Rick Perry's Subprime Stimulus

by: Emily Cadik

Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 08:25 PM CDT

As governor, Perry spent $35 million of taxpayer dollars to attract mortgage companies to Texas, offering Countrywide $20 million and Washington Mutual $15 million while dismissing concerns about a possible mortgage crisis.  Within a year, the two mortgage giants boosted risky lending in Texas - the number of loans made to homeowners with lower credit was multiplied 25-fold according to the Associated Press.  More than two-thirds of the loans made by these companies had scant documentation requirements, and sometimes none at all.  

This issue appeared on the Burnt Orange Report in 2008, in an entry questioning why these companies were promised these enormous incentives without any conditions.  Sure, these companies were supposed to create jobs, but they would still net millions if they didn't.  

Turns out the money trail leads to the Texas Enterprise Fund, which has become widely known as a slush fund for Perry's campaign donors.  Unsurprisingly, Countrywide and Washington Mutual both fall into this category.  

Aside from adding another drop in the bucket of Perry's history of using taxpayer money for political favors, it seems especially odd given the campaign issue Perry has made out of his position on using government funds to create jobs.  

Perry alleged that the "insatiable desire to spend our children's inheritance on failed 'stimulus' plans and other misguided economic theories have given us record debt and left us with far too many unemployed."  Not only is he wrong about the impact of the Recovery Act, but he accepted $17 billion of these funds and ran his own smaller-scale version.  His website even boasts that "he established incentive funds to encourage employers to create thousands of jobs and invest in new technology" - if that's not a stimulus, I don't know what is.  Except instead of spending on infrastructure, education and energy, the money went to companies largely responsible for the situation we're in now.  

Austin Democracy, the Machine, and the Future of our City

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman

Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 10:23 AM CDT

"Proponents of moving the election to November say putting the council on the general election ballot will be a guaranteed turnout booster. By implication, they say the council will better reflect the views of the community at large. Yeah, reply some of those who advocate the status quo, you'll get a bigger turnout - of uninformed voters.

"It's an elitist argument that betrays the entitlement mentality of the cadre of insiders who benefit politically from the city's notoriously low turnout. The argument neither needs subtitle nor translation, but here's one: "We know what's good for you."

"If that reasoning puts you off, let the council know about it."

~ Editorial Board, Austin American-Statesman, 10/3/11

Last week, in a 4-3 decision, Councilmembers Sheryl Cole, Bill Spelman, Laura Morrison, and Kathie Tovo voted (in the first of three readings) to hold the 2012 Austin municipal election in May, against the advice of the city's election administrator, the State of Texas, and a diverse array of community leaders. A number of rationales have been offered by these members defending their positions- from upholding their oath to the city charter, to not arbitrarily extending their terms by six months, to concern for uninformed November voters.

As someone who has been involved in the elections of a supermajority of this current city council, I am admittedly part of the Austin Political Machine as described by Phillip Martin over two years ago. I don't deny it; it is true that this city's politics has been guided for many years by small group of insiders with occasional, minimal, variation. But because of my position and my role in helping to elect members on each side last week's vote, I feel obligated to break my silence.

It's time to put the truth on the table. This debate is about the balance of power between different factions of Austin's political establishment and it is driven by political self interest.

The defeat of Randi Shade by Kathie Tovo this spring saw the rise of a new coalition on the Austin City Council who were ostensibly united by their opposition to Water Treatment Plant 4, F1 subsidies, downtown parking hours, and long term development in urban neighborhoods. Surprisingly, on all of these issues considered by the council since the election, this 4-vote coalition has yet to materialize as an effective block of votes on any of these issues. In particular, support for halting construction of Water Treatment Plant 4, widely seen as "the" defining issue this past election, evaporated in a 7-0 vote to continue the project not weeks after Tovo's election.  While Tovo, Morrison, and Spelman ideologically operate within the same spectrum, many saw the alliance with Cole as somewhat surprising. After all, she had historically been supported financially by the same business and development interests as Randi Shade.

