What To Do About X-Mas?

So, I heard Rush yesterday proclaiming that anyone who voted Democrat was just voting for Santa Claus and all the stuff they’ll be given without having to pay or work for it.  I also think I heard Bill O’Reilly say the same thing on TV yesterday as I was channel surfing for Modern Family.

I really wish my law partners, my wife and my two kids in college would understand that I no longer need to show up for work; from now on it’s kick back and wait for that mailbox money.  I also wish that the IRS, state, county, city and school district would understand I now no longer need to pay taxes and fees.

I almost called in to agree with Rush that obviously Democrats have their priorities all mixed up.  How hypocritical – just as Democrats are gearing up for another round of the “War on Christmas” and they’re endorsing Santa?  Well, perhaps it’s only Baby Jesus that Democrats don’t like?  That figures – we all know that Christ never gave anyone anything they didn’t already deserve.

On a separate note, since I’m hovering just below 50, I found this good article linked above that Social Security will not run out of money until 2033.  That will make me 70, so I get 5 years!  I guess everyone born after 1968 can just eat it.

Which makes it odd – people over 65 who likely will be getting Social Security until they pass away voted 57% for Romney.  Those under age 30 who supposedly will get nothing voted 60% for Obama.

Pretty crazy.  Perhaps the old folks are all just senile and the young folks are all on the new legalized pot.

Romney is Right Again!

Mitt Romney is right again in his criticism that the government should not be involved in “picking winners and losers”.  All this government deciding to invest public tax dollars in start-up companies and, as Romney says, “chasing fads” like emerging technologies really does need to be stopped.

Just consider the bankruptcy filing this month of  Terrabon, Inc., one of these government-picked “winners” that received a multi-million dollar taxpayer check in 2010.  Not even two years have gone by, and now Terrabon is in Chapter 7 bankruptcy – a total wash out for taxpayers.

And as reported in the Washington Post by AP, Terrabon is the FOURTH bankruptcy filing of a tech related company that has been given one of these government handouts.

Good Lord, we’ve got to stop Obama picking all these losers and wasting our tax dollars!!!

Oh wait – Terrabon and the other three failed companies received their tax money from State of Texas taxpayers out of Rick Perry’s “Emerging Technology Fund” (“slush fund” is sort of impolite to say).  Since 2006, Perry has handed out $194 million in your tax money, and if you count the latest two recipients to go under, the net return to the State of Texas is an impressive $0 (AP actually says that we arey $5 million in the red, but who’s counting?)

But not all is so bad.  At least Perry got to hold two big public press events when he handed out the checks to Terrabon, and he got really good headlines.  Same thing with the other three now defunct companies.  The press releases on Perry’s website were masterfully written.  The bankruptcy filings are a little harder to find on the Governor’s website, so I’m assuming his staff is too busy to have gotten around to writing the press releases on them yet.

Also, Perry got to really help out some of his donors, and that’s always important.

You see it really helps getting grants from the Emerging Technology Fund (and his Enterprise Fund as well – but no time for that today) if you donate to Perry’s campaigns.  There’s this phrase in politics – “donors get good representation, non-donors get good government.”  Doesn’t that sound much better than “Texas has a pay-to-play system of handing out tax money to businesses.”

Consider Phil Adams.  Adams invested in Terrabon.  He also has contributed more than $300,000 to Perry’s campaigns.  He also got paid as much as $24,000 from Terrabon before it when belly up.  Let’s see, Perry gives tax money to Terrabon, Adams gets “profits” from Terrabon, then Terrabon goes bankrupt because it has no money.  How can I get in on this deal, seeing as I don’t have $300k to give to Perry’s campaign?

Adams is also a Perry-appointed Texas A&M regent.  In addition, the co-founder of Terrabon gave Perry at least $30,000 in campaign donations.  But you’ll feel better knowing that both that co-founder and Adams say their donations had nothing to do with Terrabon getting those millions in your Texas tax dollars.  Boy, that sure makes me feel relieved.  And I’m sure it would make all the difference in the world to Mitt.

Thank goodness Obama can’t give out Texas tax dollars.  If he could, our money might be wasted.

School Choice, Private School Vouchers, Parental Choice – On the Way?

