Innovation, Not Debt, Key To Better Schools (Texas Local Debt #2 in US)

It’s not just Presidents and SenatorsL some of us will be asked to vote on school bonds and other bond issues when we go to the polls this year. How do you feel about Texas voters who have saddled ourselves with the Nation’s second highest level of local – county, city and school – debt?

The State of Texas lowered the level of local property tax, taking on more of the financial responsibility formerly covered by school and county property taxes. The next thing we knew, the local governments took the opportunity to raise those rates, again and to beg for bond issues, effectively wiping out the intended savings. The thing of it is that voters did this to ourselves and our neighbors!

But for the purposes of this discussion, let’s not worry too much about the debt. (Though it should be noted Texas is only barely trailing New York and California in terms of total state and local debt.)

We should instead confront the common claim made by proponents of school bond proposals: that it will make schools better. It will certainly make the buildings better, or at least more expensive. But will schools, the education provided, be improved?

Despite the hoopla, a new coat of paint, or even new walls, won’t ensure a better education. Only parents and teachers can deliver that.

When looking at the total spending reported to the Texas Education Agency, school districts only spend about 50 percent of your money on instruction. Building more buildings won’t improve that statistic, or produce better academic outcomes.

One thing that can immediately improve education is putting more resources – a greater percentage of school money – directly toward instructional expenses, and less on administration and non-teaching positions.

Let’s try spending more money in the classroom, rather than simply on a classroom.

via Innovation, Not Debt, Key To Better Schools | Empower Texans.

Report on 2nd Presidential Debate, October 16, 2010

We had twenty good Republicans turn out to watch the Presidential Debate at the Comal County Republican Party Election Headquarters tonight.

I tweeted (@bnuckols) throughout the debate, (Twitter search, “#debates”) and read the new Dem talking points over and over and re-tweeted:

It turns out that calling “Latinos” “Hispanics,” is equivalent in the eyes of some to calling Black people, “Colored.”

According to a couple of Dems, it’s “racist” to use the word “illegals.” One even said that it’s racist for all races!

Several libs tweeted that the request for continued security in Libya was for Tripoli, not Bengazi Actually, wasn’t the security for the Ambassador and the staff?

 

Here’s some information you might find interesting:

From @EWErickson: “Here’s the Rose Garden transcript. President blamed a video, not terrorists. http://is.gd/PqIMAe  || Attn @CANDYCROWLEY”

From me, Beverly Nuckols, MD ‏@bnuckols

“natural gas production on federal and Indian lands has steadily fallen, . . began around fall 2002.” http://ow.ly/1OZYSi  #debates

Articles: Systemic Medicare Fraud Under Houston’s Sheila Jackson Lee

Did you hear about the 90 people, doctors and nurses, and “healthcare professionals” who were arrested for $430M in Medicare fraud? About a fourth of that money went to the Houston hospital where Mrs. Jackson-Lee’s husband is on the Board of Directors.

Since her days on the Houston City Council, Jackson Lee has pushed to use city funds to keep Riverside’s doors open. At that time, the councilwoman suggested that the facility was a good investment for the city.

Jackson Lee’s interest in Riverside goes back to the ’80s when her husband Elwyn C. Lee, now University of Houston vice-chancellor (see video), served on Riverside’s board from 1981-1988. In his last year at Riverside, Mr. Lee was made chairman of that board, and over the years, husband and wife have been influential in keeping the financially strapped hospital open. Jackson Lee was voted into Congress in 1994, representing the 18th district, where Riverside is located.

The president of Riverside, his son, and five others were arrested on October 4 as part of a nationwide Medicare fraud sweep. Earnest Gibson III, chief executive officer of Riverside General Hospital for 30 years, has been charged with bilking $158 million out of Medicare over the last seven years.

His son, Earnest Gibson IV, was charged with thirteen counts, including money-laundering and conspiracy to commit health care fraud. The older Gibson became president around the same time Jackson Lee’s husband was appointed to the board in the early ’80s.

Friday’s arrests at Riverside came nine months after the arrest of Mohammad Khan, the hospital’s acting administrator, who pled guilty to his role in the Medicare fraud scheme and is now serving time.

via Articles: Systemic Medicare Fraud Under Houston’s Sheila Jackson Lee.

 

The Directors haven’t been charged with any crime, but don’t you think they should have been aware of questionable billing practices?

Gambling costs aren’t worth the revenues (& @JoePags is wrong)

@joepags “Joe Pags” on WOAI radio hung up on me – again – last night. It’s so frustrating to have the phone sudenly go silent – and, since I’ve turned off the radio while on the phone, I can’t hear Joe’s next comments.

This time, the topic was yesterday’s news about a push for legalized casino gambling in Texas and why Mr. Pagliarulo should be able to gamble legally in Texas, rather than take his money to Oklahoma, Louisiana, or Las Vegas.  I’ll give discuss the evidence and give references to studies showing the adverse effects of gambling later on, but first, let’s examine Joe’s poor arguments in favor of gambling.

Joe complained about our State property taxes, as one of the highest in the Nation. Yes, we are ranked in the top 10, for property taxes. However, Texas’ State sales tax is moderate and we have no income tax, making our overall tax burden number 45 in the Country.

He accused the first caller of “judging” him, because the man said that he believes that gambling is immoral. No, the man was judging the morality of gambling, never brought up the morality of people who disagree with him.

Besides, aren’t all laws based on morality?

Joe argues that “liberty” demands that those of us who object to gambling should allow gambling by those who don’t. He even told one caller that if he doesn’t like gambling, just don’t go to the casino. (Sounds like one of the shaky arguments in favor of abortion or same sex marriage, doesn’t it?) However, Joe is advocating a change in Texas’ State law. Those of us who vote are responsible for the consequences of our votes and for the laws our Legislators make, therefore we are complicit with what we consider immoral, whether we partake or not. Joe is still at liberty to go to a State where gambling is legal. To force us to be complicit with his gambling is “license,” not liberty.

Joe claims that everyone who objects to casino gambling should be carrying signs and protesting the Lottery and racetrack gambling in Austin. Joe may not realize that many of us objected to both of the above before they were legalized – and we were right in that they certainly haven’t solved the State’s revenue problems. Nevertheless, the fact that the rest of us have other priorities (like my own work for traditional medical ethics and pro-life laws), doesn’t mean that we are willing to sit still while the law is changed, yet again.

And then, Joe argues that the fact that Louisiana and other States continue to allow legalized gambling must prove that the benefits of gambling outweigh the costs to those States. That argument hasn’t proven to be true. At best, gambling is a (mostly) voluntary way of redistributing wealth. In fact, this report claims that States only benefit when people from outside come in, leave their money and then go home, and reports that the National Gambling Impact Study Commission goes so far as to report that the evidence that gambling benefits outweigh the costs is “poorly developed and quite incomplete.”

The economic benefits of gambling are often at the expense of other sections of the economy and are short term. In fact, analyses indicate that lotteries and horse racing may actually increase State revenues, casinos and grey hound racing do not. At least one statistical study finds no “relationship between real casino revenues and real per capita income at the state level.”

The societal or socio-economic costs of legalized gambling have been compared to those of drug abuse and include the social ills that accompany addictive behavior:

• “increased criminal justice system impacts
• “health-care related to the treatment of problem gambling
• “costs borne by individual problem gamblers and their families
• “displacement effects in retail, entertainment and food service sectors”

According to the Texas Public Policy Foundation, the economics of legalized gambling aren’t a good bet for Texas:

Costs associated with gambling include: (1) a reduction of approximately 10 percent in state lottery revenues; (2) an investment of approximately 10 percent of revenues in regulatory costs for gambling; (3) criminal justice costs underwriting an 8 to 13 percent increase in crime; (4) lost state and local revenue resulting from diversion of spending from goods and services to gambling; and (5) lost jobs resulting from decreased spending on non-gambling goods and services.

