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

Food Shortages: Liberal Chickens Coming Home to Roost

How bizarre! The world is using a staple food product to produce fuel for motor-vehicles, and turning over more and more of its most productive farmland to producing bio-fuels...and there is a growing world-wide food shortage...who'd a thunk it?

Here's a quick quiz for you:

QUESTION: How far down the path of abject stupidity can the Left travel?

ANSWER: Trick question. There is no limit to a Liberal's Narcissism or gullibility.

For Liberals; if it sounds like a good idea, it is. No logical analysis required. No careful analysis of the ultimate consequences necessary. Simply follow your heart and go with it.

Well we (meaning the entire world, not just Americans) are now paying the price for Al Gore and his disciples of disinformation on global warming...Global Food Shortages and starving third world victims.

This from the Times OnLine:

Era of cheap food ends as prices surge

April 23, 2008
Steve Hawkes, Greg Hurst and Valerie Elliott

Families have been warned that the prices of basic foods will rise steeply again because of acute shortages in commodity markets.

Experts told The Times yesterday that prices of rice, wheat and vegetable oil would rise further. They also forecast that high prices and shortages — which have caused riots in developing countries such as Bangladesh and Haiti — were here to stay, and that the days of cheap produce would not return. Food-price inflation has already pushed up a typical family’s weekly shopping bill by 15 per cent in a year.

A further 15 per cent increase in the price of a standard Kingsmill loaf would push it up from £1.09 to to £1.24. Butter has gone up by 62 per cent in the past year. A similar rise would bring the price of a 250g pack to £1.52.

The price of rice, which has almost tripled in a year, rose 2 per cent on the Chicago Board of Trade yesterday as the United Nations food agency gave warning that millions faced starvation because aid agencies were unable to meet the additional financial burden.

Gordon Brown responded to mounting concerns about the global rise in food prices by signalling that he might scale back Britain’s commitment to biofuels, which critics say has exacerbated the food crisis because land has been given over to grow crops for energy rather than food.

John Bason, finance director of Associated British Foods, one of Britain’s biggest food producers, said that wheat prices had doubled in a year and supermarkets would have to raise the price of bread again. Vegetable oil was also likely to soar in price because the price of corn oil in the US had almost tripled, he said.

How stupid do you have to be to be caught off-guard by this "bio-fuels" push?

One doesn't have to have very much "brain-power" to figure this one out. You decide to use one of the worlds staple foods for the generation of fuel rather than nutrition and people begin to suffer from food shortages. Gosh what a revelation!

The law of unintended consequences is a "bitch!" Liberals ought to know this by now, because they experience it so often.

Because Liberals react reflexively rather than reason things out, they are habitually susceptible to being flummoxed when their actions, ill-considered, but taken out of the best of intentions turn out to be catastrophic in their results.

We are now beginning to witness the results of this leap by Democrats...and now of late, unfortunately, some foolish, pandering Republicans as well, to counter Al's folly.

Too late, we are beginning to understand the absurdity of the entire Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) myth...and the unintended consequences of leaping to take unnecessary and poorly thought out ideas intended to counter a non-existent phenomenon.

People in Central and Latin America are unable to afford the rapidly inflating price of grain to feed their families. As a result, there will calls for government action to provide food to people who used to be capable of sustaining themselves, rendering them dependent upon the largess of government rather than remaining self-sufficient.

As the insanity of refusing to allow oil companies to explore for more supplies of oil in areas in which there is a high probability of discovering large reserves, out of "concern for the environment," this trend toward limited food supplies will continue to spread globally and may eventually lead to massive starvation.

All because a few vain scientists believe they know more than God. Earth has experienced repeated and extended variations of global temperature, but now, now that we have scientist who have developed their pet theory of AGW...which coincidently is their meal-ticket...suddenly, that which has been occurring for eons, well before the influence of humanity, is caused by humans.