So why is it on this issue of all issues- when to hold the 2012 election- that these four have finally come together to vote as a block? Political self-interest of the most disappointing kind.

It has been an open secret among city hall insiders that Sheryl Cole, Bill Spelman, and Laura Morrison have each expressed interest in becoming the next Mayor of Austin. It was expected that Mayor Leffingwell would retire after serving one term, having served his intended purpose in blocking former councilman Brewster McCracken's mayoral ambitions. But after seeing Austin successfully navigate the economic downturn, Leffingwell has decided to run for re-election. Additionally, Austin is set to vote in November of 2012 on a wide-ranging package of changes, including fundamental changes to how and when the council is elected. This package, pushed by Leffingwell, and ostensibly still supported by most councilmembers, is perceived as severely disrupting the influence of the traditional low-turnout electorate and the existing political machine.

Simply put, Cole, Spelman, Morrison, and Tovo advocate keeping next year's city election in May because they believe that it remains their last and best chance to defeat Mayor Leffingwell and his key ally Mike Martinez before the opportunity is lost forever. For all the rhetoric about the oaths to the charter (which both Cole and Spelman in particular have voted to break previously without issue) and concern for uninformed voters (who are regularly depended on to pass the council's preferred bond measures in high turnout November elections), this all boils down to defending a broken system for personal political gain.

How sad for Austin. How sad it is that liberal councilmembers are using their power to pick the smallest, most distorted electorate for themselves. How sad it is that we have to suffer through layers of rationalization and excuses to mask the naked political truth before us.

Today, the council will hold the 2nd reading on this issue in an nearly unprecedented rushing of the measure through the process to minimize public input or attention. This is because last Friday, at 5:37PM, well after city offices normally close, Councilmembers Spelman and Morrison placed this item on the agenda for this morning's Council Work Session, which is usually reserved for council discussion of items to be considered at their Thursday council meetings. There is no contemporary precedent for taking action on a contested, divisive issue at a work session; usually they are 7-0 votes involving last minute time sensitive permits for road races, like the October 8th NAMI Walk which is on today's agenda. (The last time a controversial item saw a 4-3 vote on reading in a work session was in the 1990's when a vote was held to issue RFPs seeking to privatize Austin Energy.) Work sessions are traditionally NOT for public input -- they are for council to work out agenda items before Thursday's vote. In fact, the top of the agenda even states as much.

In addition, an item has been added to authorize the city to spend up to $1.3 million (not including another half a million if there is a run-off) to purchase more voting machines in order to hold a single low-turnout May election on top of an already scheduled November election for the city. The council's own documents admit that "The County acknowledges that machines purchased under this Addendum will likely be sold or otherwise exchanged or returned to the current or other future voting equipment vendor" after the election. The city will have to cover most all of that cost because last night the ACC Board of Trustees voted to move their elections to November, a move which AISD is expected to follow. This leaves the City of Austin alone in paying for a special election in May against the provisions of SB 100, against the expert recommendations of the election administrator, in contradiction of our values, and wedged in between and overlapping with the party primaries and runoffs- all for the perceived political benefit to four people.

I urge the council to reconsider the path they are leading us down- it is not too late. I recognize, as do many others that are a part of it, that the current political establishment's influence must, and is, coming to an end. We must trust the people of Austin, as many as possible, in determining our city's future.

We must recognize that fighting over where and when to have one final battle in a war over the past is a victory for no one.

"A city that loves to think of itself as forever in blue jeans has grown up. The Comprehensive Plan is far from the final answer, but it is worth a good, hard look by a circle larger than the City Hall hangers-on this type of conversation tends to attract. It begs a serious conversation about how to manage the city's future."

