some kind of allegory rather than as revelation (which is how I read it), there are Muslims who either don’t take the Jihadist and discriminatory aspects of the Koran literally or are simply cultural Muslims. But my arguments were of no avail. I could see that I had become anathema to my neighbors on the right. I imagined that in their minds they probably now view me as part of the Grover—Khan conspiracy, and that was before the resolution on GOPride was passed in the NFRA Board Meeting.

The board meeting

The dinner at The Capitol Hill Club did not end the seeming deconstruction of my conservative reputation, a reputation I risked for the sake of truth and in acknowledgment of a need to engage Muslim and gay conservatives who can partner with us on major issues, hopefully even socially conservative issues. Saturday morning, the NFRA Board Meeting was held in a sort of closet-like or cloakroom-like venue at the Washington Marriott Wardman Park hotel. After the presentations of the two bids for the NFRA National Endorsement Convention to be held in October or November of this year, and the selection of Des Moines, Iowa as the preferred location—over Rhode Island and Providence Plantations—it was time for resolutions. The first resolution up for considered had some vitriol that I felt was unnecessary and would make it difficult for the NFRA to effectively get our core social conservative message out—defending innocent life, traditional marriage and the family—because the media might caricature us as gay hating, like the America hating, American soldier funeral desecrating, un-Christian, so-called "Westboro Baptist Church" gay bashers, that the Supreme court nevertheless says have the right to their despicable behavior. After I basically lost it in the board meeting as the frustration of what I saw as unnecessary frothing over a trumped up fatwa against a known conservative and a host of wannabe conservatives who were being denied entrance out of fear rather than because of facts, the resolution was toned down a bit. The approved version is linked here.

The gay affirmation

I didn’t have to wait very long to hear someone who agreed with my take on the portion of the fatwa that was anti-gay. (I'm personally against gay sexual behavior and that has been my consistent position since College, but I'm not against gay people and what people do in private is none of my business.) Saturday afternoon, Ann Coulter, in response to a question from the floor about her friendliness with GOPride (from a GOPrider), explained that the group had agreed not to push for gay marriage after she challenged them on the issue, and that as an Evangelical Christian who is keenly aware that all are sinners, she sees no difference between gay sex and premarital hetero sex, as each act is in it’s own turn simply sin. She expressed great respect for gays who were chaste and who would make the sacrifice of remaining in that state for the sake of civilization (like the Apostle Paul remained unmarried for the sake of service to the Lord) because, as she put it elsewhere, “[traditional marriage is] a crucial linchpin of civilization that's already hanging by a thread.” She also joked, "I have a lot in common with the gays; we like the same music, the same cocktails, the same men..."

If you don’t believe gays can be conservatives, read this:

The debrief (what I am and am not saying)

Let me be clear here. I am not saying that I approve of CPAC allowing a self identified gay group to effectively sponsor the conference by paying for a booth and drawing attention to their status as gays. Like Ann Coulter, “[I] don't generally care for identity politics of any sort.” I am also not saying that I know for sure that Suhail Khan is a trustworthy conservative, no more radical than are the scores of moderate and otherwise peace-loving and freedom-loving Muslims I have encountered over the 27 years of my structural engineering career (starting in graduate school). I am also not saying that Grover Norquist’s Palestinian wife, Samah Alrayyes, who was born a Muslim, does not affect his outlook (I know she probably does, as my Taiwanese wife has fed my already established interest in advocating for Taiwan Independence—initially from a conservative based anti-communist stance and later out of a growing understanding of the suppression of and dilemma faced by the Taiwanese people).

Rather, I am simply saying that if politically active gays and Muslims who are vetted as conservatives (meaning they are found to be with us on the issues) are willing to go to the mat for our ideas, we should not issue a fatwa against them and so run them off into the open but death affirming arms of the left or of the Jihadists. As for the concern about a caliphate and the imposition of Sharia law in the United States, I have three words to offer, “Follow the Constitution”. It will not tolerate sharia law. Consider also these words from the Apostle Paul:

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.
—1 Corinthians 9:19-23

Therefore, I urge all conservatives to go out into the highways and byways, identify conservatives and compel them to join our efforts to advance conservative ideas. As you are going, be courageous and grow the conservative movement on a foundation of love, truth, freedom, liberty—in short the ideas and ideals of our Founders—rather than out of fear and prejudice.

