Election Bullies

If you have a television set, you could not have missed the almost non-stop commercials attacking Mike “Tuffy” Hamilton. What’s happening to Tuffy is an example of legislative/lobbyist bullying.

Tuffy is an affable, East Texas boy with seniority in the Texas House of Representatives, respected by his peers and chair of one of the major committees. He is being attacked mainly by special interests for the sin of standing by his constituents.

In short, what this campaign is about is money and power. The Texans for Lawsuit Reform, (TLR) who have dropped millions in numerous races around the state, want to make an example of Tuffy for not having marched to the beat of their drummer. The critical vote in this case was the vote on whether to protect insurance companies or Tuffy’s constituents.

The Texas Windstorm Pool (TWIA) is an agency created to allow insurance carriers who offer homeowner insurance to escape the threat or risk of insuring homes against storm losses. Prior to the recent session of the Legislature, an investigation revealed the corruption and incompetence of the Texas Windstorm Pool. There were payoffs to adjusters, hiring of incompetents, ignoring of pleas from homeowners desperate to have their homes repaired from storm damage, and almost every abuse an insurance adjuster is capable of. Under the leadership of such lobby groups as TLR, instead of holding the managers of Texas Windstorm Pool responsible --and instead of taking insurance companies which fund this association to task-- the Legislature decided to simply insulate this insurer of last resort and reduce their liability while making it harder for homeowners, particularly those in Southeast Texas, to recover from storm damage.

Given a choice, Tuffy had the courage to stand up to this special interest and vote with his constituents. Unfortunately, Tuffy is paying the price of a tough campaign. Because the pro-insurance, anti-lawsuit lobby is so stout in Austin, many of our statewide leaders are afraid to cross them or stand up to them. This is evidenced by the fact that upon their urging, Governor Perry and other statewide elected officials have seen fit to attempt to tell Southeast Texans whom they should vote for in a state representative’s race. This makes the issue crystal clear. Either the people of Southeast Texas in Mike “Tuffy” Hamilton’s district will own a state representative; or the special interest lobby will own one.

To be kind, Mr. White, Tuffy’s opponent, made it extremely clear early after his election that he did not know his way around Austin. Rumor has it Representative White was shocked to learn the salary of a state representative was not the same as a United States congressman. And, his approach to politics appears to be to throw as much mud at Tuffy Hamilton as possible without offering one single solution to the multiple problems faced by the Texas Legislature. We have not heard from Mr. White on how he proposes to adequately fund education, colleges, provide money for new roads and highways in Texas, or deal with the medical needs of older Texans. 

Hopefully, folks here in Southeast Texas will have the sense to not be blinded by non-stop, negative television ads, and will instead consider the merits and reject the lobby idea of the Golden Rule–that is, “He who has the gold will rule.”

Uninformed People Make Uninformed Decisions

Who in their right mind would really want a convicted criminal who falsely claimed to have a college education, lied about his parents, and made up a resume that included hundreds of false claims such as excelling in sports and being an American hero? Even worse, if you could vote for such a person knowing the above bad traits, would you still consider voting for him when you learned he was in prison for threatening his fellow citizens? As I say, I doubt anyone in their right mind would seriously consider having such a person as the leader of the free world and commander-in-chief of our nation’s military.

Recently, the news media made a big to-do over the fact that Russell Judd, a federal inmate, polled 41% in the Democratic primary of West Virginia. The story seemed to imply such a result in that primary was a reflection on President Obama. Unfortunately, it says more about the voters in West Virginia than it does the President.

The lesson to be learned here is that when voters do not pay attention and vote without being well informed, it is possible to make extremely bad choices. I will concede that usually the choices are not bad enough to elect the sort of fellow who ran against Obama in West Virginia, but there are cases where a result almost as bad has occurred. Here in Texas, for example, the electorate selected a person for the Texas Supreme Court who had been involved in a murder plot and who was later discovered to have been nothing more than a criminal.