Such a conclusion is so absurd that, if it wasn't for the now apparent tragic consequences of our governments' reactions, would be hysterically funny.

The blame for these food shortages need to be placed where it belongs, directly at the feet of arrogant scientists, and the foolish, scientifically un-informed politicians who allow themselves to be stampeded into precipitous and inane reactive policies.

Unfortunately, it will not be the Al Gore's, Gordon Brown's and George Bush's of the world who will pay the price for these bad policies, but the rank and file inhabitants of their nations. It's good to see that at least Gordon Brown is now becoming aware of his mistake.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

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

When Obama's Character is the Issue, Mainstream Media Becomes Restive

I guess when you are a commercially disastrous old media rag like the Washington Pest Post, the political opinions of the Style columnist carry great weight with the editorial board.

And when you are a foppish, pseudo-intellectual, poser and "Style Columnist" like Tom Shales, any substantive discussion about "Style," particularly when it concerns the character of a possible future President of the United States, such a discussion become particularly unsatisfying. After all, what does character have to do with running the most powerful nation in the world?

Well here is a portion of the semi-lucid, simpering of Obama sycophant Shales:

In Pa. Debate, The Clear Loser Is ABC

By Tom Shales
Thursday, April 17, 2008; Page C01

When Barack Obama met Hillary Clinton for another televised Democratic candidates' debate last night, it was more than a step forward in the 2008 presidential election. It was another step downward for network news -- in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances.

For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with.

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

The boyish Stephanopoulos, who has done wonders with the network's Sunday morning hour, "This Week" (as, indeed, has Gibson with the nightly "World News"), looked like an overly ambitious intern helping out at a subcommittee hearing, digging through notes for something smart-alecky and slimy. He came up with such tired tripe as a charge that Obama once associated with a nutty bomb-throwing anarchist. That was "40 years ago, when I was 8 years old," Obama said with exasperation.

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

No sooner was that said than Gibson brought up, yet again, the controversial ravings of the pastor at a church attended by Obama. "Charlie, I've discussed this," he said, and indeed he has, ad infinitum. If he tried to avoid repeating himself when clarifying his position, the networks would accuse him of changing his story, or changing his tune, or some other baloney.

This is precisely what has happened with widely reported comments that Obama made about working-class people "clinging" to religion and guns during these times of cynicism about their federal government.

"It's not the first time I made a misstatement that was mangled up, and it won't be the last," said Obama, with refreshing candor. But candor is dangerous in a national campaign, what with network newsniks waiting for mistakes or foul-ups like dogs panting for treats after performing a trick. The networks' trick is covering an election with as little emphasis on issues as possible, then blaming everyone else for failing to focus on "the issues."

The only truly shameful occurrence concerning this debate is the effort being made by the Dying Old Media to avoid forcing Obama to address these very disturbing facets of his career in any substantive way.

Major Kudos got to Charlie and Steffy for at least making a concerted attempt to elicit some consistent and lucid attempt to force Obama to explain the apparently inexplicable.

Most readers know, but for the record I will make it clear, I am no fan of ABC, Charlie Gibson, George Stephanopolous, Hillary Clinton, or Barrack Obama, but these blatant attempts by a majority of the extreme Left-wing Dying Old Media (DOM) to whitewash Obama's clear deficiencies in experience, character, and accomplishment are obscene and I applaud ABC for at least attempting to remain honest brokers in the Democrat Party nervous breakdown, laughingly described as their primary election.

Obama is showing himself more and more as an equivocator of, at least, equal talent to that of Hillary Clinton or any other of the myriad of Democrat Dissemblers posing as patriotic Americans.

The fact that Barack Obama has "discussed" his relationship to Pastor Wright does not explain away that relationship or the unbelievable assertion, on Barack Obama's part, that he was unaware of Reverend Wright's anti-American views or the fact that, far from being a rare and occasional occurrence, judging from Wrights more recent appearances it is a constant and unremitting theme which permeates every facet of his ministry.