Time to End Lawless City Policies

Would you want to live in a lawless city? Never heard of 'lawless cities'? Well, you have heard of 'sanctuary cities', the self-description of cities that have decided to forbid their police and courts from enforcing immigration law.

Here is a consequence of such policies, described here:

In December 2007, a woman was savagely raped in a Queens park by four Mexican illegals. Once arrested, they were found to have long rap sheets and a long record of missed court appearances, which made them deportable. The Times did not report their illegal status, referring to them merely as “homeless men.” Nor did it connect the dots back to New York City’s sanctuary policies, which protected three of the four from deportation for offenses such as assault, attempted robbery, criminal trespass, illegal gun possession, and drug offenses.

The above stary was embedded in an article about the bias of the New York Times in its immigration reporting: Failing to tell the whole story in cases like these, and cheerleading for policies that undermine immigration law. The article notes:

Around this time, however, the Times hailed Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s reversal of a proposal that city workers check identities of illegals, declaring that doing so would “deny privacy rights for immigrants” and that “at the end of the day mandatory status disclosure would hurt everyone’s public safety” by “chilling illegals from coming forward to report crime and abuse.”

The very term 'sanctuary city' needs to be reconsidered. When you have deportable criminal aliens out on the streets and creating victims, as the above story shows, that's a lawless city, and a sanctuary only for lawbreakers. "Sanctuary city" policies are prescirptions for lawless cities. This issue is a top priority in the current legislative session, and hopefully we will see a bill that ends flawed policies, such as Houston's, that forbids cops from determining immigration status of arrestees.

Winning the Future

Obama's latest slogan creates an apropos TLA. One reaction to this graphic: LOL.

Meanwhile ... can we be the most fiscally irresponsible administration in history, with a deficit that is 10% of GDP? Yes, we can.

Travis GOP backs single-member districts for Austin

Piling on to other recently-announced support for single-member districts, the Travis County Republican Party has put out a press release applauding Mayor's Backing of City Council Districts, and praising State Senator Wentworth's Single-Member District Legislation. Here it is:

Austin, Texas — The Travis County Republican Party (TCRP) applauds
Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell's new backing of single-member city
council districts, and endorses legislation by state Senator Jeff
Wentworth that would require single-member district representation on
the Austin City Council.

Currently, Austinites are represented by six city council members who
serve in an "at-large" capacity. They each represent the entire
population of Austin and are all elected by the same city-wide
constituency. The mayor, too, is elected by the city as a whole. The
latter is quite the norm; the former is highly unusual, and greatly
ineffective. With the city limits serving as a single at-large
district, multiple people are serving a single district. Invariably,
this setup leads to vast geographic areas of the community being
under-represented, or all together un-represented. Multiple-member
districts also diminish accountability by any one council member to
any group of voters, discourage citizen participation in local
governance, and suppress voter turnout in municipal elections.

"Austin is simply too large — and growing far too quickly — to not
have single-member city council districts," said TCRP Chair Rosemary
Edwards. "Austinites deserve to have direct representation on their
city council with a representative who they can go to with their
concerns and vote out if they want change, just as they do in the
state Legislature and in Congress."

Mayor Leffingwell is advocating a board in which six members represent
six individual districts, and two more members serve, like himself, at
large. He is charging a committee with preparing this and other
proposed changes to the city charter for voters next year.

In the Texas Senate, Sen. Jeff Wentworth is advancing legislation that
would require single-member districts for Austin. Senate Bill 380

requires that "The governing body of a municipality with a population
of 500,000 or more must consist of a mayor elected at large and at
least six members elected from single-member districts. A member must
reside in the district the member represents." If passed by a
two-thirds majority in the state House and Senate, Sen. Wentworth's
bill could take effect this year; if passed with a simple majority,
the act would apply to the 2012 elections.

