Tax Cuts- More Fuzzy Math

The $70 billion tax cut bill received final approval last week from the Senate, and now awaits President Bush's signature to become law. The President is expected to sign it sometime this week. The bill was approved largely along party lines.

Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn voted for the tax cut bill. Senator Hutchison expressed confidence that the two-year extension of the sales tax exemption, important for states like Texas that lack an income tax, would be included in a follow-up bill expected later this year.

The bill was roundly condemned by economic think tanks and the Democratic leadership.

Saying the bill "caters to an elite group of wealthy Americans at the expense of the middle class," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said extending the cuts was fiscally irresponsible, especially during an era of high budget deficits. "I've heard, and I always thought, Republicans were the party of fiscal integrity," Reid said. "This has been blown sky high."

But Frist fired back that almost half of the tax returns declaring capital gains and dividends come from people with adjusted gross incomes of less than $50,000.

According to the Brookings Institute, if you make $50K or less, your share of the cuts amount to an average of $46. Compare that to $42,000 in tax cuts for anyone making over $1 million. Many more wage earners make $50K than one million, so Dr. Frist is technically correct. But the suggestion that these cuts represent tax relief for the middle class is typical of the lies and distortions that have used to sell this house of cards since before President Bush even took office. When Vice President Al Gore pointed out that candidate Bush's plans amounted to a tax cut for the wealthy, Bush accused him of "fuzzy math."

Yes, President Bush campaigned on tax cuts, and he's kept his word. This tax cut package represents the sixth in as many years. The result is that federal revenues have slipped since 2000 from 21 percent to 17.5 percent as a share of GDP. During the same period, federal spending increased from 18.4 percent to 20.8 percent of GDP. The difference is made up with borrowed money, and the debt is rising year by year. The deficit has grown fifty percent under Bush's watch. In the not too distant future, Congress will be asked to raise the debt ceiling to an unfathomable $10 trillion.

David Broder highlights a speech on the Senate floor by George Voinovich, who earned his political chops advocating fiscal discipline as governor of the Buckeye state. Voinovich was one of three dissenting Republicans to vote against the tax cuts.

Some members believe that the solution is to grow the economy out of the problem, that by cutting taxes permanently, the economy will eventually raise enough revenue to offset any current losses to the U.S. treasury. I respectfully disagree with that assertion....In November 2005, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified before the Joint economic Committee and told Congress: 'We should not be cutting taxes by borrowing.'...Instead of making the tax cuts permanent, we should be leveling with the American people about the fiscally shaky ground we are on...."

The question I ask is, what sacrifice are we making? Anyone in the know who is watching us has to wonder about our character, our intellectual honesty, our concern about our national security, our nation's competitiveness in the global marketplace now and in the future, and last but not least, our don't-give-a-darn attitude about the standard of living and quality of life of our children and grandchildren.

The question is, are we willing to be honest with ourselves and the American people and make these tough decisions?

Senator Voinovich, you are so living in the 20th century. The Republicans haven't stood for fiscal responsibility at the federal level in at least a quarter century. That's why you have to keep switching sides to vote with the Democrats in support of fiscal reform. Remember PAYGO? Too bad your fellow Republicans didn't leave it alone. From the March 2005 release of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

Last year, the House Budget Committee approved legislation that would fundamentally alter PAYGO by applying it only to increases in mandatory programs. Under that approach, tax cuts would not have to be offset, regardless of their size, economic justification, or impact on the deficit. That proposal was not aimed at controlling deficits. Rather, it was more narrowly designed to control spending by requiring that entitlement expansions be offset with cuts in other entitlement programs. Since tax cuts would be exempt from fiscal scrutiny under such a proposal, deficits could rise substantially even if the spending restraint in the proposal proved effective....

There is no good reason to exempt tax cuts from budget enforcement rules. In the absence of a compelling case to provide short-term economic stimulus, if Congress wants to pass particular tax cuts, it should either reduce mandatory programs or raise other revenues to offset the cost of the tax-reduction measures, not simply give itself a free pass to enact tax cuts without financing them. Doing otherwise
merely provides an open invitation to keep our existing government services without fully paying for them and then send the bill to our children.

We're already cutting our existing services, but let's not quibble. The conservative pundits argue that Bush is a liberal because they don't like his fiscal policies. But those policies have been soundly renounced by the Democratic leadership. And what does that make the Republican House and Senate who have voted in lock-step to follow the President over the cliff?

If after all this, you're still hankering for more discussion of the tax cuts and fiscal policy, go to Brad DeLong's website and click on "Morning Coffee Videocasts: Time for a Fiscal Stabilization Board to Deal with the Deficit?" It sounds like a sleeper, but it's pretty quirky.

Congressman Burgess Votes Against Fiscal Reforms

Remember Congressman Burgess' proclamations in the run-up to the 2006 election?

I am a strong proponent of a balanced federal budget and an advocate for reducing the size of the federal government.

Well, guess who just voted against modest fiscal reforms? Last week, Congressman Burgess voted against rules that would reinstate pay-as-you-go (a policy that a bill cannot be considered if it reduces the surplus or increases the deficit) and identify all the earmarks in a bill along with their sponsors. Of the Texas delegation, 13 Democrats and 2 Republicans (William Thornberry and Ted Poe) voted in favor, and 17 Republicans voted against. The measure passed 280-152.

So let's take another look at that 2006 campaign promise.

The state of the federal deficit and debt is a sore spot for Republicans, because those who consider themselves true conservatives deplore the profligate spending of the last six years. The Bush administration, aided by ousted House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, presided over the biggest run-up in government spending in U.S. history.

Does this sound like smaller government to you?

Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush’s first term. The federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5 percent of GDP on Clinton’s last day in office to 20.3 percent by the end of Bush’s first term.

The deficit (the difference between revenues and expenditures) went from a $284 billion surplus in 2000 to a $296 billion deficit in 2006. George W. Bush has presided over four of the top five largest deficits in U.S. history. (The fifth largest came under his father's administration.)

The federal debt, the amount borrowed by the government to finance the deficits, increased 62% to a sum larger than all the previous administrative debts combined, a staggering $8.5 trillion dollars. That amounts to $28K for every man, woman and child in the U.S. Interest on the debt is now the fastest growing category of spending in the federal budget. The U.S. now spends as much just to pay interest on the debt -- $105 billion per year -- as it spends on Medicaid, which provides health-care payments for poor and uninsured Americans.

Several things account for this fiscal freefall. Funding for the Iraq war, originally budgeted for $60 billion, now stands at $400 billion and rising.

The use of earmarks to "buy" key votes has been unprecedented. The earmarks included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 amounted to $85 billion in subsidies and tax breaks, including massive subsidies for energy companies, many of whom have since posted windfall profits. The 2005 transporation bill included over 4000 earmarks, pork to prime the pump in key Republicans regions.

But more than any other policy, the extensive use of tax cuts, the majority of which went to the top one percent of earners, contributed to our financial crisis by reducing projected revenues by billions of dollars. The full effect of these policies has yet to be realized.