Unfortunately, the sin of voting while not well informed and failure to pay attention is not limited to the average voter. Members of our own Texas Legislature can, and have, been guilty of equal gullibility or worse. I recall in the 60's a legislative upset which gained quite a bit of publicity throughout the media.

It has always been customary--ever since there has been a state legislature--for members of the House and Senate to pass congratulatory resolutions as a matter of everyday business. This process allows the Legislature to commend or recognize citizens who generally have done good things. Unfortunately, the practice is so common as a part of the daily routine of the Legislature that little attention is paid to the substance of the text and approval is given generally without debate or serious inquiry as to the content of each resolution. In the early 60's, in order to bring focus to the procedure, a legislator from Waco, who was a former district attorney from McLennan County, introduced a resolution commending a gentleman for his efforts at population control. After the resolution had been passed unanimously, signed by the speaker and clerk of the House, it was then revealed to the public that the person being congratulated for his efforts at population control by the House of Representatives of Texas was none other than the Boston Strangler.

The lesson to be learned is almost as simple as legal advice given by lawyers every day to clients who enter into contracts to purchase insurance or who deal with titles to property: Read what you sign. Read what you subscribe to as a part of your belief or statement of fact. The advice is valid, certainly for the voting public.

It takes more than watching the evening news one or two evenings a week. It takes even more than reading regular periodicals such as national magazines or the daily newspaper. To be a good citizen and cast a meaningful vote, one needs to study the day-to-day activities of our government, and to understand the rules of the process and how government works at every level, and then do a close examination of what can be learned of each candidate in order to determine whether or not that candidate is qualified to serve in the office. But more importantly, you need to know whether or not that candidate, if elected, has interests aligned with your own.

All of this is said to make the point that if you wouldn’t vote for a phony, or a criminal convict, then why would you vote for a person who shared little in common with you? or catered to billionaires? or marched to the drum beat of the well-monied special interests?  

IS CLIMATE CHANGE A HOT TOPIC?

Conservative Republicans have been accused of being anti-science. The Texas state education board resists the theory of evolution and insists on equal space in textbooks for religious based theories of the creation of the earth. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has taken the state’s fight against pollution controls calculated to protect the ozone layer and guard against global warming to the federal court system. The lawsuit claims that there is not adequate science to prove global warming and that the EPA has no authority to regulate emissions of CO2.

While on the presidential campaign trail, Governor Perry, when asked about global warming, said there are opposing views in the scientific community concerning climate change, and he further indicated he was very skeptical about whether or not global warming really existed as a result of pollutants in the air.

Frankly, I believe the reason for such conservative opposition to well-established scientific fact lies not so much in disrespect for science, but simply is a money issue. Industry has hired multiple millions of dollars worth of lobbyists. They have recruited some scientists on their payroll to raise serious doubts about climate change or global warming being related to industrial pollution.

One only has to hark back to the nationwide issue related to smoking which went on for several generations. For years the tobacco industry produced scientists to testify solemnly that tobacco smoke was not the cause of medical ailments such as cancer, emphysema and other heart problems. It is almost indisputable today that these protestations from cigarette manufacturers were phony arguments to simply delay the inevitable attack on a very profitable industry.

It seems the same is true with the issue concerning global warming. As long as there is non-acceptance of scientific facts--about increased hurricanes for example, or the risks of doing nothing--as announced by the vast majority of worldwide scientists concerning this issue, there is a political basis for opposing stringent pollution controls on industry. Pollution controls cost industry money, and in turn lessen profits. Unfortunately, the lack of adequate pollution control causes sickness, disease and even death among Americans exposed to such pollutants that fill the air as a result of many industrial endeavors.

I submit the cost of cleaning up industrial emissions pales in comparison to the cost of human misery that uncontrolled emissions bring to us.

It’s time for Americans to wake up to scientific fact and quit buying into conservative politicians’ who are disparaging of citizens concerned with the environment as a bunch of nutty tree huggers.

The New Golden Rule

The United States Supreme Court has endorsed the “new golden rule” of politics. It is “Them 'what has the gold, rules.” Unfortunately, there is a significant number of billionaires in the United States who truly believe, down deep in their hearts, that those with millions of dollars should have a greater say in how this country is run than others.