"I'm encouraged by the growing support for single-member districts,"
Edwards said. "Our country was founded on the principles of direct
localized representation, and the voters deserve a direct voice in
their government in the capital city of Texas."

Wentworth's bill requiring single-member districts for Austin

H/T from ChangeAustin, they have asked their members to support and lobby for a bill authored by Sen Wentworth, which calls on large cities - like Austin - to have single-member districts for their city council, with an at-large elected Mayor. Here is the text of the bill. It is well worth supporting.

By: Wentworth S.B. No. 380

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT
relating to the election of the governing body of certain
municipalities.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Subchapter C, Chapter 26, Local Government Code,
is amended by adding Section 26.048 to read as follows:
Sec. 26.048. CERTAIN MUNICIPALITIES WITH POPULATION OF
500,000 OR MORE: ELECTION FROM SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS. (a) The
governing body of a municipality with a population of 500,000 or
more must consist of a mayor elected at large and at least six
members elected from single-member districts. A member must reside
in the district the member represents.
(b) The municipality may provide for the staggering of the
terms of the members of the municipality's governing body.
(c) A single-member district must be compact and consist of
contiguous territory. To the extent practicable, all single-member
districts must be of equal population.
(d) This section does not prevent a municipality from having
additional members elected to the governing body from the
municipality at large.
(e) A municipality must comply with this section beginning
with the first general election of members to the municipality's
governing body that occurs after the year in which the federal
decennial census indicates that the municipality meets the
population requirements of Subsection (a).
SECTION 2. A municipality to which Section 26.048, Local
Government Code, as added by this Act, applies on the effective date
of this Act must comply with the requirements of that section
beginning with the first general election of members to the
municipality's governing body that occurs after December 31, 2011.
SECTION 3. This Act takes effect immediately if it receives
a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as
provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this
Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this
Act takes effect September 1, 2011.

March for LIfe

I was trying to find video of the March for Life in Washington DC on Monday, but I haven’t found any that does a good job of showing the size of the crowd. I have heard estimates of 200,000 to 400,000 marchers and it took 4 hours for the marchers to get past the Supreme Court building.

One of the problems is the major networks seem to have ignored the March for Life. I did find a video on the ABC News site, and Fox News had a report also. Even the Fox News report did a poor job of show the size of the crowd and that this is not a political issue, but an issue of allowing the slaughter of innocent babies to continue in our Nation. Monday, CBS Evening News had a report about the 12,500 people killed by gunfire each year. They did not mention that 100 times as many people die each year by abortion. Over 50 million babies executed in the last 38 years.

The following is part of a letter I sent to one of the local TV news department.
I was very disappointed in your report Saturday night on the Rally for Life event in Austin. The sonogram bill is making sure women understand what happens in an abortion, makes sure a woman understands she is going to stop the heartbeat of her child. One would think Planned Parenthood would support true informed consent, but then it did seem as if their spokeswoman does not really want women to know the truth. What greater good can the government do than to help stop the killing of innocent babies?

The truth is: birth is just a change of environment for a human being, not a change to becoming a human being. The truth is: over 50 million humans have been executed in the country’s abortion facilities since Roe vs Wade was ruled on. The truth is: about 90 % of women change their mind about abortion once they see the sonogram and hear the heartbeat of their own child. It makes one wonder if a large corporation like Planned Parenthood really cares about women or if they are just afraid of losing customers and hurting their profits.

I invite news organizations to find out more about alternatives to abortion. The truth is: Pro-Life supporters do much more than just hold rallies. There are over 200 Pregnancy Resource Centers in Texas not only helping women in crisis pregnancies, but helping them with diapers, clothes, food and at some of the centers, life skills after the baby is born. These centers do not charge for their services, but continue to support moms and their children. They depend on the donations of Pro-Life supporters, as not many, if any get government funds. In my journalism classes, I was taught the job of the Fourth Estate was to seek out the truth, I hope things haven’t changed over the last 35 years.