What role did Burgess play in this financial debacle? Burgess was elected to Congress in 2002. He was not yet serving in Congress when the Iraq authorization for military force passed, but in subsequent votes on appropriations for the war, he failed to demand accountability from either the administration or its contractors for the use of those funds. While lamenting the practice of earmarks, he nevertheless bragged at a town meeting that as long as pork was part of the process, he was not "going to unilateraly disarm." He voted for the energy and transportation bills, even sponsoring an amendment that gives states incentives to toll new roads. He voted repeatedly for tax cuts for the rich, and was one of the key backers behind repeal of the estate tax .

There is one area where spending was reduced. Due to the ballooning of government spending in other areas, Republican budget resolutions sought and received reductions in several domestic programs, such as education and healthcare. In his campaign statements, Burgess indicated he "strongly" supported The Family Budget Protection Act, which would have capped spending on military pensions and benefits and Medicare Part B, among others, amounting to a cut in these programs of over $2 trillion over a ten year period. Thankfully, the bill never became law.

So keep this in mind. When Republicans start talking about smaller government, they actually mean reducing programs aimed at helping middle and lower class citizens in areas such as health care, college costs, and retirement, in order to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent of Americans, and its largest corporations. As a result, the percentage of tax burden for most of us is increasing, while the percentage of taxes paid by America's ruling class and corporations is decreasing.

We are increasingly becoming a nation of haves and have nots, with the highest income inequality among any industrialized nation. The Republican sellout of the middle class helped propel Democrats to power in 2006. The fiscal reforms proposed by the Democrats are a decent start. But no matter how well Democrats respond, we are stuck in a fiscal crisis that will demand tough choices and reduced benefits for all of us. When we're feeling that pain, let's not forget who got us there in the first place.

Hensarling Compares Republicans to Winos

Jeb Hensarling, R-Dallas, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, gave an interview to NYSunPolitics.com prior to his speech at the annual CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference). We know that Ann Coulter upstaged him at the conference, but Hensarling's comments in his interview might raise a few eyebrows, as well.

NYSP: So, what went wrong in November?

Hensarling: I don't think it's one reason. But, clearly, a significant portion of the electorate wanted to send President Bush a message on Iraq. There was clearly frustration with the progress in our war. But that, in and of itself, does not explain to totality of the elections.

Since I've been a member of Congress, I believe three members have plead guilty to felonies and have gone off to serve in prison. I haven't found Congress to be any more virtuous or less virtuous than the population as a whole. I haven't found either party to have a monopoly on virtue. But when voters were paying attention, seemingly more Republicans got into ethical challenges than Democrats.

We went to Washington and said we'd be the party of reform. And, so, to have several high-profile cases occur was not helpful to our fortunes. And, for whatever reason, the media seemed to pay a little bit more attention to our folks who were ethically challenged than to their folks that were ethically challenged.

Finally, we went to Washington and said we're going to be the party of accountability, limited government, and fiscal responsibility. And, I think, somewhere along the way, we lost our way. Now, within the last couple of years, I think that Congress has done a lot, in the last Congress, to help reclaim that mantle of fiscal responsibility and limited government. But I think a lot of the damage had been done.

But, to the extent that there is a silver lining in the big gray cloud, I am convinced that the electorate did not shift to the left. It is still a center-right electorate. And they didn't hire the Democrats for what the Democrats believe in. They fired the Republicans, partly as a protest to the policies in Iraq, but more so because they didn't see Republicans living up to their own principles......

NYSP: How is the RCS's roll going to be different in the new Congress?

Hensarling: We're making communications instead of legislation. Listen, we're going to work with Democrats where we can. Our job is not just to say no to whatever they bring to us. I mean, we all know that a broken clock is right twice a day. And, frankly, they are right on what they were doing on earmarking. Now, time will tell if their actions live up to their words. But I complimented them. I applauded them, as did other conservative leaders, when they brought up their earmark reform rule. Now, that's probably about the only thing I've agreed with them on that I can recall off the top of my head. I don't think we'll have common ground with them often.

NYSP: What should conservatives be watching to tell if the Democrats' earmark reform is anything serious?

Hensarling: You'll know it soon when we get into the appropriations process. The Democrats already seem to be engaged in some slight of hand by saying there are no earmarks in a bill if we say there are no earmarks in a bill. Kind of like, if we say the sun comes up in the West and seats in the East it must come up in the West and set in the East.

I'm not personally religiously opposed to earmarks. I think there are good earmarks. But just like the surgeon general might have told the American populous as a whole that perhaps one glass of red wine a day can be good for your health, he really didn't mean that advice for winos. Unfortunately, too many in our conference have not shown that they can handle earmarks responsibly.

It would have been three times worse under Democrat watch, but no one expects Democrats to be fiscally responsible.

Alright, he had to say that last part, even if it isn't true. We've analyzed some of the reasons why conservatives lost control of their fiscal house in previous posts.

It's good to see some conservatives a little bit chastened by the excesses of the previous Congress. But remember that Hensarling voted against restoring pay-go rules earlier this year, along with most of the Texas Republican delegation. So take that renewed commitment to fiscal responsibility with a grain of salt.

The Iraq War Bridge Fund to Nowhere

Yesterday, the Democrats in the House managed to pass an Iraq war funding bill with strings attached. The $50 billion emergency funding bill requires that the monies only be made available if the President establishes a clear timetable for bringing troops home from Iraq.

The Democratic-led House of Representatives defied a White House veto threat Wednesday and inserted timelines for an immediate troop withdrawal in a 50 billion dollar Iraq war funding bill.

The House voted 218 to 203 to pass the emergency war budget, calling for a pullback of most combat troops to start within 30 days, with a goal of completion by December 15, 2008.

President George W. Bush, who has thwarted every previous Democratic attempt to change his war policy, has repeatedly warned he will never accept mandated troop withdrawal timelines.

The Senate is expected to vote on the bill as early as tomorrow. It is doubtful that enough Republicans will side with the Democrats to provide the 60 votes needed to cut off debate and force the bill to a vote.

On Wednesday's session of the Newshour, Representatives John Larson (D-Conn) and Dallasite Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), who looks more like Alfalfa from Our Gang every day, debated the bill and the criteria for redeploying troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.

Here are some excerpts:

REP. JOHN LARSON: ....It's unconscionable for us to continue this war in Iraq, a war of choice, where this administration continues only to want to run out the clock on its term in office, in a very self-serving way that I think does not serve the American citizens or our troops extraordinarily well.....

REP. JOHN HENSARLING: .....I agree with John. I want to bring the troops home, too. But I don't want to bring them home until they're able to achieve their mission and we give them an opportunity. [Which mission was that again? Eliminating WMD's, uh..establishing freedom, er... making progress....?]

I mean, your reporter had it right. The Democrats are yet again trying to attach strings to our warfighters....... [Warfighters. Don't you love the way Hensarling throws around the military jargon? Keep in mind, neither representative served in the military, but Hensarling was an Eagle Scout.]

And, listen, the Democrats have pointed out all the bad news that has happened in Iraq in the past. They ought to at least admit the good news. Violence is down precipitously. Deaths are down precipitously. People who used to fight the U.S. Army are now in concert with the U.S. Army against al-Qaida.

I mean, we have to remember the threat that we're up against. This is the greatest national security challenge of our time: radical Islam. I mean, these leaders of al-Qaida in Iraq have previously said that they want to kill four million of our citizens, two million of them children.

