Charting Our Course

Tired of Media Bias: Texas Freedom Network vs. Texas State Board of Education

2010-03-29T21:29:00.000-07:00

Tired of Media Bias: Texas Freedom Network vs. Texas State Board of Education”
by Donna Garner

As a Texan, I am so tired of having nearly every newspaper in our state continually quote Texas Freedom Network (TFN). I have decided it is time to expose TFN for what it is. Then if the public chooses to believe TFN’s obnoxious, leftwing comments that are meant to destroy the efforts of the Texas State Board of Education members who are working so hard to bring authentic education reform to our state, so be it. However, I believe most people do not yet understand the agenda that TFN is trying to force into our public schools.

As an example of the obvious media bias, April Castro, Associated Press reporter, used these words in her article on 3.12.10, “Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, which advocates for religious freedom…” However, Castro referred to those SBOE members who are trying to bring American patriotism and exceptionalism back into our schools as “a far-right faction of the Texas State Board of Education…”

Let’s see whether it is the conservative SBOE members or TFN that is outside the mainstream thinking of average Texas parents who love and care about their children.

“A Mainstream Voice to Counter the Religious Right” – that is how Texas Freedom Network (TFN) advertises itself. TFN’s purpose in life is to lie, hound, vilify, discredit, and drive from office the elected conservative Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) members. TFN is in league with the liberal media. Case in point: Associated Press April Castro’s biased blast that is appearing in various newspapers throughout the state.

I ask you parents who have children in the Texas public schools and who are concerned about what they are taught, “How mainstream do you think TFN really is?”

“Do you want TFN to have any influence over the type of SBOE members who are elected?”

“Do you want TFN to influence Texas’ education standards, textbooks, and curriculum?”

Let’s consider the answers to those questions:

Dan Quinn is the Communications Director for Texas Freedom Network (TFN). Dan “outed” himself in an article in the June 3, 2001, Austin American-Statesman.

Cecile Richards founded Texas Freedom Network in 1995. She is now the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. When Cecile left for Washington, D. C., Samantha Smoot took Cecile’s place.

When Samantha left for Washington, D. C. in 2005, she went to work for the Human Rights Campaign, the largest homosexual organization in the country.

Another far, leftwing organization has recently been added to the TFN alliance: MEChA.

Now we have Texas Freedom Network, Planned Parenthood, Human Rights Campaign (largest homosexual organization in the country), and MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan) all speaking as one voice.

On 3.25.10, The Daily Texan reported:

A UT-based group called Save Our History, an alliance between University Democrats, a Chicano civil rights group called MEChA and the Texas Freedom Network, a nonprofit that works to combat the radical right voice in education, staged a march and press conference on March 10. Garrett Mize, a member of the Texas Freedom Network and the coalition, said the group plans to continue its activism and hopes to expand its membership in preparation for the May meetings.

MEChA wants to eliminate the border with Mexico entirely. They honor Mexican revolutionary war hero Ernesto Zapata and Cuban revolutionary Che Guevara.

MEChA has held rallies to pressure the University of Texas not to celebrate Texas Independence Day on campus, and they advocate for “La Reconquista” or the retaking of the Southwestern states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and Utah) to form an independent nation called “Aztlan.”

What parent in his right mind would want the TFN alliance to have any influence whatsover over what impressionable and vulnerable public school students are taught? I know one thing: I would not want the TFN alliance to get within a 100 miles of my precious children and grandchildren!

Now I want to add yet another leftwing organization to TFN’s list of supporters: the Center for Inquiry (CFI) based in Amherst, New York, with a chapter in Austin, Texas. CFI is an atheist organization that closely mirrors TFN’s agenda.

Last year, CFI and TFN did everything in their power to keep the majority of Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) members from voting to allow Texas students the right to study all sides of scientific theories including evolution. Thankfully CFI and TFN were defeated.

Now CFI-Austin and TFN are trying to churn up trouble as the Texas State Board of Education adopts Social Studies TEKS (standards).

On 1.20.10, Dan Quinn, TFN’s Communications Director, was recently commended by CFI-Austin for the talk he gave entitled “How the SBOE Plans to Kill the Social Studies Curriculum.”

To put CFI and TFN into perspective for Texas parents who may have been misled by the liberal news media’s obvious “love affair” with these liberal organizations, here is a recent statement (3.12.10) made by CFI where they decry the court decision upholding the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance:

The Center for Inquiry has expressed disappointment with Thursday’s 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 2-1 decision to uphold the constitutionality of the phrase ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance. The lawsuit was brought by California lawyer Michael Newdow on behalf of parents who objected to recitations of the phrase in public schools.

‘We are deeply disappointed in this ruling by the 9th Circuit, especially as several years ago the 9th Circuit had decided the Pledge was unconstitutional in its current form,’ stated Ronald A. Lindsay, president and CEO for the Center for Inquiry.

To sum it all up, Texas Freedom Network cares nothing about the well-being of our Texas public school children. TFN is an organization aligned with far-left groups who have a definite agenda, and that agenda is to destroy the Judeo-Christian values of this country.

TFN is after people’s children because that is the way to effect permanent change in the present and future generations of Americans.

I trust that Texas parents will fight back by affirming the Texas State Board of Education members who are working so hard to make sure our Texas students are taught to respect our American heritage.

The Social Studies standards (First Reading) are to be posted on the Texas Education Agency website in mid-April. Then the final vote on the Social Studies standards will occur on May 19 – 21, 2010.

Two Roads and the Anatomy of Solzhenitsyn’s Warning

2010-03-21T17:57:00.000-07:00

Wes Riddle’s Horse Sense #442

Two Roads and the Anatomy of Solzhenitsyn’s Warning

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn died in 2008. A leading dissident exiled from the Soviet Union in 1974, he was without question one of the world’s great intellects—a novelist and historian and a keen observer, who left behind a prescient warning for

America

and the West. Few politicians today are thinkers, few sophisticated enough to pick up on the signs in front of their faces, much less inside the theoretical discourse contained in pages of books and speeches. Fortunately Tom Pauken is no ordinary politician, but rather a statesman for our time. He has written an important book, which lays out the kind of fundamental choice Robert Frost may have referenced, when he spoke of regret and of the Road Not Taken: “Two roads diverged in a wood,” and the choice “made all the difference.”

America

today faces such a choice. One road leadeth to green pastures and beside still waters potentially. Ironically it is the same path that leads back home; whereas the other road leads on in the general direction we’re headed to destruction and downfall, and to end times for our country. Tom Pauken cites Solzhenitsyn at length in his new book, Bringing America Home (Rockford, Illinois: Chronicles Press, 2010). He analyzes Solzhenitsyn’s warning and breaks it down into six thematic parts. The anatomy of Solzhenitsyn’s warning reads like a chronicle of what is happening and of night far spent, but don’t forget that the point of sounding an alarm is an implicit hope that somebody somewhere can and will do something to ward off the defeat and/or to escape the danger. The fire department may actually put out the fire, a hospital dispatch an ambulance and paramedic. Police may scare off the bad guys or arrest them in a criminal act; or respond with counterforce if it comes to that and win the gunfight. The cavalry rides to the proverbial rescue in other words! In politics this means that people awake from their stupor and participate in the democratic process. They show up on Election Day and throw the bums out.

In terms of themes, Solzhenitsyn argues that the tide of secularism is sapping our strength from within. The cavalry needs to carry the Cross as it were. Indeed, every town and hamlet, every state in the name of its sovereignty must reassert independence in this regard. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof… [First Amendment].” No branch of the federal government may reach into public schooling within a sovereign state, or to the hearth at a home school any place in America—meaning there might be prayer in school if people were just willing to make it so. Towns could have their manger scenes too, if locally elected officials rediscovered their civic courage. States might even have established churches if they wanted to go that far, as some did well into the Nineteenth century.

Solzhenitsyn also argues that we have failed miserably to value material possessions properly, that we have placed them above higher more important principles. The so-called Gilded Age ended when localities, cities and states had enough of the unintended consequences of rapid industrialization and took it upon themselves to enact Progressive reforms on behalf of the American Middle Class. Ironically what Peggy Noonan calls a new ‘Gilded Age’ can be ended in the same way if localities, cities and states resisted modern Progressive attempts to subvert the U.S. Constitution and will of the Middle Class through higher taxation and coercive big government programs. America must not become another Europe, and so it is up to the American people and vitally important moreover, to overthrow proponents of the democratic-socialist agenda who have found a lodgment in Washington.

Solzhenitsyn argues the decline of our culture is reflected by the quality of our art and literature and that we have quite literally come into the bad habit of “aestheticizing” ugliness. He argues that we have a system of laws based on the letter of the law and bureaucratic overregulation, which has replaced a traditional system based on ethical foundations. He argues as well that the concept of good and evil has been replaced in effect by political correctness, with attendant deconstructionist tendencies. Finally, Solzhenitsyn argues that only Christian unity will provide the necessary curative for all these ills. Christianity can defeat atheism. It will help us to find and define Beauty in our culture again, and restore Spirit to the law. Christianity united—the Body of Christ always chooses the right road: to serve and to honor God; to bring good things to human experience; to banish and defeat those forces, which threaten liberty and would harm the life of a free and prosperous and peaceful American people.

Statement from the SBOE: Thomas Jefferson remains in social studies curriculum

2010-03-20T12:44:00.000-07:00

March 19, 2010

Thomas Jefferson remains in social studies curriculum

After hours of public testimony and more than 100 amendments offered to the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for social studies, the State Board of Education last week gave preliminary approval to the curriculum standards that will be used in Texas public schools.

One amendment in particular has garnered a lot of attention, after some media outlets erroneously reported the State Board of Education was dropping Thomas Jefferson from the curriculum framework.

“The only individual mentioned more times in the curriculum standards than Thomas Jefferson is George Washington,” said Gail Lowe, chairwoman of the 15-member board. “We expect students at the elementary level, in middle school and in high school to study the Founding Fathers and to be well versed in their contributions to our country. That includes Thomas Jefferson and his legacy,” she said.

In fifth grade, designed as an introductory survey course of the United States from 1565 to the present, students are expected to “identify the Founding Fathers and Patriot heroes, including John Adams, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Nathan Hale, Thomas Jefferson, the Sons of Liberty, and George Washington, and their motivations and contributions during the revolutionary period.”

In the eighth grade, in which the history of the United States from the early colonial period through Reconstruction is presented, the TEKS framework requires students to “explain the roles played by significant individuals during the American Revolution, including Abigail Adams, John Adams, Wentworth Cheswell, Samuel Adams, Mercy Otis Warren, James Armistead, Benjamin Franklin, Bernardo de Galvez, Crispus Attucks, King George III, Haym Salomon, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, the Marquis de Lafayette, Thomas Paine and George Washington.”

The U.S. Government course required for high school graduation states that students will “identify the contributions of the political philosophies of the Founding Fathers, including John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, James Madison, George Mason, Roger Sherman and James Wilson on the development of the U.S. government.”

In addition, students must “identify significant individuals in the field of government and politics, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan.”

Although Jefferson had been listed in a World History standard, the board removed his name from a list of European Enlightenment philosophers that included John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu and Jean Jacques Rousseau.

“This was inappropriate placement of Jefferson’s name,” said Lowe of the World History proposal. “Jefferson was not himself an Enlightenment philosopher, although he was heavily influenced by the writings of these individuals. But to say the State Board of Education has removed him from the TEKS is inaccurate and irresponsible,” said Lowe.

Lowe continued, “Jefferson not only penned the words of the Declaration of Independence, served as the third president of the United States and was father of the University of Virginia, but his promotion of the ideals of a limited federal government and states’ rights also permeated our nation for generations. No study of American history would be complete without his inclusion,” she said.

The social studies Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills will be finalized in May when the board holds its last public hearing and final adoption of the standards.

Statement by The Honorable Arlene Wohlgemuth, TPPF Executive Director

2010-03-18T23:43:00.000-07:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: David Guenthner

March 18, 2010 (512) 472-2700

dguenthner@texaspolicy.com

Statement by The Honorable Arlene Wohlgemuth, TPPF Executive Director

On this morning’s Congressional Budget Office score on the health care reconciliation package

This morning’s Congressional Budget Office score is nothing more than a smoke screen to distract the public. The core issue remains the ugly details of the U.S. Senate health care bill the House will try to “deem to have passed” this Sunday.

Passage of the Senate bill would increase Texans’ health insurance premiums by 61 percent over the next five years. Passage of the Senate bill would increase Texas’ Medicaid population by 50 percent and Texas’ budget deficit by several billion dollars. Passage of the Senate bill could expose Texas medical providers to more than 20 new types of medical malpractice lawsuits and pre-empt the tort reforms approved by Texas voters. All of this means that Texans’ health care costs would go up, while our access to quality health care would go down.