****

The financial costs of gambling are evident in experiences of communities and states:
• 24 out of 57 counties in the U.S. with casinos experienced job losses
• Atlantic City went from 50th in the nation for per-capita crime to first and violent crimes
rose by 78 percent, during the first three years of casino gambling
• Sales declined 10 to 20 percent in Natchez, Mississippi after gambling was legalized
• Counties with casinos have a bankruptcy filing rate that is 13.6 percent higher than in counties without casinos throughout the nation
• Delaware reports spending between $1 to $1.5 million annually on gambling-related costs and Wisconsin reports spending $63 million annually

The proponents of gambling ignore the costs and emphasize the benefits of tax revenues from gambling.

Bibliography

“Economic Development and Casinos. Do Casinos Cause Economic Growth?” Douglas M. Walker, John D. Jackson. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 66, No. 3 (July, 2007). http://walkerd.people.cofc.edu/pubs/AJES-growth.pdf  (accessed 10/10/12)

“Gambling Economics: Summary Facts” Earl L. Grinols. April 2011 http://www.freedomfoundationofminnesota.com/Websites/freedomfoundation/Images/Gambling%20Economics-%20Summary%20Facts%20by%20Professor%20Earl%20Grinols,%204.29.11.pdf  (accessed 10/10/12)

“Is Gambling a Good Economic Development Bet?” Local Government Matters, Volume 4, Issue 13 Excerpt from Economic Development: Strategies for State and Local Practice, 2nd Edition. Steven G. Koven and Thomas S. Lyons. ICMA Press, August, 2010.   http://icma.org/en/icma/newsroom/highlights/Article/100498/Is_Gambling_a_Good_Economic_Development_Bet (accessed 10/10/12)

“Overview of the Economic and Social Impacts of Gambling in the United States” Douglas M. Walker. College of Charleston, November 2011 http://walkerd.people.cofc.edu/pubs/2012/OxfordCh_dist.pdf (accessed 10/10/12)

“Social and Economic Costs and Benefits of Gambling” Rhys Stevens. Alberta Gaming Research Institute http://www.abgamblinginstitute.ualberta.ca/en/LibraryResources/Bibliographies/SocialandEconomicCostsandBenef.aspx  (accessed 10/10/12)

“Social and Economic Costs of Gambling” John R. Hill, Ph.D. Alabama Policy Institute http://www.alabamapolicy.org/issues/gti/issue.php?issueID=189&guideMainID=9 (accessed 10/10/12)

“Social costs of gambling nearly half that of drug abuse, new book concludes” Mark Reutter. Inside Illinois Archives, News Bureau, Public Affairs, University of Illinois. March, 2004.  http://news.illinois.edu/news/04/0308grinols.html  (accessed 10/10/12)

“The Costs and Consequences of Gambling In the State of Delaware” State of Delaware, Health and Social Services, Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health October, 2002. http://www.udel.edu/healthserpolresgrp/gamrpt02.pdf

“Triumph, Tragedy or Trade-Off? Considering the Impact of Gambling”  Jason J. Azmier, Robin Kelley, Peter Todosichuk. August 2001. Canada West Foundation, Canada. https://dspace.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/1880/48165/1/200108.pdf (accessed 10/10/12)

“VLTs — What Are The Odds Of Texas Winning?” Chris Patterson Texas Public Policy Foundation http://www.texaspolicy.com/sites/default/files/documents/2005-03-vlt.pdf (accessed 10/10/12)

Prepared by Health Services Policy Research Group, School of Urban Affairs and Public Policy, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware. October, 2002. http://www.udel.edu/healthserpolresgrp/gamrpt02.pdf  (accessed 10/10/12)

Sally C. Pipes, Founder of the Benjamin Rush Society, at Docs4PatientCare @D4PC

Health care policy expert, Sally C. Pipes, spoke to our @D4PC meeting this morning about the Benjamin Rush Society. The Society is an organization that she founded in order to inform and enable medical students and residents to defend the traditional medical ethic that the doctor should work for the patient, not a  third party, and “certainly not one that wields the coercive force of law.”

While the topic of the talk was the Benjamin Rush Society, Ms. Pipes also discussed her own experience as a former citizen of Canada and about her mother’s death from colon cancer after being refused a colonoscopy under the Canadian health care system. The reason given was that “Seniors” weren’t given colonoscopies and that those under 65 years old had a several months long waiting period, even if bleeding. When Ms. Pipes’ mother began bleeding from the colon, she spent 3 days in the Emergency Department and passed away 2 weeks later with metastatic colon cancer.

There were also comments from members in the audience about the United Kingdom’s National Health Service, which has even longer wait times for services, including heart surgery.

Ms. Pipes is married to Charles Kesler, whose book, I AM the Change, Barack Obama and the Crisis of Liberalism, will be released on September 11. Mr. Kesler spoke to out group yesterday.

Texas Medical Association wants you to pay for elective abortions @texmed @texasallianceforlife #pro-life #tcot

Not all of the members of Texas Medical Association agree with the TMA on this.

The San Antonio Express News published an editorial August 9th, by O. Ricardo Pimentel, entitled, “Texas tries to get between you, your doctor:”

For them, the issue isn’t abortion; it’s about the doctor-patient relationship, patient health and the ability to put everything on the table that needs to be discussed. Even if it’s abortion.

In a recent letter to the state, the Texas Medical Association, joined by other medical groups, said Texas is about to embark on a plan for providing medical care to low-income women that will impose a “gag order” on discussing abortion even on doctors working with patients not in the program.

Other groups, weighing in during the public comment period on proposed state rules, have similar concerns.

It’s a plan, they say, that will ensure not enough doctors for this program willing to provide care, including family planning services. And this, they say, will guarantee more unintended pregnancies, more abortions and more illness that might have been prevented for low-income women.

Among those also commenting on the rules were the Center for Public Policy Priorities, and leaders of Planned Parenthood entities in the state, South Texas groups among them.

Trust me, for everyone who is mentioned above, it’s about abortion. The law doesn’t stop anyone from discussing or even promoting true contraception that doesn’t end the life of our youngest children of tomorrow.

And it is about “elective abortions:” those that are performed on health babies in healthy mothers. We’re not talking about the more controversial abortions in cases of rape and incest, much less in the cases of congenital disorders that are “not compatible with life outside the womb and certainly not in cases where the mother’s life is in danger. Since when do elective abortions “need to be discussed?”

How difficult is it to understand that Texas taxpayers should not pay for “promotion” of abortion? Or that we most certainly do not want our State tax funds to go to doctors who perform elective abortions on healthy babies and healthy mothers?

While I don’t speak for the Society, I am an elected delegate for my County Medical Society to the TMA House of Delegates and I believe that most of our members would agree with me on this. I am very much in favor of restricting payment from our limited State funds to only those doctors and organizations that provide comprehensive and continuing medical care for the whole woman and her whole family. With Texas Family Doctors, Internal Medicine Docs, Pediatricians and OB/Gyns reeling from the lack of increasing fees from Medicare and decreases in Medicaid funding, why not help keep them in business by adding the availability of billing the State for screening tests like pap smears, exams for breast masses, diabetes and high blood pressure?