Obama's Full Speed Ahead on High Speed Rail is Premature

President Obama in his SOTU address tonight touted High Speed Rail (HSR) as a viable means to address transportation issues. Not sure if he has read the TxDOT Restructure Council's assessment of HSR so I've made it available to him here on this blog.

Please read, Mr. President and consider that Texas is leading the nation in job creation, in large part because of our common sense and conservative leadership.

High Speed Rail in Texas: Proceed With Caution

When it comes to the development of high speed rail (HSR) in Texas, financial wariness might be the most responsible approach.

The concept of high speed rail has gathered a lot of public momentum in the U.S. in recent years, and until the recent elections, a surprising level of support in Washington as well. Recent change in control of the U.S. House of Representatives might complicate the Administration’s HSR agenda. For Texans convinced that it is the transportation idea whose time has come, a few facts might be helpful.

Without question, some European and Asian countries have developed advanced and successful HSR lines. HSR speeds clearly provide valuable travel time savings, although often at a premium cost to passengers. HSR safety records are excellent. In some cases, HSR might even free up capacity in other modes (roads and air) and improve overall transportation system efficiencies. But as intriguing as it might be, there is good reason to tread very cautiously when it comes to the financial viability of HSR in the U.S.

There are only around 50 high speed rail lines around the world today. Virtually all were developed as replacements or enhancements of existing conventional rail systems, with established, pre-existing ridership that migrated and expanded naturally from an existing service to a new and more attractive service. No such established ridership base exists in Texas.

Also, the demographic and economic conditions that support the financial viability of HSR are rare, and in the U.S. they might not yet exist. Ridership levels on successful single HSR lines in Asia and Europe ranges from 83 million passengers per year to 20 million passengers per year. In contrast, the combined ridership of all Amtrak lines throughout the U.S. was 28.7 million passengers in FY 2010; AMTRAK's Northeast Corridor connecting Washington DC, New York and Boston, which some believe represents the most viable U.S. corridor for HSR, carried just 10.4 million passengers in fiscal year 2010. Overall financial performance of HSR depends directly on whether enough people choose to pay a premium cost to choose HSR over of alternative modes; even with an existing conventional rail ridership base, HSR projects have rarely met their full ridership forecasts, and in some cases have fallen far short.

As for cost, depending on the complexity of the engineering work required, the degree of urbanization along the route and the necessary rolling stock capacity, construction and rolling stock capital costs typically range from $56 million to $112 million per mile (mileage between Houston and Dallas: 225). Also, it is not unusual for HSR projects to take over a decade to complete, creating the need for significant capital outlays before there is any cash flow. If debt is involved, delays in construction or passenger ramp-up, or shortfalls in ridership yield, can create significant financial stress. Over time most lines seem to recover operating and maintenance costs, but few fully recover the capital costs from passenger revenue alone. Governments contemplating the possible benefits of HSR, whether through public, private or public-private partnership structures, should assume a near certainty of need for continuing financial support.

It is easy to envision a future Texas in which efforts to add needed capacity to existing intercity corridors such as I-10, I-35 and I-45 are overwhelmed by prohibitive costs, lack of resources, environmental constraints and public/political resistance. At that point, supplemental capacity represented by HSR might make sense and prove even more attractive than the development of alternative highway corridors. In light of the long lead time required to plan, design and develop HSR, the immediate challenge is clearly and objectively assessing whether such a system might make sense for Texas, and if so what is the most responsible, incremental path to that future. First steps in that direction might best include analysis, planning, design and development of corridors and conventional rail strategies, from which someday an even more advanced HSR technology than exists today might emerge as a viable option for Texas.

Source: TxDOT Restructure Council Final Report

8 reasons why 2012 will not be 1996

History doesn't always repeat itself, and 2012 will not be 1996.

Mayor Calls for single-member districts for Austin City Council

Mayor Leffingwell gets it right. He is calling for a review of single-member based districts. More specifically, he wants a 9 member city council, with 6 single-member districts and 3 at-large.