The last several months have provided Texans with a clear signal that school vouchers will be a major agenda item in the Texas Legislature come 2013.  Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst came out strongly for school vouchers, and State Sen. Dan Patrick has been charged to hammer out the details.  New TEA Commissioner Michael Williams also supports vouchers.  Patrick held hearings last month on various options like private school vouchers and expanding charter schools, and he has declared the subject “the civil rights issue of our time.” Rick Perry has also announced his backing of the issue.

Over the last decade, Texas has accounted for half of new public school growth in the United States.  But as pointed out by the Austin American Statesman, Texas cut $5.4 billion in public education funding last session.

Although defeated routinely in Texas for the last decade or more, vouchers are now being repackaged for a new push.  One of these new selling points for vouchers is that they will “save state tax dollars”.  For example, one proposal would look at the actual cost of educating a student in public school, then offer that student 60% of that cost to go to attend a private school.  Thus the state would save 40% on that student.  This would effectively create the largest cut in public education spending ever.

One interesting aside is that the voucher debate has always been bipartisan in nature.  Some of the strongest proponents have been Democrats, Ron Wilson and Henry Cuellar when they were in the Texas House, for example.  Some of the strongest opponents have been Republicans, like Carter Casteel and Charlie Geren. Not to be confused with Sen. Dan Patrick, State Rep. Diane Patrick, also a Republican, is currently one of the main voices against vouchers, instead “advocating high-quality options within the public school system.”  Rep. Patrick points out the lack of fiscal and academic accountability at private schools that would receive public tax dollars.

I agree with Rep. Patrick on this issue.  There are tons of nuances and topics to debate surrounding vouchers, so it is futile to discuss them all here.  Generally, it must be pointed out that school vouchers would make it significantly more difficult for Texas to fulfill its constitutional requirement to provide a free and equal public education for all Texas children.  Every child in Texas is supposed to be guaranteed the same opportunity for a quality education.  If one school is worse than another, one can argue that Texans are in violation of their own Constitution.  If students and state dollars are sent to private schools, less is allocated to the public school system, and the students left behind are in worse shape. Also, a voucher may not cover the entire cost of tuition at many private schools, meaning some students (those with parents that can afford to pay the spread) would be less able to use vouchers than others.  Add to that factors like location, type and other costs associated with private schools, and you find that the vouchers issue is much more complicated that simply sending a kid out of a bad school district (or saving tax dollars).

The fight over vouchers started before I entered the legislature, but I was involved in it while I was there.  In 1997, I was at my desk as a freshman legislator when then State Rep. Ron Wilson and others offered an amendment to allow private school vouchers.  The vote to table their motion (and reject their proposal) was narrowly defeated, meaning that the next vote would be to adopt (and allow vouchers). Because the motion to table was rejected, some panicked, assuming that Wilson’s amendment would be adopted, and Texas would get vouchers.

I got out of my chair and offered an amendment to Wilson’s proposal that prohibited any private school that took a voucher from discriminating based on academic performance, disability or other criteria (this would prevent private schools that accepted public funds from cherry-picking only the students they wanted).  My amendment was adopted (Who could argue for discrimination?), and Wilson then withdrew his proposal.  I was later told this is called a poison pill amendment, and for it, I got a lot of undeserved credit for “killing vouchers” that year.

The truth is that a number of anti-voucher members were away in committee meetings when the whole thing started, and their return meant the votes existed to defeat Wilson outright.

I remember that debate because it was my first real test on the microphone.  Wilson was somewhat feared as a debater, and also he had evidently cold cocked Harvey Hilderbran in the Member’s lounge during a previous session.  Harvey’s version was different, and since I wasn’t there, I have no clue.  However, I must say that I tend to believe anything Harvey says over Ron.

Regardless, it had created this mythology around Wilson, a mythology that waspretty much shattered when Garnet Coleman called Wilson out at a Houston Redistricting hearing about this orange Lamborghini. Gotta love G.C.  But the point is, I had my first debate on the House floor about vouchers, and it was against Ron.  I have to thank Ron for that, as it gave me my first taste of real hard debate and taught me that it was no big deal.