In fact, that’s what the Legislature decided: that money would be prioritized. First come the comprehensive care docs, hospitals, and county and city clinics. Planned Parenthood is never mentioned, although there is a section of the law that absolutely prohibits the State from contracting with anyone who “promotes” abortion *if there are other qualified providers available.*

Texas DHS has already identified more than enough doctors and clinics that qualify under the law. These doctors can actually treat the diseases for which the Texas Women’s Health Plan screens. Our Texas Legislature made a wise decision when they agreed that it doesn’t make sense to send our few dollars to a clinic that treats a very narrow medical spectrum in an intermittent manner.

And the law has already saved human lives: Austin city and Travis County taxes once paid for 400 elective abortions each year. A year ago, the law achieved what the taxpayers who protested this use of their money couldn’t do: Austin and Travis County health clinics were forced to stop funding those abortions.
If you have a family doctor, consider a polite call to his or her front desk asking them to let the TMA know their views on using Texas’ tax funds to support Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

You might also consider contacting Texas Alliance for Life and/or you local Crisis Pregnancy Center to let them know that you support their efforts to keep your State (and federal) tax funds from paying for the ending of lives of our Texans of tomorrow.

Action: Women Speak 4 OURSELVES @WomenSpeak2012 #tcot #pro-life

Based on the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of our United States is designed to secure our rights to life, liberty and property for every human being, not just the ones who can speak out. Those of us who can speak, should join in the effort to protect the rights of all, including the unborn children of tomorrow, male and female, and everyone who objects to government-sponsored efforts to end their lives. The recent Obama mandate that infringes on the First Amendment protection of the right of free exercise of religion and their on-going efforts to force Texas to fund Planned Parenthood with State taxes is in direct violation of the Bill of Rights.

I received an email tonight from the group, “Women Speak for Themselves” asking for comments on next Saturday’s Washington, DC rally sponsored by pro-abortion, anti-family and anti-First Amendment rights groups:

This Saturday, on the National Capitol lawn, Think Progress (a George Soros funded group) is hosting a “We Are Women” rally. Soros’ group, along with some of their co-sponsors, the usual—the National Organization of Women, Planned Parenthood, and the National Women’s Political Caucus—along with some more peculiar groups—Rock The Slut Vote, The National Center for Transgender Equality, and the Reformed Whores entertainers, among others—have a specific goal in mind.

“Our mission,” their website reads, “is to bring national attention to the ongoing war on women’s rights…”

Not surprisingly, the language on their website gives the appearance that they’re claiming to speak for all women on matters of healthcare, family, and freedom…which makes this just the type of event at which we need to make our voices heard! And so, here’s where YOU come in.

Prior to the rally, we’ll be releasing a statement to the press, informing them that there are women with alternative views on these matters, should the press wish to include us in the discussion. We’d like to add YOUR voices to that statement.

Send us a brief statement (2-3 sentences), articulating why as a woman you stand for and believe freedom includes protection for life, family, and/or religion. Be sure to include your full name, city and state, and your occupation, if you’d like—along with permission for us to include your information and quote in our press release.

If you’re not sure where to start, feel free to use our two sets of talking points for ideas (though your statement need not be solely focused on the HHS mandate), and try to stay focused on why you’re FOR our view of women’s freedom, as opposed to AGAINST the view of women’s freedom being put forth by Soros and cohorts.

Thanks for your help with this….I look forward to your statements!

My best to you,
Helen

http://womenspeakforthemselves.com/
https://www.facebook.com/WomenSpeakForThemselves
https://twitter.com/womenspeak2012

P.S. I’m told some pro-lifers will be gathering at the North Capitol Lawn on Saturday, to hold a counter protest. The rally starts at 11am, I believe, so feel free to head on over, with signs and pro-life gear, if you’d like to be a joyful example of the alternative.

 

I wish I could attend the counter protest, but I’m committed to a meeting for the Christian Medical and Dental Association that day. If you can attend, please do. Either way, send a message to http://womenspeakforthemselves.com/ or @womenspeak2012!

Hawaii’s traditional marriage law upheld #tcot

You wouldn’t know it from most of the headlines, however.  Most of the mainstream news articles say that Federal Judge Alan C Kay ruled against gay marriage, “refuses to legalize gay marriage” or “upholds” a “ban” on gay marriage. One article at “Think Progress,” is even titled, “Reagan-Appointed Judge Upholds Marriage Discrimination In Hawaii.”

In fact, what the judge ruled was that the Courts shouldn’t overturn State Constitutional amendments passed by a popular vote of the people and/or laws passed by the State Legislature without good reason:

If the traditional institution of marriage is to be restructured, as sought by Plaintiffs, it should be done by a democratically-elected legislature or the people through a constitutional amendment, not through judicial legislation that would inappropriately preempt democratic deliberation regarding whether or not to authorize same-sex marriage.

and,
Rational basis review does not authorize “the judiciary [to] sit as a
superlegislature to judge the wisdom or desirability of
legislative policy determinations made in areas that neither
affect fundamental rights nor proceed along suspect lines.” Jackson, Kleid, &Bradley v. Ambercrombie & Fudder  ruling by Alan C. Kaye for District Court in Hawaii.

The judge does explore the history of marriage and, indeed, concludes that marriage has traditionally included a man and a woman and that the Supreme Court and Circuit Court rulings have never considere marriage to be anything else. He also noted that homosexuals are not a “suspect class” that is protected from discrimination and that the law does not discriminate based on gender.

In an odd twist, the Governor of Hawaii, Democrat Neil Ambercrombie, was not only a defendant in the case,he testified for the plaintiffs, and against traditional marriage.

#TxGOP #TxSen #TxSOS Alert for Volunteer Deputy Registrars (for Voter Registration)

It seems our #TxLege complicated matters – everyone who wants to be a Volunteer Deputy Registrar (VDR) will now have to undergo training approved by their County Tax Assessor/Collector. My local County says that people should expect to spend 45 minutes at their office for the training offered two days a week.

Those of us who work regular business hours – not to mention mothers and volunteers who already have their time crunch – will find it difficult to dedicate a week-day morning on this training.

After the Federal judges wiped out most of the Voter ID and VDR requirements – including the requirement that VDR’s be Texas citizens – this may not be as bad as I first thought. At least the Carpetbaggers (“Acorn-like” groups from out of state) will have to spend some time training through some County office.  But not all Counties are headed by Conservatives. (although we’re working on it).

The Texas Secretary of State’s office has published training on-line, here. I wonder why this couldn’t be used as actual “online” training for past VDR’s or at least for those of us who are residents of the County?

Here’s the 94 page ruling on VDR requirements.

I believe our Legislators need to reconsider the training requirements and some pressure needs to be placed on our SOS and County TAC’s to allow on line training, at least for County residents.

Texas Womens Health Program update

Texas Alliance for Life has sent out a notice of a hearing Monday, August 8th, on the TWHP. (Sorry for the formatting, I’m traveling, so limited access to the Internet.)

* * * URGENT LEGISLATIVE ALERT 8/3/12 * * *

Please Contact the Texas Department of State Health Services to Register Your Opposition to Tax Funding for Planned Parenthood!

Deadline on MONDAY

Please immediately contact the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) and register your opposition to tax funding for Planned Parenthood in a new state health program.

DSHS is creating a new state-funded program, called the Texas Women’s Health Program (TWHP), to provide preventative health care for low-income women. The services will including some STD screening and treatments, screening for breast and cervical cancer, and contraceptives. The new state program will replace the Medicaid Women’s Health Program, which is expected to come to an end in October. The new TWHP will provide the same or more services as the Medicaid program it replaces.
See a sample message and contact information below. Comments must be received by Monday, August 6.