Obama's relationship and continued association with two members of the 60's radical and violent terrorist Weather Underground, members who remain unrepentant and unapologetic for his actions in bombings during the late 60's and early 70's. Far from being contrite, Ayers regrets that they did not do more

William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn were never prosecuted for their involvement with the 25 bombings of the Weather Underground. All charges were dropped because of improper FBI surveillance. As is typical of the American Left and the "Hallowed" Halls of Academia these two criminals are now considered heroes and Liberal icons for their contemptible acts of terrorism.

There is no doubt that Ayers and Dohrn were guilty of terrorism, just as there is no doubt that they have had more than just a passing acquaintance with Barrack Hussein Obama. Obama served on the Woods Fund board with Ayers from 1999 to 2002.

More mendacity from Obama and Shales, by proxy, this is not as Shales quotes Obama as saying "40 years ago, when I was 8 years old," this association is quite recent and apparently still in tact...at least until it became a political liability to Obama's Presidential aspirations.

These efforts by this Dying Old Media outlet to suppress and otherwise explain away these and other glaring problems in Obama's past will not wash.

We have Reverend Wright's wrongs, the Ayer/Dohrn relationship, the "Bitter-gate" scandal in which they have attempted to rephrase Obama's berating of the American culture by claiming the problematic word was "bitter" and not "cling to," and soon to be discussed on these pages an even more disturbing examination of Obama's political history and the relationship his own beliefs have to those of his African Father's.

Obama lays claim to being the first "real" black president (should the unthinkable occur), but he is genetically just as white as he is black. Then again Baracks true color shows through loud and clear in his political associations and beliefs.

Barack Hussein Obama's true color is not "Black;" nor is it "White;" it is "Red;" as in Red Chinese, Red Soviet Union, Red as in Communist.

Barack Hussein Obama is a true "blue" communist, as communist as Karl Marx could wish for in any "citizen-fellow traveler."

Compared to Obama, Hillary is still a "Goldwater Girl" and we know how absurd that description is.

It is time for Conservative Republicans to take back our party and reject the presses choice of red as a representative color for our party.

As we have all long know, the true "Red" party is the Democrat Party. The party of big government, socialism, and ultimately servitude to the State.

Time for Republicans to re-adopt the phrase, so popular during the Vietnam era and the Cold War, "Better dead than Red."

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

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

Our National Idiot Jumping on the "Global Climate Change Bandwagon"

Well President George Bush (our National Idiot in Chief) is now hitching a ride on the Al Gore "Magical Mythical Tour" Bus to the land of Global Climate Change (otherwise known as the Climatologist's Cash Cow), as he plans to announce "intermediate CO2 goals today.

I guess I owe all of you Liberals out there some major apologies for "misunderestimating" the accuracy of your claims of his increasingly apparent dissociation from reality and his equally apparent diminished intellectual capacity.

It appears that George "the Shrub" Bush is a shallow, easily swayed fool who is more concerned with being a nice guy than he is a strong, stalwart, man of intellectual integrity. In other words, any claims he had to being a Conservative have now completely evaporated as he has joined the ranks of the RINO Left of his own party.

Those judicial appointments of his must have been either blind luck, due to the strong work of some of those surrounding him, like Dick Cheney and Harriet Miers...although her selection by him definitely calls that into question.

This from Reuters...through Drudge:

Bush to announce intermediate goal for CO2 emissions
Tue Apr 15, 2008 4:20pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush plans to announce on Wednesday an intermediate goal to limit greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, but will not make specific proposals, the White House said on Tuesday.

Bush will "articulate a realistic intermediate goal for reducing greenhouse gasses" and press for incentives for technology aimed at cutting emissions, said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.

"This speech is not going to lay out a specific proposal," she told reporters. "It is a speech that will talk about a strategy for a way forward and principles for dealing with the problems."

The United States is among the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitters along with China, but the Bush administration has adamantly opposed mandatory regulations, citing inaction by China and India.