Since 1997, I saw vouchers defeated in the House over and over and over.  Since Democrats have been in the minority in the House since 2003, it was clearly a bi-partisan majority stopping them. Only November will tell us whether the votes still exist in the House to defeat them.

As a parent and someone who see education as the great equalizer and foundation of our individual and collective success, public education has always been one of my top priorities, both as a member of the Texas House and of the public.  I have come to think small classrooms, fair pay for teachers, innovative ways to increase parental improvement, and local accountability were some of the important factors that could improve our schools. Vouchers seem like a convenient way for lawmakers to pass the buck on education and wash their hands of a core Constitutional responsibility. My thought is that if schools are bad, and some certainly are, lawmakers should step up to the plate and fix them, not walk away from that responsibility.  To me, at best, vouchers might be a way to help a few kids in a bad school.  The better option, and the one we are Constitutionally and morally obligated to do, is fix that school.

Charter school are also not the overall solution.  Charter schools have a good role in the overall system.  They provide a place for thinking outside the box, trying new teaching methods, and such.  Lessons learned in the Charter system should be looked at possible solutions to be learned in the larger system.  But as we have seen, particularly in the debacle of 2000-2001 when Charters were allowed unlimited growth, the lack of accountability to taxpayers and voters created horrific abuses and problems.  As the legislator charged in 2001 with cleaning up the mess with oversight legislation, I can assure you we don’t want to return to that situation.  Measured and incremental growth in Charter schools can be a good thing, but again, that is not the answer to failing schools overall.

Texas schools did not begin to have performance issues overnight, and there is no quick fix.  Also, you can’t take $4 billion out of the system in 2003, $5 billion out in 2011, and then blame someone else.  There has been a systematic underfunding of education in Texas for over a decade.  It is wrong for lawmakers to pull huge amounts of money out of the system, upwards of $600 per child, and then complain at performance drops.  Money does matter.

SHORT UPDATE ON BREAD STEALING

While I pledged to stop Google searching historical “no admission of guilt” fraud by our banks, I guess I did not include new stuff.  So in case you missed it, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America are now on the list of those undergoing money laundering charges by the Comptroller of the Currency.  Evidently Chase is supposed have engaged in money laundering “pertaining to drug cartels, especially in Venezuela and several other economically restricted nations.“  That’s actually a relief personally, as JPMorgan’s last year multi-million $$$ fine by the Treasury Department was for thwarting U.S. sanctions against Cuba and “egregious” conduct where JPMorgan’s “managers and supervisors acted with knowledge of the conduct constituting the apparent violations and recklessly failed to exercise a minimal degree of caution or care.” At the time, JPMorgan said that it had not dealt directly with institutions in Cuba and Iran and that it had merely acted as a middleman.  Well it’s nice to know we are not deal with Castro or Tehran anymore.  After all Oliver Stone says that Hugo Chavez is really a nice guy.

In another follow up piece, my crystal ball from a week ago is pretty good, as Corzine and the bunch at MFGlobal are evidently off the hook.  No criminal charges for that disappearing $1 Billion in customer money.  Corzine made $14.25 Million in the 18 months before all that money went missing.  He’s now considering starting a hedge fund.  Not a bad gig if you can get it.

Oh, and The New York Times reports that of the disappearing funds “$175 million of this stolen money went to JPMorgan Chase.”  Sure pays to be a middleman.

Our Freeloading Family Pets – Part of Obama’s Culture of Dependency

WHY IS OBAMA DIVIDING MY FAMILY?

One of the 47% of American cats who pay no income tax.

Consider these facts:

-Obama has made 47% of our pets members of The Moocher Class.

-47% of our freeloading family pets are ruining life for the rest of us.

I’ve been in politics now off and on over 20 years, and it’s never gotten this bad.  My household is in turmoil, and I’m getting a bit fed up with it all.

You see, 53% of my pets are barking at strangers (including any foreign-looking yardmen), making appropriate use of the litter box, and meeting people at the door with wagging tails (except for said yardmen, of course) – or in other words, behaving like solid, hard-working pets and contributing to our household.

The other 47%?

The 47% vs the 53% – Note the one who’s always keeping a watchful eye out for potential danger.