The CBO admitted that the numbers it released this morning were merely an educated guess, as “the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review and refinement of the budgetary projections.”

However, the CBO estimate continues to double-count $463 billion in Medicare cuts that are unlikely to occur in the first place, as well as $53 billion in Social Security payroll taxes that are already committed to paying for future benefits. Once these and other smoke-and-mirrors tricks are removed from the analysis, the Senate’s health care legislation would increase the deficit nearly $600 billion in the first decade and by more than $1.6 trillion in its second decade.

Beyond that, the latest reconciliation draft postpones a more onerous tax on so-called “Cadillac” health plans until the end of the decade. Given that this tax is one of the unions’ most hated provisions and that the changes will hit a broad swath of the middle class, it is almost certainly to be repealed before it can take effect, which further guts the deficit reduction promises after 2018.

Sunday’s House vote would only assure that the Senate bill would go to the White House for President Obama’s signature. Any “reconciliation” provisions sent back to the Senate can be struck on parliamentary grounds, and the Senate leadership has little incentive to pass a reconciliation bill once its health care legislation has already been signed into law. That increases the likelihood that the Cornhusker Kickback, Gator Aid, Louisiana Purchase, and all of the other sweetheart deals in the Senate bill will become federal law.

Perhaps the same philosophy of “more government spending will help the economy” that we saw with the stimulus bill has affected the thinking in Washington with regard to the health care bill. Is spending trillions of tax dollars, enacting costly mandates, and federalizing health care decisions really the way to improve health care in America?

The Honorable Arlene Wohlgemuth is Executive Director and Director of the Center for Health Care Policy at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. She served 10 years in the Texas House of Representatives, specializing in health care issues.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a non-profit free-market research institute based in Austin.

Primary website: www.TexasPolicy.com

Facebook page: www.Facebook.com/TexasPublicPolicyFoundation

Twitter feed: www.Twitter.com/TPPF

The ObamaState vs. the United States: Part I

2010-03-17T19:12:00.000-07:00

The ObamaState vs. the United States
Part I
By Mike Pearce

Liberals greatly despise being called “unpatriotic”. To them, it rings of the McCarthy era, and what they saw as a deviant campaign to impugn free thinking and to quell the free speech of those who had a more “progressive” view [read dissimilar to those of the Founders] of what America should look like. The declassified Venona Intercepts, which almost completely vindicated Joseph McCarthy’s concerns about communist “security risks” within the ranks of the US Government, seem to mean absolutely nothing to America’s left. And why is that the case? Because to a leftist, the Constitution’s greatest weakness is the God-given rights that it outlines. The “purity” of free speech means the right to undermine freedom itself, and therefore the line of patriotism is indistinct, if not relative.

Benjamin Franklin suggested immediately after the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention that we had “A Republic, if [we] could keep it.” With all of the writings that proceeded from Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike, Franklin’s short statement is as pertinent today as any quote pulled from any of the Framers. The very complex Dr. Franklin was giving a simple warning that the greatest threat to the United States was the very thing that created it: We the People. Could Americans, he wondered, accept the responsibilities of a limited government whose function was to free people from the bonds of future tyranny, or would they one day choose to cuff themselves with the same shackles they fought so valiantly to shed during the American Revolution? Just prior to the adoption of the Constitution, Franklin expressed his affinity for the document that he helped mold, but also expressed a recognition that men were an unpredictable bunch who one day could bring the nation full circle. Franklin asserted, “…I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.” And that begs the question as to where we are today? I would argue that we have become so corrupt, through the introduction of the type of unabridged democracy (as opposed to republicanism) that some feel a need for “despotic” government. Madison, of course, referred to this as the “factioning” of America, where, “… a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, …are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

And here we are. Though some would call my assertion “reactionary”, I sincerely believe that we are on the doorstep of despotism. Is it any surprise that the author of the Audacity of Hope would be so audacious as to give his tacit blessing to legislative tactics never seen for a bill of the enormity of the Democrats' pending health care legislation; tactics, he only 5 years before, condemned as reckless when he said, “The TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) program affects millions of American children and families and deserves a full and fair debate. Under the rules, the reconciliation process does not permit that debate. Reconciliation is therefore the wrong place for policy changes and the wrong place for the proposed changes to the TANF program. In short, the reconciliation process appears to have lost its proper meaning. A vehicle designed for deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility has been hijacked to facilitate reckless deficits and unsustainable debt.” [1]

All honest Americans now recognize that Barack Obama’s call to arms in the fight for “Hope and Change” and for “fundamentally transforming America” as being far more than political rhetoric. In fact, one merely needs to look at his disdain for the basic function of the Constitution (the preservation of life, liberty and property). To Obama, this is a fundamental flaw in American government, as he believes the “negative rights” outlined by the Framers constitutes something that requires “transformation”. He has publicly argued that the 'missing concepts' of wealth redistribution and economic justice are short fallings of the Constitution, and he is decidedly disappointed that more has not been done legislatively to correct drastic inequalities that he believes need to be reconciled. In his own words, he has declared his disappointment that the Constitution does not outline what the government “must do on [our] behalf” [2] . This philosophy turns on its head Jefferson’s famous argument, "That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves." Instead, Obama argues, "That government is best which governs the most, because its people are incapable." To a degree, he may be correct, but only in the fact that so many Americans bow to a culture of dependency wrought upon it by the wretched policies of the New Deal and the Great Society, which eradicated the discipline to which Jefferson referred.

And that brings me to my initial point. What does it mean to be unpatriotic? I think most patriotic Americans agree that dissent is a healthy and often patriotic thing; but dissent that undoes the fundamental precepts of our Constitution—ideas that would “fundamentally transform” the intent of the Framers and bring to bear a new nation with far differing values -- is far from healthy. So, do I argue that “patriotic Americans” are those who think monolithically on all matters? No. But, I boldly affirm that one must embrace a form of “classical liberalism” to be considered a true patriot and I encourage those who hold similar positions to be bold enough to say so as well. How does one use the freedoms brought to bear in America, through the writings of the likes of John Locke and Adam Smith, to merely turn our nation into something that is unrecognizable, yet call themselves “patriots”? I suppose that they could be so apoplectic about not getting “what’s theirs” that they believe that to be a patriot is to “reinvent” America (90’s flashback, anyone?).

According to most scholars, a classical liberal holds to the following [3]:

• an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society,
• the support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system,
• the desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals' rights from others and from its own expansion, and
• the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions.

We have unquestionably had challenges to the Constitution all the way back to the first big government statist, Alexander Hamilton, who brought us a national bank, the Alien and Sedition Acts, corporate welfare, protectionist tariffs, public debt, high taxation, and general distrust of “the common man”. Hamilton’s rationale for “big government” was not very different from that of Obama, Pelosi, or Reid. He argued that we needed government because, “…the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.” In other words, big government knows what you need… whether it is popular or not(sound familiar?). Jefferson was the savior of America, whose presidency, which began in 1801, brought the US its real first exposure to living under the theories of Locke, Smith, and Hume. This era of limited government, which more greatly embraced laissez faire capitalism, was appealing to most Americans and brought about victories for the Democratic-Republican Party until 1824, when the election was stolen during the "corrupt bargain" by John Quincy Adams (whose agenda was higher taxes, higher tariffs, a national university, and federal support for the arts and sciences) and Henry Clay.

So in sum, one could not honestly argue that there are patriots among “socialist-Americans”, “fascist-Americans”, or any American who seeks to "fundamentally transform" our nation in a direction that petitions for a more active governmental role in our lives. I would call these people “neo-Americans”, as they call for a "new" and paternal nation that seeks not to bring about a government which defends their liberties so they can meet their needs, but which meets their needs through edicts which redistribute wealth at the expense of liberty. Many call these neo-Americans “progressives”. But to a progressive, “progress” comes not through the innovation of man, but by the legislative whims of the elite in government. Progressivism, is therefore, the opposite of classical liberalism, as one requires men to embrace a social contract and govern themselves, and the other demands that man submit to what is “deemed” good for him. Indeed, this is a nation of liberties which rightfully grants the freedom to publicly voice dissent and allow men to even vociferously attack the foundations of our liberties. Many great men have argued that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, but it is difficult to argue that the Constitution, in its generous respect for free men and it’s disdain for the despotism of which Franklin spoke, makes its destruction possible… and ironically and most notably, by those who enjoy such liberties. I accept that the “true” classical liberal is becoming a creature close to extinction. But, all that I desire is that Americans begin to recognize that we are not the nation we once were or should have become. As a former history teacher, I find myself celebrating Independence Day with more nostalgia and greater fear. The United States is (or was) far more than a nation, but an idea that stemmed from St. Augustine’s argument that out of evil can come good; out of tyranny can come justice; out of slavery can come freedom. And all of this out of the wisdom of our Framers, based on their righteous indignation which was planted by their personal experiences with despotism.

More to come…

Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed. – Barry Goldwater

Starting From Scratch

2010-03-09T10:08:00.000-08:00

Starting From Scratch
By The Honorable Talmadge Heflin

When lawmakers make their way back to the Capitol next January, they will likely face a huge projected shortfall—the difference between how much the state thinks it will collect and how much it intends to spend.

Exactly how much red ink will be in next session’s 2012-13 budget remains a bit of a mystery, but some of the Legislature’s leading budget authorities said at last month’s Policy Orientation, hosted by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, the figure could range anywhere from $15 billion to $19 billion.

In all likelihood, lawmakers will not have to make up this deficit in its entirety, thanks in large part to the state’s $8-9 billion in rainy day money and the probable resumption of payouts from the Permanent School Fund. Still, budget planners should expect to grapple with a good portion of it.

Coming off a recession year, you can expect that Texans will be in no mood to see the next Legislature simply raise taxes and move on. Instead, expectations are high that lawmakers will balance the budget by tightening their belt—just as many households have already done.

To its credit, the state’s leadership has given early indications that it recognizes this need for fiscal discipline and is already acting on it.

Last month, Gov. Rick Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, and House Speaker Joe Straus, III instructed state agencies to recommend five percent of their current budgets for potential cuts by mid-February. The move could generate near $1 billion in potential savings that will narrow the budget shortfall.

Taking a cue from the state’s leadership, a number of legislators have expressed interest in finding other ways to trim the budget. One idea, in particular, would take a page from the playbook we ran in 2003.

When the Legislature convened that January, Texas was confronted with a $10 billion shortfall, declining revenues, and a severe recession—a situation not all that different from today.

To work through these challenges and balance the state’s budget without a tax increase, my fellow legislators, along with the governor, adopted a zero-based budgeting philosophy. The objective of zero-based budgeting was simple: start from scratch.

Normally, when lawmakers are crafting the state’s next two-year budget, they use what an agency spent in the previous budget as a starting point. With zero-based budgeting, however, we approached the budget writing process as though we were building each agency from the ground up; agencies were funded first based on any constitutional requirements, then on statutory authority, and finally according to expenditures in a priority list.

Using this technique, we were able to get a detailed picture of each agency’s spending requirements and propose intelligent solutions to the state’s budget problems—like consolidating 12 health and human services agencies into five, at a savings of about $1 billion per year.

The results speak for themselves.

That Legislature not only eliminated the state’s $10 billion shortfall in 2003 without raising taxes, but also cut general revenue spending for the first time since World War II and helped create an environment of low taxes and spending that spurred the Texas economy for the rest of the decade.

Time will tell whether the next Legislature closes the state’s projected multi-billion dollar shortfall in a similar fashion. But if they seek to get through this fiscal difficulty while avoiding the kind of tax increases that have debilitated other large states, they have at least one tool in their kit that has worked before – building a new budget from scratch.

The Honorable Talmadge Heflin is Director of the Center for Fiscal Policy at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. He is a former Chairman of the Texas House Appropriations Committee.

Destruction of American Middle Class Possible Within a Decade

2010-03-08T08:24:00.000-08:00

Wes Riddle’s Horse Sense #440

Destruction of American Middle Class Possible Within a Decade

A new book by Tom Pauken, Bringing America Home (Rockford, Illinois: Chronicles Press, 2010) covers many varied topics ranging from the economy and foreign policy, to politics and culture. As the book’s sub-title, How America Lost Her Way and How We Can Find Our Way Back suggests, it offers a veritable platform for guiding these United States back safely as it were, through crisis and challenges, by implementing a series of common sense and traditional conservative policies. One chapter in particular makes the book entirely worthwhile, even if one reads nothing else. Namely, Chapter 5 details the ongoing destruction of the American Middle Class through both poorly devised economic policies and outright failure of political leadership in Washington.