The Obama Administration is killing the Medicaid Women’s Health Program in Texas because Governor Perry and the Legislature refuse to fund Planned Parenthood. Senate Bill 7, passed by the Legislature and signed by Governor Perry last year with Texas Alliance for Life’s strong endorsement, explicitly excludes organizations that provide or promote elective abortion, like Planned Parenthood. Without Senate Bill 7, there would be no statutory basis for excluding Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid Women’s Health Program and from the Texas Women’s Health Program.

SAMPLE MESSAGE: Please call, email, or mail a message in your own words by Monday, August 6.Phone — 800.322.1305 (during business hours):

Email — click here to email to CHSS@dshs.state.tx.us.
“Dear Ms. Garcia,
“This is a comment regarding the proposed rules for the Texas Women’s Health Program published in the Texas Register on July 6, 2012.
“Please assure that Planned Parenthood and other organizations that provide or promote elective abortion are not eligible for public funding under the Texas Women’s Health Program. Planned Parenthood runs 14 abortion facilities in Texas, and they promote elective abortion at every one of its sites in Texas even where they do not perform abortion. I do not want my tax dollars to go to organizations that perform or promote abortions as a method of family planning”
“—–Your name and address

Mail: Imelda M. Garcia, Department of State Health Services, Division of Family and Community Health Services, Community Health Services Section, Mail Code 1923, P.O. Box 149347, Austin, Texas 78714-9347,

Deadline: Monday, August 6, 2012.
Please let us know you’ve made your contact. Simply send comments to info@texasallianceforlife.org.

BACKGROUND

For more information, visit Governor Rick Perry’s website, Fighting for Women’s Health: http://governor.state.tx.us/initiatives/womens_health/.

Here’s a (YouTube) video of Texas Alliance for Life’s executive director, Joe Pojman, Ph.D.: Joe Pojman, Ph.D., Executive Director. This video interviews Texas Alliance for Life’s board member, Dr. Beverly Nuckols: Beverly Nuckols MD, FAAFP, Family Physician 

Texas Alliance for Life (TAL) is a non-sectarian, non-partisan, pro-life organization of people committed to protecting innocent human lives from conception through natural death through peaceful, legal means. TAL is a statewide organization based in the Texas capital.

www.TexasAllianceforLife.org    512.477.1244

twitter.com @TXAlliance4Life     facebook.com/TexasAllianceforLife

Rush Rules, Again! @MittRomney #taxes #tcot

From Rush’s transcript, August 2,  2012,

RUSH:  Now, ladies and gentlemen, Mitt Romney is no tax cheat.  But even if he was, so what?  The Treasury secretary of the United States is an admitted tax cheat, and the Democrats didn’t give a damn about that.  Harry Reid and his fellow Democrats in the Senate voted to confirm Little Timmy Geithner, the tax cheat.  Joe Biden is a plagiarist.  Anybody care about that?  Barack Obama fudged laws in a shady deal to buy his house with the help of a conflicted felon.  His good pal Bill Ayers bombed the Pentagon.  Romney is none of this.  Not even close to it.  We have an admitted tax cheat that is the Treasury secretary of the United States, Timothy Geithner.  Democrats don’t care about it.

Family Doctor or Family Nurse? Pay now or Pay Later?

We docs often hear that advance practice nurses could do 80% of what Family docs, pediatricians and internist do. But, it’s knowing the difference between that 80% and 20% that will kill you!

I’m printing the whole of this letter from Dr. Valenti published by the Texas Medical Association, because it says so much that we doctors are saying these days. Here’s more about the crisis among Texas Doctors who still see the poorest elderly in Texas.

Money is vital to keep practices open, but what’s scary is that there’s a move to allow “mid-levels” to do more. Specifically, Dr. Valenti objects to an opinion piece in the DMN that includes this statement: “Hardly anyone doubts that most veteran registered nurses, with a little more training, could do a fine job setting broken bones, stitching wounds and even dispensing drugs for common ailments.”

Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Setting the Record Straight on Doctor Pay
The following is a response by Joseph Valenti, MD, to commentary published Friday in the Dallas Morning News by Eli Lehrer, president of R Street. In the article, Mr. Lehrer claims U.S. physicians and health care workers make too much money and are responsible for the high cost of medical care in America.

Dear Sir:

I am a physician in Denton, Texas. This morning, I sat and read your article in The Dallas Morning News titled “Your Doctor’s Big Fat Paycheck.” Frankly, I am in awe of the breadth of your ignorance.

Fact: Of the health care dollars spent in this country, physician salaries make up about 8.5 percent. That is one of the lowest percentages in the industrialized world. Germany, by contrast, is at 15 percent.

Fact: The graduate level course of study for nurse practitioners (NPs) and nurses is not even close to that of physicians — we have a little something called residency. Perhaps you’ve heard of it. When I did mine in OB-Gyn from 1994 to1998, it was 90-100 hours a week for four years with a take home pay of $20,000. I was raising a family on that, as my wife had to stay home to take care of premature twins. NPs and nurses do none of that.

Fact: Private insurers are already too strong. “Weak bargaining position”? If you don’t like the contract they offer, they tell you to take a hike. Doctors are the ones with no bargaining position. I haven’t had an increase from United Healthcare for 54 months. Meanwhile, it paid its shareholders an 11-percent dividend last year. And regarding your comment about how individual plans rarely cover one-half an area — do your homework! States like Alabama have Blue Cross and Blue Shield covering 90 percent of insured lives! In any other industry, this would constitute a monopoly.

Fact: Medicare increases have been had by every segment of the health care industry except doctors. (See the charts.)

Fact: Pilots may make less than doctors. They also belong to unions and walk out when they don’t get what they want. Doctors never walk out, and the pro bono and free care we hand out can’t even be deducted from our federal taxes as charity. Then try breaking it down per hour. Pilots fly about 60 hours/month. Doctors work in the office and hospital about 60 hours/week. And that doesn’t take into account nights and weekends on call. Don’t get me wrong — pilots are vital and do a great job. But on a per-hour basis, they are clearly ahead. By the way, I don’t know a single primary care doctor who makes $200,000 a year. Most of the ones I know are barely getting by, and many are closing their practices or selling them to hospitals.

A huge doctor shortage is looming. We cannot and will not attract our best and brightest students to medicine unless their pay is commensurate with the level and intensity of work and commitment needed to fund a modern medical education. The student loan burden alone, which is now often exceeding $200,000, keeps many away.

The huge amount we spend in this country for health care has far less to do with medical professionals’ salaries than it does with the cost of almost everything else. Case in point: The same Mirena IUD, from the same single factory that Bayer uses in Finland, costs $700 in the United States but costs $250 in Canada. Really? That same case can be made for tens of thousands of drugs and medical products here.

Medicine is one of the only businesses I know of where the increasing cost of doing business can’t be passed on to the customer. Every year, the cost of running my office and paying my employees goes up, while insurance payments stay the same or go down. I am left to eat the difference. My salary the last three years is less than I made 14 years ago when I started in private practice. Hardly a source of bankrupting the health care system.

Shakespeare said that the eye sees what the mind knows. With that in mind, ask yourself if you would feel comfortable entrusting your care or that of your family to someone with less training, less knowledge, and less expertise. Would you? I think not. Now ask yourself how happy one of us would be treating someone like you, who wrote an article that is so misleading about us and who we really are and what we really have done to become really good at taking care of patients. Surprise. We would love to take of you. Why? Because that is what we took a vow to do, a vow that doesn’t allow us the luxury of being judgmental. So the next time you are lying in bed needing emergency surgery, remember this — we will be there. Pay or no pay. Assign a value to that ideal, and then consider whether or not we are “overpaid.”