Multimillionaires like the Koch brothers, Dr. James Leininger of San Antonio, and Bob Perry of Bob Perry Homes in Houston began a few years ago relentlessly to attack anyone who might stand in the way of their greed and to direct legislation enhancing their advantage. Unfortunately, they are, it seems, winning too many of the battles. These folks have already spent over $150 million sorting out the Republican candidate to oppose Barack Obama. You can rest assured that, with the super PACS already being formed by the likes of Karl Rove--Bush’s political guru--and others, over a billion dollars will be spent in an effort to buy the presidency of the United States. 

Millions and millions of dollars have already been spent to intimidate state legislatures and the Congress of the United States to avoid control of corporate pollution which causes cancer and other health problems, to keep the price of pharmaceutical drugs higher in the United States than in any other nation in the world, and to make sure injured people do not have the right that is guaranteed them, by the Constitution of the United States, to a jury trial by their peers.

If you believe money does not make a difference in politics, I would like to sell you some submerged land out South of Chambers County.

One only has to look back to the election between John Kerry and George Bush for proof of what money can do. Eighty-year old Harold Simmons of Dallas boasts of having spent $2.8 million to help finance the “Swift Boat” attack on John Kerry. If you will recall, it was a remorseless attack by a small group of people that managed to convince too many Americans that John Kerry’s military record was a fabrication. A look backward to the real facts of the situation now reveals most of the doubts cast on John Kerry’s military record were phony. Made up. A deliberate sham.

On the other hand, George Bush’s history of avoiding the draft in order to stay away from Vietnam was largely ignored. Not only does it appear George Bush used his father’s political influence to get into the Texas National Guard, but he even dodged his commitment to fly the military jets that were part of his home service defending Texas and Alabama.

If you really stop to think about it, how ridiculous is it that a real, honest-to-God hero--who actually got shot at in combat—was somehow deprecated as less than the military man he was, serving during a war in defense of his country, while a privileged high-ranking politician’s son with a disgraceful record became revered and elected as commander-in-chief of our nation’s military. 

 

Such a thing could not have happened without Harold Simmons’ $2.8 million and the large contributions of other fat cats interested in buying the presidency.

Harold Simmons has only been encouraged by past success. He now boasts that he is willing to spend what it will take to defeat President Obama in the coming election…and he has already given $15 million to try and do just that.

A STEP BACKWARDS IN HEALTH

Hypocrisy continues to prevail in Texas, particularly in the area of health. Governor Perry and others continue to lambast the effort of everybody who is being responsible and managing their own health care by way of insurance.  Republicans also go bonkers attacking every organization which has ever favored allowing legal abortions--so-called "protecting the unborn."  

Unfortunately, at the same time, the already-born do not fare so well.  Somehow, our governor and our legislators ignore the fact that Texas leads the nation in under-insured or non-insured children. Worse yet, a recent study has shown that Texas also leads the nation in children’s deaths due to abuse--and this occurs while the Texas Legislature continues to underfund Children’s Protective Services.

Poor folks in Texas seeking help with their health are in for another body blow.  Not only poor folks, but middle-class Texans also are about to suffer a major difficulty. If the legislative mandate stays in place--Texans particularly elderly Texans--can forget the friendly service of their corner drug store, as well as home delivery of pharmaceuticals.

Texas, through our governor, has decreed that Medicaid payments, including pharmaceuticals, will be controlled by private benefit managers. Unfortunately, several of these also own their own chain of retail pharmacies such as CVS.  These so-called managers are now offering contracts which would only reimburse independent pharmacists rates per prescription which cause the corner drugstore to lose anywhere from $5 to $11 per prescription.   

These so-called managers are attempting to do away with the independent pharmacy and force Texans to either deal with Walgreens, CVS or mail order pharmacies. The local corner drug store is not only a major convenience and friend to many Texans, but it is a good thing for our health.  The local pharmacist generally knows his customers, knows their needs, and in addition to filling prescriptions, can give decent advice related to medications. In most cases the corner pharmacist does not require you to stand in line and treats you more like a real human than simply a number waiting to be served.