Now, listen, two of those children are mine. I'm a father of a 5-year-old and a 4-year-old. I take this very, very seriously. [Sure, now kids are important. Too bad you didn't feel that way when you voted against the SCHIP bill.]

There's more, including Hensarling trying to accuse the Democrats of fiscal irresponsibility. Sorry, but Bush has taken that issue off the table with his "taxcut and spend" policies of the last six years. Even the Cato Institute has thrown in the towel.

Larson does a good job of pointing out the obvious - that the Democrats have made considerable progress at cleaning up the fiscal mess made by Republicans, through pay-go and reforms on earmarks, among other things. Go read the rest here.

Texas Blog Roundup: Best of 2007 Edition

2007 was a great year for the Texas Progressive Alliance and its many member blogs and bloggers.

In recognition of the excellent work done by our many bloggers we're treating you to a special New Year's edition of the TPA round-up. So, without further ado, here is your "Best of 2007" from the many bloggers of the Texas Progressive Alliance.

Eye on Williamson has been one of the state's leading blogs when it comes to covering toll road issues and State Representative Mike Krusee's career. EOW's top posts of 2007 included: Eye on Williamson on toll roads, The "New Way Forward" On Tolls, the coming demise of Mike Krusee in Krusee's Influence And Credibility Are Gone, Time For HD-52 To Start Over and a post on the ongoing battle between the citizens and the county government over a new landfill contract, The Landill, TCEQ Hearing & More Gattis Shenanigans .

The most popular posts from The Texas Blue in our first year included: Our running coverage of the 2008 Senate race. We kicked everything off with one of our inaugural pieces analyzing Cornyn's potential vulnerability in '08, in a piece picked up by the Washington Post. We then broke the code on Kos' "mystery candidate," revealing that it was Rep. Rick Noriega that Kos had in mind with his draft movement, and interviewed the Representative shortly before he declared his official candidacy. And we published some of the first information examining Mikal Watts' candidacy in what became the most read story on the Blue this year; In what also became one of our most-read pieces, we analyzed the role of money in statewide Texas campaigns, looking at the efforts taken by the statewide campaign of David Van Os to illustrate the need for money in politics, the proper role of a nascent state party organization, and the limits on the effectiveness of a political message that come from the inability to effectively spread that message due to the lack of funds to reach large numbers of Texans efficiently. This article led to a dialog with David Van Os, and to an interview with him shortly afterward where he voices his side of the issue; And finally, though two interviews have been mentioned already, our "Who's Blue" audio interview series also includes a number of other fascinating figures in Democratic politics, both statewide and across the nation. Some of the more notable interviews have been with four-star Army General and 2004 presidential candidate Wesley Clark, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, and current presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich.

John Coby of Bay Area Houston documents what a team of anonymous citizens have accomplished to expose the Texas Ethics Commission as incompetent in the series Spending Campaign Cash. Their work uncovered $3million in undisclosed expenditures by Texas Legislators. The Series. KHOU in Houston featured their work in late December with their report Activist: State's campaign finance oversight out-of-focus.

Easter Lemming Liberal News's topics covered this past year include Pasadena politics, the Joe Horn shooting and our national So-Called-Liberal-Media.

News items covered by TXsharon on Bluedaze: An attempt to shame a Texas Granny who received the Peacemaker of the year award. The depletion of and pollution of our water due to the irresponsible and shocking use by the oil and gas industry including an explanation of Groundwater Conservation Districts and how they can help that was published in two Texas newspapers and the attempt by oil and gas to sabotage the Upper Trinity Groundwater Conservation District. The failure of the Texas Railroad Commission to protect Texans. The protection money breakdown paid to Texas Railroad Commissioners by the oil and gas industry.

WhosPlayin's favorite posts of 2007 were all about ideas: Universal Health Care - You're Soaking In It in which he explains that we're already paying for universal health care. Why Democrats Oppose "Voter ID" Bills - an explanation for our conservative friends. Lastly, Fiscal Progressivism - Fiscal Conservatism with a Broader View.

Hal at Half Empty hemmed and hawed. How to decide which three of this year's postings merited special recognition? Then it dawned on him to mention the three postings about three singular events that he attended and posted photos about. Priceless! In reverse chronological order: The Fort Bend Democrats Have a Booth at the Fair. Then a summer fundraiser featuring TDP Chairman Boyd Richie. And last February The Fort Bend Democrats held a Love Fest for Rick and Melissa Noriega.

Off the Kuff submits his top posts of 2007: David Dewhurst and Voter ID. Property Tax Cuts Uber Alles, the mantra of the 80th Lege, and Drafting Rick Noriega for Senate.

BlueBloggin', another new blog to the TPA in 2007, submits their best of 2007: nytexan pens an op-ed on The Christian March Against America; BossKitty has a poignant OpEd: All Answers Are Selfish And Shallow; and nytexan discusses how Mexico Get Texas Land Through Border Fence

Refinish69, at Doing My Part For The Left, takes a look back at the year and is still disgusted with Hypocrites, Toe Tapping Senators, and Knee Pad Presidents. While looking back at the year, who can forget Ann Coulter proving what a witch(usually spelled with a capital B) she is. Refinish69 also looks at Gay Pride and World AIDS Day again to explain some history about himself and the continuing need for Gay Voters to speak out.

One of Grand Moff Texan's too rare diaries is always a special delight for us at Texas Kaos. But a standout diary inspired by the ignorance of the beltway punditry really broke down Why We Blog, Or Broderism in my Rear-View Mirror. Read it, and be inspired as we kick off into the 2008 election cycle. As the wilder-than-usual Texas Legislative session came to a close, Boadicea highlighted a few particular items of interest in Personal Courage, Political Vendettas, and an Unexpected Outbreak of Spine. With his usual sharp eye and incisive writing, Krazypuppy noted the REAL importance of the Larry Craig scandal in Why Another GOP Sex Scandal Matters-It's Not the Queers, Either.

It's been a wild year at McBlogger. We've heard about 39%'s trip to meet the Bilderburgers. We've also had exclusive one on one interviews with the Democratic candidates. We've also taken time out to call on some of our friends to be quiet. Because they're being a pain in the ass. This year McBlogger turned two and like all two year olds you can expect tantrums mixed with an even larger dose of mischief. Like all children, though, you'll want to kill us but won't be able to because killing kids is wrong (so, so very wrong). You'll also find us precocious and irresistibly cute.