Let’s face it, they are total free-loaders, and if the Waco animal shelter had not just had to go up an extra $5 for take-ins (thank goodness we had $35 million in tax dollars to give to Baylor for a new football stadium), my productive pets would have me carrying the ones in the 47% to the car right now.

Nipsy vs Rosey

We should have known it from the start.  When Mason picked out the calico at the pound, she “nipped” him on the finger – hence “Nipsy”.  Now we know that that biting the hand that feeds her was a sign of future lethargy and total dependency on others.

Nipsy just grabbing some entitlement to the family’s box; so typical of the 47%.

Nipsy thinks she’s entitled to sleep under our roof, be taken to the vet for shots, as as Mitt would say, “to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you-name-it”.

Rachel’s cat Rosey, on the other hand, catches lizards that sneak into the house. Rosey even brings dead birds to the porch so we can put them neatly in the trash.

If and when Nipsy ever finally gets off her fat butt, it’s only to bring in a LIVE rat and release it in our midst – it took six college degrees and four brooms to fix that one.  (I mean the rat-loving Willard from that movie didn’t have a middle name anything like “Mitt”.)

Rosey once again being held back by Nipsy – a daily occurrence.  Why must she tolerate this, Barack?

Rosey is pissed about this every day, and rightfully so.  And speaking of being pissed, I’m fairly positive that it was Nipsy that peed on the far corner of the oriental rug.  What’s the friggin’ litter box for?  I guess she want us to carry it to her.

How were we really to know?  After all, Nipsy’s particular shade of orange is something she shares with capitalists John Boehner and Romney (that is at least when Mitt appears on Univision).

The 47% actually don’t believe the 53% didn’t build this couch.

Nipsy’s gotten so worthless she just lays around and doesn’t even flinch when the dogs come by wanting to demonstrate their dominance and fearsomeness. She just lies there and ignores them.

Freckles vs Lily

Speaking of the dogs, it’s the same thing all over.  Freckles is just a plain mess.  The dog won’t do a damn thing.  Just wants to sit around in your lap all day.  Sure, I know that King Charles Spaniels are the result of centuries of cross breeding to develop a lap dog that would sit motionless in the King’s lap long enough for one of those big portraits to be painted (or until Cromwell chopped off his head).

Behavior clearly fostered by Obama.

But parentage is meaningless and no excuse.  Do you really believe if Freckles’ father had been Rin Tin Tin or President of American Motors that would have made things any different?  And just how loud does a dog have to snore before she realizes it’s time to cut down on the begging for Beggin’ Strips?

Now Lily; now that’s a productive animal.  She’s not letting society norms get in her way.  She doesn’t see that she is only 3lbs.  She’s not letting the fact that my Dad’s lab is 90lbs stop her from trying to get that rib bone first (even though it did send us to the weekend emergency clinic).  Lily’s the uber-dog.

Ryan 2016 !!!!

She’ll lick your hand until it falls off (either her tongue or your hand), and you can’t go anywhere without her being at your heel, ready to intervene whenever and however needed.  She’s been dropped on the tile floor and (as previously stated) mistaken for a rib bone by larger animals, but do you see her looking for the easy way out?  No way.  Hell, she’s even avoided being snagged by the local Hawks patrolling the neighborhood for squirrels and rabbits.  No Moocher Class for her.

Before Obama became President, we just didn’t have these problems in Waco.  I don’t know what they teach in Kenya, but here where David Koresh was raised, we know that government should just leave us alone.  Rosey and Lily both tell me that the Dog-Eat-Dog, Cat-Eat-Cat world is just what the Founders intended.

Don’t get them wrong, Rosey and Lily are for 100% of all the pets in our house, just not Nipsy and Freckles for goodness sake.

Just look at what Nipsy and Freckles could be if Obama weren’t President, and once Mitt gets them off the government teet.

So we have one cat who believes she is a victim, and the other, a constructive member of society who we really believe has future potential.  Let’s face it, Nipsy’s just holding back that potential in Rosey.  And it’s the same difference between the two dogs.  Of four animals – two are there for you Mitt (if they can only get a photo ID).

You know it’s just not Rosey or Lily’s job to care about those other two.  It’s just that neither Mitt, Rosey or Lily “will never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for themselves”.  They’ll just never have that “job-creator” mojo.  Nipsy doesn’t even like Swiss cheese for Christ’s sake, even when it’s tax free.  Like I said, that 47% is driving the majority nuts.

