The More They "Change"

The more they stay the same

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

COMMENTARY: Telecom Taxes on the Decline; City Franchise Fees Should be Next

Prior to 2007, Texas ranked third in the nation in telecom taxes. One national study estimated that Texans paid about 29 percent in taxes and fees on their local phone service – a rate twice the national average.

Since then, the Legislature has eliminated the $210 million a year Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund fee, while the Texas Public Utility Commission recently cut the Universal Service Fund fee by $144 million a year.

These two cuts, when fully phased in over four years, will cut the tax rate by about 2.25 percent, saving the average consumer $1.12 per month. But our telecom taxes will remain well above the national average, let alone the state average for other goods and services.

Consumers who buy electronics or yard equipment pay a combined state/local sales tax rate of 8.25 percent. For cars, it’s 6.25 percent. Only mixed beverages (14 percent) and cigarettes (35.6 percent) are in the range of telecom taxes. So using a telephone still qualifies for “sin tax” treatment.

With Texas telecom taxes still too high, where is the next place to cut?

City franchise fees.

Local telephone tax rates total about 11.32 percent on the average bill. The three largest local taxes are the franchise fee, the 911 tax, and the local sales tax. Of these, the franchise fee is by far the largest. In fact, local franchise fees can even top the state sales tax as the largest single tax on consumers’ tax bills, going as high as 6.35 percent.

Franchise fees are payment for the use of the public right of way, though most of the revenue generated from franchise fees is not used to manage or maintain the right of way. Instead, the majority of revenue generated by franchise fees goes straight into a city’s general revenue fund. And this is true not just for fees paid by telephone and cable companies, but for fees paid by all companies that use the right of way.

The numbers are impressive. Dallas will collect about $31 million from telephone franchise fees. But they also collect fees from cable, electric and gas companies, so the city’s total franchise fee revenue should reach about $125 million this year. Houston will do even better, collecting $48 million in telephone fees, $99 million in electric fees and $37 million in gas and other fees, for a whopping total of $184 million.

And all of these costs are being passed on to consumers.

Cutting the telephone and cable franchise fees in half would reduce most consumers’ bills by another 3 percent or so, lowering Texas telecom taxes by more than $500 million a year. Similar cuts to electric, gas and other fees would yield even greater savings for consumers. This would still leave more than enough revenue for management and maintenance of the public right of way.

Cities want us to believe that franchise fees are not taxes, but rental payments for the use of public property by private companies that must be a “value based fee [to] maximize revenue” on behalf of the public. But a quick look at a telephone or cable bill belies this argument. Consumers, i.e., the public, not businesses, pay the franchise fees—businesses are just tax collectors for the government. In essence, the public is paying franchise fees in order to use the public right of way.

It is the cities—not the citizens—that are profiting from today’s excessive franchise fees, which also harm consumers by keeping new entrants out of the market, undermining efficiency, and reducing competition.

A significant reduction in telecom franchise fees could lead to more video, voice, and data services being delivered to the home—at a lower price, with lower taxes to boot. A reduction in electricity franchise fees might even lead to competition in the transmission or distribution of electricity.

We don’t know exactly what innovations and efficiencies would come from a reduction in franchise fees, but we do know that consumers would benefit to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year. That should be the only information we need to keep consumer tax cuts moving forward.

Bill Peacock is the Director for the Center for Economic Freedom with the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Foundation applauds Georgia school choice law

AUSTIN – The signing of a universal school choice law in Georgia should encourage Texas lawmakers to provide parents and students with more educational choices here, according to the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

Yesterday, Gov. Sonny Perdue signed legislation that creates both individual and corporate tax credits for contributions to “Student Scholarship Organizations,” which are privately-run, non-profit organizations that award private school scholarships to children enrolled in Georgia public schools.

“There are nearly two dozen school choice programs operating across the country, with Georgia’s and Louisiana’s being open to all students,” said Foundation education policy analyst Brooke Dollens Terry. “They are observing what we did in the Edgewood ISD pilot here – school choice benefits both the children who exercise their school choice, and the children who remain in the public schools.”