We at The North Texas Liberal had some trouble deciding on which posts were our absolute favorites of 2007! But we decided on a few standouts that seemed worthy of mentioning for a second time. First, a series on Shaquanda Cotton. Cotton is a fifteen-year-old African American girl from Paris, Texas. She was sentenced to up to seven years at the TYC for pushing a hall monitor at her school (the same judge that sentenced her gave a white girl that was convicted of burning down the family home to probation). Our coverage of Cotton garnered the attention of someone at the Lamar County DA's office who used some recycled talking points to trash Cotton and her mother. Despite all of this, after the mainstream media broke Cotton's story, she became a candidate for early release. By the end of March, it was official that she would be released from the TYC, and in April we showed a video of her reunion with her mother. Cotton has returned to school and wants to study to become a lawyer so she can fight future injustices. We continued our global warming coverage with our Planet Purgatory series, parts One and Two. In May, we heard that the global warming tipping point could be in only ten years' time. NASA scientist James Hansen, a tireless environment advocate who testified about global warming before the Congress back in the 1980s, explains the tipping point theory... the point of no return. But he also believes in prevention rather than adaptation. If you missed this one, check out the post... if you're concerned at all about the environment, you'll want to read it. We continued our global warming coverage with our Planet Purgatory series, parts One and Two. Lastly, we gave Sen. John Cornyn the credit he deserved when he finally stood right side of an issue. Despite a year of flops and fabrications, he said he would support seasonal workers through the H2-B visa program. But despite the efforts of Maryland Democrat Sen. Barbara Mikulski, the fix wasn't finalized before Congress broke for the winter holidays, leaving thousands of small business owners out in the cold this holiday season. When we spoke face-to-face with a legislative expert at Cornyn's DC office, we were told that the Texas senator would like to see comprehensive immigration reform and wouldn't lobby for the H2-B visas, though he supported seasonal workers, because he didn't want to piecemeal a fix for the immigration problem. So even though he stood with his constituents on the right side of the issue, in the end he let them down again.

Edmundo Rocha of Para Justicia y Libertad reports about two protests against the prison industrial complex used here in Texas to detain undocumented immigrants--the Houston
Processing Center in Houston and the T. Don Hutto Residential Center in Taylor, TX. Prior to those reports, he reported on the suicide of David Ritcheson of Spring, TX, the Latino teen who was brutally beaten, tortured, and sodomized with a plastic pole by two white racist teenagers, David Henry Tuck and Keith Robert Turner.

Marc G., of Marc's Miscellany, analyzed Tom Craddick's preposterous claim that the speaker of the house can only be removed by impeachment. Marc also discussed Gov. Perry's controversial decision to veto the health insurance appropriation for community college employees.

Israel Behar-Ojalvo, PDiddie's father-in-law, passed away in March and Brains and Eggs had a post with photos in tribute. The Texas Youth Commission remains the worst scandal in Texas history, and that was apparent in April of last year. And in the matter of a few hours just before Labor Day, Alberto Gonzales, Phil Garner, and Tim Purpura all lost their jobs. Good riddance to a big bunch of losers. More like this in 2008, sure to come.

2007 was a heck of a year for Capitol Annex. Vince Leibowitz at Capitol Annex is most proud of his ground-breaking coverage of the saga surrounding the insurgency in the Texas House and Speaker Craddick's power grab, including Terry Keel's Troubling Memo (a smoking gun, for sure), and the saga surrounding the resignation of parliamentarian Denise Davis, which earned him a mention in (among other publications), Texas Lawyer. Coverage of the 80th Texas Legislature was also a major event for Capitol Annex, including a mind-numbing Liveblogging of debate on the General Appropriations Act, and a special video: Jodie Laubenberg Is Screaming.

It has been another exciting year at DosCentavos. I've tried to go over some of my better postings of the year and came up with three. DosCentavos wrote about his expectations for the 2007Lege Session. Beyond La Politica, we also know DosCentavos enjoys writing reviews on the latest releases in the Tejano and Mexican American music genre. This year, he received the honor of being asked by Los Lobos to rate their most recent release, The Town and The City. Finally, during the last Lege session, some Senators attempted to take up the debate on legalizing gambling to pay for education. DC tells us a few realities about higher education funding in the process.

Musings started the year concerned about science education in Texas (see: Warren Chisum, R-Dark Ages) and ended the year with some commentary about her friend, Chris Comer, being fired as Director of Science at the Texas Education Agency over her stand on evolution. In between it was all about Melissa and Rick Noriega.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme notes a church in El Paso falls victim to manipulation by a right wing cadre bent on world domination. CouldBeTrue then wonders what would have happened in a perfect Republican world when the Minnesota bridge collapsed. South Texas Chisme covers the wedge'em and hate'em campaign,, also known as Republican immigration strategy. Hispanics have taken note.

The Texas Cloverleaf, another blog new to the TPA this year, was a submission hold performed by professional wrestler Dean Malenko, which tied up his opponent's legs, much like a clover. We are designed to be one of those lefty progressive Democratic type political blogs. We live in North Texas, so expect a lot of DFW area stuff. But, we like the rest of the state, sometimes. Maybe even America. But don't push us! Politics is like a Texas Cloverleaf. It takes you in different directions, and ultimately will make you tap out! The series we are most proud of since forming in the summer of 2007 was the continued exposure of the outright lies and misleading statements coming from the pro-toll road crowd in Dallas during the Trinity Vote effort. Even though the referendum failed, we feel we did our part to help Dallas voters make an informed decision. Read the series here, here, here, here and here.

Best wishes for a happy 2008 from the Texas Progressive Alliance.

Bipartisanship Is Not the Answer

As John Edwards surging poll numbers are raising the exciting prospect that the Democratic presidential nomination might become a horse race, Edwards is coming under increasing attack from the press questioning whether his populist stance and increasingly tough anti-corporate rhetoric are seen as polarizing.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Edwards said he was trying to ease fears about his electability by arguing that his sharply populist message is not polarizing. "It's not divisive at all," he said, "it's uniting."

Wait, wasn't it just a few months ago that Hillary Clinton was being decried as unelectable she was seen as too divisive? But she's the anti-populist. That's right, she's polarizing because she's a woman. Or a Clinton, take your pick. And Obama is guilty as well, even though he's running on a platform to transcend partisanship. But he's still divisive because he's black.

Listening to all the pundits ratchet up the heat on the Democrats to play nice, I keep coming back to Digby's post on the topic last winter, shortly after the Democrats regained congress:

As regular readers know, I've been pondering this infuriating fixation on bipartisanship and moderation for the last couple of weeks and watching aghast as the press does the wingnuts' bidding, setting up the Dems as failing to fulfill their promise to the American people that they would be moderate and bipartisan if they won the election. This was simply not on the agenda during the election, other than that the House Democrats would restore some sort of fairness to the rules and pass anti-corruption legislation. In fact, the entire election was about the Democrats taking power to provide some needed checks and balance on the Republicans.

Oddly, however, in the last couple of weeks, the media has been obsessing that the election reflected a desire among the American people for the congress to stop fighting and work together, which makes no sense. The Republican congress didn't fight --- the Democrats just caterwauled ineffectually from the sidelines, while the Republicans did what they wanted. There was no gridlock, they passed virtually every piece of legislation they wanted and the congress was perfectly in sync with the president. If comity was what people were concerned about they obviously would have kept undivided government.

The American people voted for the Democrats because they wanted them to stop the Republican juggernaut.

The public is rightfully upset with Congress over their failure to stop Bush's agenda in 2007. But the answer is to play hardball while strategizing for a larger majority in the next election, not to find more ways to compromise. Previous calls from the GOP for moderation merely provided the political cover to stay the course, and the result has been a legislative agenda vastly out of sync with the views of its electorate on every key policy issue: the war, fiscal responsibility, healthcare, energy.