~ Editorial Board, Austin American-Statesman, 10/2/11

Take Action: Support Fair Elections for Austin on Facebook

• Austin Hispanic Leaders Hold Press Conference Supporting November Elections
• Austin Municipal Elections and the "Uninformed Voter" Canard
• Clarifying Three Points on the Austin Municipal Elections Debate
• A Vote Against Democracy in Austin

Elsewhere On the Web:

• Moving City Elections from May to November, Mayor Leffingwell's Blog
• Point Austin: Voter Suppression Made Easy, Austin Chronicle
• City Hall Hustle: Rock The Vote ... Not, Austin Chronicle
• Austin will keep May elections for now, Off The Kuff
• Austin council keeps next city election in May, Austin American-Statesman
• The Daily Hustle 9/23/11, Austin Chronicle

Austin Hispanic Leaders Hold Press Conference Supporting November Elections

by: Katherine Haenschen

Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 02:35 PM CDT

Speakers included Paul Saldana, Celia Israel, Randy Moreno, Perla Cavazos, Frank Fuentes, Cynthia Valadez-Mata, and former Mayor Gus Garcia. Other attendees included Rudy Malveaux, Andy Ramirez, and Mayor Lee Leffingwell.  

Cynthia Valadez-Mata, representing LULAC District 7 and LULAC statewide, delivered impassioned remarks about the importance of voting as a right, not a privilege, and stated her firm belief that any non-November election date is intended to disenfranchise and marginalize the Latino population in Austin. She called for all Austin municipal elections to be held in Novembers.

Perla Cavazos, a former Council candidate, spoke about the importance of letting as many voters as possible determine who serves on Council, and specifically took umbrage with the notion that November voters are "uninformed" or "overwhelmed," as stated by various political consultants and council members during this debate. She noted that in a short time span in 2012, voters may be voting four times -- March primary, May primary run-off, May municipal, June or July municipal run-off. "If that's not overwhelming, what is?" she asked.

Former Mayor Gus Garcia also took the microphone. Gus was elected in a November election -- a special election in 2001 which drew 73,000 voters. Garcia made his perspective clear: "I believe democracy functions better when more of the population votes." Drawing parallels to Nelson Mandela's historic victory in a South African election with 83% turnout, Garcia stated plainly that May elections don't encourage high turnout, and the municipal elections need to be moved to November. (As an aside, it was great to see Gus Garcia really fired up about this. He had sparkle.)

Finally, Council Member Mike Martinez spoke forcefully about the importance of increasing participation, which in turn will increase civic engagement. He also noted something alarming that came up after the end of the business day on Friday: Council Members Morrison and Spelman have placed the May election resolution on the agenda for tomorrow's work session, where council will take their second vote on this issue. The third and final vote will thus be cast this Thursday at Council, rather than two weeks from now at the third consecutive Council meeting. There isn't any precedent for this kind of action, and it speaks to the rushed process by which certain folks are trying to get this May elections business settled.

Martinez stated that the vote in a Tuesday work session sets a dangerous precedent, and said that folks who tout themselves as supporting transparency have done everything possible to suppress participation and cloud transparency in the process by which this issue is taken up for a vote.

Addressing the Austin voters directly, he said "You should demand to be heard, and you should be given the easiest way to be heard." The easiest way, of course, is to move municipal elections to November dates, starting with 2012.

Honestly, if Morrison, Spelman, Cole and Tovo insist on voting on this Tuesday and Thursday for a May election, they should expect to see their future support in the Hispanic community diminished significantly. Many of these folks do a lot of the heavy lifting in the Hispanic civic and business community. Most of them supported many of the Council members now voting against a de facto increase in not only turnout, but also the Hispanic share of the municipal electorate, by keeping these elections in May.

Ironically, because turnout in May is so low, alienating these influential community leaders will go far, and actually have a bigger net impact on the overall 40,000-voter electorate than if we moved the elections to November, with over 300,000 potential voters. Of course, some political consultants would suggest that it doesn't matter, since "they [Hispanics] don't vote in these elections." More would if we lowered barriers to participation -- and as Frank Fuentes said, "what's the problem? If more people vote, isn't that what democracy is all about?"

This was a good event. There were a lot of TV cameras and radio stations there, so it will be interesting to see what the coverage is. The media's definitely picking up on this, so it will be interesting to see what happens on Tuesday and Thursday, when Council appears poised to vote on this again and again.  