Policies being adopted by our state at this time will also have another devastating effect on Texas--it will send about 36,000 employees’ jobs out of state.  A recent study commissioned by independent pharmacy groups predicted 1,300 stores in Texas will be out of business in the next few months.  While Texas politicians will state to the public they are looking out for us, it gives me little comfort to know the state law requires that an all-night pharmacy must be within 70 miles from my home.

If the way the state of Texas has chosen to deal with Medicaid pharmaceuticals is any indication of future policies, Texans would be ill-served to follow Governor Perry’s recommendation that we do away with Medicare and simply have the federal government send block grants to the states and let the states devise a plan for health. Such a scenario is almost sure to short Texans even further on health care, even though we now rank near the bottom of all of the states.

It seems like the same ol’ same ol’--rich folks, well connected with the governor’s office, are gonna get richer. And the rest of us will have to shift for ourselves, being at best inconvenienced, and at worst deprived, of adequate health resources.

WAR

Unfortunately, too many Americans seem to be ignoring the fact that one of the greatest causes for the amount of debt our nation now is burdened with is caused by two undeclared wars.

Rachel Maddow, a MSNBC personality, has recently written a book entitled, “Drift.”  The theme of the book is that America has begun to drift into a war-like country, too ready to engage in international intervention and adventurism.

One of the problems with our nation is that we have created an all-volunteer army.  Previous to this, in time of crisis, the Selective Service System was activated and would call up able-bodied men to serve as members of our armed forces. While the American population has responded in a spectacular way in times of crisis, it is clear the principle of civilian control of our armed forces has always been foremost in most of our citizens’ minds.  Although many draftees served with great valor and bravery, most of them disliked every minute they spent in the armed services.  Such an experience is a great safeguard against the military ever, as a unit, taking over and replacing our Democratic form of government.

Another great problem with an all volunteer army is that Americans have become so complacent that we apparently engage in warfare too readily because there is no personal sacrifice required of those of us not serving in the armed forces.  Such a mind set can be dangerous to our Republic. 

Part of what caused the collapse of the Roman Empire was that the Empire engaged too long in constant warfare beyond its borders.  It decimated the treasury of Rome and ultimately was one of the great factors in the decline and fall of the Roman Empire.

Our constitution addressed the issue of when America should go to war and provides, in short, that it should be when Congress declares war ostensibly against another nation.  Congress sat on its hands as President George W. Bush sold the concept of war on a situation, not on a country.  No war was actually declared, and so the war was conducted off the books.

Bush sold the concept of the war on terror.  Just how silly the concept is is readily identifiable if one thinks about what would have happened if Lyndon Johnson had mobilized the armed forces to feed the poor or build housing for the unfortunate, having declared his war on poverty.

We should demand of Congress the concept put forth by Ross Perot. His idea concerning the commitment of troops was that we should first commit the people and then the troops.  We should demand of our leadership that no Americans should be placed in harm’s way--nor should American taxpayers be burdened with a senseless war--unless the Congress of the United States is willing to declare war on someone. Of course there should be authority of the president, our commander-in-chief, to respond to sudden attacks or national emergencies. But it should be clear that is the case, and not just the desire of key people in the government to have us engage in wartime activities and call it something else.

The Lack of Funding

An oft repeated adage is that when the leaders lack vision, the people perish.  Nothing could be truer as demonstrated by Texas today.  Our governor and fellow Republicans apparently believe that the way for Texas to prosper is to keep taxes low, wages low, and any benefits or consideration of the average worker almost non-existent.  While Texas has provided great opportunities for the wealthy who are drawn here because of the low taxes and low wages, Texas has not done right by either the poor or the middle class.  Shortsighted policies of the current conservative leadership of Texas indicate serious lack of vision for the future of our state.