Unlike many on the Republican side, Pauken is not a mouthpiece for big business or the corporate elite. His sentiments are with populist Main Street, admitting what many liberals have sounded from the hills for quite some time, that the rich are indeed getting richer while the Middle Class grows poor. His solution is not a resort to socialism or to government takeover, however, but a return to free market capitalism and to limited constitutional government run in the interest of Americans. Pauken explains that what has caused existential inequality, as well as the hardship on the Middle Class is not free market capitalism but a corrupted form or crony capitalism. It is the self-serving alliance between Big Government and Big Business, and between the corresponding drives for both power and profit.

Pauken is highly critical of the lack of business ethics and humanity evinced by modern American business practice. Some in business at the highest levels of management raid their own corporate assets for personal gain and pass off the wreckage to others. Similar behavior gave rise to the recent housing bubble that burst and to instability in what amounts to a “bubble economy,” with originators of loans and mortgages deliberately and sometimes deceitfully evading responsibility for risky financial behavior. The business culture in this respect mirrors a decline in standards of morality throughout the broader culture. For all the obscene bonuses and exploitive practices on Wall Street, however, these do not explain why manufacturing jobs have left or why real income for the Middle Class has shrunk.

According to Pauken, “A central reason for…[the] huge trade deficits and the shift of economic power from Main Street to Wall Street is a business tax system that gives private-equity moguls incentives to take such risks with the companies they control.” They have an advantage over U.S. company owners who might otherwise run businesses in a conservative fashion. Simply stated, business debt is encouraged because it can be written off on taxes, whereas the 35% corporate tax rate discourages business savings and investment. Except for the U.S., every major trading country in the world provides tax advantages for domestic manufacturers. Information technology companies are outsourcing now at an alarming rate for a similar reason.

Moreover, U.S. goods shipped overseas carry an average added 18% tax burden compared with most foreign competitors, and this keeps trade deficits widening every year. According to Warren Buffet, the trade deficit is possibly of greater worry than the budget deficit or consumer debt burden near-term, because we have to borrow from other countries to finance it. The annual account deficit is now more than $800 billion. The politically chic idea that the U.S. would somehow sustain its quality of life for the Middle Class while giving up its manufacturing base and transforming into the world’s premier ‘knowledge-based economy’ was a sheer fantasy. The competitive global environment and rampant trend towards American outsourcing has gone on unabated and continues, while elective politicians mouth empty promises and defend a principle of “free trade” amidst the uneven playing field and structural disadvantages created by America’s own stupid business tax system.

Americans are clinging to their Middle Class status, living paycheck to paycheck, mired in consumer debt and finding it difficult to find good jobs or to work the requisite number of hours needed to pay their bills. Meanwhile Pauken says, “We are passing out money we do not have through a Keynesian stimulus package designed to revive the economy.” Moody’s has declared the United States runs the risk of losing its triple-A credit rating within a decade if the federal government does not bring soaring levels of spending down. Imagine what this will mean if the U.S. has to finance its debt at dramatically higher interest rates owing to the loss of most favored bond rating status!

In part it was this sobering recognition, which led Jim Bunning (R-KY) to bravely though ineffectually remind his colleagues in the Senate that even unemployment benefits have to be paid for. Lawmakers couldn’t find the $10 billion to do so. The annual budget deficit is running $1.35 trillion this year, and the national debt topped $12 trillion and is set to double in less than ten years—and when it does the U.S. will lose its triple-A credit rating. One economist remarked that America today resembles less the developed economic superpower we have come to think of, and more like something of an emerging market having both a weak currency and huge deficits. America is headed for the perfect economic storm, as well as destruction of its vaunted Middle Class inside the decade unless we reverse track resolutely and swiftly.

Wes Riddle’s Horse Sense #391

2009-03-29T22:16:00.000-07:00

Defense Needed Against More Than Terrorism
by Wes Riddle

In the course of fighting the Global War on Terror, a strategic failure of the first order has occurred. Namely, the United States is still not fully prepared to defend itself against a ballistic missile attack from Russia, China or even the Iranians if they happened to launch a missile attack from a ship. The U.S. possesses a limited missile defense consisting of a small number of ground-based interceptors. Besides the Patriot weapon system, the Army’s next generation of hit-to-kill interceptors have been under development for over a decade but are only now nearing completion for deployment in the next year or so.

Given the economic crisis and relative reordering of priorities in Washington, lawmakers are already talking about substantial cuts in ballistic missile defense. Ironically this comes at a time when Iran and also North Korea are increasing their ballistic missile activities. Recall that these were two of the countries George W. Bush characterized as comprising an “Axis of Evil” (the third was Iraq). His terminology sounded strange at the time, but his point is accurate if by “evil” he may have meant harboring significant ballistic missile arsenals. Of course Saddam had few operable missiles remaining, and nowhere near the numbers intelligence sources reported before U.S. invasion in 2003. North Korea and Iran possess numbers that are far greater by several orders of magnitude than anything we ever ascribed to Iraq.

The same can be said for our very limited sea-based capability against ballistic missiles too. The Navy Aegis was certified in March as being effective at short-range intercepts of missiles reentering the atmosphere, and it had previously been certified against longer-range missiles flying above the atmosphere. Great in terms of capability, except that such capability will only be installed on 18 ships by June 2009. Few of these ships will be home-ported for at least a year, and that’s if there’s no significant cut in spending. Meanwhile, for all the talk of Star Wars the U.S. has no space-based system to defeat missiles in their early launch and ascent phase.
America is strong not invincible. Moreover, U.S. strength is based on hard work and smart thinking. Defense, foreign policy and intelligence communities are there to help, but it takes determined executive decision makers to get things done: to put real boots on the ground, satellites into space, and to procure and deploy the various weapons required for defense, retaliation and deterrence. This applies towards terrorism, but it also applies towards ballistic missile defense (BMD) and towards nuclear retaliatory capability and nuclear deterrence. Yet somehow the threat of nuclear missile attack has seeped from our minds, as if because it didn’t happen during the Cold War it never will.

If Islamic terrorists ever got nukes, it is clear they would use them. If they controlled nuclear states like India or Pakistan or took over even for a short time, they might have a real opportunity—perhaps not to strike our Homeland but clearly to threaten vital interests and possibly decimate an ally. Such terrorists, however, do not pose the only threat to America of nuclear attack or blackmail. Strategic rivals possessing nuclear weapons during the Cold War haven’t entirely gone away, so it is hard to reckon our complacence and slothfulness at BMD.

Nuclear powers Russia and China threaten our security now as much as they did during the 1980s, and even more so today in the case of China. In addition, Iran aspires to threaten us and to undermine our security and will likely do so in the not too distant future. Iran is working hard to acquire nuclear weapons, and experts argue only over how many more years it will take before they have them. We very much want Russia to be a peaceful member of the community of nations, and for a while it looked like they might be. But recent events in Georgia suggest the bets are off, and anyway Russia will continue to seek what its non-democratic rulers believe is in their interest. Sometimes this will coincide with our interests and many times it won’t. In either case, Russia has thousands of nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles. It is proceeding to modernize its military and enhance its capability to influence world events.

Nor one should add did victory in the Cold War cause a sudden dawn of democracy in communist China, or inhibit it from modernizing its military. China has over two million men under arms, so the nuclear advantage and BMD are crucial to the United States vis-à-vis China. China possesses a minimum of 30 intercontinental ballistic missiles, most of them aimed at the United States, as well as hundreds of short and medium range nuclear missiles for use in a theater of combat in Asia. Today the Chinese are building and testing more than one ballistic missile per week! We ought to connect the dots, as Chinese military thinking is unabashedly anti-American. Its military journals are full of candid accounts about unrestricted warfare with the United States using a combination of conventional, cyber, economic and nuclear warfare, as well as terrorism. China is also working to close the space gap, to develop space-based military capabilities including manned launch vehicles, a space station, and extensive anti-satellite weaponry to negate U.S. global satellite coverage.

The Global War on Terror is real, but it isn’t the only conflict scenario and not even the most obvious. We have known the United States requires a BMD shield for decades. It is about time we move ahead to complete it.

Wes Riddle’s Horse Sense #390

2009-03-22T22:46:00.000-07:00

Rise and Fall of Empires
by Wes Riddle

Success of a given empire has a lot to do with what, say, the imperial power does—but it also relies on conditions quite outside itself. For instance, British domination after 1800 depended upon the wisdom of imperial direction and on naval supremacy but also on the internal turmoil of China, self-seclusion of Japan, subjection of Mughal power in India, and disintegration of Ottoman rule in southeast Europe and parts of the Middle East. The vacuum and weaknesses abroad therefore facilitated the rise of the British Empire. Likewise, while internal weaknesses and strategic errors may have played a role—so did the conditions extant around the world as the sun finally set on the British Empire in just the past century. Now if we were to reverse perspective, the United States of America and its sphere of influence today is much the rest of the world to emerging empires. The contemporary rise of China and India for instance, albeit amid the process of globalization, depends upon relative strengths and weaknesses in what Jefferson once called our own Empire of Liberty or what passes today as such anyway.

It is interesting to consider how quickly the British heyday passed by. Its fortune and security has been inextricably tied, indeed dependent on ours since World War II. They were only on top of things as it were for a couple hundred years. In terms of American development and experience we have been about a hundred years behind at almost every stage of empire since the Revolutionary War compared to Great Britain. Industrialization occurred in the United States a hundred years behind theirs for instance. Moreover, American ascendancy was an early Twentieth Century phenomenon, so harbingers of the Twenty-First Century are dire. As Oxford historian John Darwin has observed after analyzing six hundred years between 1400 A.D. and the year 2000—tracing the rise and failure of countries during that timeframe, history demonstrates the mutability of fortune, sudden shifts in power, and unpredictable consequences of unexpected victories. In terms of the latter aspect the Cold War comes immediately to mind, how the U.S. “won” when the Wall came down to our utter shock and disbelief; and how it left us as the world’s only superpower; and how that status looks more tenuous and temporal than it did less than twenty years ago.

By “Empire of Liberty,” however, Jefferson did not mean anything akin to the British Empire or to what we have today. Indeed it is by becoming imperial of sort—encouraged certainly by the dangers and exigencies born of Great Depression, fascism and communism the United States may have stumbled into that role. Nevertheless, in so doing, we have become vulnerable to the same internal rot and uncontrollable circumstance vis-à-vis others in imperial competition, that effects decline of all such empires. For instance, years of overspending and borrowing by consumers, businesses and government, facilitated by the Federal Reserve, have precipitated a terrible credit and financial crisis. Panic has enabled Congress and the Executive branch to accrete unprecedented powers. General Motors (GM) for all intents and purposes is Government Motors. The banking and insurance industries both teeter on the edge of total nationalization. Meanwhile panic that previously gripped the country after 9/11 has given us a permanent Department of Homeland Security; and now the Department of Defense since October 2008 has assigned three active duty brigades deployed on American soil for homeland defense while the National Guard and Reserves (who could and traditionally would do those missions) are deployed overseas in fighting.

Power rarely makes careful distinctions, least of all concerning written constitutions. Extraordinary powers granted to government in response to some emergency are hardly ever rescinded after a precipitating crisis has abated. This unlikely process, however, may be what is required of us today, i.e., to retake powers granted to or assumed by the federal government. Michael Federici, professor of political science at Mercyhurst College has written that, “The Framers did not design the American Republic for imperial greatness, but when it functions as intended, it produces something even greater than empire: a free society with limited government and the rule of law.” In some ways that ‘something even greater’—what Jefferson meant by “Empire of Liberty,” has already receded if not altogether fallen away. The cumulative result largely of democratic actions, moving as it were from crisis to crisis, has created peril in the present and near future context. We now show all the pretensions of an empire built upon power in the classic Machiavellian sense, but that is precisely the type of empire, which has limited lifespan empirically over the last six hundred years of history.
The Founders wanted us to be around more than two hundred years at mortal zenith! They aspired to a permanence built upon the moral imagination, and they hoped for a free and virtuous people to keep their Republic, knowing full well that to keep it would entail disciplined subordination of purely economic considerations to whatever is good and true and ultimately imperishable, regardless of what others may do.

Wes Riddle’s Horse Sense #389

2009-03-16T17:55:00.001-07:00

Market Entrepreneurs
by Wes Riddle

Between the generation of our Founding and World War II, there have been other “greatest” generations too. Perhaps the least appreciated in our time has been that post-Civil War generation of market entrepreneurs, who led America from being a second tier economic power to being the industrial powerhouse of the world. In today’s economic downturn, it is perhaps helpful to remember the method that led to the most success before, as well as those ways that did not work in the past. One distinction that needs to be raised immediately is one between market entrepreneur and political entrepreneur. Businessmen aren’t angels and neither are congressmen or plain folk, but competition tends to bring out better performance in people, whereas subsidization from public (tax) money risks funding and perpetuating substandard performance and inefficiencies.