And as for presidential candidates and "divisiveness," the Republican strategy since the days of Lee Atwater has been to pit one segment of the electorate against the other. Now that legacy is playing out in prime time as the Republicans attack one another over immigration (anti-Hispanic), terrorism (anti-Muslim), and religious bona fides (anti-Mormon). Does anyone think that electing any of the current Republican presidential candidates will result in a less contentious executive-legislative interface than any of the Democrats mentioned above?

If the media wants to make this an issue for the campaign, they at least need to apply the standard evenly. Try googling the names of any of the candidates + "divisive" and see which party's candidates have the highest hits.

neil durrance announces campaign for congress

Chairman of the Denton County Democratic Party Neil Durrance has announced his intention to run for U.S. Congress in the 26th Congressional District in Texas.

Read the press release below.

Neil L. Durrance, an attorney and Chairman of the Denton County Democratic Party, today announced his campaign for Congress in the 26th Congressional District.

“For too long, Rep. Burgess has voted against the best interests of Texans. We need real leadership in Washington that puts partisanship aside to find solutions to the challenges we face. I will work with both Democrats and Republicans to turn the economy around, improve access to quality, affordable health care, and invest in the next generation of leaders by strengthening education.”

Mr. Durrance’s campaign will focus on bringing fiscal responsibility to government, creating jobs in the district, making educational opportunities available people of all ages, and improving health care.

Neil Durrance has practiced law since 1981, served as a City Council member, and was elected Chair of the Denton County Democratic Party in 2007. Filing with the FEC allows Mr. Durrance to begin the fundraising phase of the campaign. During this phase the organizational structure of the campaign, including staff, will be put in place. A formal public announcement is expected in late fall 2009.

Questions should be directed to durranceforcongress@gmail.com.

default! (john mccain doesn't pay taxes)

Huffington Post has the scoop on a Newsweek story claiming that John McCain has defaulted on his taxes for a La Jolla, Calif. residence for the past four years.

Newsweek is set to publish a highly embarrassing report on Sen. John McCain, revealing that the McCains have failed to pay taxes on their beach-front condo in La Jolla, California, for the last four years and are currently in default, The Huffington Post has learned.

Under California law, once a residential property is in default for five years, it can be sold at a tax sale to recover the unpaid taxes for the taxpayers.

The McCains own at least seven homes through a variety of trusts and corporations controlled by Cindy McCain.

According to the Newsweek article, the McCains have frantically tried to pay the back taxes this weekend.

Shortly after NEWSWEEK inquired about the matter, the McCain aide e-mailed a receipt dated Friday, June 27, confirming payment by the trust to San Diego County in the amount of $6,744.42. County officials say the trust still owes an additional $1,742 for this year, an amount that is overdue and will go into default July 1. Told of the outstanding $1,742, the aide said: "The trust has paid all bills shown owing as of today and will pay all other bills due."

We could make a witty comment about fiscal conservatism, but we think this story speaks for itself.

A Question of Priorities

Since I am a preacher by trade, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor -- both black and white -- through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on April 4, 1967

Reading over Bush's latest budget proposal, I was reminded of the historic speech the Reverend gave at Riverside Church on the Vietnam war. King understood only too well that a nation that squandered its treasure on pursuit of empire could never afford to live up to its ideals of equal opportunity. And so he fought a battle on three fronts: one for civil rights, one for economic justice and another for peace.

Bush's latest budget differs little from his previous ones. The shell game over funding for this administration's overall defense programs continues, so a true accounting is probably not possible, but defense spending is up.

The Bush budget to be submitted Monday would cut the budget for the Health and Human Services Department by $2 billion, or 3 percent. By contrast, the Pentagon would get a $35 billion increase to $515 billion for core programs, with war costs additional [emphasis added.]

When conservatives say "starve the beast," they are talking about "entitlements" like healthcare for children, not toys for the military.

In terms of fiscal priorities, this administration has been very consistent, so it shouldn't come as any surprise that Bush is proposing cuts for programs that help keep the poor and nearly poor afloat just at a time when a looming recession predicts those programs would be most needed.

Democrats can take no solace in the fact that this version of the budget won't see the light of day, because regardless of how strenuously they fight to restore targeted cuts for domestic programs, their options are limited. Seven years of uncontrolled spending on a needless war coupled with tax cuts for the wealthy have left our country facing bankruptcy.

Dr. King's haunting and prophetic words ring as true about our current military endeavors as they did about Vietnam. It's time to choose: Do we continue on the road to endless war and occupation or do we begin to rebuild our own country? Here's a primer on the crisis we face, what it will mean to future generations and what we need to do to fix it.

Cornyn Weighs in on Bush's Budget Proposal

Cornyn issued a statement regarding the release of Bush's fiscal year 2009 budget proposal that said.....very little. But read this statement.

“Now that the President has proposed his annual budget blueprint, the hard work begins in Congress to make sure we fund our priorities while holding the line on spending. The American people are increasingly tired of runaway government spending.

Tired? No argument there.

Now read this statement.

“Like every hard-working American family, the federal government has to live within a budget as well. As a member of the Budget Committee, I’ll do all I can to ensure Congress sets the necessary funding levels for critical areas such as national defense and border security. These are non-negotiable items that we cannot compromise on. “

Do you see the contradiction here? The only programs in the budget that aren't getting frozen (technically a cut, since there is no adjustment for inflation) or being reduced from last year are defense and homeland security. But Cornyn tells us that funding for those programs is non-negotiable.

President Bush unveiled a $3.1 trillion budget on Monday that supports sizable increases in military spending to fight the war on terrorism and protects his signature tax cuts.

The spending proposal, which shows the government spending $3 trillion in a 12-month period for the first time in history, squeezes most of government outside of national security, and also seeks $196 billion in savings over the next five years in the government's giant health care programs -- Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for the poor.

Even with those savings, Bush projects that the deficits, which had been declining, will soar to near-record levels, hitting $410 billion this year and $407 billion in 2009. The all-time high deficit in dollar terms was $413 billion in 2004.

Yes, we are tired of runaway government spending. Tired of an endless war that drains our coffers and burdens future generations with unprecedented debt. Tired of worrying about a future without the social safety nets that we earned through a lifetime of hard work. And most of all, we're tired of politicians who think we can't see through the hypocrisy of their self-serving spin to know when we're being played.

Texas Blog Roundup: August 20, 2007

Here is your Texas Progressive Alliance Blog Round-Up for the week of August 20, 2007. This week's installment is brought to you Vince from Capitol Annex.

Krazypuppy at Texas Kaos keeps track of What You Will Not Find at Laura Bush's Library.

TXSharon at BlueDaze asks, "Would you make Osama Bin Ladin director of Homeland Security?" If the answer is no, read about who wants to protect our water in Barnett Shale: Devon wants to conserve our water? Like hell!

Hal at Half Empty sees vultures flocking to pick over the bones of Tom DeLay's old seat.

Texas Toad at North Texas Liberal exposes the hypocrisy of chickenhawk Republicans taking shots at Rick Noriega.

Vince at Capitol Annex tells us about the coming storm surrounding implementation of religious viewpoint "anti-discrimination" policies in Texas schools to comply with a bill recently passed by the Texas Legislature.

WcNews at Eye On Williamson points out the hypocrisy in sentencing in recent child molestation cases in Williamson County.