Sincerely,
Joseph S. Valenti, MD, FACOG

Law Enforcement Associations respond to @TedCruz @ #Cash4Kids #TxSen

I received this in my e-mail, this morning. As a mother, a grandmother and long time advocate against the abuse of children and for smaller government, and fewer laws, with appropriate punishment for REAL crimes, I couldn’t agree more!

To the voters of Texas,

Police and Law enforcement put their lives on the line to protect the public from those who would hurt our most vulnerable, our children.

Ted Cruz chose to defend a man, Robert Mericle, who took part in a judicial kickback scheme the resulted in 4000 children being incarcerated for profit. This scheme was reprehensible and exploited these children so that Cruz’s client and the corrupt judges he bribed could make millions in profits.

Now Ted Cruz’s campaign is sending out a mailer to Texans claiming that this felon and child exploiter helped prosecutors. Ted Cruz should be ashamed of himself for making this claim, when he knows his client is a convicted felon who hurt kids.

Ted Cruz tried to get his client Mericle out of paying his victims, the children, the damages Cruz’s client owed them. And now Cruz is trying to paint this villain as a hero.

To follow the chain of Cruz’s logic–every cornered criminal who cooperates with prosecutors to save their skin would be treated as a hero.

Ted Cruz needs to answer whether he personally approved this mailer his campaign sent out. Does Mr. Cruz really believe his client Robert Mericle is someone who should be applauded for his role in this scandal?

Ted Cruz’s inability to admit that his client was a convicted felon who exploited children raises serious questions about whether he has the judgment and character to represent Texas in any way.

Sincerely,

Charley Wilkison
Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas (CLEAT)

Clarification on #TxSen news about @DavidHDewhurst ad

My last video post might have seemed too cryptic or as though I left out a few details. In addition, you might have heard or read that the case was a “private civil suit.”

Mericle plead to a lesser offense ( not a real fan of that, either) of tax fraud carried out to hide his participation in the Cash for Kids crime. Two judges have been convicted ofsending juveniles to jail for frivolous charges. Sometimes for years.

Mericle was also sued in civil court for his part in the scheme. He lost, but didn’t think he should actually have to give up his profits – out of his own pockets, for pity’s sake – to the victims! So, he then then tried to sue his insurance company, Traveler’s, to pay for the settlement! Not surprisingly, Traveler’s balked at covering Mericle for his “damages,” incurred during the commission of a crime. And he lost, again.

The “Civil appeal” was a repeat effort to force Traveler’s insurance to pay the civil suit judgement against Mericle. After all if at first you lose in court, sue, sue again!

Mericle and Cruz lost that go ’round.

More victims, if Cruz had had his way, would have been everyone with insurance through Travelers, whose premiums would have gone up.

Romney, GOP blast Obama for ‘gutting’ welfare reform law – The Hill’s Healthwatch

How does Congress reign in this Administration’s penchant for ignoring the letter and spirit of the law? Some headlines claim the Administration is “bypassing Congress! (and what’s next?)

The idea of allowing States more leeway sounds good until you read that the Obama admin will allow studying for GED to count. There’s not a thing wrong with working while taking classes. Lots of us did it.

Working to qualify for assistance from the Government is a reasonable expectation.

Republicans came out strongly against a quiet policy change by the Obama administration that could change how states administer welfare.

Under the new policy, federal waivers would allow states to test new approaches to improving employment among low-income families. In exchange, states would have to prove that their new methods are effective, or lose the waivers.

Republicans blasted the change as “gutting” work requirements in the landmark 1996 welfare-to-work law known as TANF.

via Romney, GOP blast Obama for ‘gutting’ welfare reform law – The Hill’s Healthwatch.

I believe in assisting people who have bad luck and hard times, although I do believe private charity is preferable.

One reason it’s better than government assistance is that government puts in more rules, and is much more likely to invade privacy of recipients. Then, there’s a difference between taking money from someone by force of law (with the accompanying threats of fines, prison) and freely giving of what you have out of compassion.

There’s also the personal indebtedness that comes from person to person charity and assistance. Taxpayer funded aide doesn’t cause the beneficiary to have reciprocal emotional attachment to the one giving the aide It’s good to see and hopefully understand and mirror the feeling of sacrifice by the giver. And it’s good to feel grateful and indebted. (And it’s more likely to cause the person who receives to be compelled to “pass it on” to someone else when able later on.

And back to that original question: this Administration ignores the law that’s written, so new law won’t help much. What can the rest of us or our Legislators do to keep them from flaunting the law and the Constitution?

Ted Cruz’s legal work for figure in Pennsylvania corruption scandal draws fire

Ted Cruz has campaigned on his record as an attorney and “fighting” for Conservative values.  He has made the cases he argued the basis for his qualification to be Texas’ next US Senator. We should look at all of his record.

When he worked for the State of Texas as Solicitor General, he argued the cases he was assigned by Attorney General Greg Abbott. When he went into private practice as an appellant lawyer, what sort of cases did he choose?

From the Dallas Morning News:

“Ted Cruz chose to represent a convicted felon who masterminded a bribery scheme to fill the beds of his private prison to enrich himself by unlawfully jailing and terrorizing thousands of children,” said Dewhurst spokesman Matt Hirsch. “Ted Cruz should be ashamed.”

Hirsch said Cruz’s acceptance of the work “brings into question [his] integrity and judgment. … Is there anyone Ted Cruz won’t represent if the price is right?”

Dewhurst already has centered much of his campaign’s attack advertising on Cruz’s representation of a trademark-infringing Chinese tire maker.

In briefs for Mericle, Cruz argued that nearly $2.2 million in “finder’s fees” that the businessman and a partner paid to the two judges were an effort to get the judges to close a publicly run facility in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., and let him build two new ones.

The partner, attorney and developer Robert Powell, managed the private facilities and was the one whose acts swayed the judges to harm children, Cruz said.

Cruz argued that the only crime Mericle was guilty of — failing to report tax evasion — hurt only the Internal Revenue Service, not the children imprisoned, meaning that Travelers should have to pay under Mericle’s insurance policy.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court tossed about 4,000 convictions issued by one of the judges between 2003 and 2008, saying he violated the constitutional rights of the juveniles, including the right to legal counsel and the right to intelligently enter a plea.

In one case a 16-year-old girl with no prior record was held in juvenile detention for six months after gesturing with her middle finger at a police officer called during a custody dispute involving her parents and sister, according to The Christian Science Monitor.

Both judges have been sentenced to long prison terms. Mericle, who has testified for prosecutors in other corruption cases, is awaiting sentencing but is expected to serve less than three years.

via Ted Cruz’s legal work for figure in Pennsylvania corruption scandal draws fire | Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas and National Politics and Elections News – News for Dallas, Texas – The Dallas Morning News.

About those attacks on Dewhurst #TxSen

In spite of the Open Letter to Texans from the Senate Republican Caucus, people on Twitter (follow the subject tag #TxSen), Facebook and even RedState.com are still making the accusation that Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst “proposed” or “supported” a personal income tax and/or a “wage” or “payroll” tax for Texas, back in 2006. I’ve touched on the subject before, but thought I’d post a more detailed explanation.

There’s a quote all over the Internet, used to prove that the LG made a statement in favor of the income tax when in fact, the comment is taken out of context. Dewhurst was objecting to adding another burden to small businesses and start ups. Unfortunately, the original Associated Press March 30, 2006 article, “Businesses studying proposed tax structure,” by April Castro, is not available online. (A Screen shot of the first page of one newspaper that carried the article is here in pdf, but there’s no quote from Dewhurst in this part. I haven’t been able to find any online version carrying the supposed quote.) However, here’s a summary from Politifacts debunking of the claim;

A March 30, 2006, AP news article, headlined “Businesses studying proposed tax structure,” indeed quotes Dewhurst as saying: “I think I’d rather see a tax that’s based on income — you earn money, you pay something, you don’t earn money, you don’t pay anything.”