Previously On Burnt Orange Report:

• Austin Municipal Elections and the "Uninformed Voter" Canard
• Clarifying Three Points on the Austin Municipal Elections Debate
• A Vote Against Democracy in Austin

Elsewhere On the Web:

• Point Austin: Voter Suppression Made Easy, Austin Chronicle
• City Hall Hustle: Rock The Vote ... Not, Austin Chronicle
• Austin will keep May elections for now, Off The Kuff
• Austin council keeps next city election in May, Austin American-Statesman
• The Daily Hustle 9/23/11, Austin Chronicle

On Perry's Trail: Sept. 29 - Oct. 2

by: Ben Sherman

Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 01:31 PM CDT

Nope.

After two weeks of campaign implosion, Perry has taken a serious fall in the opinions of GOP primary voters. In the latest Fox News survey, Perry trails Romney 23-19. That's a ten point drop from Perry's pre-debate numbers.

Has Perry been doing anything on the campaign trail to reverse course?


WEST VIRGINIA: Fundraiser

On Thursday, Perry raked in $1 million from the wealthy friends of a wealthy coal baron in Wheeling, West Virginia. Nothing was done to change Perry's image as a fossil fuel-funded opponent of the environment.


GEORGIA: Non-Policy Speech

In Atlanta on Friday, Perry gave a public policy speech to the Georgia Public Policy Foundation in which he proposed no new policies. Instead, he gave his stump speech with some added lame attempts at contrasting his record with Romney's.

"I knew when I got into this race I would have my hands full fighting President Obama's big government agenda. I just didn't think it would be in the Republican primary," Perry flopped.

The head of the Georgia Public Policy Foundation, Kelly McCutchen, said afterward he was upset that Perry veered heavily into presidential politics, which could endanger the group's tax-exempt status.

"He'd been told to stick to policy," McCutchen said. "I don't think he did that."

Perry is unable to "stick to policy" because he's a political hack. A candidate like this has no real views, only convenient positions.


NEW HAMPSHIRE: Extreme Appeasement

On Saturday, Perry attended some town-hall style events across the Granite State, and managed to make national news for extremist muscle-flexing on immigration.

After appearing at a Manchester house party, Perry was asked about U.S. troop involvement in quelling Mexican cartel activity.

"It may require our military in Mexico working in concert with them to kill these drug cartels and to keep them off of our border," Perry said.

What level of cartel activity would Perry want to send U.S. troops to deal with? How often? For how long? Don't expect any common sense as Perry embarrasses himself trying to appease the increasingly suspicious Republican base.


NATIONAL: A Mockery and a Disgrace

Saturday Night Live skewered Perry with a skit featuring his awkward, bumbling debate performances. "This is normally when you get tired and confused," the moderator tells Perry, played by Alec Baldwin, at one point.

On Sunday, the Washington Post reported that Perry's family hunting ranch of decades is known as "Niggerhead," and featured a massive rock with that title painted on it for years. This is where Perry has hosted friends, legislators and donors over his career.

This appalling story is all over the national press this week. Herman Cain, who is just a few points behind Perry in recent polling, called the incident "just plain insensitive" on Fox News Sunday.

Influential Iowa Republicans are saying that Perry is losing much of his support in Iowa, once the symbol of Perry's strength.

Perry is now off the trail for four days. His campaign is struggling to figure out how to employ their best strategy: run a different candidate.

Crazy Doctor to Primary Hairy-Legged Man For SD-25

by: Katherine Haenschen

Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 10:38 AM CDT

The new State Senate District 25. See the full map here.

Y'all should remember Dr. Donna from 2010, when she ran a spirited race against Lloyd Doggett, and lost. She's a Tea Party zealot and extreme right winger, so it will be interesting to see how she does in a 2012 primary with Rick Perry also on the ballot. (She won a GOP primary in 2010, besting George Morovich 70%-30%.)

This should be interesting. Dr. Donna is viewed by many as being actually insane. Wentworth raised more than a few eyebrows last session with his relentless determination to pass his Guns in Campus Buildings bill, even trying to prevent Senator Wendy Davis from attending her own kid's high school graduation in Fort Worth, threatening to bring the bill up for a vote while she was away.