PDidde at Brains and Eggs fries up a double order of e-Slate voting woes: an advance of the meeting over security issues with Houston Mayor Bill White and the Harris County (Republican) clerk; and the disappointing results of that meeting, including the news that the TDP lawsuit over "emphasis voting" was dismissed.

Captain Kroc at McBlogger suggests the incumbent in the Travis County Tax Assessor-Collector race is using a page or two from Turd Blossom's playbook.

Boadicea at StopCornyn tells us about John Cornyn's Badge Of Fiscal Irresponsibility.CouldBeTrue at

South Texas Chisme exposes another Republican minority district suppression scam - using immigration raids to minimize population counts for the 2010 census.

Kuff at Off the Kuff asks "How many felonies could you commit with an oyster?"

Glenn Smith at Burnt Orange Report gives a "political type's" perspective on the media's fascination with Karl Rove.

Also, don't forget to check out these other great Texas Progressive Alliance blogs: People's Republic of Seabrook, Three Wise Men, Musings, Bay Area Houston, In The Pink Texas, Who's Playin?, Feet To The Fire, Easter Lemming Liberal News, Winding Road In Urban Area, Common Sense, B & B , The Agonist, Texas Truth Serum.

McClelland Targets Dallas Crime

Year in and year out, crime remains a concern for citizens of large cities. Dallas is no exception. In a recent poll, crime topped the list of issues.

As voters prepare to elect a new mayor on May 12, these factors contribute to Dallasites' overwhelming ranking of crime as the single most important issue facing the city, according to a Dallas Morning News poll.

About one in three respondents highlighted crime, and no other single issue rivaled it.

As a candidate for Dallas City Council in District 12, John McClelland knows these issues first-hand.

The City of Dallas remains at the top of the crime food chain in Texas, and even the nation. 8,624 crimes per 100,000 people. That is the nation's worst crime rate. Dallas has held the top spot for 9 of the last 10 years. Is this something Dallas should be proud of? I don't think so.

One would tend to think that the crime problem only affects the areas of blight in Dallas or lower income areas. That is one of the biggest misconceptions. In District 12, which is Far North Dallas (majority caucasion, majority conservative, with a decent median income), there were 3900 crimes in 2006. That is over 10 per day. Dallas SWAT has been in my parking lot in the last couple months. I even had checks stolen off my dining room table by my apartment complex's own maintenance people this past week.

In McClelland's view, the continuing crime wave highlights a need for more officers and better pay.

We need more police. We need to pay more to the ones we have. Dallas needs to have at least 3 1/2 officers per 1000 people. We currently stand at under 2 1/2. That means we need to hire at least 800 more officers in the city, if you go by mayoral candidate Darryl Jordan's numbers.

Of course, more police protection comes with a price tag, and McClelland thinks financing a solution is a matter of smarter policies, not higher taxes.

“It is a simple matter of common sense and fiscal responsibility. We have projects that were intended to create parks and marinas, and instead we end up with toll roads that approach $1 billion in price,” McClelland pointed out. “If we reign in the wasteful spending the current Council has seen fit to let happen, then we would have the money to give our hard working police a deserved raise in pay, as well as offer more incentive to attract new officers. We may not have to hit taxpayers in the pocketbook to achieve our goals.”

To learn more about McClelland's positions, or to donate to his campaign, visit his website.

[Disclaimer: I volunteer for the McClelland campaign. Join me.]

john cornyn is actually right about something (and it's about time)

We don't agree on much with Sen. John Cornyn, a tried and true Texas Republican that stands on the wrong side of issues such as SCHIP and Iraq and recently authored a "sense of the Senate" resolution condemning liberal organization MoveOn.org for an ad they took out in the New York Times.

There's not much doubt that we will support the eventual Democratic nominee that will run against Cornyn in 2008. In the primary, Texas Democrats will choose between Rick Noriega and Mikal Watts, both of whom would make an all-around better senator for Texas.

But maybe Cornyn's not all bad.

Here's what Cornyn and his staff had to say in a constituent response email about the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act (S. 988) introduced by Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md.

As you know, the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes employers in certain industries to hire temporary and seasonal workers—subject to an annual cap of 66,000 employees—from outside the United States. The H-2B program is designed to help U.S. employers fill a one-time need, seasonal need, peak-load need or intermittent need.

I supported a comprehensive immigration effort that would include a robust temporary worker program that meets the needs of the U.S. labor market. Though the comprehensive immigration reform proposal debated this year could not be adopted because of significant flaws, I continue to push for the Senate to re-engage the debate on immigration reform this year. As an interim step, I support reform measures that will streamline existing temporary worker programs, like the H-2B visa program, as a solution to demands in critical sectors like the Texas landscaping and construction industries. President George W. Bush has recognized the need for such reform and has taken the lead in looking at ways to administratively reform both the H-2B and H-1A seasonal worker programs.

I support the goal of the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act (S. 988) as introduced by Senator Barbara Mikulski. I am also exploring introducing a more comprehensive legislative package designed to create more targeted reforms to both the H-2B and H-2A programs and to permanently re-authorize the “returning worker” provisions introduced in the Save our Small and Seasonal Business Act of 2005 (P.L. 109–13, as amended by P.L. 109–364).

I guess even if you make a career of bad decisions, you'll eventually do something right by accident. Or, he truly stands on the side of small business and supports legal immigrants and seasonal workers, both of which are invaluable to Texans and our state's economy.

Thankfully, Sen. Mikulski was able to protect small businesses for another year by adding language to the 2008 fiscal spending bill. In a press release, the senator said we could count on her to keep fighting for small business.

“Who says my promises made are not promises kept? I told small businesses they could count on me to keep fighting, and I meant it,” said Senator Mikulski. “Without these seasonal workers, many businesses would not survive – forced to limit services, lay off permanent U.S. workers or, worse yet, close their doors.”

The Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act, signed into law by President Bush in May 2005, made significant changes to the federal H2B (non-skilled seasonal worker) visa program. Among the changes, it exempted returning seasonal workers from counting against the national cap of 66,000 people, created new anti-fraud provisions, and ensured a fair allocation of H2B visas among spring and summer employees. This exemption, however, was not made permanent in the 2005 bill, and has to be extended each year until Senator Mikulski’s proposal to make it permanent is passed into law. Last year, a last-minute, one-year extension was included as part of the 2007 Department of Defense authorization bill, but it expired on September 30, 2007.

Senator Mikulski joined Senator John Warner (R-Va.) in March 2007 to introduce a stand alone bill to extend the provision, and also included it as an amendment to the comprehensive immigration packages considered by the Senate this spring. Unfortunately, no bill was brought up for a final vote before the provision’s expiration.

Today’s provision is a one-year extension to allow companies to continue to get the seasonal workers they depend on, and will expire on September 30, 2008.

Mikulski vowed that she won't give up until the fix is permanent. We're glad that John Cornyn stands by her side. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, however, is another story. She is remaining intentionally ambiguous on the issue. A line from her constituent response:

Temporary work visas play an important role in ensuring U.S. companies have the workers they need to succeed in an increasingly competitive global marketplace. However, U.S. immigration policy must ensure American workers have every opportunity to compete for available jobs.

Perhaps she will remain vague, since anything regarding immigration is seen as controversial in Texas. But why is she worried, when she enjoys such high approval ratings? It seems like she has some new career aspirations which might prohibit her from taking any real stances for the remainder of her Senate term.