Taxpayers are eligible for dollar-for-dollar income tax credits up to $1,000 for individuals; $2,500 for married couples filing jointly; and 75 percent of a corporation’s tax liability. Taxpayer contributions may not be earmarked to a particular child. There are no demographic restrictions on which students may be awarded scholarships, but the tax credits are capped at $50 million per year.

“Georgia is the latest state to embrace the idea that parents are better equipped than the public education lobby or government bureaucrats to select the best educational environment for their children,” Terry concluded. “Texas owes it to its families and its future to follow suit.”

The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin, Texas. Additional research on school choice is available on the Foundation’s website, www.TexasPolicy.com.

- 30 -

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Obama: The Mouse That Squeaked

05/16/2008
by Will Malven

Barack Hussein Obamouse

So let me get this straight, President Bush makes an ambiguous, general reference to "some" people in discussing the hard learned lessons from history that attempting to negotiate with the enemies of freedom is foolish and naive, and Barack Hussein Obama immediately assumes that he has been the target of an attack and begins to shout that the President has "launch[ed] a false political attack?"

To quote Shakespeare, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Here is the report as ABC news tells it:

Obama Takes Issue With Bush Foreign Policy Speech

May 15, 2008 9:57 AM
ABC News' Ed O'Keefe Reports:

The Obama campaign is taking issue with a comment President Bush made while speaking to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's statehood.

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," the President said to the country's legislative body, "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

In a statement, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., shot across the bow: "It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power -- including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."

Are we then to assume that the Hamas candidate for our Presidency is the man who will provide us with "tough, principled, and direct diplomacy?"

News to Obama, the Iranian Rulers are "terrorists" and thus you are "supporting engagement with terrorists."

Oh, and as to the argument that the President has "politicized" our foreign policy; it is your party, and you, who have politicized our foreign policy...for the past seven years.

For seven years your party has given aid and comfort to our enemies in an egregious and unforgivable effort to gain political advantage. From the constant and eager drumbeat counting our fallen heroes in Iraq to the persistent calls for immediate surrender and withdrawal, to the constant lies of our impending doom, you and your benighted party have waged an unending war against this president and our nation during a time of war.

And contrary to your assertion, Barack Hussein Obama, America is safer than it was the last time your party held the presidency.

For six and one half years, there has been no successful terrorist attack within our borders...no one, I repeat no one would have taken that bet in the days following 9/11. So as many grievances as I have against President Bush on his domestic agenda, your statement is just another of your bald-faced lies.

Quite clearly Obama's was the voice of a guilty conscience which prompted such a vehement and false response. I say "false" because when one listens to the words of Barack Obama, such a foolish proposal is precisely what he has been making throughout his campaign.

It has become routine for Obama to hysterically whine whenever some little item from his past...such as, say, his 20 year close relationship with racist, anti-American, separatist preacher, Jeremiah Wright...claiming first that such an "attack" is unfair, or that such an "attack" is "going back to the old ways of politics," or that he was ignorant of the pertaining facts.

It has become routine for Obama to "Throw Mama (or Jeremiah) Out of the Train" (or under the bus) when they become inconvenient.

Once again we are being shown how weak of a backbone and how little experience this poser has.

Barack Obama, the Barack Obama Americans are supposed to be swooning over, remains a chimera...a figment of the Democrat Party's imagination...and a legend in his own mind. Obamouse is obviously a devotee of the long standing Democrat tradition of Talk loudly and carry a limp stick. A man of no substance and much rhetoric, Obamouse is the perfection of Liberalism.

Never has America been offered the opportunity to vote into the highest office in the land a man so ill-suited and unprepared to assume the duties and responsibilities such an office requires. And yes, I am including Jimmy "The Bunny Rabbit Fighter" Carter in that blanket statement.

Obama lacks even the intellectual prowess of one of the Democrat Party's favorite punching bags, Dan Quayle...who at least is aware that there are 50 states rather than the 57 Obamouse somehow conjured up, even if he may misspell a few of them.

Barack Obama, I knew Dan Quayle, I voted for Dan Quayle, and you are no Dan Quayle. In fact, I doubt very seriously if you are "Smarter than a 5th grader..." although, given the way you Liberals have been hacking away at the quality of our schools, that may be no longer true.