It's odd that so many who claim to be close to him and whose opinions I normally respect, swear that George Bush is strong, smart, and in control when it is becoming more and more apparent he is a blithering idiot who apparently randomly latches onto some concept of which he has been convinced and then blindly and resolutely follows it no matter how wrong it is proven to be.

Now thanks to his Royal Incompetence, Americans...and the rest of the world...will be paying even more for their gasoline and their food.

Of course, he's not the first Idiot in Chief to have his managers and protectors running interference for him. Bill Clinton immediately jumps to mind, as does JFK (that's Kennedy, not Kerry-Heinz). Carter, on the other hand was completely unprotected and thus we were given a clear glimpse (and continue to be) into the inner working of a complete incompetent.

Nonetheless, this screed is about George Jr.'s continued fall from grace, as he now launches America deeper and deeper into the moronic morass of the demonstrably false pseudo-science of Global Warming Global Climate Change.

We are already seeing mass food shortages due in large part to this inane and special interest driven push for "alternative energy sources" using one of our staple food sources. The huge increase in demand for corn to produce ethanol (also known as "the most inefficient source for energy known to man") has place severe strains on corn supplies for animal feed and for human consumption.

We have people fighting each other in poorer nations over food supplies, as we go about blithely burning one of our most economical and nutritious sources of nourishment.

Burning food for energy has got to be one of the most inane and ill-conceived actions mankind has ever taken and it is being driven by the politics of Big-Agri money. You can bet that any politician who dares to oppose "E-85" and corn based ethanol production will be found wanting when it comes to political contributions from Archer Daniels Midland and their like...Oh! Excuse me I meant to say contributions by the "employees" of ADM and their like....since we all know that corporations can't give candidates or members of Congress any political contributions...directly...nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

Thank God that George W. Bush will be gone in January of next year, even if it means having a Democrat in the White House. At least then the enemy will be readily apparent and more easily attacked.

While George has inadvertently done some good things; his judicial appointments and protection of the American people since 9-11 instantly leap to mind, he has been an unmitigated disaster on illegal immigration and in his absurd and ill conceived efforts to reach out to the opposition for "bi-partisanship."

Ramos and Campion remain in prison; a travesty for which Bush deserves to be savaged, and our borders remain as porous as they ever have been. For those two tragic failures alone, it will be "Good Riddance to bad rubbish," when President "Shrub" leaves office.

God Save this nation from the well intentioned hayseeds.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

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

Bill O'Reilly: Pompous Ass

There comes upon occasion, an obligation to take to task one of our, (in my opinion) far too many, self-important talking heads to task when their egos allow them to stray from simple arrogance to condescension.

Last night, the usually boorishly bloviating Bill O'Reilly over stepped the bounds of what is generally classified as simple, ill-informed arrogance into the realm of pure unfettered elitism.

After spending considerable air-time and energy discussing the inevitable revelation by Liberal darling and presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama, that he is nothing more than a typical Left-wing elitist and Marxist on his own program, the egregious Bill O'Reilly appeared on Greta van Susteren's program, whereupon he provided a closer glimpse into his own elitist world view.

Mr. O'Reilly, being confronted with Ms. van Susteren's innate Liberal desire to explain away, or otherwise excuse Candidate Obama's elitist revelation of contempt for all in which the American people believe, fell back into his own elitist nature by confiding to Greta that, (paraphrasing here) “Of course people like us have the intellect and curiosity to delve into what Barack Obama said and discover his "true meaning," but those morons out there in the voting public lack that intellectual capacity to understand nuanced speech and hear only that people are bitter and clinging to their guns and religion because the economy is bad.”

Here is a transcript of the relevant portion of Bill O’s appearance on Greta van Susteren’s program:

Van Susteren: “But how do we know though? How does a voter know if he really meant that or if it was just a slip?”

O’Reilly: “But the voters don’t care Greta.”