I have felt for sometime that Austin is ill-served by the at-large city council. Who represents the needs of a specific neighborhood? Some members, like Mike Martinez, have been banging that drum for some time, and he's quoted as saying "Our city has outgrown its governing system."

Exactly so. We are now one of the largest cities in the nation, in the top 20. City council elections are expensive and unwieldy, and they end up getting elected by a tiny slice of the city electorate due to the small turnout. I would prefer 7 single-member districts and two at-large, but the Mayor's 6-3 district / at-large split is just a proposal.

Now, I am not a big fan of some of Mayor Leffingwell's moves, and he's a bete noir to our northwest neighborhood for giving us the shaft, literally and figuratively. The story there is this: The AWU plans a water transmission line from the water treatment plant near Lake Travis to a water tower on NcNeil and 183. Their plans have included an intrusive shaft that would impact the neighborhoods near Canyon Vista Middle school. The parks and recreation board didn't go along with the AWU request for the (ab)use of city parkland required for putting a shaft in our neighborhood, back in October, and decided to wait on further reports on environmental and safety impact. Impatiently, the city manager and council bypassed the process and rammed the approval through the city council on a 4-3 vote. Now, Save-our-Springs coalition is readying a lawsuit over this possible violation of Chapter 26 process.

One takeaway from this and other city council interactions is that for any given neighborhood, anyone and NO-ONE on city council really goes to bat for you.

Austin has indeed outgrown the at-large city council system; it's time for single-member districts.

Should Lobbyists Hold Elected Office?

The headline "Moderate Republican Brings Criticism On State Board of Education in Texas" I thought was going to be about one of the usual suspects talking trash about SBOE conservatives. Rather, the trash-talking is over new SBOE board member Thomas Ratliff, criticized for keeping his lobbyist business while on the State Board.

Ratliff claims:

Ratliff said he sees no problem with wearing two hats in Austin. He said when he calls members of the Legislature on lobbying matters he doesn't use his position on the board to get in the door faster.

He claims there is no problem, yet the Statesman notes that he already recused himself on one vote and has asked the state AG to 'look into' possible conflicts of interest. If there is no problem, why the need for these precautions? This is about as safe a combination as a chain smoker in an oil refinery. Something may combust.

Here's a better precaution. Understand that it's the self-pocket-lining business that give politics a bad rap and simply don't mix lobbying and elected office. Not only should lobbyists not be elected officials, they shouldn't even run for office. And we need a bar from former elected officials jumping into the lobbyist business pronto. Some of the recent resignations-to-lobbyist conversions have been unseemly at best. I would be all for a 2-year bar from when someone leaves office to becoming a lobbyist. And serving and lobbying at the same time? That's RIGHT OUT.

"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." - Matthew 6:24

MSNBC's win for Civility

Olberman loses his MSNBC gig as the worst cable-show talking-point ranter in the world. Speculation on why he was canned: Office politics was to blame.

Replacing Olbie will be a man who has auditioned multiple times for unhinged ranting, Laurence O'Donnell, so the progressives will still get their fill of HateRighty rhetoric and sides of Palin-sneering. But with Comcast coming to run things, who knows what else will be afoot. I for one, welcome MSNBC's new Insect Overlords.

Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam ....

In honor of spam-comment weeding just undertaken on this blog, we present the Monty Python Spam skit. It comes complete with Japanese sub-titles, which seems more than appropriate given the unusually large number of spam comments here that were in Japanese:



... and the punchline? The latest comments on YouTube page for the Monty Python Spam skit say: "This has been flagged as spam."

Painting The Texas Map Red

Picture that tells the story of what November changed in the Texas statehouse. State Rep party affiliations by district, before November (blue=Dem, red=GOP)...

And after ...

The massive Republican win in November in the Texas statehouse that raised (with 2 additional defections since the election) the number of Republicans from 76 to 101, has reduced Democrats to their core liberal-Democratic districts in the urban counties and the border.