Dispirited Republicans Retiring from Congress

The number of Republicans in Congress who have announced that they are retiring or seeking other offices may reach a record this year. After becoming a minority in the last congressional elections, the GOP has struggled to find its message. Fundraising is lagging the Democrats, and even party insiders admit that the party once known for its incredible message unity and discipline is in disarray.

[Republican consultant David] Johnson said Republicans "haven't adapted to life in the minority" and that the party lacked a cohesive strategy to rebound. He gave credit to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat who offers a very different public image from that of Newt Gingrich, the former Georgia congressman who led the House after Republicans won control in 1994. That's the last time the parties traded control.

"Part of the Republican problem right now that I see as a strategist is our communications effort," Johnson said. "We don't have any good communicators. We don't seem to stay on message. We come across as grumpy old men. I hate to say it, but that's part of the problem. We're not telegenic on TV. We're going against Nancy Pelosi, who could be damaged but — I have to take my hat off to her — she's done an excellent job with the media. Nothing seems to stick on her like everything stuck on Newt Gingrich."

Speaking of grumpy old men, it doesn't sound like the Republicans are banking on McCain having any coattails. Although McCain is considered a moderate, a sizable majority of the retiring GOP, at least ten seats, belong to the centrist Republican Main Street Partnership. The RMSP states that its mission is:

...to promote thoughtful leadership in the Republican Party, and to partner with individuals, organizations and institutions that share centrist values.

The Partnership is comprised of party members and public officials who are fiscally conservative deficit hawks. The Partnership is working to Grow Our Party through a pragmatic approach to governing that reaches out to a broad base of Americans who share the Republican ideals of fiscal responsibility and limited government......

Well, you can certainly see why they're anxious to get outa town. Try spinning Bush's last 7 years in light of those goals.

For a list of the congressmen retiring or running for other offices, click here. No Texans are on this list.

Update: Judith at Castle Hills Democrats has a recent post that does a good job summarizing the trouble Republicans have defending their legislative accomplishments over the last few years. Yes, this is Bush's legacy, but he couldn't have succeeded without a Republican Congress marching lock step with him on every bad policy decision. We are a poorer nation now on many levels than we were when George bullied his way to the White House. The question is: Are we any wiser?

Republican Faux Wars

Dick Cheney once told us that "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." We all know how that turned out. Cheney's obsession with Iraq's non-existent nuclear and biological weapons was only the most stellar example of how the Republicans are passing laws, rewriting regulations and even starting wars to protect us from improbable threats.

Let's take an example here in Texas. We know that Jerry Patterson of the General Land Office has stalled the transfer of Christmas Mountains to the National Parks system because they don't allow hunting. Now it appears he may get his wish. After pressure from Texas senators, the Interior Department is proposing new regulations that would allow conceal carry guns in national parks "to ensure visitor safety and resource protection."

To quote Booboo, "Mr. Ranger isn't going to like this, Yogi."

Park rangers, retirees and conservation groups protested the plan, saying it will lead to confusion for visitors, rangers and other law enforcement agencies.

"This is purely and simply a politically driven effort to solve a problem that doesn't exist," said Bill Wade, chairman of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.

Wade and other critics cited statistics showing that national parks are among the safest places in the country. The probability of becoming a victim of a violent crime in a national park is 1 in more than 708,000 -- less likely than being struck by lightning, the groups said.

The rules change would defer to state and local law, which makes it very confusing and likely unenforceable. So why is it so critical to push an unneeded regulation against a non-existent threat which would produce a policy so incoherent it couldn't necessarily be enforced consistently within the same park?

Well, its an election year and the GOP doesn't have too much to crow about these days. Inflation is the highest in 17 years, housing prices are down double digits, the national debt is approaching $10 trillion, gas prices are approaching $4 per gallon, and then there is a little matter of that war that isn't playing so well in Peoria anymore. If you can't run on the issues, you need to invent one.

So instead of addressing any of our nation's problems with the economy, transportion, health care, fiscal policy; instead of drafting a plan to get us out a disastrous occupation of a foreign land; instead of addressing any of the real and present dangers facing middle America in the 21st century, we get yet another version of the culture wars. Thank you John Cornyn, Jerry Patterson, the Interior Department and the rest of the GOP for keeping issues like these on the front burner. We'd sleep much better in our tent knowing we're safe from Yogi Bear, except with the price of gas who can get to Yellowstone these days?

Why You Should Boycott Snickers

And Campbell's Soup, and Wal-Mart (heck, you do that anyway, don't you?), and all the other companies whose heirs have lobbied the Republican leadership for repeal of the inheritance tax. Because Saturday's shameless one a.m. session really did make a mockery of the term "compassionate conservative."

The Republican Congress is so opposed to raising the minimum wage, stuck at $5.15 for nine years, that the only way they will back a raise for the working poor is to couple it with legislation to raise the cap on the estate tax. Even as they were passing the bill, the Republican leadership acknowledged that its chances for passage were slim, but that's not the point. Elections are just around the corner, and Republicans think they can have their cake and eat it, too.

Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts, said Republican leaders knew that the tax provisions would surely be killed in the Senate. He accused them of giving their moderate members a chance to go on record in favor of boosting the minimum wage without having to deliver results.

We're covered the Paris Hilton tax cut before, and the reasons why it isn't just unfair and unprogressive, but a disastrous fiscal policy as well. Republicans have been rying unsuccessfully for years to eliminate the tax altogether, but they would settle for raising the cap high enough and lowering the tax rates to the point where it almost never applies. But just in case this legislation doesn't pass, the administration is preparing to try the back door and eliminate the auditors.

Meanwhile eighteen millionaire families and their Republican handmaidens think that a two-dollar-an-hour raise every decade for the lowest rung of the working class must be balanced by a $91 billion dollar inheritance tax cut for some of the wealthiest families on the planet, dynasties who already control $185 billion dollars in assets. Who are these families? The Blethens who own the Seattle Times, the Waltons of Wal-Mart fame, The Mars family of Mars, Inc., the Dorrances of Campbell Soup fame, the Gallos of E&J Gallo Winery, the Nordstroms, and a few other less familiar names.

Not every wealthy heir thinks more tax cuts on inheritance are a good idea.

.... Elizabeth Letzler, an investment manager from New York who will be subject to the estate tax and who spoke at the press conference, “The current estate tax structure should permit any wealthy household to pass on a legacy of financial security, education and family heirlooms to the next generations.” She challenged the families showcased in the report: “Do something spectacular during your life-time investing in the social welfare and well-being of the children and grandchildren at the bottom of the pyramid.” Her daughter Stephanie, also in attendance, said, “If keeping the estate tax means a step closer to a debt-free treasury, a step closer to improved health care, Social Security, education, and every other program that makes me proud to be an American, show me where to sign the check.”

Warren Buffet, who doesn't believe in "dynastic wealth," set the bar for noblesse oblige when he decided to pass along the majority of his estate through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. And a famous blue-eyed actor recently voiced these sentiments:

Paul Newman, actor and founder of Newman’s Own food company, agreed in a separate statement: “For those of us lucky enough to be born in this country and to have flourished here, the estate tax is a reasonable and appropriate way to return something to the common good. I’m proud to be among those supporting preservation of this tax, which is one of the fairest taxes we have.”