Why not 50/50?  Rachel has this amazing frog; lived with us several years despite days and weeks where we forget about it and don’t feed it.  Definitely a self-starter.  I figure the frog’s worth 6% at least, and it’s (don’t know the gender) a keeper.

The 53% – dreaming of a Romney win.

Shame on Obama for starting this row in our happy home.  At least we can count on Mitt to put an end to it all and get the moochers out.  Certainly bring the price of cat and dog meat down; not everyone can have foie gras you know.

A Conservative History of the United States

This article is classic.

Enjoy being a Peon?

As someone who hasn’t figured out how to pay on 13% in income taxes or avoid the necessity of a real job, I usually reduce my involvement in financial matters to the occasional therapeutic rant.  When I want to actually learn something, I tend to just listen to others who actually know something substantive.

One source of periodic enlightenment is the random emails I receive from time to time from Dean Rindy, the man responsible for me getting elected many years ago.  He’s smart, except that he is older than me and just adopted two Russian girls about 2 and 4, which proves some level of insanity.

Today, Dean sent me an article in the Guardian on how the Afghan government wants to afford due process rights to its imprisoned citizens, while at the same time that the Obama administration is fighting in court for the right to indefinitely detain U. S. citizens without filing any charges.  As Dean pointed out to me quite succinctly – “unbelievable”.

Dean also sent me this jewel the other day (as though I was not mad enough at banks these days) – the following all his words -

Valuable thought of the day, from an interview with economic historian Michael Hudson titled “How Finance Capital Leads To Debt Peonage,”  at the website Naked Capitalism—which is the best day-to-day economic policy blog on the web.

A word of explanation.  Hudson defines “rentier income” as unearned income that derives from privilege.  Government has granted banks  a monopoly privilege to create credit—i.e., money.  When they make loans, they don’t haul up bags of gold from their vaults and count it out to you; they just make an entry in their account books. They create money with a few clicks on the computer keyboard, then charge you interest on what they created out of thin air.  To Hudson that is “unearned income,” as opposed to income earned in the “real economy” from working and producing and making and selling tangible things.  Society will always need credit, of course; but the modern financial industry has drowned us in debt, and when they go too far,  captive governments bail them out at taxpayer expense. This can’t continue indefinitely. Hudson asserts high finance has perverted the real economy and earns its profits from speculation and debt creation, not useful production. The “financial parasite class,” in his view, is draining the blood out of the host, which is the greater society.   The implicit conclusion is that we need a revolution—in our thinking and our policy. That would result in social upheaval. But, of course, social upheaval is what we are already going through.  The idea of “revolution” isn’t necessarily Marxist.  You could also view it as a revolt against Vampire Capitalism by the forces of grassroots Productive Capitalism.

From the Naked Capitalism article -

“…..Rentier interests have escalated their fight against Progressive Era reforms to defend financial interests. They have gained control of the mass media and universities, the courts and now the government itself under the U.S. “Citizens United” ruling that relinquishes election campaign financing to whomever has the most money – which is turned into TV commercials and a massive ideological propaganda machine to convince voters that There Is No Alternative to debt peonage. This bold ideological inversion of Enlightenment values even celebrates asset-price inflation anddebt peonage as the workings of the “free market” as if it were a natural evolution, not a hijacking and derailing of economic development.

At issue is how society will liberate itself from the buildup of debts that can’t be paid. If governments let the financial sector foreclose, they will end up being forced to privatize the public domain under duress conditions at distress prices. They will have to dismantle public administration and welfare services. The problem is capped by having to turn tax policy over to financial lobbyists who claim to be objective technocrats. The result must be economic polarization between creditors and debtors ushering in a new Dark Age of poverty and deepening debt peonage. Wages, profits and property rents will be earmarked to pay interest – on loans that can’t be paid in a shrinking economy.

This is the point at which the financial sector uses its political clout to demand bailouts from the government, adding to public debt. The new credit given to the banks is sent abroad as banks jump ship. This is what happened to the U.S. Federal Reserve’s $800 billion Quantitative Easing #2 in 2011.”

—–Economic Historian Michael Hudson