north texas constituents against the bailout

According to PoliTex, several North Texas lawmakers are being flooded with emails and calls about the $700 billion bailout, and the vast majority of them are against the rescue plan.

Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Lewisville: has received about 957 e-mails on the bailout, 952 against, 5 in favor.Phone calls: 364. Only 6 support the rescue.

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Arlington: has received more than 500 e-mails with all but 25 against a bailout. Phone calls: About 400 – with fewer than 25 constituent calls in favor of the bailout.

Rep. Kay Granger, R-Fort Worth: has received 340 e-mails, 265 against the rescue and 75 for a bailout in some form. Phone calls: 77 – all against.

Rep. Kenny Marchant, R-Coppell: had gotten close to 1,000 e-mails and phone calls. Over 90% are against a federal rescue.

Are you for or against the proposed plan to fix the current economic crisis? Either way, you need to let your legislators know.

coulter's words were indefensible

Last Saturday, we told you about conservative author and speaker Ann Coulter using a gay slur to describe Democratic candidate John Edwards.

Coulter has taken a lot of flack for her comments, but an editorial in the most recent issue of Lewisville-based newspaper the News-Connection almost treats Coulter's hate speech as if it were acceptable:

Nevertheless, she has her defenders who say that liberal Democrats use hate speech all the time when referring to the president, the vice-president or others with whom they disagree.

Case in point: liberal commentator Bill Maher’s recent statement that if Vice-President Dick Cheney was dead, more people would live.

That’s pretty close to saying he wishes Cheney would die, otherwise, there’d be no point in making the statement. Consequently, if we are to make a comparison of the two comments, it would be fair to say that wishing the vice president would die is much worse than calling a candidate a name that equates with words like, wuss, wimp or sissy.

First of all, Bill Maher is a liberal comedian. He's made many references that were detrimental to Democrats, as well, and most likely considers himself an independent voter, but there's no denying he's on the left side of the political spectrum. Regardless, his comment was said in the context of an HBO show that people watch expecting to see political comedy. Maher may have crossed the line, but what does that have to do with Ann Coulter calling someone a faggot? Absolutely nothing.

When Ann Coulter made her comment, on the other hand, she was at a conference with the Republican elite, including 2008 presidential candidates. Coulter is not seen by the Republican community as a comedian: she was invited to appear as the keynote speaker for a dinner hosted by the Denton County Republican Party, where she appeared alongside Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Lewisville, Rep. Kenny Marchant, R-Coppell, State Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound, and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.

Coulter defended her comments in the same way that the News-Connection did, according to McBlogger:

"'Faggot isn't offensive to gays; it has nothing to do with gays," Coulter said on "Hannity and Colmes" Monday night. "It's a schoolyard taunt meaning 'wuss,' and unless you're telling me that John Edwards is gay, it was not applied to a gay person."

Coulter and the News-Connection should take note: the word "faggot" is extremely offensive to gays and lesbians, and there is no excuse for using it. Using a fallacious argument like, "But look at what so-and-so said, and he's a liberal" does not excuse hate speech.

Even Coulter's explanation of her comments is offensive... using a stigmatized word like "faggot," which obviously refers to homosexuals, and saying that it means "wuss" is demeaning, let alone an invented excuse for Coulter's outrageous statement.

NTL respectfully commends Republican candidates Mitt Romney, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani for condemning Ann Coulter's comments and labeling them "wildly inappropriate," instead of making excuses for them likes others have done.

And via Pink Dome, you know it's bad when even ultra-conservative blogger Michelle Malkin finds your comments "an intentionally-tossed verbal grenade," "garbage," and worries that children that attended the event could end up "spewing... epithets."

Texas Legislators Ranked by National Review

The National Journal has issued its 2006 ratings, ranking the U.S. Senate and Congress according to their liberal or conservative voting tendencies.

No, Texas didn't score the most conservative senator. That honor went to Jim DeMent, R-South Carolina. We came close, however, with Sen. John Cornyn at no. 4. That this loyalist to the Bush administration should crack the top ten shouldn't come as any surprise. Kay Bailey Hutchison was all the way back at no. 39.

Cornyn's ultra-conservatism may help explain why he'll be facing a serious challenger in the 2008 election. If you'd like to make a contribution to Cornyn's eventual Democratic rival, click here.

On the congressional side, North Texas Republicans are heavily weighted in the top one hundred most conservative. Two Dallas County congressmen cracked the top ten, including Pete Sessions, R-Dallas, and Sam Johnson, R-Plano. Other area congressmen include no. 22 Kenny Marchant, R-Coppell, no. 61 Jeb Hensarling, R-Dallas, no. 89 Kay Granger, R-Ft. Worth and no. 97 Joe Barton, R-Ennis. Rounding out the reminaing North Texas Republicans were no. 109 Michael Burgess, R-Lewisville, no. 132, Ralph Hall, R-Rockwall.