Hey folks, if it squeaks like a mouse, and it runs scared like a mouse, and it has big ears like a mouse, it must be a mouse...and a cowardly one at that.

Hamas says, "Jump!" Obama squeaks, "How high?" Ahmadinejad says, "Roll over!" Barack squeaks, "Which direction?"

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

TPPF COMMENTARY: Dependency Mindset Limits Health Care Choices

There is no doubt that America’s health care system warrants immediate attention and various culprits have been blamed for the system’s slow disintegration. Much of the anger consumers feel with today’s health care system is directed at rising costs and out-of-pocket expenses.

Surprisingly, their discontent does not lie with the restrictive policies and protectionist-minded policymakers that have created the inflated prices, and their frustration has not been with the exorbitant amount of their tax dollars spent paying for other people’s health care. The overwhelming cry is that the government has not done enough.

A study that revealed stagnant and declining life expectancy rates for various populations in the United States has ignited a firestorm of charges that the government has failed to encourage the public to make healthier lifestyle choices.

A look at recent government campaigns reveals another story. In New York City, a federal judge has approved a city ordinance that would require chain restaurants to post calorie information on menus. Proposed legislation in Mississippi would prohibit restaurants from serving people with a Body Mass Index greater than 30.

Intrusive tactics like these represent a growing trend in government over-reach, while the overwhelming reception of bureaucratic involvement reveals a sense of government reliance never before seen in the United States. There is no greater testament to our society’s embrace of dependency than the battle cry to expand government health programs and extend coverage to higher-income families.

The federal government already spends more than $700 billion a year on health services to millions of low-income households. This money comes straight from the pockets of fellow taxpayers, redistributing the hard-earned money of those earning more and giving it to those earning less.

A number of studies have concluded that as much as 60 percent of the children newly eligible for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program already have private health insurance. Under this new dependency mentality, people are dropping their private coverage for subsidized government programs at an alarming rate. One study found that in several SCHIP programs, at least 28 percent of children enrolled in SCHIP had been enrolled in private coverage during the last six months.

The National Bureau of Economic Research has estimated that between 50 percent and 75 percent of previous increases in Medicaid coverage are associated with a reduction in private insurance coverage. Congressional Budget Office testimony supports this data with reports that states are seeing reductions in the number of privately insured by as much as 50 percent.

The majority of health care proposals – expanding public programs, extending government subsidies, requiring employers to contribute to health care benefits – appeal to this new dependency mentality. These strategies build on the fundamental structure of our already broken system, forcing a select group of individuals to subsidize health care for a growing portion of our population, increasing government dependency and further insulating the majority of consumers from the cost of health care.

As these charitable programs grow, encouraging more government dependency and further isolating consumers from the actuary cost of health care, they eliminate the financial consequences of poor lifestyle choices and open the door to over-reaching government policies. The expansion of public programs creates financial incentives for the government to implement policies that define individual lifestyle choices and manipulate the market place in an effort to constrain health care spending.

Continuing this pattern will inevitably foster the development of regulatory guidelines that dictate our behavior. An effective transformation of American health care will require dismantling the current structure and rebuilding a consumer driven market crafted around personal responsibility and competition.

Allowing the health care system to harnesses market forces would entail limiting government control of health insurance and health care providers. A consumer driven health care market would allow individuals to take control of their health care, driving down costs by encouraging competition and letting individuals decide which health care services are most valuable to them.

By restraining government’s regulatory reach and limiting government health care subsidies, this new approach to health care would lead to lower taxes and encourage individuals to make decisions that are both financially responsible and healthy. A return to competition and personal responsibility will cure America’s health care crisis...if we let it.

Kalese Hammonds is a health care policy analyst at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Statement by The Honorable Talmadge Heflin, Director of the Texas Public Policy Foundation's Center for Fiscal Policy

“The recent estimates of a $10.7 billion to $15 billion state budget surplus vindicate the limited government policies Texas has pursued during the last five years. By holding the line on spending, we have been able to keep taxes low, encouraging businesses to locate and expand here. While other states hemorrhage jobs and red ink, Texas leads the nation in job creation and is one of the few states with an improving revenue picture.