Van Susteren: “I know but it does make a difference, it does make a difference if it was just a poorly phrased something or whether or not he really meant it.”

Bill O’Reilly: (talking over) “To you and I Greta.

To you and I it makes a difference, to you and me it makes a difference, whatever is grammatically correct… “

Greta van Susteren: Me.

Bill O’Reilly: “Okay. And I, and I respect that about you, and I do it too. I want to know what he meant, I want to know what the (garbled fade out)...but the casual person watching three hours of American Idol every week, just hearing stuff in the wind, Greta, they’re not interested in psychoanalyzing Barack Obama.

They know that he's got a nutty preacher friend; they know that his wife said something controversial, and now they know for some reason he dragged guns and church into an economic debate.

Greta, come on, this is the President (sic) race, and people are just going to go "Aaa!.”

Greta van Susteren: (talking over) “But it doesn't matter. I mean in some ways it sounds like you are dismissive of it and maybe it doesn't matter, but do they matter...”

Bill O'Reilly: (talking over) “Of course it matters, like I just said, He just handed Pennsylvania to Clinton...”

Mr. O'Reilly is a "comi-tragic" figure in this because he fails to see his own pomposity even as he denigrates his viewers, the American voters.

Now, I know that Bill O'Reilly has always been a pompous ass, even his television program's subtitle; "The No Spin Zone" exposes his over-inflated opinion of himself. True to his claim, when confronted with any guest of sufficiently low social status that he feels comfortable in bombasting them with his "Holier than thou" attitude, he will leap to confront and expose them in their efforts to "spin" a story, but anytime Bill O. Is facing a guest that meets his twisted definition of an intellectual equal (although, in truth he doesn't believe anyone approaches that standard) or any guest of sufficient celebrity status, Bill O'Reilly suddenly becomes meek as a kitten and switches from being Fox News' Thomas de Torquemada to to becoming Uriah Heep, hoping to ingratiate himself with his celebrity guests.

Like many in the entertainment field, "The Mighty Bill O'Reilly" will never confront anyone of genuine celebrity status, no matter how absurd and contemptible their claims. Perhaps it is because he knows if he alienates them, they will refuse to appear on his television and his ratings will be adversely affected, or perhaps it is just an innate desire to "be one of the crowd."

Hence this Lion of the television talk-show world is quite often bearded in his own den. By refusing to confront Liberal luminaries directly and forcefully, O'Reilly betrays not only his elitism (spawned from his overwhelming desire to be seen as one of the celebrated) but his loyal audience.

There have been numerous occasions upon which I have previously salivated at an upcoming appearance of some hypocritical Liberal luminary on Bill O'Reilly's program, only to be disappointed as his normally ferocious defense of American mores and customs declines into a sycophantic effort to cajole and humor his celebrity guest.

Having been disappointed upon so many occasions, I now no longer look to Bill O'Reilly to "ask the tough question," as he claims to do when his guests are his Liberal "buddies" like Charlie Rangel, Reverend Al Sharpton, Bill Maher, or the like.

I no longer eagerly anticipate any "heroic verbal duals" when big named Left-wing celebrities come on his program, I expect what I see, a "civil" discourse, in which none of the most controversial topics come to be discussed, or if they are, that there will be little of that confrontational positing for which O'Reilly's is famous and to which his less well known guests are subjected.

O'Reilly's intolerance for "spin" evaporates and is replaced with a sort of cordial "agree to disagree" accord.

Afterall, the Great Bill O'Reilly can't afford to alienate the big-named guests who generate his high ratings...I mean ratings is what his program is all about.

Hey Bill! Here's a clue...Barack Obama is a Harvard educated lawyer. He knew what he was saying, he didn't "misspeak, this wasn't a simple slip of the tongue, it was an intentional statement, carefully considered, directed to a select audience, intended to elicit a desired reaction.