For Democrats, the Chet Edwards, D-Waco, ranked no. 237. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Dallas, ranked no. 333. And Texas' most liberal Democrat was Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, at no. 399.

Area Republicans Vote Against Raising Minimum Wage

It's a little out of sequence, but among the notable bills being debated by Congress this week was passage of a hike in the minimum wage. If you missed it, it might be because this long-overdue Democratic victory was buried behind the controversy over troop surges. The Fort Worth Star Telegram put its announcement in the business section.

Unlike some of the other bills discussed since the start of this session, North Texans voted on this issue along nearly straight party lines.

On a 315-116 roll call Wednesday, the House voted to increase the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over 26 months.

Voted Yes (in favor of a minimum wage increase)
Chet Edwards, D-Waco
Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Dallas
Kenny Marchant, R-Coppell (Ed. note: the Star-Telegram article wrongly lists Rep. Marchant as voting against the legislation, while the official record has him voting in favor.)

Voted No (in opposition to a minimum wage increase)
Joe Barton, R-Ennis
Michael Burgess, R-Flower Mound
Ralph Hall, R-Rockwall
Jeb Hensarling, R-Dallas
Sam Johnson, R-Plano
Pete Sessions, R-Dallas
Kay Granger, R-Fort Worth

The minimum wage has not seen an increase in over nine years. In fact, based on buying power, it is at its lowest in over 50 years. During that same nine years, congress has voted itself $31K in pay increases, three times the yearly wage of someone earning the minimum.

So it may surprise you that your Republican congressmen and women would fail to see the benefit of raising the minimum wage standard. It shouldn't. Republicans not only fail to see the need for a raise, they fail to see the need for a minimum wage at all. Here's the quote from the Texas GOP party platform.

We believe the Minimum Wage Law should be repealed and that wages should be determined by the free market conditions prevalent in each individual market. [page 25, 2006 State Republican Party Platform]

Last year, under pressure from Republicans running in close districts, they voted to couple the minimum wage hike with an $90 billion decrease in the inheritance tax for America's wealthiest families, in what one Democratic congressman called

"the kind of cynical ploy that makes Americans lose faith in their government."

That bill passed the House, with Edwards joining Burgess, Marchant and Sessions in supporting the bill, Johnson, Hensarling and Barton opposed and Granger abstaining. It failed in the Senate.

This year, the rationale was that a minimum wage increase must be coupled, in the same bill, with tax breaks for small businesses.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Dallas, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, said "lucky" workers would see their pay rise to $7.25 an hour, but he predicted that many more will have their hours or benefits cut or lose their jobs.

"In America we can either have maximum opportunity or we can have minimum wages. We cannot have both...."

Well, maybe you can. According to a study by a nonpartisan research group...

Some observers contend that because many small businesses are labor intensive and largely employ low-wage workers, they will experience sharp cost increases when the minimum wage is increased, leading them to reduce employment levels. However, this report examined recent state-by-state trends for small businesses employing fewer than 50 workes and found that employment and payrolls in small businesses grew faster in the states with iminimum wages above the federal level than in the remaining states where the $5.15 an hour federal minimum wage prevailed.

This report also found that total job growth was faster in the higher minimum wage states. Faster job growth also occurred in the retail trade sector, the sector of the economy employing the most workes at low wages, in the higher minimum wage states.

The simplest introductory economics prediction that an increase in the minimum wage will result in job loss clearly is not supported by the actual job growth record. Rather, faced with an increase in the minimum wage, small businesses may have benefited from some combination of higher productivity through improved worker retention and savings on recruitment and training. There may also be a "Henry Ford" effect at work: if you pay workers more, they can buy more, boosting the overall economy, especially among small retail businesses.

Here's the roll call vote. To view Congresswoman Johnson's press release on the bill, click here. The bill still needs to pass in the Senate.

house votes in favor of stem cell research; bush likely to veto (again)

According to Friday's issue of Quick, the Democratic-controlled "House of Representatives passed legislation yesterday to lift President Bush's limits on federal embryonic stem-cell research..." The Republican 109th Congress passed similar legislation last year, prompting President Bush to use his first ever veto stamp to block it from becoming law.

With a 253-174 vote, Congress failed to pass the bill with more than two-thirds support, meaning it will be unlikely that Bush's expected veto on the new legislation could be overridden. For what it's worth, you can contact the White House and pledge your support for stem cell research. Perhaps an overwhelming show of support could convince the president to sign the legislation.