So put back that Snickers bar and pass the Newman O's.

Barnwell for the 26th Congressional District

Check out victory06's diary on Texas Kaos outlining Tim Barnwell's platform for the 26th Congressional District in Texas.

TIM BARNWELL and a Democratic Congress will:

- fight to raise the minimum wage and repeal subsidies for companies that send our jobs overseas.

- overturn Republican cuts in financial assistance to college students.

- repeal the Republican bill that denied competition in drug pricing for Medicare Part D, and will work toward health coverage for all Americans.

- return to the fiscal responsibility of the Clinton years and reduce the deficit and the debt.

- champion stem cell research, providing hope to millions of Americans for cures from catastrophic diseases.

- promote alternative fuels, fuel efficiency, and reduce dependency on foreign oil.

- follow up on the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and demand oversight of the administration’s build-up to and conduct of the war on Iraq.

With your help, Tim Barnwell will go to Washington to help accomplish all these goals. Please join us in this exciting opportunity to show the country what North Texas really believes in and will fight for.

MAKE A CONTRIBUTION OR VOLUNTEER AT barnwellforcongress.com

Residents of the 26th Congressional District deserve better. Let's work together to send Tim Barnwell to Congress in 2007.

[Disclaimer: I volunteer for the Barnwell campaign. Join me.]

Republican Priorities - More Gifts for the Rich

The estate tax reduction bill that the Republican House passed on Thursday was a compromise. If the GOP-led House had its way, there wouldn't be an estate tax, as they have repeatedly proven over the years by passing countless bills to eliminate it. But after the Senate failed last week in its attempt to eliminate the tax altogether, House Republicans are trying the back door.

House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, explained their persistence.

"Americans are being taxed almost every moment of their lives. My goodness, when they are dead, do we have to tax them again?"

Apparently, Congressman Boehner has been channeling the deceased and is really feeling the pressure. Who knew?

By a vote of 269-156, the House approved a bill that would eliminate the estate tax on individual estates up to $5 million ($10 million per couple) with annual adjustments. Yeah, you read that right. The same Republican rubber stamps who haven't voted an increase in the minimum wage for nine years, are so concerned Paris Hilton might have to downgrade from a Lamborghini to a Mercedes, that they decided to index the exemption to keep pace with inflation.

The bill also greatly reduces the tax on wealthier estates. Estates of $10-25 million would be taxed at the same rate at those on capital gains, currently 15% but due to rise to 20% in 2011. Why the rate change? It seems an unnecessary charade when the Republicans will obviously fight tooth and nail to keep that increase from ever happening. But by inserting sunset clauses in the reductions, they can mask the true costs of these bills, chronically underestimating the size of future deficits.

Congressional tax experts estimated that if the changes become law, only 5,100 estates would face taxation when the changes are fully in effect in the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2011. The Internal Revenue Service levied taxes on more than 30,000 estates in 2004, the most recent figure available.

Okay, maybe Alice Walton won't get everything she asked for, but the legislation still means billions in savings for America's ruling class. And the rest of us?

The Joint Tax Committee estimated the cost at $283 billion through 2016. But the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank, said the full cost would be about $750 billion for the first 10 years it takes effect.....

Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, the top Democrat on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said it would benefit the "richest of the rich" while adding to the nation's debt and forcing deep spending cuts in key domestic programs.....
"What we're doing today is ... jeopardizing the resources to pay for health care and education, and even our national defense because some of you believe the richest of the rich should be protected from an equitable distribution of tax liability," Rangel said.

And no Republican bill would be complete without a little pork thrown to special interests, so the bill also contains a reduction in timber taxes to increase it's chance of passage in the Senate.

North Texas Congressmen will be holding town meetings this summer all over the metroplex. I think they have a little explaining to do.

A Rose by Any Other Name

I recall a marketing consultant for a telecommunications company making the following statement during the wireless build-out in the nineties: "Customers don't like roaming charges - so we don't call it that." This quote came to mind as I was reading Michael Hirsh's article in the May 1st Newsweek, "Stuck In the Hot Zone," about the construction of the Balad Air Base.

...this 15-square-mile mini-city of thousands of trailers and vehicle depots is one of four"superbases" where the Pentagon plans to consolidate U.S. forces, taking them gradually from the front lines of the Iraq war. (Two other bases are slated for the British and Iraqi military.) The shift is part of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's plan to draw down U.S. ground forces in Iraq significantly by the end of 2006....

U.S. officials routinely deny that America intends to put down permanent bases. "A key planning factor in our basing strategy is that there will be no bases in Iraq following Operation Iraqi Freedom," says Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a spokesman for CENTCOM in Baghdad. "What we have in Iraq are 'contingency bases,' intended to support our operations in Iraq on a temporary basis until OIF is complete." But according to the Congressional Research Service, the Bush administration has asked for more than $1.1 billion for new military construction in Iraq, roughly double what it plans to spend in Kuwait, Qatar and United Arab Emirates combined. Of that, the single biggest share is intended for Balad ($231 million).

We're not planning to stay in Iraq past the completion of Operation Iraqi Freedom. We'll stand down as Iraqis stand up. There are no plans for permanent bases in Iraq. Yes, framing is really nothing more than the marketing of political ideas. In truth, we are mired in a military operation without clear objectives and no definable endpoint. Yes, we're going to hear a lot of noise about "troop drawdowns" this year, but they are merely window dressing designed to get the GOP through the 2006 elections without having to actually address the issue of withdrawal. By President Bush's own admission, finishing this business will fall to his predecessor.

Which brings us to a quote President Bush made Wednesday on the emergency supplemental spending bill:

"This bill is for emergency spending and it should be limited to emergency measures."

The President is out to prove his fiscal chops by threatening his first veto if the supplemental bill that includes funding for the Iraq war exceeds a $92 billion cap. The concept of funding the war through supplemental bills is just one of the financial shenanigans this administration has perpetrated to avoid criticism for the true costs of the war. From the beginning, Rumsfeld refused to project a budget, citing the "known unknowns" and the "unknown unknowns." But how is it that after more than three years, we are still treating the war budget as an unexpected cost? As the Newsweek article points out,

But the vast base being built up at Balad is also hard evidence that, despite all the political debate in Washington about a quick U.S. pullout, the Pentagon is planning to stay in Iraq for a long time -- at least a decade or so, according to military strategists.....

Officials in both the executive branch and Congress say they are unaware of any serious planning, or even talk inside the national-security bureaucracy, about a full withdrawal.

If we are planning to be in Iraq for the next decade, why can't we prepare a budget that reflects these goals? By limiting our access to information, this administration seeks to limit the public debate regarding our military policy, hoping that most Americans will be too busy to notice that contingency bases are permanent, or that troop drawdowns mask plans for a long-term occupation.

If the vast majority of Americans think this war is a mistake, what are we going to do about it? The President insists we can win this war. Do we agree? Are the costs of empire justified, when continuing this campaign shortchanges programs that invest in our future -- education, health care, energy independence, for starters? Do we seriously want to repeat this policy debacle in Iran? If not, then it's time to stand up and make a little noise.