We can see why a critic would single out that comment, though the full AP story indicates that Dewhurst was speaking to the particulars of revamping the business franchise tax rather than advancing his desire to create a personal or business income tax.

The story initially points out that lawmakers had previously stumbled over how to restructure the business tax, which most corporations did not owe. “They worried that proposals would not apply equally to different business structures,” the article says. “And business-friendly Republicans have been hesitant to levy a new tax that could be harmful to job creation and economic growth.”

According to the story, the consensus proposed fix — which was a plan devised by a panel headed by John Sharp, a former Texas state comptroller — would tax businesses on a percentage of their gross receipts, meaning the money a company brought in before expenses, with each company choosing between deductions for cost of goods sold or employee benefits like salary and health care. The story says sole proprietors and general partnerships would be exempt, along with companies that have annual gross receipts of $300,000 or less.

For more than 80 years, the story says, the state’s main business tax had been based on a company’s net assets, though lawmakers changed it in 1991 to make it more like a corporate income tax. Texas companies subsequently had the choice of paying either 0.25 percent of the value of their net assets or 4.5 percent of their net corporate income, whichever was greater, according to a 2003 report on Texas taxes by the nonpartisan House Research Organization.

The LG’s comment was in fact made in opposition of one idea floated during the 2005/2006 update of Texas’ 100 yr old tax business franchise tax, so that all businesses, whether they made a profit or not, had to pay on gross receipts.

In order to lower property taxes and comply with a Federal Court ruling that allowing local school districts to max out the property tax was a de facto State income tax, Governor Perry named an independent Commission in 2005, under the leadership of John Sharp, a fairly conservative Democrat. (Texas has a lot of those as well as left radicals.)

Before, there had been a lot of loopholes and exempted businesses, so that only 6% of businesses paid at all.. When the franchise tax was broadened to include nearly all businesses in Texas, lots of ideas floated around. It took a couple of years, but the final tax ended up with an exemption of the first $150K and then the next session amended that to the first $300K.

Another claim – currently seen in Cruz’ TV ads – is that Dewhurst “actively supported” a “payroll tax” during this process. Cruz cherry picks two words from a  Press Release issued by the Dewhurst staff in 2006. One Senate version of the franchise tax rework praised the Senate for passing a bill that included School finance and the business tax changes. The term is only used once, in paragraph 4 and is not actually in the Bill. There are quotes around the statements by Dewhurst, but no quotes are found in the part that uses the words “payroll tax.” The Press Release notes that businesses had the option to choose between the two ways to calculate that tax, one based on income alone and one adjusted by employees payroll with exemptions, but doesn’t advocate one way over the other. (That version never passed into law.)

Attorney General Abbott successfully defended the tax against a lawsuit claiming that the franchise tax was an income tax on sole proprietorships and small partnerships in August, 2011, and the ruling from the Texas Supreme Court was reported in November, 2011.

Medicaid Expansion Would Cost Everyone

Bravo to Governor Rick Perry for refusing to move ahead on the Medicaid expansion requirements in the misnamed “Affordable Care Act,” AKA “ObamaCare.”

According to the Texas Public Policy Foundation, of the 6.5 million uninsured in Texas, fewer than 10% of Texas’ uninsured would benefit from expanding Medicaid to everyone at 133% of the Federal poverty guidelines. ObamaCare has no requirements other than annual income.  The law won’t allow asset verification or take into account beneficiaries’ willingness and ability to work.

Texas uninsured numbers include Nearly 1/3 that are illegal aliens, about 40% who earn more than $50,000 a year, and about 1/4 who are already eligible under Medicaid and CHIP. None of these people  would be eligible under the expansion. Many are young and healthy, not convinced they need to spend their money on insurance, anyway.

The cost of expanded Medicaid, much less the rest of Obamacare, would require increased taxes, overt and hidden, on everyone. Sure, for two years, the Federal government is supposed to “pay” for the 10% of Texas’ uninsured added to the expanded Medicaid. But it won’t pay for that 25% of uninsured that are already eligible and it won’t cover illegal aliens or “the working poor.” And after 2 years, the Federal money goes away, leaving Texas with the bill.

Even though Washington can print paper money, the government doesn’t have any money that it doesn’t take in taxes. The cost is not just what is collected by the IRS, it comes in the loss of value of the money and assets we earn or already have.  Obamacare, and the Stimulus before it,  are sold by the Left as a classic take-from-the-rich “redistribution of the wealth.”  However, hey also cost non-taxpayers and the working poor and middle class by the harm they do to our economy and the increase in cost of necessities. As well as inevitably rewarding those who are unwilling to fend for themselves, they punish everyone who lives pay check to paycheck as well as the “wealthy.”

Governor Rick Perry tells Obama Admin, “No!” #TxSen @GovernorPerry

Governor Rick Perry has made it official: Texas won’t expand our Medicaid to cover all adults up to 133% of the Federal Poverty level. The ACA Medicaid expansion does not allow any requirements other than income. No need to work, no asset limits, no medical need or other hardship.

Here’s the Press Release from the Governor:

July 9, 2012

Gov. Rick Perry, in a letter to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, today confirmed that Texas has no intention of implementing a state insurance exchange or expanding Medicaid as part of Obamacare. Any state exchange must be approved by the Obama Administration and operate under specific federally mandated rules, many of which have yet to be established. Expanding Medicaid would mandate the admission of millions of additional Texans into the already unsustainable Medicaid program, at a potential cost of billions to Texas taxpayers.

“If anyone was in doubt, we in Texas have no intention to implement so-called state exchanges or to expand Medicaid under Obamacare,” Gov. Perry said. “I will not be party to socializing healthcare and bankrupting my state in direct contradiction to our Constitution and our founding principles of limited government.

“I stand proudly with the growing chorus of governors who reject the Obamacare power grab. Neither a “state” exchange nor the expansion of Medicaid under this program would result in better “patient protection” or in more “affordable care.” They would only make Texas a mere appendage of the federal government when it comes to health care.”

Gov. Perry has frequently called for the allocation of Medicaid funding in block grants so each state can tailor the program to specifically serve the needs of its unique challenges. As a common sense alternative, Gov. Perry has conveyed a vision to transform Medicaid into a system that reinforces individual responsibility, eliminates fragmentation and duplication, controls costs and focuses on quality health outcomes. This would include establishing reasonable benefits, personal accountability, and limits on services in Medicaid. It would also allow co-pays or cost sharing that apply to all Medicaid eligible groups – not just optional Medicaid populations – and tailor benefits to needs of the individual rather than a blanket entitlement.

Gov. Perry has consistently rejected federal funding when strings are attached that impose long-term financial burdens on Texans, or cede state control of state issues to the federal government. In 2009, Texas rejected Washington funding for the state’s Unemployment Insurance program because it would have required the state to vastly expand the number of workers entitled to draw unemployment benefits, leading to higher UI taxes later.

In 2010, Gov. Perry declined “Race to the Top” dollars, which would have provided some up-front federal education funding if Texas disposed of state standards and adopted national standards and testing.

To view the governor’s letter to Secretary Sebelius, please visithttp://governor.state.tx.us/files/press-office/O-SebeliusKathleen201207090024.pdf.

Pray for Attorney General Greg Abbott #TxSen @gregabbott_tx

Today is the day he argues Texas Voter ID at Federal court in DC, more information, here.

