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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.