Lack of vision is clearly shown in the fact that, because of our stubborn reluctance to consider any increase of revenue in this state, our gasoline tax--the primary source of supporting our highway system--has been unchanged for several decades.  We have reached the point in Texas where there is no money available for new construction.  Lack of funding for our highways has led to more toll roads for Texans and a greater bonded indebtedness saddled on Texas taxpayers than ever before in the history of this state.  Second only to education, a decent infrastructure in a state is essential to future prosperity. 

There is little debate about the fact that education and future economic growth are inexorably joined.  One has to look no further than the fact that under the current leadership of Rick Perry and Republicans, doubling college tuition in a few short years has made it more difficult to create a college-educated workforce for the future.  Shortchanging education by cutting public education’s budget by over 4 billion dollars is further evidence of the lack of vision of our leadership.  Despite claims to the contrary by our governor, lieutenant governor and others, the funding of education on a per-pupil basis substantially trails the national average.  While business leaders proclaim the future of America’s economy will depend on a workforce trained in such courses as math and science, Texas has a woeful deficiency in graduating students proficient in math and science both from our public school system and our colleges and universities. 

Efforts to increase Texas’ commitment to catching up with the rest of the nation in education have largely been brought about by lawsuits and federal mandates.  Further evidence of lack of vision among our Republican leadership is exemplified by Senator Florence Shapiro, current chair of the Senate Education Committee, and Congressman Culberson of Houston. Senator Shapiro suggests the way to deal with our current teacher shortage in the math and science area is to trim the math and science requirements for high school graduation.  When the Supreme Court of Texas ruled the Legislature had failed to comply with the constitutional mandate of offering an efficient system of free public education, Congressman Culberson’s suggestion was that we simply amend the Constitution to remove that mandate.   Unfortunately, a recent session of the Legislature--by underfunding education--at least in part followed the suggestion of Congressman Culberson by changing the legal requirement to fund the minimum foundation program which assured adequate funding of public education in Texas.

The current vision of our governor in Texas of low taxes, low wages and suppression of organized labor will lead us soon to the status of many undeveloped nations of the world.  Already, Texas is starting to look like those countries in many respects.  The national foundation studying the rate of rich to poor found the concentration of wealth among the few in Texas causes us to resemble many of the underdeveloped nations of the world.  Currently, Texas is among the leaders of the nation in high school dropouts, teenage pregnancies, and working Texans living in poverty. 

In fact, most poor children in Texas have a working parent, and yet Texas has the most children of any state in the nation with inadequate healthcare.

Considering the above facts, building an economy accommodated by a poor and uneducated workforce is not calculated to improve Texans’ status at near the bottom in per capita wealth of its citizens.  If our current governor continues to successfully advocate low taxes, low expenditures, and the starving of higher education as well as our public education, future generations will be robbed of high-paying, high-skilled jobs.  If Texas voters continue to vote for right-wing conservatives who expound and advocate promising no new taxes no matter what the cost, all of us will reap what they sow. 

The Truth About ALEC

It has often been said the rich man dances while the poor man pays the fiddler.  With the advent of the Supreme Court’s recent “Citizen United Opinion,” money is more influential and important in politics than ever before in the history of America.  A perfect example of how multimillionaires and billionaires are influencing America can easily be found in an organization primarily sponsored by the Koch brothers called the American Legislative Exchange Council, a/k/a ALEC.

The Koch brothers are intent on making the secondary golden rule a reality in the United States--and if not nationally, then state by state. The secondary golden rule is, “Them that has the gold, rules.” ALEC has gained popularity in many conservative states and is the fountainhead of numerous ideological proposals to limit voting, enhance the power of the rich, support regressive tax measures for the middle class while bestowing large favors on such entities as the Kochs, Exxon Mobil, British Petroleum, etc.

Over 50 reactionary measures have had ALEC as their birthplace. These bills have all been introduced in one or more states in the union, and many have become law.  