Businessmen will often try to get favors or handouts from the government, because it may be easier than gathering together the necessary venture capital. Very often after that first taste, they return again and again to the same trough rather than wean off the public dole. The market entrepreneur pursues his business privately through private means. The political entrepreneur is in league with government, to the extent that he pursues his business semi-privately but through means that are exclusively or partially public. Then as today, political entrepreneurs are hard to avoid and even harder to get rid of, even though they are a drag on economic vitality and injurious to the wellbeing of the country. Market entrepreneurs go about their business freely and mostly wanting to be left alone, creating wealth and growing the economy. Government gets big off taxing productive market entrepreneurial activities, ironically enabling far too many government payouts to leeches in the business community of a political entrepreneurial bent.

Regulated bailouts could be the worst of all worlds if it institutionalizes business dependency on the government over the long haul and/or results in the permanent bureaucratic management by government of a private sector activity. Some historical examples are instructive. In the 1840s a political entrepreneur approached Congress to help him develop the U.S. steamship route between New York and Liverpool, and to cut into the business of rival English ships. Since the British government subsidized shipping, our man Edward Collins said he would need $3 million of taxpayers’ money to construct five vessels and then an annual subsidy of $385,000 to drive passenger fares down low enough to compete.

Playing on congressional fears of British domination in trade, Collins got his money. He only built four ships, but who’s counting. While he promised to phase out the annual subsidy, he was soon lobbying for more, and more, and more (up to $850,000 per year). Cornelius Vanderbilt tried to get in on the action too but by offering a cheaper deal, however the Congress had formed a cozy relationship with Collins so it turned him down. Forced to compete entirely, he used privately financed and self-insured vessels, slowed the ships’ speed down to save on fuel, and invented a new, cheaper passenger class called steerage. A year later, Vanderbilt’s operation was flourishing while Collins was even worse off and returned again to Congress asking for higher subsidy. When two of his ships sank because of poor maintenance and running the engines too fast, Collins had to resort to Congress for their replacement value. The Senate finally got wise after looking into the management practices, and no doubt comparing results and bottom line with that of Vanderbilt’s operation. Collins lost his subsidy and within a year went bankrupt, enabling Vanderbilt to pick up more of the business privately, at less cost and far better value to customers—not to mention dominance of the seas from an American side.

A decade or so later Congress began subsidizing political entrepreneurs representing transcontinental railroad ventures: the Union Pacific, the Central Pacific, and later the Northern Pacific. The government gave these companies tens of millions of acres of free land and tens of millions of dollars, and because the companies had no incentive to be efficient, the railroads evidenced shoddy construction, as well as circuitous routes and uneven grades. The privately funded railroad called Great Northern, however, was a success that put the others to shame. James J. Hill built his line for durability and efficiency and without government money, taking the shortest distance, lowest grades and least curvature that he could. He also supervised construction and imported the very highest quality Bessemer rails. Although these cost more up front, they also lasted a long time and were more dependable. He took the same approach to his railroad bridges, constructing the solid granite Stone Arch Bridge 2,100 feet long and 82 feet high across the Mississippi River—a Minneapolis landmark for many decades.

Similar stories mark the success of Andrew Carnegie in steel, and John D. Rockefeller in oil. These men were market entrepreneurs not “robber barons.” They created wealth and propelled the United States to first rank economically in the world. Moreover, so far as generations go, they stood head and shoulders above the risk-averse, sycophantic and slinking political entrepreneurs, who pass for so many CEOs and leaders in American business today.

Wes Riddle's Horse Sense Column #385

2009-02-15T18:16:00.002-08:00

Life of the Party
Wes Riddle

Both parties in America’s unofficial “two-party system” are large, constantly morphing national coalitions comprised of individuals and interests forming vehicles for political participation. Political parties facilitate policymaking and governance of course, but they by and large nominate and run the candidates whom people choose from to elect. Elected officials in turn become our Government, constitutional or otherwise, wise as not. They also become de facto leaders of the party that got them there.

Political parties are also porous things, and any individual so inclined is able to join, leave and try some other brand, or decide to come back again. Many do it all the time, depending on whom which candidates are, and on what the party platforms say. Of course those platform documents are imperfect and never binding, but imperfect as they are they do attempt to codify the ideational basis of a party, at least for the season. One does have to ask, however, just what it means to be a lifelong Republican or Democrat, considering how different either given party has been, and will be again over the course of a typical lifespan. This leaves many citizens saying with perfectly good conscience that, “I don’t vote for the party, I vote for the man or woman” or “I didn’t leave my party, my party left me.” Neither of the two major parties it turns out has the proverbial corner on better character or better solutions.

Then again times change, history moves on, and situations alter. This leads the likes of Rush Limbaugh to ask as he did in remarks at the Hillsdale College Churchill Dinner in Washington, D.C., “Do conservatives [and in this case the more conservative party or Republicans] need to get beyond Reagan?” His answer might be predictable, but not for reasons one may think based on liberal stereotype of the talk-show host. Limbaugh concludes “there is no pragmatic reason today for conservatives to abandon the ideas [emphasis mine] of Reagan.” Then he proceeds to pick one idea from out of many that Reagan used to talk about, one that may yet form a kernel of some future Republican Party majority. He admits Reagan anti-communism lost relevance in the post-Cold War world, and supply side economics is spent in the current environment. Notwithstanding, Limbaugh says Reagan argued and history has shown “that America does best when it is true to its original idea [emphasis mine]. It does best when its people are left free to work in their individual self-interest—not meant in the sense of being selfish, but in the sense that they are left free to work to improve their own lives and the lives of their families, and for the good of their communities and of the nation at large.”

He tells Republicans to seek a reformulation along old lines about individual liberty and freedom. He further defines what the Party should be by negative reference to what it should not be. That is, he says there is no such thing as “big-government conservatism,” thereby castigating the neoconservative wing and most of eight years of economic and regulatory policy under George W. Bush. Limbaugh is trying to breathe new life into the GOP by redirecting its energies, its younger candidates and its platform to the cause of limited government. Whether states rights and federalism are a prominent part of this “original idea” to which he alludes is implied, though less clear. We are nevertheless witnessing a classic morphing process ongoing inside a national party that went through significant electoral defeat in 2008.

Indeed, various stripes of conservatism and libertarianism are coalescing within the Republican Party towards the firm fixed idea of limited government, Founders-style. The Ron Paul movement has broken way out of bounds from the growing fan club built around a single individual to a nascent political movement called Campaign For Liberty built upon specific and well-developed Pauline ideas. While C4L affects both political parties, its impetus is likely to force advocates out of the party advocating new and bigger New Deal approaches to the party that intelligently mounts opposition. Of course it remains to be seen if that will be Republican Party. After all, the last major political party and national coalition to disappear in American politics was the Whig Party. Whigs ostensibly comprised the conservative party of their time too, at least before 1854. While it is generally conceded the rising Republican Party in the North was a beneficiary of the Whigs’ demise, Whigs also reinforced the constitutional and cultural conservatism of the South.

It is possible that conservative voices are the most likely to abandon liberalizing coalitions, as opposed to liberal voices saying goodbye to conservative ones. If for no other reason than that change is usually most pronounced in liberal coalitions, and liberal positions are more tolerant of the quantitative and qualitative gaps from whatever the new now is to whatever is conceived as the nation’s “original idea.” Conservatives don’t normally brook the distance but instead keep returning.

Wes Riddle's Horse Sense Column #385

2009-02-15T18:16:00.000-08:00

Wes Riddle’s Horse Sense #384

2009-02-08T18:06:00.000-08:00

Washington’s Birthday Not for Every President
by Wes Riddle

My federal holiday calendar says “Washington’s Birthday (Observed)” on the square marked 16 February (2009). That’s what it is. It is for nobody else, even if I might like to celebrate Ronald Reagan’s too, who was after all born on 6 February.

No holiday has quite as much confusion surrounding it. Indeed, until 1971 both 12 February (in many parts of the country) and 22 February (everywhere) were observed as public holidays to honor the birthdays of Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, respectively. Yep kids in many parts of the country used to get two additional days off in February, even though it was the shortest month of the year already. Then President Nixon who clearly hated kids proclaimed a single federal public holiday, which ostensibly lumped the two together. According to a contemporary newspaper spoof, his proclamation read that this day should be “set aside to honor all presidents, even myself.” Efforts to standardize, if not rationalize the growing list of national holidays date back to the 1950s and almost culminated with the Uniform Holidays Bill of 1968, which proposed creating Presidents’ Day by name. Although that part of the bill failed, it gave rise to popular myth that we should honor all our past presidents. For commercial reasons, some advertisers and merchants still like the idea. In point of fact, Nixon’s proclamation identified a single day only as “Washington’s Birthday.” Still another attempt to throw Lincoln into the holiday mix failed as late as 2001. Nevertheless, confusion reigns each and every third Monday in February.

Perhaps St. Valentine would “love” every last one of the presidents, but I doubt it. Consider the “legacy” question/controversy amongst politicos and historians, which will no doubt go on for many years, concerning the last president’s brilliant accomplishments. The American Conservative magazine in November listed a series of “Missions Accomplished”: Start a war (or two); Shred the Constitution; Crash the economy; Expand entitlements; Ruin America’s reputation abroad; Create a new Democratic political majority; Bribe churches; Recruit for Al-Qaeda; Discredit conservatism; Nationalize the banks; Cut taxes now (pay later); Misunderstand a very serious hurricane; Export jobs and import legal and illegal workers; Federalize education; and Spy on citizens. The list may be over-harsh, but virtually everyone will agree that some presidents have been better than others, and some presidents have been positively awful! So why in the world would we honor all of them?

The fact is that we don’t honor the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or the Speaker of the House or the Majority Leader in the Senate. We don’t celebrate the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or the Supreme Allied Commander in either of the World Wars with federal public holidays. The idea of a “Presidents’ Day” is dumb. Anyway, if I’m going to celebrate all of the presidents or even the two most commonly mentioned then you’d better add back Jefferson Davis, who after all was President of at least half the country during the War Between the States. I for one am glad my federal holiday calendar says “Washington’s Birthday (Observed)” and not “Washington’s and Lincoln’s Birthdays (Observed with Nausea).”

Throughout the 19th and most of the 20th centuries, George Washington remained the towering figure in U.S. history. He commanded the Continental Army and led the Colonies to victory in the Revolutionary War against Great Britain. He served as first President of the United States of America and set many of our most important precedents for proper governance in a democratic republic. Without him the Constitution may not have been ratified and even if it had, the various factions would never have followed a single leader besides him as president at the nation’s start. George Washington gave us practical and historical examples of bipartisanship, of consensus and loyal opposition, even the likelihood of subsequent peaceful transition of power. He was a great man and of sterling character, a man of deep abiding faith also, who believed that the Hand of Providence played a part in America’s birth and auspicious beginnings. For many years ‘The Father of Our Country’s’ birthday was celebrated with almost as much patriotic fervor as the Fourth of July. The observance was made official in 1885 when President Chester Arthur (President Who?) signed a bill formally establishing February 22nd as a federal holiday. The only thing officially changed since then is observance on the third Monday in February. It is still Washington’s Birthday, not Lincoln’s or anybody else whom we honor.

Wes Riddle’s Horse Sense #381

2009-01-18T23:40:00.000-08:00

Who Lost Europe?
Wes Riddle

Geert Wilders, Chairman of the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, recently addressed immigration and the cultural crisis in Europe at a symposium sponsored by the Hudson Institute in New York. His thesis was that Muslims were taking over Europe and were on their way to Pretoria, USA. Obviously the Dutchman had his hand out for some American moral support and private donations. As if we would, or should feel sadly responsible somehow, he said “In a generation or two, the U.S. will ask itself: who lost Europe?” To my way of thinking the answer to the question, if we even ask it, is easy: Europe will have been lost by the Europeans if it is lost. Jimmy crack corn and I don’t care.

On balance it is probably encouraging as Wilders tells us that an Alliance of European patriots has formed to resist so-called Islamization of Europe. That said one might wish it to resist socialism, or secular humanism, or laziness, and all sorts of other cultural ills that afflict Europe. His remarks at length shed more light on Europe than on Islam. Even if immigrants are acting like settlers and don’t care much to assimilate, his remarks still shed more light on Europe than on Islam. If Muslim immigrants have more kids than Europeans, one could as easily say Europeans have few kids and millions more abortions than do Muslims living in their parallel communities. The fact does not mean there is a conspiracy, even if European elites have weak knees facing the cultural implications as a threat. The reality that demographic weight of Muslims will result increasingly in a feeling of political intimidation on the part of the majority doesn’t mean that headscarves were designed to make real Europeans feel uncomfortable.