How did the North Texas legislation vote on this important issue? Find your legislator on the list below and make sure to write them a letter of either support or condemnation, depending on how they voted.

Voted Yes (in favor of stem cell research)
Joe Barton, R-Ennis
Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Dallas
Kay Granger, R-Fort Worth

Voted No (in opposition to stem cell research)
Michael Burgess, R-Flower Mound
Ralph Hall, R-Rockwall
Jeb Hensarling, R-Dallas
Sam Johnson, R-Plano
Kenny Marchant, R-Coppell
Pete Sessions, R-Dallas

Texas Republicans Still Running from Reality on Iraq

Sometime last spring or summer when Karl Rove and the Bush administration decided that staying the course was the best spin to put on Iraq, perhaps there was still some thought that the government propaganda about winning the war and building a democracy would be enough to cover the awful truth on the ground. It doesn't matter that our own military was telling us the present looked perilous and the future could get really ugly, really quickly. With journalists confined to the green zone, and the public beginning to tire of the whole mess, perhaps they thought they could pull it off.

But that was before the wheels came off and sectarian violence in Iraq once again became front page news. Alright, "stay the course" is no longer the Republican mantra, but other than semantics, nothing has changed. The administration still has no plans for a troop drawdown, no idea how to quell the sectarian violence, no definition for victory and no intention of admitting the truth. In the face of the recent meltdown, the Republican candidates' grim determination to keep uttering nonsense about "winning" is supposed to be viewed as being resolute. Actually, such obstinancy only serves to reinforce the reality that they cannot be trusted to manage the mess that they created or to level with the American public about our limited options. This is political posturing at its worst.

But listen to these Texas incumbents discuss the current situation in Iraq. In response to challenger Gary Page's plan to withdraw troops to a safe distance, where they can act as a deterrent force, Republican Kenny Marchant, representing Texas Congressional District 24, states:

"....such a plan would create "total chaos." "It would promote civil war and promote the insurgency," said Mr. Marchant, 55. "Our presence there is still needed and necessary for them to get new democracy."

And in District 26, incumbent Michael Burgess responded to the idea of withdrawal by saying any retreat would "embolden enemy fighters."

Well, you have to applaud Mr. Marchant for wanting to avoid "total chaos," but to Iraqis facing the daily barrage of kidnappings, bombings and beheadings that account for life as they currently know it, the choice of adjectives must seem irrelevant. As for democracy, the Iraqis had free elections and approved a constitution. At what point does that give them the right to demand an end to our occupation, which over two-thirds of its citizens currently support?

To the question of whether withdrawal would embolden enemy fighters, with 100 U.S. soldiers dead already this month, military engagements increasing on the Afghanistan border, and militias roaming unchallenged in the streets of Baghdad, isn't that already fait accompli? Iraq, formerly the cradle of civilization, now in the midst of an escalating civil war, is a breeding ground for terrorism that threatens the entire region. In the meantime, lives are lost and fortunes are made, and true solutions are still months away.

The irony is that if the Democrats win Congress and close the gap in the Senate next month, they will have to take a leading role in winding down this war. One can be certain that no matter what the outcome, and the options do not look good, forcing Democrats to make all the hard choices in Iraq will give Republicans the perfect cudgel going into the 2008 elections.

congress repeals wright amendment

An effort spearheaded by Texas Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, both Republicans, has finally come to fruition: both houses of Congress have passed legislation that would phase out flight restrictions at Dallas Love Field. President Bush will presumably sign the bill into law next week.

"It's a great relief to have a final solution," said Rep. Kenny Marchant, R-Coppell, whose district includes Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. "The fact that none of the parties are completely happy and all of the parties are relieved to have it over should be a sign that it's a good agreement."

The congressional legislation comes after an intensely-negotiated agreement between the mayors of Dallas and Fort Worth concerning the repeal back in June. This plan will be implemented under the new legislation by 2014.

The Dallas Morning News notes that this issue split legislators unusually: they were not divided by party lines or by geography.

Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the top Democrat on the judiciary committee, argued against a frequent ally, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Dallas, whose district includes Love Field.

Mr. Sensenbrenner [R-Wisconsin], recalling the "Don't Mess with Texas" bumper stickers in the House garage, said, "Tonight is one of the nights where we ought to mess with Texas.

"This is the most anti-consumer, anti-free-enterprise legislation that has come before this House in a long time," he said.

Rep. Kay Granger, R-Fort Worth, was distributing red "Vote Yes" fliers to members on the floor; Ms. Johnson had her own yellow fliers supporting the bill.

The final tally, which came just past 10 p.m. Dallas time, was 386-22.