A prime example of an ALEC created statute is the Voter ID law which has passed in Texas as last session’s number one priority of Republicans. While the argument of  “What does it hurt to present a picture ID to vote?” appeals to some, the measure goes far beyond. Recent studies have shown 3 cogent facts which justify the Justice Department in disapproving such a statute.

   1.  Thousands of people in Texas do not have a Voter ID.

   2.  Many counties in Texas do not have a Department of Public Safety 

        where a Voter ID card can be obtained.

   3.  The premise that Voter ID cards are needed to stamp out voter fraud 

         is simply not true.

After a study of millions of voters in Texas over a three-year period, only 5 instances were found where voter identification could have been involved. Of 20 cases looked into by the Texas Attorney General, most offenses dealt with mail-in ballots, an issue not addressed by a picture ID requirement.

Further evidence of ALEC and the Koch brothers’ effort to deter voting is a statute recently adopted in Florida which puts severe time limits on volunteer voter registration drives. Massive voter registration has long been recognized as one of the ways ordinary folks can combat the power of money at the polls.

Another area influenced by ALEC has been the promotion and growth of the private prison industry. This growth has led to a powerful lobby supporting increased incarceration rather than lower costs and more effective methods of correcting bad behavior in this state. In spite of the fact that Texas leads the nation in per capita incarcerated citizens, we are still near the top in our crime rate.

The controversial “Stand Your Ground” statute adopted in Florida is among the vigilante-type bills promoted and pushed by ALEC and their multibillion dollar sponsors.

Yet another counterproductive area, which in my opinion hurts the public good, is the promotion by ALEC and their fellow travelers of charter schools. Charter schools have taken a big bite out of the education dollars provided by Texas legislators. While there are a few charter schools which have produced extremely good results, the vast majority perform below average and spend more per pupil than the state allows for public school students. Many proprietors of charter schools operate on meager qualifications and charge exorbitant fees. An example within the confines of Southeast Texas is a charter school with less than half the student population of any of the major school districts within the area; and yet, its director/superintendent or principal, whatever the title, receives a salary almost equal to that of the major school districts of Port Arthur, Nederland and Port Neches.  

The average voter in Southeast Texas should take a hard look at the source of legislation passed and praised by our current, conservative majority in the Texas Legislature. It will take little investigation to discover that ALEC sponsored legislation is not in the interest of the average working Southeast Texan.

Abolish the Postal Service--An Anti-Government Idea

The United Postal Service was created by the Continental Congress in 1775 under the leadership and espousal of Benjamin Franklin.  It has existed ever since, furnishing a variety of convenient services to the people of America for well over 200 years.

During the Nixon era, in a frenzy of advocating that government be run like a business, there was an attempt to quasi-privatize the United States Postal Service.  The postal service oversight was removed from Congress and handed to a board of governors appointed by the president.  Unfortunately, under George Bush in 2006, Congress imposed on the postal service a feature unlike any requirement known to any business in the English speaking world.

Through the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, Congress imposed a requirement that health care benefits for not only current employees but also for future retirees be funded in advance.  To my knowledge, no corporation in the world has such an onerous requirement.  The result of this legislation is to force the postal service to undergo a 5.5-billion dollar 'nut' every year.  Without this artificial burden, the U.S. Postal Service would be highly profitable.  A recent report I’ve read showed that the postal service, but for this burden, would have produced a 700-million dollar operational profit in recent years.

There is pressure coming from right-wing forces who desire to strangle any function of government. Currently, their goal is to shutdown the post office, or put it into bankruptcy.  This seems to be a joint effort of folks like the Koch brothers and the owners of Fed-Ex.  We need to consider what shutting down the post office would mean.  

First of all, it would do away with hundreds of thousands of jobs and the closure of 32,000 local post offices throughout the United States.  While the advocates attacking the postal service are not attempting to kill it off in one fell swoop, their plan is to phase it out of business.  Their plan would include the closure of 3,700 post offices, shut down half of the mail processing centers in the country, lay off approximately 100,000 postal workers, and cut mail service on Saturday as well as do away with special delivery of next-day mail.