Texas Republicans put Voter ID Bill on Fast Track

The RPT is touting fast movement in the Texas Lege on the Voter ID, a sharp contrast to the train-wreck in the House in the last session:

On Monday, the Texas Senate is expected to meet as a Committee of the Whole to consider Senate Bill 14, legislation that would require a voter to present proof of identification when voting. Earlier this week, Governor Rick Perry declared the Voter ID legislation as an emergency item and Lt. Governor David Dewhurst immediately informed state senators that the bill will be considered next week.

All 19 Republican State Senators have signed on as co-authors to this important piece of legislation.

Bully for them. They have bills 'in the can' from the last session which will get overwhelming support and should be dealt with quickly. Get 'er done.

The Republican Spending Cut Plan

Now the Republicans have their answer to the snarky question "So, you say tou want to cut spending, what will you cut?" Here are 100 programs the RSC will cut to get to $2.5 trillion in savings in 10 years. Also, "$2.3 trillion of the $2.5 trillion in savings from the Republican Study Committee's Spending Reduction Act would come from cutting non-defense discretionary spending to 2006 and freezing that spending through 2021."

Good plan. There is another good thing about it. The Texas Republicans can adopt the same concept and themselves get to the point of eliminating the shortfall ... just roll back to the 2005-2006 budget and the shortfall would be eliminated.

Some heat on the matter of light

Compact fluoresecents not the brightest bulbs, says someone who does not like those CFLs. And why not? They look funny, they sometimes make noise or otherwise misbehave, and the light sometimes can flicker or be annoyingly off-color...

The good news is that CFLs will not be bugging us for long. I predict that LED-based lighting will, within 5-10 years, be a very cost-effective replacement for all other forms of light. Here's why: LED lights last for 50,000 hours, about 8 times as long as CFLs (6,000 hours). LEDs can now get over 120 lumens/watt instead of 60 lumens/watt for CFLs and about 15 lumens/watt for old fashioned incandescents. CFLs have topped out, but LEDs have room for improvement and will get to 200 lumens/watt in the next 5 years. So a single LED light bulb that replaces the 60 watt traditional will need only 4 watts and will last as long as 50 traditional light bulbs. In about 5 years, these will cost around $4 each, and such an LED light bulb will save money over the other forms. In the meantime, LEDs will be finding plenty of uses where the longevity, low energy use, and flexibility are paramount.

ObamaCare Repeal Passes House

On the one year anniversary of Senator Scott Brown's stunning upset victory in a U.S.Senate race, and just three weeks after being sworn in, the new Republican House majority passed a bill to completely repeal ObamaCare. The vote was 245 - 189, a stinging and stunning rebuke of the House Democrats who passed this bill by the narrowest of margins just 9 month ago.


Claims that this vote are symbolic are empty claims - this is a very important vote that signals that the ObamaCare debate is far from over. The Unconstitutional Mandate cannot stand, and more than half of all states are suing to escape the mandates. Also, Doctors know the bill will harm their patients, their ability to do their jobs, and their income, in a survey 65% said it would worsen care. The taxes embedded in the bill, needed to pay for the trillions in extra spending the new Obamacare entitlements create, are job-destroying (the Democrats insisted that 'job-killing' was too graphic apparently, so the Republicans came back with a new way to say the same thing - job-destroying).

Then the inherent corruption that comes from political control of a large slice of the economy:

Gohmert, who brought a copy of the health care law with him to the event, made some jabs, accusing the administration of "crony capitalism" through the granting of health care waivers. "If you're a friend of the administration, you get a waiver, and it will cut your costs dramatically," Gohmert said. "If you're not a friend, you don't get the waiver. You won't compete with the friends of Obama. You'll go out of business. Government shouldn't have that kind of power. ... Crony capitalism has got to stop."

Obamacare is an over-reaching, unaffordable, unconstitutional mess. We desperately need to repeal this bad bill and start over.

Eric Cantor is right to insist on the Senate taking up this bill and having a vote:

“If Harry Reid is so confident that the repeal vote should die in the Senate then he should bring it up for a vote if he’s so confident he’s got the votes,” Cantor said Tuesday.