Border security legislation passes Senate committee | Texas on the Potomac | a Chron.com blog

Will the Bill authorize the force that is necessary, in contrast to this regulation from the Department of Homeland Security? I hope so, and hope it’s passed and signed into law.

“Every step closer the Jaime Zapata Border Enforcement Security Task Force Act takes toward becoming law is good news for our nation’s continued border security and a fitting tribute to the exemplary agent in whose memory it is named,” Cuellar said in a statement. “I look forward to seeing this bill continue to move forward.”

The legislation, which cleared the House with a vote of 391-t0-2 on May 30, authorizes American and Mexican coordination against crime and drug cartels that permeate the border. It would require local and federal law enforcement to coordinate with officials in Mexico and Canada on border security efforts, and looks to provide $10 million over five years to implement equipment and training for those tasks.

A Brownsville native, Zapata was killed by the Los Zetas cartel members in a highway ambush in February 2011, while on assignment as an adviser to Mexican authorities. Cuellar, a Laredo Democrat, conferred with the slain agent’s family before creating the bill.

via Border security legislation passes Senate committee | Texas on the Potomac | a Chron.com blog.

Penumbra of a tax

It’s not tax enough to invoke the Anti-injunction Act of 1987, but it will be collected by the IRS so it’s a legal, Constitutional, tax?

Maybe it’s just a shadow of a tax?

The Roberts decision on the mandate to purchase health insurance, is more confusing to me than most legal decisions. I keep looking for a way to untangle what appears to be circular contradiction, rather than logic. Here’s the best summary I’ve found that seems to say that the money the IRS collects is a tax, not a penalty for breaking the law:

Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36–37. None of this is to say that payment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language—stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance. See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169–174. Pp. 35–40.

Many of us have complained that laws and regulations have become too complicated, that no one can keep up or even avoid inadvertently breaking laws here and there. But this law is even worse because it forces action and taxes or penalizes the failure to act according to the Government’s determination of what is for our own good, rather than punishing an action or inaction that infringes on the rights of another.

To repeat hundreds of others, including the Justices who wrote the dissenting report, what are the limits of the Government once it can charge me for not doing some act?

All I can say is, vote to overturn the ObamaTax.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dissent on Arizona

Read the scathing comments and review of the history of US Immigration law in Justice Scalia’s brief.

“If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should
cease referring to it as a sovereign State. For these reasons, I dissent.”

Just, “WOW!”

Susurrus – Or, “How to divide a Party”

Okay, I’ll admit it: I like the word, “susurrus,” and look for excuses to use it. A better term would be “whispers from the crowd that are going around” or . . .

There are rumblings that the 2012 Republican Party of Texas Platform is “pro-amnesty.”  the ones saying this have a history of assuming the worst and getting attention because they accuse.

The wording in the RPT 2012 platform (on page 21)  titled, “The Texas Solution” plank isn’t “pro-amnesty.” It is a little wimpy and *too easily interpreted* to allow amnesty –  especially if someone  or some group chooses to interpret it that way.

I, too, wanted to see changes in the wording of “The Texas Solution” that would ensure that no one claimed that we in the RPT approve amnesty of any kind.  The term “illegal alien” should have been used instead of “undocumented individuals” and the plan should specifically require guest workers to return to their country of legal residence to apply for guest worker visa.

However, the most important fact is that the Platform was passed after the Delegates had plenty of time and warning to read the planks and even some advance warning about what to read and why. The amendments failed in Sub-Committee, in the larger Platform Committee (on both Wednesday and on Thursday) and then, at the General Session when voted on by the Delegation.

The good news is that the Platform isn’t law. It is a list of those things we in the RPT believe. We do believe in “solutions,” not just complaints and criticisms. We will insist that our elected officials not –  in any way, shape or form –  promote “amnesty.”

spelling change 6/10/12 “Susurrus”

Lt. Governor David Dewhurst: A Record of Results

Why do I support David Dewhurst for Texas Senator?

From the Preamble to the 2010 Platform of the Republcan Party of Texas: The embodiment of the conservative dream in America is Texas.”

The result of conservative government in Texas is clear. Our State’s direction with the leadership of Lt. Governor David Dewhurst and Governor Rick Perry is a Conservative example for the Nation. Their policies and achievements demonstrate the results of action based on the belief that true liberty is Pro-life, Pro-Family, Pro-business, holds the line on taxes, spending, torts, and Washington, DC interference and regulation.

Texas leads the Nation in the creation of jobs. Our unemployment rate went down to 6.9% in May, in spite of legal US immigrants that average close to a thousand a day. Lt. Governor Dewhurst has balanced our budget in Texas, even when it meant cutting $10 million in 2003 and $15 million in 2011. In fact, the 82nd Legislature  cut Texas’ dollar amount spending below the previous biennial amount for the first time since WWII. Adjusted for inflation and population, Texas spends less than when Dewhurst took office.

And there is no contest when it comes to legislative victories on social issues. Texas’ Defense Of Marriage Act was passed not once but twice under Lt. Governor Dewhurst; the second time amended our State Constitution. Thanks to his leadership, Texas passed our own Prenatal Protection Act and the “Woman’s Right to Know” informed consent law in 2003. This year, we not only added sonograms to the informed consent law, we also managed to move all of our State health care funding away from abortion providers and any of their corporate affiliates. Yes, that’s right, Texas de-funded Planned Parenthood.

The 2011 Texas 82nd Legislature was also incredibly effective on protecting our State’s borders and Sovereignty;  banning drivers’ licenses for illegals, getting Voter ID, allocating $400Million for border security, and changing the law to allow Texas authorities to turn illegal aliens over for timely deportation after they’ve served their jail time. And yet, Lt. Governor Dewhurst’s opponents ignore these victories, claiming that the Lieutenant Governor “killed” two Bills in 2011: the Transportation Security Agency Anti-Groping Bill and the Sanctuary Cities Bill. However, both the TSA and Sanctuary Cities Bills were passed by the Senate at different times. The problem was coordination with the House, where the Speaker refused to allow timely consideration of the Bill and opposition by some strong conservatives, including Steve Hotze and Norm Adams.  In the Special Session, the TSA bill was passed by the Senate, along with the biennial budget and a landmark omnibus medical finance bill.

In fact, even the “failed” passage of the TSA Bill in the Senate during the 82nd Legislature’s Regular Session was an example of the power of Dewhurst. He is said to have “twisted arms,” along with Governor Perry, to get the vote to the floor, even going so far as to try to “suspend the rules” to bring it up out of order. The Democrat Senators block-voted to prevent the 2/3 vote necessary while every single Republican voted for it. It is likely that had the Lt. Governor not pushed for the suspension of the rules on the TSA Bill, the budget would have passed in the Regular Session if it hadn’t come down to the midnight filibuster by the Dems.

Finally, I support Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst because he’s proven that he believes that  “The government has no money, it’s the people’s money.”

Ted Cruz, Pit of Vipers, and the Council on Foreign Relations member in his family. (Updated)

Clarification, June 15, 2015  Please note: This article is about the disingenuous nature of several rants by the then-candidate in which he called the CFR “a pit of vipers” and “a pernicious nest of snakes,” without mentioning that his wife was a 5-year member of the Council until June, 2011 as part of her job for the Bush administration. The point is not the CFR or Mrs. Cruz’ job, but rather Mr. Cruz’ theatric performance, which would have been more honest if accompanied by more information.