The only problem here is that his carefully considered and chosen words were recorded and leaked to the press. We know he believed in what he said, because he reaffirmed his belief in his first feckless defense of his statements. His claims of confused understanding and misinterpretation came only after that first bold claim of affirmation occurred...and bombed.

There can be no doubt as to what Barack Hussein Obama intended to say, we have his own words...and as we now know..."words do matter."

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

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

Obama's Freudian Slip: Guns and God Are For Bitter Rubes

Give a con-man enough rope and eventually he will hang himself. And hang himself, Obama did.

Last week, in a rare moment of candor (never intended for public consumption), Barack Hussein Obama committed the ultimate Liberal's sin...telling the truth.

Barack gave the world a glimpse into the elitist, angry, American culture hating world of the political Liberal. This account from the Chicago Sun-Times:

Obama: God, guns are only refuge of bitter Pennsylvanians

OBAMA CAMPAIGN
April 12, 2008

BY ABDON M. PALLASCH Political Reporter

Thirty words White House hopeful Barack Obama said at a private California fund-raiser threatened Friday to torpedo any hopes he had of catching up to Hillary Clinton in the all-important Pennsylvania primary election 10 days from now.

Talking about how the loss of jobs over 25 years has sapped the hope of small-town Pennsylvania residents, Obama said at the Sunday fund-raiser, "they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

After the quotes surfaced on a political blog Friday, Democratic rival Hillary Clinton and GOP hopeful John McCain immediately decried them as evidence that Obama is "elitist" or "out of touch."

"My opponent said that the people of Pennsylvania who faced hard times are bitter. Well, that's not my experience," Clinton told a crowd in Philadelphia. "As I travel around Pennsylvania, I meet people who are resilient, who are optimistic, who are positive, who are rolling up their sleeves ... Pennsylvanians don't need a president who looks down on them, they need a president who stands up for them."

This is the ugly truth that we Conservatives have been attempting to tell people for some considerable time: Modern Liberals hate America and everything for which she has stood: freedom, individual responsibility, strength of character, moral courage, the posession of property, a strong belief in and reliance upon God, and the right and obligation to defend oneself and one's property.

To Obama (and most Liberals) these are alien concepts. They embrace the flawed, naive philosophy and writings of elitists like Marx, who instead of seeing men for the flawed, imperfect people they are, they believe in the perfectablility of mankind...if only we would listen to their "superior" ideals and bow to their "superior" intellects.

What Obama said this past week, strongly echoes the assertions of Karl Marx. Religion is "the opiate of the masses."

What is most clearly revealed is how far out of touch with American culture and the average American's ideals Barack Hussein Obama is.

Bitterness? Of course there is bitterness in the American population over the recurrent problems, mostly caused by the actions of an over-reaching government, with which we are all faced. That is not the part of Obama's comments which cause average Americans to rise up out of the media induced lethargy and denounce Obama's statements.

What Obama's comments point out is his lack of comprehension of what the Constitution, our forefathers, and today's American citizen all intuitively understand.

We cleave to our guns; because "the right to keep and bear arms" forms the base from which all other protected rights spring. We (real Americans) know that a disarmed citizen ceases to be a citizen and becomes a subject.

We cleave to our God and our Faith, because it sustains us and gives us moral guidance. It provides us with a base of values by which we can judge (Oh my! There's that word again) right from wrong. We cleave to our Judeo-Christian Faith because it was and still is the foundation upon which this nation was built.

Far from his claims to have renounced the outrageous statements Pastor Jeremiah Wright made, Obama's clandestine statements, intended only for the ears of the extreme Left-wing elites of the Democrat Party, prove him to be a firm believer in the teachings of Jeremiah Wright.

His contempt for "White America" oozes from his pores in his unctuous attempts to smooth over the ruffled feathers of his fellow Democrats...those working class "Reagan Democrats" for whom he has so much contempt.