In the past 20 years, Congress has not appropriated a single penny to keep the postal service running.  On the contrary, Congress has taken it upon itself to raid funds generated by the postal service and sequester them for other purposes.

The postal service was a great idea when Benjamin Franklin proposed it.  I, for one, think it is a good idea to continue it today. 

Privatization has long been an idea for Republicans who maintain they want to shrink government until it is so small it can be “drowned in a bathtub.”  Privatization has not worked in many areas in which it has been tried.

You might recall when George Bush was governor he attempted to privatize much of the human services department.  It resulted in massive layoffs of government workers.  Then, when the private company which tried to operate from the Bahama Islands couldn’t get the job done, they spent about twice as much money luring back the government workers to do the jobs they previously held.

The private prison system is another fiasco in which private companies with big lobby money continue to lobby for outlandish sentences for minor non-violent crimes.  It is keeping our prisons full and is counterproductive.  It serves to benefit no one except the shareholders of the private prison industry.

Abolishing our postal service will benefit no one except the very rich in the company, will harm small business, and will be a tragic blow to commerce of this country at a time when we can least afford it.

Fear of Government?

Of late, in conversations with my conservative leaning friends, I have detected a greater frequency of the use of the term “socialism.”  In detailed conversations, I am somewhat skeptical as to whether or not some of these friends really know the true definition of socialism.  Webster, Wikipedia and others simply describe socialism as a method of government by which the government controls the means of production and distribution of wealth.  As to distribution of wealth, the current tax system--which clearly favors the rich over the middle class--it is clearly a method of distributing wealth.  While conservatives espouse hard work as a great way of life, none seem to be concerned about the fact we tax citizens' labor more than we tax rich folks' investments.

The bugaboo of creeping socialism has been around since “when the mind of man runneth not to the contrary,” as the old saying goes.  Social security, which few--with the exception of Rick Perry--would dare advocate abolishing today, is no doubt a social program.  If submitted to the vote of the people, I would place my money with people voting to retain social security as opposed to those for its abolition.  Medicare is in the same category and has been a true blessing to older folks.  The naysayers at the time social security was established in this country claimed it was “the camel’s head in the tent” and we would soon be relegated to a socialistic or communistic form of government.

It has always been a mystery to me as to why politicians who espouse hatred of government are so anxious to join in and be a part of it.  It’s my belief that too often Americans, having listened too much to the Fox network, have forgotten many of the benefits of government.  Who among us would want to repeal government control of our airwaves by which anyone with enough money could begin broadcasting on any frequency he or she chose to use, thereby abolishing any guarantee that people could receive a clear signal broadcast by the right wing owner of Fox News?  How about airline or private airplane travel?  What if we did away with government rules about when and where you might traverse the skies?  It would certainly make flying more thrilling, but in all probability not nearly as safe.

Too many of my fellow citizens forget they themselves are beneficiaries of social programs established by government.  In a recent conversation with some of my friends, we were discussing the benefits of a college education.  Two of these were associated with spouses who had enjoyed the benefits of having a first-class medical education. Each proceeded to tell me how their spouses had put themselves through college, paid for their education, thereby earning a license issued by the state allowing them to ply their trade on their fellow citizens.  What if there was no licensing of medical professionals?  Is this not government controlling business?  While both of my friends wax very eloquently on the merits of working one’s way through college, both seemed completely oblivious to the fact that working taxpayers, many of whom will never darken the door of a college, let alone a medical school, paid the lion’s share of costs for each student traversing this wonderful process.  At last estimate, medical students in Texas pay about 20% or less of the cost of providing them with such an education.

The current rant about government intrusion is the current right wing battle cry of “repeal Obamacare.”  The part currently pending before the Supreme Court of the United States is whether or not the commerce clause of our constitution allows Congress to mandate that citizens acquire certain kinds of insurance coverage.  I’ve yet to hear any of these advocate doing away with financial responsibility requirements of drivers who use our highways.  The theory with mandatory liability coverage for drivers is that each driver should show responsibility for the havoc he or she might reek on our public byways.  Why is the same not true when it comes to those who, believing themselves to be impervious to sickness or tragic accident, thrust themselves on the taxpayers of the country by lingering in some cases for years in a vegetative state because of serious injuries befalling them when they have made absolutely no provision for such happenstance?