I was researching a rumor that I read that Ted Cruz’ wife was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations until June, 2011 and that she was a Vice President at Goldman Sachs. I was curious how such a young woman could become a member of the CFR, an organization that I assumed only admitted (old) heads of State and incredibly powerful business interests.

I found this CFR Task Force report, “Building a North American Community,” which lists Heidi Cruz as a member of the Task Force which “applauds the announced ‘Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,’ but proposes a more ambitious vision of a new community by 2010 and specific recommendations on how to achieve it.” The news release also notes that Mrs. Cruz worked for Condyleeza Rice in the Bush White House National Security Council and had been a banker at Merrill Lynch and J. P. Morgan.

Just wow! Mrs. Cruz is much more accomplished than I’d imagined.

Further searching yielded this bit of video from Ben Smith’s October 27, 2011 blog at Politico. (There’s a break in the middle, indicating editing and the source is not “conservative,” but that’s Ted saying what he’s saying. The title is also Politico’s.)

Smith comments,

Ted Cruz, the former Texas solicitor general and tea party favorite for the Republican nomination for Senate, has been focusing some of his harshest campaign trail rhetoric on that longtime villain of those suspicious of U.S. internationalism: The Council on Foreign Relations.

The New York-based group, Cruz said at a speech to a Republican women’s group in Sugarland, Tex., last week, is “a pit of vipers.”

When asked about the Council at another event in Tyler, Tex., on Oct. 15 — Texas, home of Ron Paul and Alex Jones, is the sort of place this comes up a lot — Cruz called the organization “a pernicious nest of snakes” that is “working to undermine our sovereignty,” according to video provided by someone who opposes his candidacy.

Well, Cruz should know: The candidate’s wife, Heidi S. Cruz, was an active member of the Council on Foreign Relations until this June. She was a member until June on a 5-year “term membership” program, an official at the organization confirmed.

The video and Cruz’ comments are commented on in several news and blog sites on the ‘Net, so I don’t know how I missed it and Cruz’ play-acting for his East Texas audience.

Devore: How California’s budget blunders led to my divorce from the Golden State | Fox News

Chuck DeVore, former California Assemblyman has moved to Texas and sings our praises, while pointing out the pitfalls of statist California:

Texas’ bureaucracy, excluding teachers, is 22 percent smaller as a portion of the population than is California’s, with every Texan paying about $467 a year for government retiree benefits, compared to California’s $1,105 in pension costs. Sky-high benefits for bureaucrats may soon cause the bankruptcy of Stockton, California’s 13th-largest city.

California has more government paper-pushers but Texas has 17 percent more teachers per capita, with educational outcomes favoring the Lone Star State. In fact, Texas K-12 schools perform consistently above the national average across age, racial, and subject matter areas, while California schools perform well below the national average.

To support its bloated government, California asks more of its taxpayers who pay 10.6 percent of their income to state and local government, above the U.S. average of 9.8 percent. Texans pay only 7.9 percent.

via How California’s budget blunders led to my divorce from the Golden State | Fox News.

Judge keeps Planned Parenthood out of Women’s Health Program

What happened: Texas passed a law last summer, SB 7, that specifically said that if the State is forced to give money to “entities that affiliate with abortion-promoting entities,” the State would shut down the Women;s Health Program. The Obama Administration tried to force the State to violate this law. Then, a Federal Judge  ruled that the law couldn’t go into effect,

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel on Monday granted a preliminary injunction to require the state to keep Planned Parenthood in the program until he makes a decision on the merits of the case.

But Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott’s office asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for an emergency stay of the injunction, which was granted by Judge Jerry E. Smith.

via Judge keeps Planned Parenthood out of Women’s Health Program – San Antonio Express-News.

If the injunction had stood, there would be no Women’s Health Program in Texas. Planned Parenthood seems to think that if their corporation can’t have money, no one should. Luckily, Judge Smith understood the emergency.

Planned Parenthood wasn’t hard to replace. WingRight reported on the thousands of other doctors and clinics that participate in the WHP and how to find one in your area, here.

Update, 8 AM May 2:

The attacks are on against Judge Smith.

More at the usual suspects like the Texas Tribune.

Funny, the TT doesn’t take this opportunity to link to its own interactive map showing other providers or to link to Obama’s $61 million dollar grant  to Texas public health clinics.

Obama Administration Overturns Congress, $192M to Palestinian Authority

The US House and Senate specifically denied these funds. I’m assuming that Obama signed the Bill into law. But, what’s law got to do with it?

HotAir.com reported on an article detailing instructions from the White House to Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, on how to report to Congress about the funds.

. . . In signing the waiver, Obama instructed Clinton to inform Congress of the move, on the grounds that “waiving such prohibition is important to the national security interests of the United States.”

The Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 2012 contained a provision that said none of the funds “may be obligated or expended with respect to providing funds to the Palestinian Authority.”

In November, the US Congress released $40 million but the State Department had expressed concern about being able to provide the necessary funding to address the dire economic and humanitarian hardship facing Palestinians.

More explanation from the UPI:

 Obama cited his authority under section 7040(b) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 2012 section 7040(a) of the Act, to provide appropriated funds to the Palestinian Authority.

. . . House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., had questioned the Obama administration’s request for $147 million for the Palestinian Authority at a time when P.A. President Mahmoud Abbas has demanded preconditions for returning to the negotiations while also pushing a unilateral statehouse plan at the United Nations. She also expressed concern that $26.4 million had been requested for projects in Hamas-run Gaza.

“The administration also says we need to help ‘rebuild the Palestinian economy’ — this at a time when our economy is facing serious challenges and Americans are suffering,” Ros-Lehtinen said.

Jordan Fishman, US Businessman, on Ted Cruz, Appellant Lawyer

What kind of principles does it take to become the lawyer claiming that US laws don’t apply to international patent thieves *after* a jury has found the foreign company liable?

David Dewhurst, running for Texas Senator, has been running an ad about the choice by his opponent Ted Cruz to become the lawyer for a Chinese company that stole intellectual property from a US company owned by septuagenarian Jordan Fishman.

In a new youtube audio post, hear Mr. Fishman tell Matt Patrick, a Houston talk radio host, that witnesses stated under oath that the thieves believed that they would win because the American would either die or go broke before winning the case. (If you’re short on time, go about 6 minutes in for the meat of the story.)

Mr. Fishman is the owner of the company, Alpha Tire Systems, that successfully sued the Chinese-owned Shandong Linglong Tyre Company for copying blueprints and breaking the laws of the US. A Federal jury found in favor of Mr. Fishman and awarded him $26 million. Alpha had lost business, forcing them to cut staff from 25 to 5, and costing an estimated $19 million in lost sales after Linglong copied his blueprints and used the stolen information to manufacture and sell tires identical to the Alpha products.

Listen as Mr. Fishman tells us that he intends to survive, both in life and business, until he makes the thieves pay. He details the facts: that Ted Cruz chose to take on the case as “Attorney at Record” after the jury found the Chinese and Dubai companies liable. The Linglong appeals brief is here. The appeal claims that US patent law doesn’t count, since the theft took part outside of the US borders.

Mr. Cruz claims that he’s not so bad, since he is the “appellant,” not the “trial lawyer”. He also states that “this is what lawyers do,” and asserts that Shandong Linglong is a “private company” in China.Yes, it’s “private,” since no stock is “publicly” held.

What kind of principles does it take to become the lawyer claiming that US laws don’t apply to international patent thieves *after* a jury has found the foreign company liable?

More from a 2010 Sarasota Times news story about the case, here. Politifact calls the story “Mostly true,” the only dispute is between using “guilty” vs. “liable.” And “Tire Business” reports on Mr. Fishman’s happiness two years ago, when he thought his troubles were over.