“We are pleased that the Governor and the Legislative Budget Board understand the importance of instructing state agencies to continually scrutinize their priorities. While the budget process we went through in 2003 was ultimately beneficial, it is better to exercise fiscal discipline up front rather than to scramble for billions of dollars in budget cuts later.

“Regardless what the surplus amount winds up being come January, the two iron-clad priorities for those funds are to fund the continuation of the 2006 property tax cut and to preserve the balance in the Rainy Day Fund. Whatever of the taxpayers’ money remains after that should go back to them rather than toward bloated government spending.”

– 30 –

NOTE: The Honorable Talmadge Heflin is a former Chairman of the Texas House Appropriations Committee.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

TPPF COMMENTARY: The folly of food as fuel

“Bravo!” to Governor Rick Perry and U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison for recognizing the damage caused to Texas consumers and businesses by the mandatory federal renewable fuel standard for grain-based ethanol.

A growing mountain of evidence reveals the economic and environmental folly of federal ethanol policy. Gov. Perry’s requested 50% waiver and Sen. Hutchison’s proposed freeze on the renewable fuel standard (RFS) would alleviate the pressure on corn for fuel.

Texas is only beginning to see the rising food prices that federal ethanol policy could generate. Last year’s more than 4% rise in food prices stems from the 2005 Energy Policy Act. New energy law enacted in 2007 significantly enlarged the RFS. Food prices may increase as much as 8% this year. And consider where the largest price increases occurred.

The retail price of eggs increased 29% last year; cereal products, 6.5%; sweetened beverages, 4.5%; beef, 4.4%. All depend on corn-based ingredients or corn feed grains. One-fourth of the 2007 U.S. corn crop was converted to ethanol; the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) projects that 30-35% of this year’s crop will become ethanol.

New energy law will force more corn to become fuel. Meeting the 36-billion-gallon RFS mandate in 2022 will require 115% of last year’s U.S. corn crop.

Texas is the appropriate state to call for a change in federal ethanol mandates. The indirect costs of ethanol hurt Texans in the grocery store as well as key agricultural sectors of the state economy. All animal agriculture – beef cattle, dairy, swine, and poultry – uses corn-based feed grains.

Four years ago – before the RFS – corn cost $2 per bushel; last year, it was $4. As Gov. Perry’s letter to the U.S. Environment Protection Agency highlights, these higher corn prices cost the Texas economy at least $1.17 billion.

A hefty 51-cent-per-gallon tax credit and a 54-cent-per-gallon import tariff also artificially drive the ethanol boom. The tax credit cost the U.S. Treasury $5 billion in 2006; that will rise to $10 billion in 2012.

The U.S. fuel supply may not be able to absorb the mandated volumes of ethanol. Most of the approximately 240 million US vehicles cannot use gasoline with more than a 10% ethanol blend. Perhaps only 6 million are Flexible Fuel Vehicles capable of using 85% ethanol (E85). Only around 1,000 of the 172,000 U.S. gas stations – mostly in the Midwest close to ethanol production – can dispense E85. The Big Three U.S. automakers recently pledged that half of their 2012 vehicles will be flexible-fuel. Yet this amounts to only 2% of total vehicles on the road. It takes decades for a complete fleet turn-over.

Ethanol is an ineffective means of reducing reliance on imported oil. While domestic production of ethanol doubled between 2003 and 2007, imports of oil and refined gasoline increased. A deficit in refining capacity and an approaching surfeit of ethanol production capacity will not increase the security of our gasoline supply or stability of gasoline prices. But what happens to a grain-based fuel supply during the next major drought?

Ethanol has two-thirds the energy value of petroleum-based fuels. A vehicle requires three gallons of ethanol for the mileage of two gallons of gasoline. Would today’s consumers choose fuel 30% more expensive than gasoline?

Producing one gallon of ethanol may well take more energy than the end product contains. With fertilizer, water, an energy-intense fermentation process, and transportation necessarily by rail or truck instead of existing pipeline, ethanol production utilizes much more energy than crude oil to reach the pump.