There are a total of 54 million Muslims now living in Europe, and 25 percent of the population in Europe is projected to be Muslim by the year 2020. In England, sharia courts are now officially recognized as part of the British legal system. One may wonder who would let millions of Muslims settle in European countries and then become citizens, and what idiot would let them set up a dual legal system? Answer: Europe will be lost by Europeans and also by Brits (the latter hate to be called Europeans) if it is lost. The saddest part about Wilders’ bemoaning the obvious is that he seems oblivious to the fact that forces killing Europe are similar if not identical to those destroying the United States. The Hispanicization of the American southwest is a case in point, and even if that is not as sinister (real or perceived) as the Islamization of major U.S. cities, the phenomenon represents the same ineffectual, impotent, and unwilling nature of modern democratic societies to defend their preexisting cultural identities or to separate their polities from mere residents coming in to work. It tells us more about the condition and moral fiber of Americans than it does about Islam or Hispanics avenging for the Mexican-American War.

The same social democrats in Europe, who steal from Peter to pay Paul with high taxes in order to fund their nanny states, concede freedom everyday to ensure “domestic security” to behave irresponsibly. Then they blame Islam, rather than their own foolish immigration policies, failure to enforce the law, or the gross debasement of their moral character. They love democracy if it doesn't mean holding their lawmakers accountable, or altering the sanguine consensus they have about human nature and the unreality of sin. That kind of self-governance would be a lot of work, and anyway they aren't sure what they're supposed to believe beyond the nothing they’ve proved so far. All things being equal, nothing is worth to die for, or live for either. Europeans these days don’t have the slightest idea what their high culture is, or what it takes to maintain Western freedom.

Meanwhile, the United States (if we weren’t talking about it already) frightfully acknowledges words like “eternal vigilance” while cheating the very concept—having ceased to govern itself according to the strictures of its Constitution. The Supreme Court even quotes international law to explain what the Founders must have meant. Yes we no longer think clearly, or even chronologically. All things being equal, truth and error are more or less the same. Pontius Pilot asked, what is truth? We may as well add, “and who is to say it’s better?”

Truth is that migrations and technology are tearing up social and cultural fabrics globally, though not necessarily equally. With somewhat less sympathy, I would argue that a similar process is changing the face of Islam both where it enters and where it currently resides. The liberalizing influences changing the Arab world for good and for ill are hard to miss if you travel there. It is hard therefore to say just who shall be the proverbial last man standing—or indeed, whom he shall resemble most. Perhaps it is one of many false dichotomies. It will probably be some unfortunate hybrid and evolutionary result of inevitable Darwinian natural selection. Mention Intelligent Design and you begin to discover how little intellectual freedom there is anymore, and how the West possesses its own intellectual nightmare to rival that of the imams. In a generation or two the world may not even bother to ask itself, who lost America? The answer will be self-evident, even if our rights and sovereignty no longer are.

Obama – the Anti-Reagan

2009-01-12T14:45:00.000-08:00

Obama – the Anti-Reagan
By Lynn Woolley
January 10, 2009

“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” --Ronald Reagan, first inaugural address, January 20, 1981

“But at this particular moment, only government can provide the short term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe.” --Barack Obama, George Mason University, January 8, 2009

On November 4th of last year, the American people embarked on a great experiment. They made a decision to embrace “change” embodied in the person of a young, charismatic, but ultimately inexperienced leader who intends to take the country down an opposite path from where Reagan took us.

Barack Obama, placing his full faith in the power of government intervention and deficit spending, is thus the Anti-Reagan, casting off the policies that directly led to the economic boom of the 1990’s that lasted up until the sub-prime crisis hit late last year.

Obama likes to talk about “the fierce urgency of now” – but few remember that Reagan used a similar quote: “the temporary convenience of the present.” Again, Obama and Reagan are polar opposites. Obama says “now” is what matters; Reagan says future generations matter as well.

We’re now living in one of those future generations that Mr. Reagan talked about 28 years ago. And things have rocked along pretty well – until government in its zeal to provide home ownership to those who couldn’t afford to buy houses stepped in and forced the issue. In the current crisis, there is little doubt that government IS the problem.

Reagan knew that. When he took office, the American people were sick and tired of the “national malaise,” the “misery index,” and the “stagflation” of the Jimmy Carter years. The inflation rate was 11.83 percent. Unemployment was 7.5 percent. Like Obama, Reagan proposed change. His idea was to stimulate the economy with large, across-the-board tax cuts. The new president identified the problem and laid out his plans in his inaugural address:

“For decades we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals.

You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we're not bound by that same limitation? We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow.”

Simply put, Reagan’s solution was to spend less; Obama’s is to spend more.
Reagan cut spending on non-military programs, lowered income tax rates, and brought the country out of the Carter recession. He created 16 million jobs, brought inflation under control and fashioned a sustained period of economic prosperity.

Reaganomics has stood the test of time with Nobel laureates like Milton Friedman and Robert A. Mundell recognizing what a boon it was to all Americans – and to the world. Obamanomics on the other hand is rooted in collectivism, which, so far in history, has never worked.

Both methods cannot be right. Either Reagan’s policies based on the theories of Arthur Laffer – or Obama’s which are based on the ideas of John Maynard Keynes – will prove to be the correct course. What has got us into the current mess is that we have spent too much – both as a nation and as individuals. Obama will now attempt to solve the problem by spending more. That’s just the opposite of what Reagan would do.

Lynn Woolley is a talk show host heard on KVCE 1160 in Dallas-Fort Worth from 8 a.m. – 10 a.m. His email address is lynn@belogical.com.

Wes Riddle’s Horse Sense #380

2009-01-12T14:42:00.000-08:00

MLK: What’s in the Day?
Wes Riddle

The Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr. was born January 15, 1929. He was assassinated in 1968. “MLK Day” as it were, is celebrated the third Monday in January close to the time of his birthday. One may ask how such a short life should warrant a federal holiday. Martin Luther King, Jr. never was elected to public office. His life was controversial while he lived it. Moreover, his memory is skewed given that FBI files were sealed under court order until 2027. These records were not accessible to lawmakers, who voted for his holiday in 1983. The measure nevertheless passed with bipartisan support and by large margin before Ronald Reagan signed it into law.

Martin Luther King, Jr. still evokes an ecstatic memory from his admirers, and the man has become something of an icon too. That is to say, the representation of high ideals and idealism is separate and distinct from his actual biography. Of course the same can be said of many others, including Lincoln and Jefferson. Great men are often given a public pass on their blemishes and shortcomings. Historians are or ought to be a bit more circumspect.

The reason for the Day, and celebrating the life of MLK involves the issue of race. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s work was important in achieving a Second Reconstruction so-called, i.e., the end of segregation and the application of rights past state laws based upon the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.

Martin Luther King, Jr. attended segregated public schools in Georgia. After that he went to Morehouse College in Atlanta and then to Crozer Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania. At Crozer he was elected president of a predominantly white senior class. He then proceeded to Boston University where he earned his Ph. D. in 1955 and met his wife Coretta Scott. They would have two sons and two daughters together.

After educational and professional preparations, King launched himself into the pastorate first in Montgomery, Alabama and then in his native Atlanta, Georgia. At the same time he dedicated himself to political activism throughout the South, in order to end “Jim Crow” discriminatory statutes. As a member of the executive committee of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) he led the Montgomery bus boycott lasting 382 days. This led to a Supreme Court decision ending bus segregation. During the days of the boycott, King was arrested and subjected to personal abuse, and his home was bombed.

In 1957 he was elected to head the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, from which he provided new leadership for the burgeoning civil rights movement. King employed the teachings and techniques of Henry David Thoreau and Mahatma Gandhi. His enduring success is largely attributable, however, to skilful adaptation of widely accepted American values, including the rule of law—albeit, through aggressive non-violence; as well as strong appeal to common spiritual beliefs, especially in the South, about God and the moral worth and dignity of man, and to Christian values of forbearance and brotherly love. His historicism was Lincolnesque and so helpful, in that he emphasized the text of the Declaration of Independence, characterizing that document as a promissory note as yet unfulfilled. Thus he appealed to American patriotism, while strongly criticizing social norms regarding race.

In the eleven year period from 1957 to 1968 Martin Luther King, Jr. traveled more than six million miles, gave over twenty-five hundred speeches, wrote five books and numerous articles, consistently preaching against racial hatred and injustice. His activity is largely credited with changing the conscience of America on the subject of race. In 1963 he directed a peaceful march on Washington, D.C. of 250,000 people and delivered perhaps his finest address, “I Have a Dream” from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. In 1965 he led 30,000 people on a march from Selma, Alabama to Montgomery, where he demanded that black people be allowed to vote without unfair restrictions. The speech televised to a national audience, as well as the Selma march and various protests he orchestrated, stirred general unrest in the South and American cities, leading to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965.
In 1964 he became the youngest man to have received the Nobel Peace Prize, turning over that considerable cash prize to the furtherance of civil rights. The iconic ideal he articulated at the Lincoln Memorial is still one of the highest domestic hopes in the land. It has come to define what we mean by a just equality. Speaking of his four little children, he said “I have a dream that … one day” they “will live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

Wes Riddle's Horse Sense #378

2008-12-29T10:42:00.000-08:00

New Year’s Old
Wes Riddle

I’m generally glad that time moves, seasons change and years go by. Tearing off a sheet from the desk calendar is like turning over a proverbial new leaf each month. It is nowhere near as fun by the way, using an electronic means to plan or keep schedules. And throwing the whole paper thing away at the end of the year, well that’s truly exhilarating. Talk about new beginnings, where to continue and where to begin anew. Horizons stretch before uncharted.

But then there’s this strange feeling perceived, like an odd stasis in and of all the observable change. The more things change, the more they seem to stay the same—or at least the more familiar they become. There is certainly a time to every purpose under heaven (Ecclesiastes 3:1), but there is also nothing new under the sun (Eccl 1:9). “That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past” (Eccl 3:15). Usually we had to go through the rough and rugged road just to get to where we are, and hopefully year after year it’s to a comparatively better place. Hopefully seeing as how there (not a better place) but for the grace of God, go I.

The fact is that history is replete with ups and downs, betters and also worse. Civilizations are founded; they grow, flourish and then decay. Everything passes away, but then everyday something new is also born. About the time you figure your own situation out, it’s pretty much time to go. The next generation starts its experience, while the old generation (if you’re lucky to find one concerned enough) tries to teach a few lessons learned. You can only do so much though. They can’t teach you everything, because it isn’t even possible to articulate everything—and life never stops long enough for a proper reflection. Struggle gives way to struggle.

Even if you wrote it all down and made somebody read it, he or she would never believe you. It’s in the nature of the way things work. Speaking of which, the new guy at work hardly ever takes advice from an old timer, unless or until he proves through some very personal and hard knocks that the old fool was actually right. The new guy inevitably blames problems on the old guys who left or might still be there and tired, and especially on the poor fellow who used to hold his same position. The reasons become apparent only as you consider the world to be dynamic, even if it approximates dynamic equilibrium, i.e., the world is never good, bad, indifferent, failed or fixed once and for all time, at least not until the Second Coming. Even a status quo requires that there be deliberate and active maintenance.

Now all this might be discouraging if we lived forever. Fortunately we do not. Imagine if you got things to absolute perfection (as only we in the present can), only to see it fall apart again! Since we don’t live forever though, we usually count on making things just a little bit better than what we found it. There are fresh recruits on the way, relief pitchers and catchers waiting on the bench (even if they might be second string, as of course all new guys are). The nature of the way things work, as I’ve described, is why the price of freedom (which is an accomplishment of the Founders in their time) is eternal vigilance. Eternal vigilance.

Freedom can never be safe once and for all. Prosperity is never assured either. Fortunately the same guys don’t have to do it forever. They weather their storms and hopefully pass on the goodly inheritance. We weather ours too, different but oddly similar as if by Design. Which is harder I wonder? The Revolution; the War Between the States; World War II; the Cold War; or the Global War on Terror? Which economic bust would you prefer? I suppose it depends on who you were and who you are. There again but for the grace of God go I, indeed in every conceivable time. Time isn’t just money, by the way—Time is everything you have. The line of time we’re on conveys us, and there’s eternal vigilance of a different sort to think about; that is, the vigilance of the soul. King David marked it well when he said, “My times are in thy hand” (Psalms 120:15) O Lord.

So this “New Year’s Old,” think. It is good to make resolutions and to rededicate oneself to such and such, or head off in a new direction if necessary. Think, however. Take a considered approach to life, because it’s all been done before. From history learn to have a healthy respect for the past, even as you continue to hope in the future and dedicate this present day to glory. If you’ll do that, you begin to understand your parents and grandparents much better and quite possibly your children and grandchildren as well.