What is Senator Harry Reid afraid of, the will of the people? Reid will attempt to block a vote in the Senate, but Senator Mitch McConnell has promised a vote and he's got 47 other Republicans who can help fight to make it happen.

The Baghdad Bob's of the Democrat party can keep insisting that ObamaCare is a 'done deal', but they are wrong - Resistance is Inevitable. They say this because they have paid a stiff political price for doing something the American people rejected and they don't this
Crown jewel of socialism to be undone.

The Republicans need to not give up the fight on this. They need to continue to make the case about how and why ObamaCare is wrong for America, how is harms our economy, robs our freedom, takes away important choices, makes healthcare less - not more - affordable, and bankrupts state and Federal treasuries. And it doesn't hurt to have a debate that ends up making Democrats spout off ignorantly about the Constitution.

Here's what the Republican can and will do: Demand a Senate repeal vote; de-fund ObamaCare regulation write-ups and agencies; repeal the individual mandates; repeal the taxes in ObamaCare - the tanning salon, medical device, payroll taxes, etc.; free states who want to opt out. And on the committee front, investigate the political interference in Obamacare waivers. Rep Cantor has said Republicans would “do everything we can to delay and defund the provisions of the bill.” With $2.5 trillion in spending rollbacks coming down the pike, a lot will be 'on the table' and Obama cannot expect to get all he wants. There will also be bipartisan offers to 'fix' parts of the bill that are just egregious - like the infamous 1099 provisions. Abortion 'restrictions' that are phony and undermined the Hyde Amendment are going to get real in HR3, the no taxpayer funding for abortion act.

Eventually, Obamacare will be dismantled, and we can have confidence in that prediction because the bill and program is fundamentally flawed and unworkable. Obamacare is the biggest and most intrusive bill passed in our time and is based on the flawed controlling and corrupt mindset that believes Government action is superior to market behavior. It represents the dying gasp of socialistic thinking, thinking which has failed economy after economy in country after country.

You cannot control healthcare costs by doing things that harm cost-saving market-based actions and innovations; you cannot improve coverage by robbing $500 billion from medicare; you cannot reduce the deficit with trillions in new entitlement spending; you cannot keep our finances sound by imposing huge costs on states and on businesses and individuals.

All that is required for us to prevail in this fight is to continue to persist. This vote gives us confidence that the Republican leaders "get it" and will persist in overturning the ObamaCare monstrosity.

Travis GOP overwhelmingly passes resolution against TSA naked body scanners

Whereas the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) has expressed an intention to deploy full body scanners at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport (ABIA) that will use millimeter-wave radiation sometime in 2011,

Whereas the TSA has not published any of the technical specifications, details on the scanners’ operation and construction, nor any other data that is necessary to conclude an independent review of the health safety of these devices,

Whereas notable authorities, including the Los Alamos Center for Nonlinear Studies have reported that millimeter-wave (also known as TeraHertz) radiation unzips DNA molecules, which causes problems with gene expression and DNA self-repair and adversely impacts human health,

Whereas nations like Israel with outstanding security records have rejected x-ray machines as ineffective and the wrong approach to preventing terrorism and as "one more obsolete technology that does not provide any more security" in the words of Israeli security expert Rafi Sela,

Whereas the Allied Pilots Association  and TSA employees  have formally objected to the use of these full body scanners,

Whereas the use of these scanners to generate and store a naked image of your body represents an unwarranted search under the 4th Amendment that violates every U.S. citizen’s right to be secure in their person,

Whereas the Austin Airport Advisory Commission unanimously passed a resolution opposing the introduction of full body scanners and  aggressive “pat downs” by TSA at ABIA,

Be it resolved that as the operating authority controlling ABIA and permitting the TSA to provide security services there, the City of Austin should take necessary steps to prevent the installation of these scanners at the airport.

John Bird-dogs worthless Chinese stocks

I found this article of local interest: Austin investor John Bird uncovered fraud in some US-listed Chinese stocks, and he went about shorting the stocks and telling others to expose the fraud. Interesting story.