While combustion of ethanol involves less CO₂ and particulate emissions than petroleum-based fuels, ethanol causes more NO_x emissions – the main ingredient in ozone formation.

And ethanol may increase net CO₂ emissions. A February 2008 article in Science magazine concludes that the CO2 released from converting forest and grasslands to corn crops could amount to a doubling of CO₂ emissions from these lands. Millions of acres long enrolled in the USDA Conservation Reserve Program have now been tilled for corn. Intensive fertilization and irrigation impact water quality and supply.

Perry and Hutchison deserve praise for recommending solutions to the folly of our current federal policy to transform a major foodstuff into a fuel.

Kathleen Hartnett White is Director of the Center for Natural Resources at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin, Texas. She served six years as Chairman and Commissioner of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

TPPF COMMENTARY: For Texans, a "Proposition 13" moment

Word count: 623

For Texans, a “Proposition 13” moment

By William Murchison

Oh, look, it’s our friend the postman, bearing to our doorsteps the fragrant tidings of springtime: such as how much we will soon owe the county or the school district in property taxes!

It goes with the robins and the roses – the bad news of what property ownership costs in a society that leans heavily, for the satisfaction of public wants, upon the owners of homes and businesses. Which is why I read with more than academic interest my Texas Public Policy Foundation colleague Talmadge Heflin’s well-reasoned argument, on the TPPF website, for substitution of the sales tax for the exactions of the property tax.

Could it happen? Few enough of us have the prophetic insight to say. What we might possibly say is, things can’t go on much longer with property taxes the way they are soaring: not just here in Texas but throughout the rest of the country, as states slough off their responsibilities upon counties and communities. States like Florida, Minnesota, North Dakota – even New York – are aboil with indignation over the steady rise of the property tax.

Concern with, and resentment of, too-general reliance on property taxes for the financing of local government may be reaching the anxiety level at which Californians, just 30 years ago, snapped, passing Proposition 13 and sending notice to the taxing authorities that the patience of put-upon property owners is easy to overestimate.

Proposition 13 declared that “the maximum amount of any ad valorem or real property tax shall not exceed One percent (1 percent) of the full cash value of such property.” Not that expression of the people’s sovereign will was going to stop in their tracks those parties determined to enlarge the role of government. What “Prop 13” did do was roll back California property taxes by an average 57 percent and advise the taxing authorities to exploit other victims besides the California property owner. So there!

Texas’ property tax burden – our rates, as Heflin notes worriedly, are the 14th highest among the 50 states – has a semi-benevolent explanation. This is to say, we’ve no income tax; nor have Texans, if it comes to that, as large an inclination toward big government programs as the majority of Americans seem to.

Heflin, it seems to me, rightly takes aim at the burdens inflicted on property owners by the state’s undue reliance on property taxes. Case in point: the egregious scheme known as “Robin Hood,” whose nominal purpose is the evening out of public school spending across the state. Taxpayers in “property wealthy” districts have had to fork over to “property poor” districts for no better reason than that state lawmakers couldn’t or wouldn’t come across with the funds to meet educational obligations.

A consequential point emerges here. What if the Legislature took with full seriousness its obligation to spend state revenue in ways that conduce most to the general good, starting from the premise that not every problem has, or even deserves, a government solution?

What if state government kept a closer watch both on expenditures and performance, so as to make sure that reliance on government didn’t become an unseemly habit, and that, wherever government’s duty to the people was unquestioned (as with education) the job got done with maximum efficiency?

Wouldn’t it be fascinating, for instance, to look at how all those Robin Hood dollars have gotten spent, and what the educational results have been?

Maybe, if state government regarded with a combination of fear and respect its role as steward of the people’s money, and correspondingly kept taxpayers’ burdens as light as possible – well, maybe, the likes of Brother Heflin wouldn’t have to spend valuable time proposing reinvention of the tax system. Talk about a deal – finally – for the taxpayer!

William Murchison is a Senior Fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Al Sharpton: Race Baiter, Bigot, and Inciter of Riots -Criminal

04/26/2008
by Will Malven

Small wonder Al Sharpton has failed to condemn Barack Obama for his association with Black Racist Pastor Jeremiah Wright, or for that matter the America hating Pastor Wright himself for his anti-American tirades and hate-speech, he agrees with them both.