Wes Riddle's Horse Sense Column #372

2008-12-21T23:31:00.000-08:00

Creeping Coup
Wes Riddle

Something happened along the way to the American mind, and quite frankly it isn’t working well the way it used to. Americans today aren’t half the speculative or political philosophers their grandparents once were. They don’t sit on the porch as much, and they certainly don’t share opinions with family and friends in a constructive way that invites feedback or a counter tirade. They don’t read newspapers much either, or pass them around with or without editorial comment. The pastimes and concerns such habits represent have all but been pushed aside by busy lives and quasi-meaningless competing priorities. Increasingly, the capability to do so has lapsed for the want of practice.

Radio and TV shows talk a lot but without discussing anything, and politicians speechify to no end without real debate. Public education has all but ceased to teach the communicative and intellectual skills needed for critical analysis on which deliberative democracy is thought to rely.
Our opinions are no longer formed from the bottom up as it were, or even from side to side but from the top down. The Party, the Government, and the Media tell us what spin to believe in; and we no longer possess the filter of our own minds to commit to what we boldly call the truth, our truth even if it is a perception. The change is important, because it unhinges our past and supportive culture from the running of constitutional government. It is important to the whole country moreover, because it allows what professor of politics at Catholic University of America, Dr. Claes Ryn observes, is “a creeping coup d’état from within.”

The old American idea of government was likened closely to the Golden Rule “to love thy neighbor.” Its modus morality placed primary emphasis on individuals controlling their passions, fighting personal demons, leading considered and disciplined lives. Liberty depended on as much, since it made for strong communities and minimized the need for overarching government. In the early 19th Century, Alexis de Tocqueville recounted the tremendous reluctance on the part of Americans to give up any power over their lives to distant authorities, whether church or state.

The written Constitution has always rested on foundations unwritten, even upon the character of the American people, upon the quality of received inheritance: the religious, moral, intellectual, cultural and social habits and beliefs of the people. As these have changed, we should not be surprised that constitutional government no longer runs the way it once did, or that checks and balances no longer preclude accretions of power unheard of in the days of the Republic’s Founders. Ryn: “The moral momentum behind the old decentralized society weakened. Today strong, centralized Federal power seems to more and more Americans not merely acceptable but desirable… Americans say increasingly to government: ‘Act for us!’”
Americans no longer run their own government, the government runs them. We know longer tell the government how much tax we’re willing to give, but rather the government informs us how much of our earnings we’re allowed to keep. In the name of social good, in the name of fairness, in the name of crisis or necessity—anything but in the name of Freedom! Americans are detached from their historically unique, even exceptional tradition of constitutionalism with its deep cultural roots. Allegiance has shifted from something real and achievable to plastic abstractions and universal rationalist principles, more akin to the French Revolution than to the American. History and concrete experience once taught us the importance of self-restraint, as well as the importance of restraint on government power. Today we celebrate the unitary power of the modern president in spite of the checks and balances of the Constitution designed to restrain that power. Indeed, we search for an American Caesar to rid us of all our problems and to fix every hurt.

According to Ryn, “We are living through the progressive dismantling of America’s proudest political achievement” as we watch the Constitution die. Strict constructionists, even if the people should elect them to office, will find it nigh impossible to resurrect the constitutional edifice, much less perpetuate a system of government shorn from its moral-ethical and other culture that gave it birth. “Restoring American constitutionalism would presuppose some kind of resurgence of that old culture…[Americans] would have to rearrange their priorities and start acting differently, placing more emphasis on family, private groups and local communities. They would have to want to take back much of the power ceded to politicians.”

Moses Will Not Deliver Us to Greener Pastures!

2008-12-19T22:09:00.000-08:00

Choosing Dr. Mike Moses Demonstrates that Killeen ISD is not Interested in Real Change
Mike Pearce

It amazes me how the more things change in Killeen ISD, the more they stay the same. Most reasonable people who know any KISD teachers recognize that the district is in the midst of a crisis, facing record low morale and poor leadership, among other things. In order to quell this terrible predicament, the Killeen School Board unwisely chose to place its trust and confidence to find a new superintendent in the hands of one of the most incompetent and corrupt education consultants in Texas history, Dr. Mike Moses.

According to education activist Donna Garner, “It is common knowledge that it was also under Moses' DISD administration that charges, allegations, and convictions have occurred involving out-of-control spending with school credit cards, lost dollars for health plans, abuse of federal e-rate funds, irregular technology vendor contracts, misspent federal bilingual education funds, costly deals with Kinko's, apparent conflicts of interest involving Voyager Expanded Learning, contributions by computer vendors, questionable bond sales, multiple teacher grievances, eyebrow-raising private consultancies, lucrative Coca-Cola contracts, and special privileges for vendors participating in the Education Research and Development Institute (ERDI) conferences.”

Moses, the former superintendent of Dallas ISD, has been summarily criticized by many for his "top-down management” style. In fact, he negotiated his DISD contract to state that trustees "shall not" discuss DISD business with any employee without his expressed consent, nor can they “communicate with anyone" regarding DISD personnel assignment, reassignment, salary and benefits, evaluation or any other terms of employment unless he agrees in advance." I guess there’s nothing like a good ‘ole iron fist…

While Dr. Moses was the superintendent of Dallas ISD, he pushed that district into a deal with Mercer Human Resource Consulting which was cited for violating state insurance laws and cheating several ISD’s out of thousands of dollars. At the same time he was making decisions that resulted in the burning of DISD taxpayer dollars, he was earning the highest superintendent salary in the nation (over $400,000). Moses' retirement benefits amounted to approximately $224,400 per year for the rest of his life, and he walked away from DISD with $480,850 for his work from January 1 - August 31, 2004.

Additionally, Moses has a track record of very poor policy changes that generally sank DISD into even greater financial chaos. In 2003, his now-disgraced Director of Technology accepted a gift from FedEx/Kinko’s which included a $2,500 entry fee into the Pro-Am golf tournament, airfare from Dallas to Austin, a banquet, two nights at the golf resort hotel and a $500 gift package of equipment and clothes. (The director of technology was later indicted for running an “elaborate and very profitable bribery and money laundering scheme involving DISD technology contracts.”) This was at the same time that FedEx/Kinko’s signed a deal with Dr. Moses to outsource copying and printing for DISD. Moses assured teachers and administrators that the deal would reduce costs. Unfortunately, DISD’s copying and printing costs more than doubled. In 2003, the district spent $5.87 million; by 2005 it was spending $12.82 million

The most famous scandal of a Moses’ superintendency was the abuse of district credit cards for personal use which came to light after his departure. In the end, DISD investigators recommended that 93 employees suffer sanctions for their theft of tax dollars. Most famously, a secretary in Moses’ office, Marsha Olson, was found guilty of using a DISD credit card to run up $56,000 in personal purchases over the course of three years. Ms. Olsen’s defense attorney had the good sense to note that her superiors escaped punishment, despite the fact that they had the ultimate responsibility of monitoring their subordinates.

It is disconcerting that the KISD School Board would ask Dr. Moses to choose our next superintendent, knowing full well (providing they might glance at the news every now and then) that he is renowned for creating a culture of corruption in DISD that has left an indelible scar on the district. There is far more to the sorted legacy of Dr. Mike Moses. If the Killeen ISD School Board thinks Moses is the shining example of what we need, we are all in serious trouble.

As I have stated before, Dr. Ann Farris has the experience, temperament, and common sense to repair the damage done to Killeen ISD. But it is apparent that the members of the Board have just invested thousands of dollars on a ruse to ensure the Interim Superintendent Bob Muller gets the job. Why? Dr. Moses was Dr. Muller's most immediate past boss, prior to his years of sycophancy under Jim Hawkins. Dr. Muller reported to Dr. Moses at TEA before coming to KISD as Dr. Moses was leaving TEA. Who wants to wager that Muller gets a stellar report from Moses? The fix is in, my friends... and the stench is overwhelming.

Wes Riddle's Horse Sense Column #371

2008-12-15T07:02:00.000-08:00

McCain’s Loss Republicans’ Gain
Wes Riddle

Senator John McCain ran a good race in a year that, by all accounts and historic markers, was going to be for the Democrats. When the economy tanked, there was no hope left in numbers. Having said that, his accomplishment as a campaigner was quite remarkable for his having been an agent of Republican disunity through much of the race and for years before. Everyone knows McCain was the dead last choice for a nominee in Texas, and the base still rallied to him! His choice of Governor Palin helped, as did the emerging and stark contrast to the Democrat opponent. Today voters set aside their lingering questions of patriotism, about origins, Marxist ideology and plain bad associations, to give the president-elect our benefit of doubt, well earned and deserved. The electoral landslide and corresponding gains in Congress are such that they give him a political mandate if indeed any president should have one. Moreover, Obama said that he hears the voices of those who did not elect him, that he will be their president too. Expectations and hope are coming from all directions. Virtually everyone wishes him well and to tell the truth, it might just be the best thing for Republicans.

Obama is already being called the black Kennedy. That means a lot to liberals in this country: a personification of hope, a promise of equal justice, and the spreading of wealth around. His triumph is akin to Reagan in key respects. Only a few years after Watergate, President Carter had become so unpopular in office that it gave rise to the Reagan Revolution. President George W. Bush’s tenure, his second term in particular, were so unpopular it gave rise to an Obama Revolution. If Obama doesn’t overplay his mandate or try to enact extreme radical policies, he could very well consolidate the Democratic majority for twenty years to come—and diffuse potential political backlash. Meantime, Republicans will have time to think, as well as for inevitable political infighting. They are going to seek internal scapegoats and factions to blame for defeat. The ins will be outs, and the Republican Party that emerges four years from now is likely to be different in important respects from what went into the 2008 election cycle.
Not only will it not resemble the neoconservative faction leading Bush to ruin, it is doubtful it will resemble McCain very much either. Remember McCain came to national prominence as a “maverick” Republican, meaning he championed controversial causes and policies affronting many parts of the Republican coalition. Indeed, he was one of two GOP senators, who voted against the 2001 Bush tax cuts and one of three who opposed reductions in 2003. Senator McCain co-authored legislation for extensive regulations related to the environment. In 2001 he and Senators Ted Kennedy and John Edwards introduced the Patient’s Bill of Rights that included expensive mandates for health coverage. Overall the Senator from Arizona has shown little respect for the free market and had little appeal to economic conservatives. Social and religious conservatives too, who remember the 2000 primaries warmed up to him even less, remembering that he called them “agents of intolerance” and suggested their religious leaders had no place in American politics. McCain also co-sponsored the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which passed over the opposition of 80 percent of congressional Republicans! The reason is that law was designed to restrict political speech of groups at the core of the Republican Party coalition: the National Rifle Association, as well as anti-abortion organizations and businesses. Few in the Republican Party on the right will mourn McCain’s loss this past November 4th.

A prominent McCain sympathizer, The New York Times’ David Brooks, had predicted a President McCain would change not only the nation but also the GOP. He felt people and groups who worked for the Reagan victories and also 1994 Republican return to power would find themselves exiled. McCain’s loss has given them a new lease as it were. McCain styled himself a maverick, whose appeal to independents and Democrats this season would make up lost GOP votes. Except for pressure from the base and strong advice to sidestep outright political suicide, his inclination had actually been to choose his close friend Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, a former Democrat to be his running mate! Independents and Democrats this year wanted change, however, and sixty percent of independents voted for Obama.

McCain wasn’t about change, and the voters saw through the smoke and mirrors. Senator McCain was just as much a hawk on Iraq as President Bush. Of course the irony is that the military surge worked so well there were no U.S. casualties for the entire month before the election. The issue receded entirely from people’s minds. The economy took its place, and McCain had as much principled opposition to government spending as President Bush, which is to say none at all. McCain never did answer Obama’s query: “Name one economic policy of President Bush you weren’t for!” McCain differed from the status quo only in his willingness to tax more. Indeed, McCain was the standard bearer of big-government conservatism: taxing and spending us into the drink at home and crusading stupidly for democracy in foreign lands, while reinvigorating the imperial presidency that brought Republicans low once before during the Nixon Era. This kind of faux conservatism deserved electoral defeat to match its abject political failure. The situation is grim short-term for Republicans, but the election defeat also opens a sorely needed debate about the principles of the Republican Party.