Because of many of my Republican friends’ concern over socialism, I am reminded of the scripture in the Bible which suggests many of us strain gnats and swallow camels.  I’ve yet to hear one of my Republican friends be critical of things such as the so-called Patriot Act which robs many American citizens of freedom from government oversight, control and even possible imprisonment without due process.  It is one of the few areas in which I find myself agreeing with Congressman Ron Paul. 

Why are my property taxes so high?

In the early 1960's, Texas homeowner taxpayers paid lower property taxes on their homes than homeowners in 45 other states.  Today, if you own real property in Texas, your property taxes are as high as the top 5 states.  There are several reasons for this phenomenon.

First of all, the phoney “no new taxes” mantra which has been the by-word of politicians seeking a seat in the Texas Legislature has led to higher and higher taxes on your homestead as well as higher fees for almost everything you can imagine.

In the 1940's when the Legislature made a serious commitment to public education, our state was paying over 65% of the cost of public education.  Today, almost 70% of the cost of public education is borne by local property taxes on your home and business.

While the mantra of “no new taxes” at the state legislative levels is one of the villains in escalating property taxes, it certainly is not the only one.  Another culprit is the increasing number of exemptions.  While admittedly many good arguments can be made for every exemption from property taxes on the books, they do in fact, each and every one, increase the taxes on your home or business. 

One of the larger exemption games is the one played supposedly to attract new businesses to a particular area.  Too often large exemptions from taxation are offered to an industry or business to locate to a particular area.  Not only does such an exemption add an additional tax burden to the local folks who do not have exemptions, but also, in many instances, it is downright unfair to many of the local businesses.  A prime example of this is the huge exemption from taxation given to the giant Cabella’s store in Kyle, Texas, a small town just outside of Austin.  While Cabella’s built a mega-sporting goods store and created some jobs, it certainly did not benefit local mom and pop shops which sold rod and reels or fishing gear.  In fact, it forced the mom and pop shops which sell sporting goods, hunting clothing, archery equipment, etc., to help finance a major competitor which likely will put them out of business. 

The city of Port Arthur granted huge tax breaks for major refining operations in the area.  Theoretically, had the city not done so, refinery expansions would have gone to some other location.  Also, the exemption of charitable or religious organizations adds to the tax burden.  While I realize I’m now treading on sacred ground to even dare suggest the Baptist Church, the VFW, or the American Legion facilities be taxed, just imagine how much we could lower the average homeowner’s tax bill were we willing to tax everything.  As a matter of fact, a good argument could be made that it is unfair for an atheist to help subsidize churches he does not believe in. 

Recently, the state Legislature folded into law what I consider one of the most egregious tax breaks ever enacted.  In the recent session legislation was passed giving tax exemptions on Chamber of Commerce buildings.  The theory presented was that businessmen in a community pay lots of taxes; therefore, a building dedicated to promoting business should not be taxed.  This appears to me to be an extremely dangerous trend.  What’s next?  Should union halls be taxed?  If all lawyers in a community got together and created a Taj Mahal to promote law business in a particular county, should it be taxed? 

If you’re tired of your taxes continuing to go up year after year, maybe it’s time you, as a citizen and homeowner or business owner, begin to ask your elected officials about some of these matters.  Even better, we should all, as citizens, begin to ask our elected official--particularly those in the Legislature--to at least start having open discussions and explore new ideas of fair ways to support the essential services of government.  Currently, the subject of taxation or raising revenue is such a taboo the only political conversation we hear at election time is how we can balance our budget by simply cutting out the waste.  Invariably, what follows is a healthy debate about waste that I would consider being someone else’s necessity.  A good example of this is Texas’ leadership shortchanging our children’s future by cutting education funding and endangering women by abolishing vital services to screen for cancer and other serious illnesses.