From the Desk of Bob Dole - Too Good Not To Share

Bob Dole shreds little Scotty "The Weasel" McClellan. This from the Politico.

"There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don’t have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues. No, your type soaks up the benefits of power, revels in the limelight for years, then quits and, spurred on by greed, cashes in with a scathing critique.

In my nearly 36 years of public service I've known of a few like you. No doubt you will 'clean up' as the liberal anti-Bush press will promote your belated concerns with wild enthusiasm. When the money starts rolling in you should donate it to a worthy cause, something like, 'Biting The Hand That Fed Me.' Another thought is to weasel your way back into the White House if a Democrat is elected. That would provide a good set up for a second book deal in a few years.

"[I won't read your book] because if all these awful things were happening, and perhaps some may have been, you should have spoken up publicly like a man, or quit your cushy, high-profile job.

That would have taken integrity and courage but then you would have had credibility and your complaints could have been aired objectively.

You’re a hot ticket now, but don’t you, deep down, feel like a total ingrate?

BOB DOLE"

Hey Scotty. Yea! What he said.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

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

Scott McClellan: The Weasel Squeaks...and Lies to Enhance His Marketability

Will Malven
5/29/2008

My first disclaimer, I never liked Scott McClellan. I was never impressed by his performance as White House Press Secretary. He always seemed out of his depth and watery-eyed when facing the White House Press Corps.

McClellan variously seemed overwhelmed, panicky, and struggling to keep his head above water when dealing with the likes of NBC's David Gregory, ABC's Ann Compton, and even that useless hag Helen Thomas, formerly of UPI and currently of Hearst.

Scott McClellan was a poor successor to Ari Fleischer and is probably the worst White House Press Secretary I have seen in my 37+ years of following presidential politics.

Thus, I am not surprised to see a "tell-all" book of lies, distortion, and conjecture posing as personal knowledge, come from this loser.

Now McClellan will reap what he has sown, as others (both White House insiders and non-insiders familiar with this White House) begin to rip little Scotty apart for this obvious pander to the Left-wing media.

My second disclaimer. Though I have been pleased with much that President Bush has done during his tenure as President, I am not a big fan of President Bush. He is not a Conservative, he is a Left-of-Center Moderate at best.

Though his judicial appointments have been stellar and his success in the War on Terror has been exemplary, many of his policies, the Medicare expansion, the Illegal Immigration amnesty bill and his refusal to secure our borders, the "No Child Left Behind" policy (written by Ted Kennedy), and his failure to stand firm in the face of the Global Warming hysteria, have proven him to be a bit too enamored the "Compassionate" side of his "Compassionate Conservatism."

So I am no "Bush-bot," but I can spot a weasel when I see one.

First, lets examine what Little Scotty the Weasel said about other "tell-all" books by former members of the Bush administration.

From Jake Tapper of ABC News' "Political Punch" we learn that, commenting on Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's book, "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill," McClelaen said:

"It appears to be more about trying to justify personal views and opinions than it does about looking at the results that we are achieving on behalf of the American people."

Then when former anti-terrorism chief Richard Clarke published his book, "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror," McClellan said:

"Well, why, all of a sudden, if he had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he's raising these grave concerns that he claims he had. And I think you have to look at some of the facts. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book. Certainly let's look at the politics of it. His best buddy is Rand Beers, who is the principal foreign policy advisor to Senator Kerry's campaign. The Kerry campaign went out and immediately put these comments up on their website that Mr. Clarke made. ...

Q: Scott, the whole point of his book is he says that he did raise these concerns and he was not listened to by his superiors.

McCLELLAN: Yes, and that's just flat-out wrong. …When someone uses such charged rhetoric that is just not matched by the facts, it's important that we set the record straight. And that's what we're doing. If you look back at his past comments and his past actions, they contradict his current rhetoric. I talked to you all a little bit about that earlier today. Go back and look at exactly what he has said in the past and compare that with what he is saying today."

Good question Scott. Why, if all of this stuff you claimed was going on in your little work of fiction was actually occurring, didn't you say something in the 3+ years you were speaking to the White House Press Corps? Why, if these alleged occurrences so offended your sensibilities and sense of honor (as if you had any), didn't you resign your position and expose these nefarious goings on?

In all fairness to Scott, we must make allowances. After-all, if he had done the honorable thing and left the Bush White House to make his grievances known, his marketability and his prospects of obtaining a high-paying position with the Left-wing MSM would have been nil. Just like this book, originally scheduled to be released before spring, would have been ignored had he not re-edited the entire thing and added his little embellishments.

Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer revealed yesterday that McClellan told him the book was finished and ready for publication months ago and that Scott the Weasel had scheduled a series of appearances for this past spring to promote the book, but that these appearances and the release of the book were all hastily cancelled and as the publication deadline approached, his editor (see more on the editor below) “tweaked some things closely in the last couple months."