It is as I had an acqaintance (a true blue Liberal one at that) tell me, "Obama reminds me of the anti-Christ in those "Left Behind" movies. He is smooth, stylish, and sometimes almost hypnotic in his oratory. He exudes the kind of likability for which Bill Clinton was (inexplicably) renowned.

Underneath it all however, is a blank slate; and empty book waiting to be written and no one in the press, or among the voters of America knows what lies beneath his slick facade.

Obama is dangerous because even those who most loudly applaud his candidacy are unable to define what he believes, what he has done, and what he intends to do. He is a "rock star presidential candidate" with only his glib tongue and easy style to justify his presence and pursuit of the White House and Our Nation's Highest Office.

Qualified? Not even close. He is untested, unprepared, and unknown...a dangerous...if not fatal combination.

Today however, he is a little bit better known than he was yesterday and the more Americans get to know who and what he is, the less they like what they see.

The Plastic Candidate will melt in the heat of the political battle...Thank God!

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

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

TPPF COMMENTARY: One Salary Doesn’t Fit All

Good morning.

Last month, the Texas Public Policy Foundation released the report, "Bringing Teacher Compensation into the 21st Century," which is available online at www.TexasPolicy.com. In this commentary, Foundation education policy analyst Brooke Terry lists the flaws in the single salary schedule used by the vast majority of school districts and makes the case for replacing it with a compensation system that recognizes and rewards outstanding classroom achievement.

---

One Salary Doesn’t Fit All

By Brooke Dollens Terry

As the cost of food, fuel, and electricity continues to increase, school officials inevitably face trying to do more with less. Rising costs and the current pay structure prevents many school districts from giving great teachers a much deserved raise.

The solution is easy; school officials can give their star teachers considerably more money, without raising taxes, by modernizing their teacher pay system.

Salaries and benefits consume between 80 and 85 percent of Texas school district budgets, according to a 2006 Moak Casey and Associates report. Yet many school districts restrict their own flexibility to reward great teachers by paying according to an antiquated single salary structure.

Nationwide, 93 percent of public school districts pay teachers based on a single salary schedule, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Texas has a statewide minimum single salary schedule, and many Texas school districts use their own salary schedule. Designed more than 85 years ago, the single salary schedule is rigid, archaic, and unnecessary.

The salary schedule is a chart that specifies the amount a teacher will be paid for each year of experience in the classroom, with small step increases for each additional year of experience or advanced degree. Those two components reward teachers for longevity and advanced degrees – neither of which has been shown to improve teacher quality or increase student learning.

The research is clear. Teacher performance does not improve with each additional year in the classroom after the first couple of years. Eric Hanushek, a well-respected education researcher with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, finds that a teacher with 15 years of experience is no more effective than a teacher with five years of experience.

Secondly, research finds that an advanced degree does not contribute to increased learning in the classroom. Research by Hanushek and Steven Rivkin finds that possession of a master’s degree or doctorate degree has no impact on teacher effectiveness. Nonetheless, many salary schedules and school districts reward teachers for additional degrees with an extra $1,000 or more each year as though it led to higher student achievement.

Another flaw of the salary schedule is that it pays all teachers the same salary at each step on the schedule without regard for subject matter or classroom effectiveness. All teachers are not the same.

One teacher may be an extremely passionate and challenging teacher who works hard to engage and teach her students, while another teacher down the hall might be burned out and put forth as little effort as possible. Should these teachers be paid the same? Under the salary schedule, if they both taught for the same number of years, they would be paid the same salary regardless of their impact on student learning.

Performance and results are commonly rewarded in the private sector via bonuses and raises tied to positive performance reviews. The same should hold true for education. Outstanding teachers add incredible value to student achievement and deserve to make more money.

Anyone associated with a school -- students, parents, teachers, and principals -- can identify the good teachers. While this sounds like common sense, education associations argue that it is impossible to measure teacher effectiveness fairly, and therefore all teachers, regardless of skill, should get paid the same.