Again, reactions to the passage is mixed. The chief operating officer of Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, Kevin Cox, predicts a "calming effect" at D/FW and a possible dip in fares as American tries to match Southwest's low rates. Some travel analysts disagree.

[Terry] Trippler said consumers shouldn't expect ticket prices to go down at D/FW because Fort Worth-based American will still be able to charge a premium for nonstop flights, compared with the connecting and one-stop service that Southwest Airlines will offer from Love. American operates more than 80 percent of the passenger flights at D/FW.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram has a good piece on the "winners" in the new legislation. The list includes passengers, Southwest Airlines, American Airlines, and both airports in contention. Many look at the situation as a win-win. "Everyone gave up something for the common good," said Rep. Kay Granger, R-Fort Worth.

Another local lawmaker summed up the debate: "This bill is important to North Texas, the air-service community at large and my constituents at Love Field, which is in the heart of my district," said Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Dallas. "I am not anti-competitive. I'm not anti-lower fares. I'd be stupid to be that. But I am pro-principle."

All You Need to Know About the Paris Hilton Tax Cut

The Republicans believe that there is no problem facing Americans that a tax cut for the wealthy can't cure. Any crisis, it seems, justifies a tax cut. The response to the 9/11 attacks? Tax cut. Facing war in Iraq? Tax cut. As Tom DeLay noted at the time, "Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes."

Last fall the Senate Republican leadership decided that the appropriate response to the devastation of Hurricane Katrina was to reward the ruling class yet again, this time by eliminating the estate tax. But public censure over such a brazen and callous move in the face of a national tragedy, coupled with general disgust at the emerging incompetence of political leadership from the White House on down, actually moved Senator Frist to reconsider. The estate tax bill was shelved, awaiting a more auspicious time.

That time, apparently, is now. And perhaps the timing has less to do with a better opportunity than the perceived lack of it going forward. What chance would such a bill have if the House or the Senate lost Republican majority in this fall's election? So, with the pending marriage amendment as cover, the Senate is considering re-introducing Jon Kyl's bill, dubbed "Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act" by it's sponsors, and the "Paris Hilton Tax Cut" by Michael J. Graetz and Ian Shaprio in their book Death by a Thousand Tax Cuts.

The Senate debate is crucial, because the measure has always been blocked by Democrats in the Senate. The House version, H.R. 8, passed with 99% Republican support, including proud co-sponsors Rep. Ralph Hall and Kenny Marchant. But no one in the House has been a bigger supporter of the repeal of the estate tax than Congressman Michael Burgess. Burgess promotes the fallacy that the estate tax is responsible for the liquidation of businesses and family farms. It would take an entire separate post to to do justice to this argument, but here's the take-away:

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 65 farms and 94 family-owned businesses in the entire country would have owed any estate tax in 2000 if the $7 million exemption level that will take effect in 2009 had been in place back then. And the American Farm Bureau could not cite a single family farm that has ever been lost because of the estate tax, according to The New York Times.

The logic of cutting this tax truly cuts at the heart of the idea of a progressive tax plan. Some of business' biggest scions are behind this legislation, including the Waltons, billionaire heirs of Sam Walton.

Eighteen families, including the owners of Nordstrom Inc., The Seattle Times Co., Mars Inc., Koch Industries Inc. and Wal-Mart Inc., that stand to save $71.6 billion in taxes are financing lobbying efforts to repeal the estate tax, according to a study by two groups....
Wiping the estate tax off the books would mean about $1 trillion in lost revenue for the government between 2010 and 2019, according to private and government estimates.

Every time the Bush administration wants to reward the rich patrons who pull their strings, they trot out tired arguments about economic stimulus and the virtues of the free market. Every time they want to cut benefits for the rest of us, they point with justified alarm to the economic state of our government.

The bottom line as far as I am concerned is that we just cut $4.8 billion in Medicaid in February 2006. The President said this just absolutely needed to be done. Yet, right after that, he signed a bill that cut income taxes by $70 billion on dividends and capital gains, and now wants to cut an additional $25 billion per year by repealing the estate tax. All of this being done at a time when our national debt is approaching $10 trillion. Who elected these people?

And if all this weren't enough to convince you of the lunacy of eliminating the estate tax, consider these facts:

House Democrats have released a report detailing the effect that a repeal of the tax would have on the estates of oil company executives and members of the Bush cabinet. According to the report, estate tax repeal would save the estate of Vice President Cheney between $13 million and $61 million, and would save the estate of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld between $32 million and $101 million. The family of retired ExxonMobil chief Lee R. Raymond would receive a $164 million windfall.

What more do you need to know?