Apparently the truth wasn't marketable enough and McClellan lacked the backbone to protect his own integrity.

It's okay Scotty, I always suspected you lacked any backbone.

Little Scotty Weasel's words have more the vindictive, fictional tone of an unceremoniously dumped politico desperately trying to make himself seem relevant in today's political discourse than they do the clarion ring of truth.

Those little inclusions like the "mysterious" closeted conversation between I. "Scooter" Libby and Karl "The Architect" Rove, who conversed on a routine basis in their official capacities of White House Chief of Staff and Chief of Staff to the Vice-president, and Scotty's conjecture as to what the conversation concerned reek of a nobody's desperate desire to appear relevant.

Much of what McClellan claims as fact involves conversations and meetings of which he was not even a part.

What results is a book with the distinctly distasteful flavor of rank conjecture and pandering to a certain portion of the political class who have been avidly grasping at every pitiful straw man to come down the pike in hopes of toppling President Bush, whom they hate with a passion most Americans reserve for our international adversaries.

Of course none of this matters. The anti-Bush press corps will glom onto this work of fiction as though it is the Word of God and use it to further bash the President with their continued lies and distortions.

Now, thanks to the fine journalists at Little Green Footballs, we now know that McClellan's publisher is Public Affairs Books, the Editor-at-Large of which is a long time Left-wing Political hack named Peter Osnos, Senior Fellow at the Left-wing think-tank The Century Foundation, and is a wholly owned subsidiary of one of George Soros' shill companies, The Perseus Books Group.

Perseus is another of those Soros funded businesses which describes itself as "Independent," kind of like Media Matters for America, I guess.

As for little Scotty, his political roots are anything but Conservative; being the eldest of four sons of Carol Keeton Strayhorn, former Comptroller of Texas and Independent candidate for Governor of Texas. As is typical in Texas political families, she was a lifelong Democrat who was Travis County Campaign Chair for Walter Mondale in 1984, but her political affiliation is more to be classified as "Whatever Party is Convenient" having subsequently run as a Republican and an independent. Don't worry folks that's just old style Texas politics.

McClellan has never been a stalwart Conservative and was chosen by Karen Hughes to succeed Ari Fleischer. When McClellan stepped down he was replaced by Tony Snow, much to the relief of Conservatives everywhere.

It is an unfortunate fact that President Bush has shown on occasion astoundingly poor judgment in appointing members of his own administration (Harriet Meirs as Supreme Court nominee, Alberto Gonzales as AG, the retention of many Clinton hold-over's like Norm Mineta and Richard Clarke), but among those questionable appointments, certainly McClellan has to be one of the stand-out mistakes.

Well Scotty, your 15 minutes will be up soon and you will have destroyed your chances at obtaining any position of trust in anybody's government in the future, hope the 20 pieces of silver you received is worth it.

Time to run home to mommy now.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

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

Foundation praises new English/Language Arts curriculum

AUSTIN – The Texas Public Policy Foundation applauds the State Board of Education for its vote today to raise the rigor of the state’s academic standards in English and language arts.

“It is obvious that too many Texas public school students aren’t learning the basics with our current curriculum,” said Foundation education policy analyst Brooke Terry, who testified before the SBOE in favor of the curriculum changes. “We are glad the new curriculum will emphasize grammar and writing skills.”

According to Terry, Texas public schools fail to adequately prepare many students for college or the workplace. A 2006 survey by the Conference Board found that 81 percent of employers viewed recent high school graduates as “deficient in written communications” needed for letters, memos, formal reports, and technical reports.

During the fall of 2006, 38 percent of students at two-year public colleges and 24 percent of students at four-year public college needed remedial education to be able to do college-level work. The Commission for a College Ready Texas reports as many as 50 percent of Texas college freshman are enrolled in remedial education compared to 28 percent across the United States.

“Passing an English/Language Arts curriculum that clearly outlines expectations should help schools better prepare students with their reading and writing skills,” Terry wrote to the SBOE earlier this month. “We support higher standards and believe the proposed English/Language Arts standards will help our students succeed.”

The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin, Texas. The Foundation’s research on education policy 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

My Declaration of Independence - A "Republican" No Longer

Will Malven
Friday, May 23, 2008

After watching Wednesday's embarrassing, pig-out by Congressional Republicans in voting with the Democrat majority to override the President's veto of a bloated, pork-laden farm bill at a time when farmer's income is at an historical high, I believe it is now time for this disclaimer.