With research clearly demonstrating that paying teachers off a salary schedule does not improve student learning or reward effectiveness, policymakers and school officials may want to rethink their teacher pay structures to ensure they are rewarding and recognizing excellent teachers.

The best way for state lawmakers to increase local control and flexibility over school budgets is by getting rid of the statewide minimum salary schedule.

School officials and publicly elected school board members can use their resources more wisely and effectively and give outstanding teachers a raise by restructuring their teacher compensation systems and not paying teachers off of a single salary schedule. School officials need to do everything they can to keep outstanding teachers in the classroom and giving them a much deserved raise is one way to reward and keep them in the classroom.

Brooke Dollens Terry is an education 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

TPPF COMMENTARY: Texas Consumers Benefit from Competitive Electricity Market

As summer draws near, it is a sure bet that temperatures in Texas will increase—with electricity prices following right along.

In the past, increases in electricity prices have prompted calls for more regulation of the Texas electricity market. While we might hear those refrains again this summer, a recent review of the market reveals that Texas has benefitted by freeing buyers and sellers of electricity from government interference in their transactions.

In Texas Electric Meter: Measuring the Effects of Electricity Deregulation, the Texas Public Policy Foundation puts numbers to work in a debate that has been dominated by rhetoric.

Our research establishes conclusively that last year’s critics of the Texas electricity market spoke too soon. Using data from the still-regulated 2006 market, they claimed that deregulation wasn’t working.

The same pattern held true across the country. For instance, deregulation was widely blamed for causing California’s power crisis several years ago. However, the California electricity market, in fact, was never deregulated. A poorly designed set of wholesale regulations combined with retail price controls led to that market’s collapse when natural gas prices skyrocketed.

Back in Texas, the only things that have skyrocketed since full deregulation took effect in January 2007 are consumer choice and competition.

In September 2006, the average Texas consumer in an area open to electric competition had access to about 17 retail electric providers offering about 36 different rate plans. Today, those same consumers can choose from 28 providers (on average) and nearly 100 rate plans.

Consumers can lock in today’s rate for the long term or let it float month-to-month. They can pick providers and rate plans based on their fuel sources. They can even choose electric providers that will give them a commission for each household they recruit to the company.

This explosion in consumer choice is rooted in the highly competitive nature of the retail electricity market.

Since competition began, the five former monopoly electric providers have lost between 53 and 78 percent of their market share. The percentage of residential customers who chose competitive rate plans more than doubled during 2006 and2007 as the state completed the transition into full deregulation.

As of December, 72 percent of residential consumers had chosen a competitive rate plan, and 80 percent had made an observable choice of providers. And, of course, the remaining 20 percent of the market can choose (or not choose) a new plan at any time.

Competition in the wholesale market has led to the construction of more than $20 billion in new generation facilities in Texas since wholesale deregulation began in the 1990s. An additional $25 billion is currently under construction or planned.

As much as anything, the reliability resulting from these massive investments testifies to the success of deregulation. Texans have been spared the repeated rolling blackouts that have afflicted California and New York.

Deregulation produced these gains in competition and reliability while providing more efficient and (often) better prices.

Prior to deregulation, Texas had the 14th highest average electricity rates in the country; as of December, we had slightly improved to 15th. The average competitive offer in January was only 2.9 percent higher than the inflation-adjusted regulated rates of 2001, but consumers could select rate plans almost 18 percent below the former regulated rate.

Yes, prices climbed higher in 2005 and 2006, but this was clearly influenced by the vestiges of regulation and higher natural gas prices. Once the Price-to-Beat expired and deregulation was fully implemented last year, the average price in Texas declined by more than five percent even while U.S prices were on the rise.

The temperature will increase in the coming months and it looks like natural gas prices might do the same. This is a formula for higher electricity prices, especially in states—like Texas—that depend heavily on natural gas for its electricity generation.

However, the higher prices won’t be just in Texas, or due to deregulation. The facts clearly show that Texans benefited from deregulation in 2007 and will continue to do so in the future.

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