His promise to "close this city down" in reaction to the just acquital of the policemen involved in the Bell shooting, prove that he is less interested in justice, than in inciting violence for his own gain.

The facts in this case are apparent for all who so chose to see. This was no conspiracy to kill an unarmed black man, this was another tragic example of the unintended consequences of wrong actions.

Court documents make it abundantly apparent that there was at least sufficient evidence that the suspects were armed and their actions, in ramming a police van twice in their efforts to escape the scene of their confrontation outside of Club Kalua, a Strip Club suspected of being a center for criminal activities.

Suspicion of the criminals being armed was exacerbated by their own words and conduct. In the words of the court:

"THE SUV OWNER, FABIO COICOU, GAVE THE IMPRESSION THAT HE HAD A GUN, CAUSING AT LEAST ONE OF THE GROUP TO THREATEN TO TAKE IT AWAY FROM HIM."

So we have proof that even members of Bell's own group believed a firearm was involved.
Further, again quoting from the official court documents:

"AND, THE COURT FINDS, ANOTHER THREAT WAS MADE BY JOSEPH GUZMAN TO RETRIEVE A GUN."

So here we have individuals behaving in a sufficiently suspicious manner to attract the attention of the undercover police at the scene.

According to the official court documents, things escalated quite rapidly from that point forward. Again quoting:

"DEFENDANT ISNORA APPROACHED THE NISSAN ALTIMA INTO WHICH MR. GUZMAN AND SEAN BELL, TWO OF THE MORE ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS IN THE HEATED EXCHANGE, ENTERED.

THE ALTIMA, WHICH WAS DRIVEN BY MR. BELL, SPED AWAY FROM ITS PARKED POSITION, STRUCK DEFENDANT ISNORA AND COLLIDED HEAD ON WITH THE POLICE VAN THAT HAD ENTERED LIVERPOOL STREET. THE ALTIMA THEN WENT INTO REVERSE, BACKED UP ON TO THE SIDEWALK, STRUCK A GATE AND THEN WENT FORWARD AND TO THE RIGHT, STRIKING THE POLICE VAN AGAIN. AS THIS WAS HAPPENING, DEFENDANT ISNORA -- WHO TESTIFIED IN THE GRAND JURY --OBSERVED MR. GUZMAN, THE FRONT PASSENGER, MOVE HIS BODY AS IF HE WERE REACHING FOR A WEAPON. DEFENDANT ISNORA YELLED, “GUN” AND FIRED.

OTHER OFFICERS, INDICTED AND UNINDICTED, JOINED IN FROM DIFFERENT LOCATIONS ON THE STREET."

Judging from the court documents and the testimony cited, there is no doubt that, though tragic, the events which resulted in the death of Sean Bell, who was driving the vehicle, were largely the result of the actions of Sean Bell and his fellow passengers.

What Al Sharpton and the rest of the race baiting crew are doing is unconscionable and criminal. The last time I checked incitement to riot is a criminal act and not protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Al Sharpton has intentionally raised the tenor of the rhetoric surrounding this case for his own self-aggrandizement. As indicated in this story in News MyWay:

Sharpton vows to 'close this city' after officer acquittals

"We strategically know how to stop the city so people stand still and realize that you do not have the right to shoot down unarmed, innocent civilians," Sharpton told an overflow crowd of several hundred people at his National Action Network office in the historically black Manhattan neighborhood. "This city is going to deal with the blood of Sean Bell.

--------snip--------------

Sharpton urged people to return for a meeting this coming week "to plan the day that we will close this city down" with the kind of "massive civil disobedience" once led by Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

"They never accused Sean Bell of doing anything. Then why is he dead?" Sharpton asked, his voice roaring with anger. Authorities "have shown now that they will not hold police accountable. Well, guess what? If you won't, we will!"

"Shut it down! Shut it down!" the crowd chanted, standing up and applauding wildly."

It is also apparent from Sharpton's failure to condemn those in the crowd who were shouting "Kill the police!" That his intentions in this whole affair are anything but honorable.