The decision, as proven with Wednesday’s vote, by the Republican Party elite to disentangle themselves and their party from the onerous burden of supporting the policies and beliefs to which Conservatives adhere (small government, low taxes, restraint in spending, strong national defense, and belief in the value of every life), in favor of the Democrat-light policies of the Liberal elitist "Country-Club Republicans" of the early 20th century, leaves little choice for Conservatives but to abandon the Republican Party to its eventual and inevitable death and (hopefully) eventual rebirth.

The Republican Party is no longer my party. It is not the party of Ronald Reagan. It is not the party of a constitutionally constrained government.Gone is the belief in free enterprise without governmental intervention. Gone is the belief in the philosophy, as expressed by Thomas Jefferson, "That government governs best which governs least."

We now have a government of special interests, in which each member of congress (with a few notable exceptions) is for sale to the highest bidder; Democrats are beholden to the groups of "special Americans" (those who are of greater value than the average citizen), and Republicans are beholden to "special business interests."

Apparently being re-elected to office is far more important to members of congress than serving the interests of their nation. The have forgotten that they are nothing more than overly glorified hired-hands.

They have also forgotten that they are federal government employees, not state employees, and that their obligations-while still representing their constituents back home-are to the larger population of the entire nation.

Pork-barrel spending is a clear sign that our Congressmen have become nothing more than an extension of the colloquial interests of their voters and have chosen to forego any sense of the responsibility or obligation they owe to the population as a whole.

Regardless of its anonymous origin, the statement, often mistakenly attributed to Alexander Tytler, describing how democratic governments fall seems to be uncannily accurate and predictive if our congressmen and women don't stop pandering to their local constituencies and get about the business of the nation.

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

Of course for those elitist Liberals of both parties, that "dictatorship" is precisely what they are seeking to impose. The remainder of these pork-barrel oinkers are simply too stupid to see the dangers of this approaching governmental disaster.

This pork-barrel spending is the "Panem et Circenses" (Bread and Circuses) of Juvenal's satirical commentary on the Roman Empire. When the leaders of Rome realized that the populous was restive under their incompetent rule, they began to throw loaves of bread to the audiences at the "games" being held in the Coloseum and other arenae throughout the empire.

In America, we too have our own incompetent governing class. All but a few intrepid souls, those who still believe in governing according to our founding documents, have chosen to secure their places in congress by following the Roman model.

Big Agra is now apparently in control of both the Democrat and Republican Parties. As a result, immigration reform and control of our borders has become a secondary or even tertiary concern and fiscal restraint has succumbed to the irresponsible and scientifically unsupportable decision to direct tax-payer dollars into the pursuit of "bio-fuels."

The faux science of Man-made Global Warming (now, as dire predictions are being proven unfounded, re-labeled as Global Climate Change) has become accepted dogma within the Republican Party in which reason used to reign supreme.

Attempting to buy votes by passing legislation favoring special interests like Big Agra, if done on a small scale is called bribery and is punishable by imprisonment of the governing official. When done on a large scale it is called pandering and, though considered less than noble, has now become an acceptable means of governing.

Farm subsidies, like all "corporate welfare," are an anathema to a free and growing economy and are a hold-over from our first destructive venture into using tax-payer funds to set social policy under Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.

Here is the grim report as related by AP.

Congress enacts $290B farm bill over Bush veto

By MARY CLARE JALONICK, Associated Press Writer
Thu May 22, 6:47 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Congress enacted a massive farm bill Thursday with new and bigger subsidies for farmers, plus more food stamps for the poor.

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

Bush claimed the legislation was too expensive and too generous with subsidies for farmers who are enjoying record high prices and incomes. He had opposed the legislation from the start, threatening his first veto last July.

A bipartisan group of negotiators on the bill made small cuts to subsidies to appease the White House, but Bush said it wasn't enough.

Still, congressional Republicans overwhelmingly abandoned Bush in voting to override the legislation, overlooking its cost amid public concern about the weak economy and high gasoline and grocery prices. GOP lawmakers are anxious about their own prospects less than six months before Election Day.

I have been a staunch Republican for 37 voting years, but over the past 8 years I have become increasingly disenchanted by the direction of my (former) party.

This kind of gutless pandering for votes, enacting wasteful and unnecessary spending measures is the exemplar for corrupt government. This kind of gutless acquiescence to Democrat spending measures will not secure these Republican eunuchs the aprobation of the Democrat Mainstream media, nor will is secure them any Liberal votes in the fall. Additionally, it will lose them votes from their base constituency, Conservatives.

With each of these grotesque bills, the Republican leadership (or lack thereof) in each house of congress and within the party have assured themselves a loss of historic proportions; probably exceeding that of 1974.

Because of these Republican (so-called) votes, the American people will be forced to endure another decade of "malaise" and Democrats will shove another round of their historically proven failed socialist policies down our collective throats.