Conservative Treatise, Part II

2008-12-11T15:23:00.000-08:00

2. We need to find articulate and intelligent people to lead our cause.
“Eloquence is the essential thing in a speech, not information” - Mark Twain

We have our Bill Bennett’s, our Rush Limbaugh’s, our Peggy Noonan’s, and our George Will’s. The liberals have articulate, passionate, and intelligent people in their ranks too, but more than a few of them enter the fray of politics rather than pursuing private endeavors. Unfortunately, we are not very good at producing candidates who can convey passion and intellect simultaneously. Let us face a simple truth; George W. Bush was not the best we had to offer and his failures were based in his inability to communicate with his national constituency. One of the major reasons that Iraq has become an unpopular war is because Bush does not have a great enough command of the English language to effectively debate his opponents. Bush once told Katie Couric, “"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." In essence, he was admitting his inability to explain that he lacked the eloquence to effectively explain his decisions as Commander-in-Chief. You can allow surrogates to speak on your behalf for a while, but when the Commander-in-Chief seems fastidious about where or when he will fight for his policies, people stop following. In marriages, families, businesses, and in any institution which requires a collective commitment to succeed, communication is essential. Government is no different! When we find leaders within our cause, we must be certain that they have the capacity to argue the issues extemporaneously!

Since President Reagan, the only nationally recognized political leader we have had who possessed both the eloquence and intellect to carry the banner of conservatism and rally the nation behind our cause has been Newt Gingrich. Although Gingrich stumbled with a few problems while Speaker, those matters should not have been insurmountable and should not have led to his departure from the House. The problem was that the media placed crosshairs on him the moment that Dick Gephardt surrendered the gavel. That was further compounded by another foolish GOP presidential nomination in 1996. At a time when new, fresh, and energized conservatives were sprouting all over the country, the Republican Party nominated Senator Bob Dole, a member of the Old Guard who had spend his career (as McCain has) compromising with Democrats and cozying up the left leaning members of his own party, despite maintaining a personally solid conservative scorecard. By 1999, the Republican Party had begun to fall apart as the lust for power enveloped members of Congress, and those who had placed their faith in men and women who had promised to cut the size and scope of government were now dashed. Clinton had survived and impeachment trial for lying under oath, Gingrich was out, but we faced a new millennium with untold opportunities to promote greater liberties, freedom, and justice. Instead, we squandered our opportunity by nominating a very decent man who no real conservative thought would govern from the right. In the midst of war, whether it be physical or cultural, you cannot elect a man who is a “uniter, not a divider” for the sake of unity alone. And as many of us had feared, Bush’s use of principles of utility (like embracing the education and immigration policies of Ted Kennedy) were flawed at best.

So, let us commit to demanding that at the state and national level that our leaders not only know the issues, but can effectively and extemporaneously argue their merits!

Wes Riddle’s Horse Sense #370

2008-12-09T18:21:00.000-08:00

Ideology of Liberty

In the late campaign, many stupid things were said on all sides. I suppose that’s normal in American politics, but some undeserving things were accorded the mantle of common wisdom by the media and political analysts. For instance, that we’re too polarized as a nation and ergo, that’s why civility is lacking and Congress can’t lead itself out of a wet paper bag; and we’re too divided according to ideology, so thinking is to blame and a new way of thinking must transcend the old. If only politicians were less ideological the story goes, then they should be more practical in problem solving. If political parties adhered less to certain ideologies, then they should rise above petty little selfish interests and begin to govern effectively for the common good. The critique is like eye candy of rainbows floating on water, where light passes through the prism of a pretty oil slick. It belies the dunce of democratic majorities and special interest lackeys, who lack an understanding of political philosophy, political science and language, whilst they mouth words and feel quite smart.

The reason is polarization can have many causes, not the least of which is the concentration of power in Washington. Some people have asked why I ran for U.S. Congress before, and not for a county or state position first. My answer is grounded in the unfortunate reality that Austin can do almost nothing when the federal government has arrogated to itself power to make every decision and the authority to enforce every decision beyond checks and balances or separation of powers; in spite of the text of the Constitution, and the Original Intent of the Founders; and notwithstanding the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, or quaint federalist constructs in American political tradition involving dual sovereignty. Today we face the political prospect of restoring constitutional government and decentralizing power from within at the source of power or not at all.

The impressive police and military might of the present empire will not be assailed from without, nor confronted or avoided from within without a corresponding political change. There is hope for change from where power lies, however, if and when the people effect their representation; that is, if and when they will elect representatives grounded in the ideas and ideology of Liberty. This means they will get busy, informed and serious about voting for men and women who are committed to free markets and free minds, and to the government that governs least, i.e., according to the strictures of the Constitution. This means they will themselves respect again the historic, textual, ideational reality of the Constitution—and that instrument as the organic law of the Land. It means they will not stand down their effort after this election, as no patriot ever stands down completely knowing the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

The situation in Washington today is a huge and daunting challenge, an American equivalent to bringing down the Soviet Union. It cannot be done with improvised explosives, but rather only with ideas. Now if the people are too far-gone as it were, the fact the political system may still open to change is of little consequence and no avail. We vote and hope there will be enough people like us to make any difference. Else we settle for the placid answers and easy solutions so many politicians parrot and spout; and follow those rainbows floating on water, to the pots of fool’s gold nested firmly at the bottom of seas of tyranny and oppression.

And if this sounds like a riddle, how ever we should elect politicians to restore lost Liberty, then it is because we have lost a basic American tenet and popular understanding about the workings and nature of power and power’s cousin, politics: namely, that individuals and communities empowered by freedom can do just about anything, but there are serious limitations to what politics can accomplish and also what politicians plausibly and legitimately may promise under the Constitution. We need our politicians to do and to try to do less than what they are doing now, but it takes men and women of character and intelligence, and statesmen to do the less, and to discern and accomplish what is needed well. P.J. O’Rourke said recently, “I wish I had better news for you, but the barbarians are at the gates. We are besieged by…worshippers of big government.”

The quote is an oblique reference to the historic sack of Rome, but also metaphorically to the loss of Western Civilization occurring today. By implication, it foreshadows the onset of darkness and new Dark Ages. The barbarian perpetrators are those who have lost faith in themselves and the people, and the American Republic. They attribute instead all power, omniscience, glory and honor to national state planning and central government. After the last election, you might call it a bipartisan consensus. It seems we are all socialists now.

The truth is that we have become far too comfortable with state regulation of speech and expression, of business and the economy, of schools, churches, boy scouts, factories, airlines, fraternities, state and local government entities. As Mark Steyn describes it, we’re conditioned to the idea of regulating freedom in the interest of social harmony so-called, indeed to such a degree that we use the legal system to circumscribe debate and criminalize vigilance. The great world historian Arnold Toynbee wrote, “Civilizations die from suicide, not murder” and it is clear Americans have a most peculiar death wish on many levels. For those who choose to wriggle in their death grip and pray without ceasing for supernatural intervention unto the end, we ought also to cry out “No” as often as we can—being altogether less socially harmonious and cooperative with our own destruction, and parting ways with errors in common wisdom repeated so often that you start to believe it. ‘Do not go gentle into that Good Night!’ The worst ideology of all is the one that says resistance is futile. We ought to stop sending the oligarchs to Washington and elect true representatives who believe in Liberty. The door to freedom is not yet closed, even as darkness falls.
_____________________
Wesley Allen Riddle is a retired military officer with degrees and honors from West Point and Oxford. Widely published in the academic and opinion press, he ran for U.S. Congress (TX-District 31) in the 2004 Republican Primary. Email: wes@wesriddle.com.

Welcome Wes Riddle and his "Horse Sense"

2008-12-09T17:58:00.001-08:00

I am pleased and honored to announce that my friend, soldier, scholar, and patriot Wes Riddle has allowed me to add his brilliant, insightful, and always inspiring words to my blog.

By way of backgroung, Wes was born and raised in Houston, Texas and graduated from Houston’s Northbrook High School and the United States Military Academy at West Point, NY (Class of 1983). He spent twenty years in the U.S. Army and, at the time of his retirement in 2003 served at Fort Hood, Texas, on the III Corps Staff as Chief of the Air Defense Element (ADE).

Previous assignments include both stateside and overseas tours in Europe and the Pacific. Awards and decorations include the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal and Defense Meritorious Service Medal.

During the Gulf War, he commanded a Patriot Missile battery which intercepted SCUD missiles in northern Saudi Arabia. From August 2000 to August 2002, he was assigned to the Office of Military Cooperation-Kuwait, U.S. Embassy, as Air Defense Advisor to the State of Kuwait.

Wes obtained his Master of Philosophy degree in Modern History from Oxford University in 1993 where he graduated with Distinction, after which he taught Advanced American History and American Political Tradition for three years at West Point. He was awarded a Salvatori Fellowship by The Heritage Foundation for 1996-97 and is widely published in the academic and opinion press on matters of American history and political theory. He is Fellow at the National Humanities Institute in Washington, D.C., and Policy Advisor to the Virginia-based Future of Freedom Foundation.

After his race for U. S. Congress (TX-District 31) in the 2004 Republican Primary, Wes joined the Adjunct Faculty at Central Texas College in Killeen, Texas and taught U.S. History. Shortly afterwards, Vinnell Arabia, a subsidiary of Northrop Grumman asked him to join its senior management team in Riyadh where it assists the U.S. Army in training the Saudi Arabian National Guard. Wes is currently Manager of the Office of Force Integration, Office of the Program General Manager, with Vinnell.

Wes and his wife Aida live in Belton, Texas where he is probably best known for his weekly conservative column called “Horse Sense” in area newspapers. His column also appears on websites, including BeLogical.com and is frequently featured on Dallasblog.com.

To the Starboard welcomes Wes and I thank him for his lifetime of service to our nation!

Conservative Treatise, Part I

2008-12-07T00:31:00.000-08:00

So often, well intentioned individuals mark elections as the beginning and the end of a particular era. But I tend to view things very differently. Wars are not won by counting the number of battle victories. In the end, some battles are more significant than others and turning points do occur. Ultimately, victories come only when the enemy recognizes their defeat. They must either be converted or willing to submit to whatever reality exists.

Trivializing the defeat suffered by the conservative movement on November 4, 2008 would be foolish and demonstrate a lack of humility that will ensure future defeats. Victories are won by setting goals, by being collectively introspective about past failures, by studying foes, and ultimately by doing what is just.

Therefore, I have developed a series of proposals I believe that conservatives must consider in order to regain momentum and ultimately take back our nation. I will post these ideas periodically over the course of a few weeks to provide adequate time for commentary on each idea.

1. Conservatism is the paradigm of our founders- don’t be duped by those who suggest that conservatism is the problem.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. ... Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." – Barry Goldwater
Talking heads, like those we witnessed since our defeat in November, have already launched into their analysis of what went wrong. As I said, collective introspection is necessary, but beware! Their “inside-the-beltway” reaction has been nothing less than predictable. I have already heard disseminators of propaganda from both parties speak of Republicans “running right, when they should have run left”. First, let us remember that John McCain had no traction in this election until he demonstrated to the conservative base of his party that they were part of his vision. By nominating Sarah Palin, a social and fiscal conservative, as his running mate he energized his base and saw the ONLY surge he experienced at any part of his campaign until “Joe the Plumber” entered the fray (from all indications, another social and fiscal conservative). Pundits like now Republican leaning Dick Morris (the man who engineered Clinton’s 1996 victory), Republicans need to ignore those on the “fringe” of their party (as he puts it), because they have no place else to go. Morris’ advice should be quite telling to us! We are seen by the dominating forces of the Republican Party in Washington as dim-witted step-children who are allowed to go for the drive, providing that we sit in the back seat, shut up, and keep our thoughts about the direction we should go to ourselves. There must come a time when we unite and forcefully reclaim the Republican Party. And yes, that could be a long and grueling process.