As for the contemptible Sharpton's rhetorical question, "They never accused Sean Bell of doing anything. Then why is he dead?" The answer is readily apparent in the court documents, which I quoted earlier...the police were never given a chance to accuse him of anything, because he attempted to run one of them down and smashed into their van, not just once, but twice. Once may be a mistake, but twice is an intentional act.

I am also tired of hearing the cries about "50 bullets," being shouted as though it is something unheard of or out of the ordinary in this kind of incident. In a panic life and death situation, rapid and repeated fire, including reloading is not all that unusual, but the fact that one officer, Michael Oliver accounted for 31 of the 50 shots, would suggest that better training and higher requirements for more combat firearms training and better muzzle discipline.

What must rankle Reverend Al the most is that because the first officer to fire his gun, and 3 of the 5 officers involved in this incident were black, he can't even call it "racism."

This was a sad affair, but the only crimes committed were the hit-and-run committed by Sean Bell, and Al Sharpton's efforts to stir up racial unrest and incite his little following to riot.

Time for Al Sharpton to go to prison...I know it will never happen, because the New York government lacks the guts to do so, but that is the only way justice will be served.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

TPPF COMMENTARY: A Note of Caution, as Wind Power Whips Through Texas

A Note of Caution, as Wind Power Whips Through Texas

By Drew Thornley

Who knew a “free” source of energy could be so expensive?

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas recently estimated that billions of dollars in investment will be needed to transmit wind-generated electricity from the areas of Texas most suitable for wind generation—West Texas and the Panhandle—to the areas of the state that need energy the most—the I-35 corridor and the upper Gulf Coast. These costs will be borne by Texas ratepayers. How did we get here?

Renewable energy mandates and subsidies have paved the way for Texas’ wind energy boom. Today, Texas leads the nation in installed wind power capacity, adding 1,708 megawatts (MW) in 2007, bringing its total to 4,446 MW by the end the year. California is a distant second, with a total of 2,439 MW by year’s end. In 2007, 0.77% of the nation’s total electric generation came from wind energy; here in Texas, wind accounts for 2% of total generation.

Robust wind power expansion is expected, as Texas producers are required to generate 5,880 MW of renewable energy by 2015 and face a 10,000-MW target for 2025. To this end, $700 million went into new wind Texas farms in January.

Wind energy proponents extol wind as free, safe, and clean, but these characterizations miss the point. Energy users expect reliability, and challenges dot the path from wind to the electric grid to energy consumer.

For wind turbines to produce power, the wind must blow. Because the wind does not blow constantly, wind turbines produce a fraction of their potential generating capacities. Furthermore, winds blows the least during the summer months when power is needed the most. ERCOT relies on just 8.7% of wind power’s capacity when determining available power during peak summer hours. Also, due to wind’s intermittency, wind farms must rely on conventional power sources to back up their supply.

Besides generous federal subsidies and tax incentives, Texas entices wind developers with tax exemptions and deductions; yet wind power remains more expensive per kilowatt-hour than conventional energy sources.

ERCOT’s estimates for transmitting West Texas wind energy, under four different scenarios, range from $3.78 billion to $6.28 billion. ERCOT estimated costs by using straight-line lengths for transmission cables. Thus, transmission costs were estimated using a best-case-scenario approach and, as such, should be considered minimums. Add to this ERCOT’s estimates of $410 million to $1.03 billion for connecting wind generation to the new collection substations.

Wind energy also comes with legitimate environmental concerns. Wind farms require vast tracts of land, disrupting farming acreage and animal habitats; and turbine blades kill thousands of birds each year, including protected species.

ERCOT estimates Texas’ electricity demand will rise 20% by 2015 and 43% by 2025. Texas must remain focused on providing its residents with affordable, reliable energy and not turn its back on fossil fuels, which can meet our needs and are cleaner than ever before.

Wind alone cannot meet the increasing demand we face. Rather, wind is one stick in a bundle of larger sticks, all of which can and should contribute to meeting energy demands. Wind should be part of a diversified portfolio of energy resources, anchored by the traditional energy sources that have the capacity to meet Texas’ burgeoning energy needs.

Drew Thornley is a natural resources policy analyst at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below