Lest you think I am being unfair, I don't blame these weak-kneed Republican legislators alone. We have an uninformed, uneducated, visionless, self-absorbed and selfish voting public who lack any historical perspective and are more interested in who the next "American Idol" will be than they are in how they will be governed over the next four years.

Obama will win, not with substantive ideals (he hasn't any), but with glitz and superficiality. "A change you can believe in" is not a policy, it's not even proper grammar, it's just a slogan.

Oh, I will still vote for John McCain (the unthinkable) because the Democrat Party alternative would be catastrophic for the nation and my fellow citizens. I will vote for those down-ballot candidates in whom I believe, but I will no longer affiliate myself or my name with the Republican brand.

Call me Republican, no more.

I fear, to paraphrase President Ford's inaugural address:

Our long national nightmare has just begun.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

May God Save Our American Republic, Please!!!

What do you think?

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

COMMENTARY: Environmental Policy Constrains U.S. Oil Supply

Is there no end to the soaring fuel prices? Crude oil may reach as high as $150 or $200 per barrel by the end of this year according to many analysts.

The world’s oil supply is perilously tight. American dependence on unreliable foreign sources for more than 60 percent of domestic oil demand, indeed, drives the price at the pump. With new policy, the United States certainly could increase domestic production of oil.

Such is the impetus behind The American Energy Production Act of 2008, introduced in the U.S. Senate on May 1 and supported by our Texas Senators, Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn. The legislation would stimulate domestic oil production by removing federal bans on oil development in Alaska and off the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, expediting EPA permits for refineries, encouraging leases for oil shale development, and mandating production of coal-derived fuels.

U.S. oil production has steadily declined since the 1970s. Over these 35 years, oil exploration, pumping, pipeline infrastructure, and refining have been consistently opposed by the powerful environmentalist establishment … and with great success. It is time to reconsider these constraints on domestic production.

Consider the volumes of U.S. oil resources. The most conservative measure is “proven reserves.” To be proven, it must be reasonably certain that the crude oil can be produced using current technology at current prices, current commercial terms, and with government consent. The U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) estimates the U.S. has 21.8 billion barrels of oil (bbo) in “proven reserves.”

At today’s consumption rates, proven reserves would last 50 years. Yet the amount of proven reserves might jump to more than 50 billion barrels if the government “consented” to development of areas now off-limits.

And “recoverable reserves” — known oil resources capable of recovery, but with more cost and technical difficulty than proven reserves — hold several thousand times more. These resources include: light oil in place (293 bbo); heavy oil (81 bbo); oil sands (80 bbo); and the mother lode, oil shale (2,118 bbo). Add the 21.8 bbo proven reserves and 30 bbo off-limits, and the total 2.6 trillion barrel endowment of American oil resources would support U.S. demand for thousands of years.

Unlike Britain, Canada, or Norway, federal decision has barred offshore oil exploration in half the Gulf of Mexico, and off the East and West coasts. The U.S. Department of Interior estimates that these offshore bans cover more than 16 billion barrels.

The environmental establishment still preaches that producing oil and preserving the environment are mutually exclusive propositions. But the original environmental risks have been almost eliminated by creative technology and safeguards. None of the offshore platforms hit by the gales of Hurricane Katrina spilled a drop of oil. In the Gulf of Mexico, where offshore production is allowed, innovative means of enhancing aquatic habitat have been highly successful.

Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is considered the largest untapped oil field in North America. Even with elaborate means to preserve wildlife habitats, former President Bill Clinton vetoed legislation to allow its development. Estimates of practically recoverable crude oil there are between 10 and 12 billion barrels.

The 92 million acres of federal lands in the lower 48 states also contain oil resources. Shortly after 9/11, Congress reviewed all energy resources on federal lands. Their study found that only 25 percent of the lands were accessible for oil development. Restrictions precluded access to all but 18 percent of the estimated 4.2 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

With ever increasing global demand for fuel, all cost-efficient and environmentally responsible energy sources are needed. For the next several decades, however, there are no realistic alternatives to the petroleum dominance in transportation fuels. Renewable fuels, batteries, and hydrogen fuel cells can, in the near future, provide only a sliver of the volume needed.

What percentage of voters would still support environmental policies that constrain U.S. production of oil? In a March 2008 nationwide survey of registered voters by the Institute for Energy Research, 72 percent prioritized U.S. energy independence ahead of global warming concerns.

The American Energy Production Act of 2008 offers a critical step forward. After 9/11 and again after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, comparable legislation was introduced. As the urgency waned, so did enthusiasm for the new policy. Perhaps gasoline at $5 or $6 per gallon could break the inertia that perpetuates American dependence on foreign oil.

Environmental protection and affordable energy are compatible. Like no other, this country can still achieve ever greater levels of environmental quality, reliable energy, and national security.

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. She is the former Chair of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

What do you think?

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

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