Another pundit suggested that we need to be a more “inclusive” party, appealing to those in the broad spectrum of America, and therefore we must abandon our stringent and “intolerant” commitment to national sovereignty by opening our borders. This is the type of rhetoric we should get used to… The most effective tactic employed by liberals and the media (but I repeat myself) is to contrive erroneous claims and reiterate them over and over until they are believed, and ultimately embraced. The entire “open borders” argument stems from another globalistic view which posits that because Americans live a good and healthy lifestyle, the world is entitled to equal status. In a sense, it calls for the “redistribution of lifestyles”. The problem with this view is that is that it fails to recognize that the United States is not merely a nation with borders; it’s an idea founded on the basic rights of man, the value of personal industry, and the embrace of a unique social contract. Once upon a time, immigrants to this nation sought to become Americans, and they had a clear understanding that of what constituted citizenship and they relished the opportunity. Today, many immigrants seem obstinate about assimilating to the values of their nation, and come only to line their pockets with US currency while maintaining a loyalty to the nation of their birth. Finding English speaking citizens along the US Mexican border in Texas is often an arduous task. Entire communities within the United States along the Mexican border show signs of national unity to their ancestral neighbors to the south, and little gratitude for the freedoms they have earned through US citizenship. Yesterday evening, I watched a boxing match between Oscar De La Hoya and Manny Pacquiao. Three national anthems were sung at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, Nevada; The Anthems of the Philippines, Mexico, and the United States. I could certainly understand singing the national anthems of the Philippines and the US… Manny Pacquiao is from General Santos City, South Cotabato, Philippines. Oscar De La Hoya was born and raised in East Los Angeles, California, hence the US national anthem. But why the Mexican anthem for a man who is American by birth? Because we have perpetuated a culture (as Teddy Roosevelt referred to it) of “Hyphenated Americanism”. So long as we perpetuate the idea that the US is merely a “place” with political borders, we are doomed to become a nation of strangers. We are doomed to become a nation in which citizens enjoy the benefits of being Americans, whilst allowing their loyalties to belong to other nations. We must recognize that assimilation and the ultimate embracing of this nation the bearer of all of our loyalty is absolutely necessary. But I digress…

Another pundit suggested (as many have) that conservative thought runs counter to the “needs of the global community” and that the standing of our country in the eyes of the world is far more important that the vision Americans have for America. These individuals have an obvious affection for the European world view which sees sovereignty as an antiquated and obtuse concept. For years we have heard leftists complain about the deleterious effect George W. Bush has had on the American image abroad. We are a nation that fights tyranny while others placate despotic leaders; we contribute more foreign aid than any country on the planet; and we are still mobbed by foreigners trying to get into this country to escape poverty and/or oppression. Therefore, I think it is time that we stop asking “why don’t foreign nations like us” and begin to ask “what’s wrong with foreign nations that they do not like us.” And then, we need to let them work that problem out for themselves. Diplomacy is important, but when we set forth to do all the right things and still find no friends, then diplomacy becomes a token of weakness.

Finally, others demand greater populism, crediting Obama’s victory to his ability to speak to “all people” and give them a sense of ownership of this nation. Ownership of this nation? I always believed that if you embraced the basic rights of man and gave your greatest measure of devotion to our sacred principles, ownership became yours. Now, students in this nation are indoctrinated in the rewards of the culture of dependency. There was a time in the US when our parents told us that if we wanted something deeply enough, that we should work keenly toward that goal. There was never a guarantee, and failure was a necessary part of the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, the belief that we are all entitled to “happiness” has replaced the pursuit of it. To a liberal, this is achieved by taking from some and giving to others and by legislating away inequity through policies that lower standards to meet the least common denominator… among others.

So we must fight and expect to be bloodied. We must embrace truth and righteousness as our guiding principles and become unyielding in the fight to speak with passion and eloquence about those issues that are key to the survival of this nation. Conservatives are often very much like the loyal family dog. They do what is expected of them, and will only snap at their masters when beaten and trapped in a corner. Well, that time has come.

Look South, Rhode Island

2008-12-05T17:48:00.000-08:00

I just returned from a Thanksgiving holiday in the People’s Republic of Rhode Island, the state of my birth. It was my first trip there in 8 years. Throughout my childhood I could never quite figure out why the good Lord would place me in an area where the culture, in every respect (political, social, economic), was so contrary to my own values. I tend to think that he just wanted me to appreciate my beloved State of Texas.

As I crossed the state line into Rhode Island from Massachusetts (we landed at the Boston-Logan Airport), I was immediately taken aback by the obvious infrastructure problems the state was facing. The roads may have been the worst upon which I have ever traveled! But apparently, according to a Providence Journal article I read, the State of Rhode Island has a plan… One which will do nothing more than sink Rhode Islanders into a further abyss of economic woes.

Rhode Islanders reap what they sow; it is a state that has been in Democrat hands almost completely since the 1930’s. Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 4-to-1 in Rhode Island today and they maintain this control despite an abysmal record (Also note that Rhode Island’s Republicans are some of the most liberal in the nation- Lincoln Chaffee should come to mind). Amazingly, they have a decent Republican governor in Donald L. Carcieri, but a man made impotent by Democrat dominance in the legislature.

Rhode Island has strong union dominance in every corner of business and government, from supermarkets to teachers unions. According to successful former General Electric CEO Jack Welch (a Massachusetts native), “[Rhode Island is] not a right to work state. It's driven all big business out of the state. It is a state that has 80% of the business[es] in the state employ 20 people or less.”

Welch continued, "Rhode Island has the... second highest [taxes] in the nation. 48th worst state to do business." He asserted, “… they tax the hell out of you, and you don't want to be there. Welch lambasted the New York times for an article it published stating, “[The Times] talked about all the job losses on the front page, and then it swung over to the middle of the paper, and the paper had two pages on the state of Rhode Island, and it had these tragic stories of who was out of work, a hairdresser, a restaurant owner, somebody else, but they didn't make the connection of why they were out of work."

"Rhode Island had the highest unemployment in the country. 8.8%. 40% higher than the country," He concluded, “And that's a small picture, and The Times didn't make the connection with these tragic stories which were tragic -- didn't make the connection with what the tax policies of Rhode Island are with the plight of the state."

So what do we know when we compare Texas and Rhode Island’s economies? Consider the following (Statistics from June 2007-2008):

Texas was responsible for 73.4% of all net job creation in the United States.
Rhode Island was responsible for -3.6% of all net job creation in the United States.
Texas was responsible for a staggering 289.8% of all net private-sector job creation in the United States.
Rhode Island was responsible for a staggering 1.4% of all net private-sector job creation in the United States.
Employment level in Texas increased by 2.4%
Employment level in Rhode Island decreased by 2.4% (The irony…)
Texas has one of the lowest state tax burdens at 9%.
Rhode Island has one of the highest state tax burdens at 12.7%.
Texas' unemployment rate is 5.6% (as of October 21, 2008, better than the national average)
Rhode Island's unemployment rate is 9.3% (as of October 21, 2008, far worse than the national average) *

And in 2008, Rhode Island elected even more liberal Democrats to the legislature. As I told a friend, Rhode Islanders are like the struggling guy who says “I’m going to buy $100 worth of lottery tickets every week this year, hit the jackpot, and pay all of my bills.” After 52 weeks, he realizes that he lost the vast majority of his $5200. So his solution? He decides, “Next year I’ll just have to buy $200 worth of lottery tickets every week!” And so it goes… Rhode Islanders think that the solution to their problems is more government, less liberty, and sticking with those who think sucking more tax dollars out of the pockets of their citizens is the key to prosperity.

I wish these folks would figure out what Texas has know for a long time… Leave business alone, let them grow, reinvest, create jobs, and from a booming economy, sales taxes will bring in greater revenue. I just count my blessings that I live in God’s Country!

Mike Pearce

* Statistics complied by Will Franklin, formerly of the Texas Public Policy Institute

To repair Rhode Island roads, report calls for new tolls, taxes and higher fees

09:32 AM EST on Friday, December 5, 2008
By Bruce LandisJournal Staff Writer

PROVIDENCE — Driving your car may take on a new and larger meaning — for your wallet.
To fix its crumbling roads and bridges and rescue the state’s financially challenged public transit system, a draft report made public yesterday says the state should consider charging tolls at the state line on every interstate highway and creating a new tax for each mile a vehicle is driven.

The report calls for tolls on a new Sakonnet River Bridge, increasing the state gas tax and a long list of other things related to using the roads. One proposed tax would apply to anything made from petroleum, from paint to detergent to plastics.

The proposals would mean a drastic shift in the way the state finances transportation — away from borrowing and near-complete reliance on federal money — toward spending more by using money raised through taxes and fees.

It could also mean a large policy shift on public transportation. The Rhode Island Public Transit Authority is in such financial trouble that officials have been planning major service cutbacks and calculating just when it would run out of money during the next several months. The draft report includes plans to save the bus system from immediate dismemberment by covering its $8-million budget deficit and to maintain existing service for at least 10 years.

The panel, Governor Carcieri’s Blue Ribbon Panel for Transportation Funding, was formed because the lack of maintenance over the years has caught up with the system. More than half of the state’s roads are in fair, poor or “failed” condition, according to the Department of Transportation, and 164 bridges of 772 are classified as structurally deficient.

Two of the state’s most important bridges, the Pawtucket River Bridge, carrying Route 95, and the Sakonnet River Bridge, carrying Route 24 to Aquidneck Island, have 18-ton weight limits, are off-limits to large trucks and need to be replaced before they get worse.

The panel is supposed to produce a final report shortly. The members took no votes yesterday but seemed in agreement on most of the major elements of the plan. An exception that will apparently be removed involved diverting some state sales tax money that is used to support the existing state budget. The recommendations will go to the governor, and most would also need approval by the General Assembly.

Carcieri has not endorsed any of the recommendations.

“We’re not ready to decide what we’re going to choose,” spokeswoman Amy Kempe said. However, the panel is co-chaired by the governor’s top present and past transportation appointees, DOT Director Michael P. Lewis and Jerome F. Williams, the previous DOT director who is now state director of administration.

The draft report, prepared by the DOT, includes two “scenarios,” one producing an estimated $150 million per year and the other $300 million per year, the amount the DOT says it really needs to make necessary repairs within 10 years.

The major elements include:
•Both new and higher fuel taxes. The proposals include increasing the gasoline tax, now 30 cents, by up to 15 cents per gallon by 2016, which would raise an estimated $64 million per year. They also include a new “petroleum products gross earning tax,” beginning with the equivalent of 10 cents per gallon of gasoline in 2010 and adding another 5 cents in 2014. That would affect all petroleum products, from gasoline and aviation fuel to those made from petroleum derivatives, such as plastics, paint and fertilizer. It would eventually raise about $66 million per year, the draft report says.
•Car registration fees, now $60 for two years, would rise $40 per year immediately and could more than double, to $140, by 2013, depending on which version was used, raising up to $46 million per year.
•A new mileage fee. The $150-million plan would not include it, but the $300-million plan would impose a half-cent-per-mile fee, raising an estimated $50 million per year. But officials said yesterday that they expect to eliminate the transfer of some sales tax revenue to the transportation system, proposed elsewhere in the report. Raising the mileage fee to 1 cent per mile would make up the difference.
At a half-cent per mile, driving 10,000 miles per year would cost $50 per vehicle. One cent would cost $100.
Also referred to as a VMT fee (for vehicle miles traveled), the mileage fee would be based on odometer readings reported by vehicle owners when they renew their registrations. The mileage could be verified during mandatory auto inspections, the study says. Robert A. Shawver, the DOT’s assistant director, said that although one state, Oregon, is pilot-testing a similar fee, Rhode Island’s would be the first of its kind in the country.
•Tolls. The $150-million plan could include tolls, $3 per car and $6 per truck, only at the Connecticut border, yielding an estimated $39 million per year. The $300-million plan would include similar tolls where all of the state’s interstate highways (Routes 95, 295 and 195) cross the state line, and would raise $60 million per year.
While most of the other fees and taxes would affect primarily Rhode Islanders, the tolls would be aimed at out-of-state vehicles which, if they pass through the state without stopping for fuel, now use the roads for free.
•Tolls on a new Sakonnet River Bridge. The plan relies heavily on shifting the estimated $210-million cost of a new Sakonnet River Bridge, now the DOT’s responsibility, to the Rhode Island Turnpike and Bridge Authority. It also assumes that the authority would borrow the money to pay for the bridge and charge tolls to pay the cost. Shawver said it isn’t clear how much the tolls would be, but guessed they would be in the $3-per-car range. That would take the cost of the new bridge off the DOT’s hands, while giving the authority the prickly job of imposing the tolls.
Some recommendations, such as a higher gas tax, could be put into effect quickly. Others, such as tolls, would take years to put into effect. Lewis said the state would try to implement the tolls jointly with Massachusetts and Connecticut, building one set of tollbooths and splitting the money.

The DOT has had a series of expensive embarrassments involving its construction projects over the years. One question yesterday concerned the agency’s ability to efficiently spend roughly twice as much money per year as the $354 million it spends now.

Suzanne Greschner, policy director at the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council and a panel member, said she looked through the draft report and found nothing about making sure that the DOT can handle the money effectively. Taxpayers, she said, need to know that the money would be spent effectively.

Several of the proposals are certain to be controversial. In addition to imposing new taxes and sharply higher fees that would affect most citizens, one is already starting to heat up an old regional dispute.

Putting tolls on the new Sakonnet River Bridge attracted loud opposition in the past from legislators whose constituents now use the existing deteriorating bridge for free.

Yesterday, Keith W. Stokes, executive director of the Newport County Chamber of Commerce, denounced the toll proposal and said he wanted to know why tolls on the heavily traveled Washington Bridge, on Route 195 in Providence, isn’t one of the proposals.

One major difference between the two plans involves borrowing. The $150-million plan would rely on $450 million in borrowing, something that has already gotten the DOT into a financial hole. The $300-million plan would eliminate the borrowing and rely instead on higher registration fees and the proposed tax on mileage.

blandis@projo.com