Expect escalating rhetoric around abortion. Wentworth has always been moderate on the issue -- he even voted against the Sonogram bill this last session, providing one of the best lines of the debate when he said "I personally am a hairy-legged male who will never be pregnant." True.

Meanwhile, Dr. Donna thinks abortion runs counter to her medical training. She wrote on her former Congressional campaign website,

There is perhaps no issue closer to my heart than protecting the sanctity of life. The lost lives that result from abortions are lost hopes, our lost moments with future family members, and the lost dreams of an entire generation. In founding America, we made a promise to protect Life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. In keeping that promise, we are called by a higher power to speak up for those who cannot defend themselves.

Fear not -- if elected, Dr. Donna will do absolutely nothing to provide for the pursuit of education, health care, or quality of life of these forced births. Also, "those who cannot defend themselves" will most assuredly mean only the unborn Texans, not the millions of people victimized by Rick Perry and the Republican legislature this last session.

By the by, she also had an "Issues" page on God.

Wentworth's probably going to have a difficult time explaining the abortion issue away -- if there's one thing Republican primary voters hate more than LGBT rights or minorities, it's women's reproductive rights!

Also interesting to see is if Campbell's army of Tea Party activists who came to help in 2010 from around the country will return this cycle. They were pretty creepy, canvassing every house in South Austin in red shirts and camoflage pants, as I recall. At least by blanket-canvassing precincts with >60% DPI they saved TCDP and the Doggett campaign some work.

Should be an interesting race. Wentworth has served in the Senate since 1993, and in the Texas House from 1988-1993. He already announced that he's running again. Wentworth tried to get a cushy university administrative gig, but it didn't pan out. (I guess he's no Brian McCall or John Sharp.) It would not have surprised me if he had retired after this past session; apparently Dr. Donna is going to try and do the honors for him.

Dr. Donna, by the way, does not currently live in the district (she lives in Hagar's district), but is apparently planning to move to Hays County. She's originally from Oklahoma. She wants to "make America exceptional again." Strategic upside: since she ran for CD-25 last cycle, and is running for SD-25 now, all of her old campaign merch with "25" on it can be repurposed. (I am guessing she's opposed to recycling, but arguably she should be in favor of saving money, right?)

In any case, this primary is likely to be pretty brutal. There's a chance the candidates will run so far to the right, they may actually fall off the edge of the 6000-year-old flat earth Donna Campbell thinks she occupies.

Good times!

Kirk Watson Explains Constitutional Amendments on November Ballot

by: Katherine Haenschen

Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 04:10 PM CDT

Watson is Co-Chair of Texans for Prop 8, the campaign to pass Proposition 8. Good to see him advocating for an important water stewardship effort, as well as educating the voters on everything else on the ballot.

From the Watson Wire:

Major propositions

Proposition 8 - Water Stewardship: Just to reiterate, nothing's more important than a clean, reliable water supply.  Proposition 8 will protect water quality in rivers, streams and aquifers, while also helping the state meet its long-term goal of using better conservation methods for almost a quarter of its water supply.  It will be Texas' first statewide water conservation tool.  

This proposition will let owners have their land appraised in much the same way as some owners who receive an agricultural valuation (generally resulting in a lower tax bill).  Landowners would receive this valuation if they manage their land in a way that improves water quality and quantity.  However, the law would only apply to people who already qualify for the agriculture valuation - meaning it wouldn't cost the state money, but it would incentivize land management practices that help the state's water supply.

Proposition 2 - Water Bonds: This would allow the Texas Water Development Board to issue continuing debt, with no more than $6 billion outstanding at any time, for projects that help the state and local entities improve the state's water supply.

More than 90 percent of the state is in moderate to severe drought right now.  We need tools such as both Prop 2 and Prop 8 to meet our future needs.

Proposition 6 - Money for Schools: This gives the state flexibility in how it calculates money that's available to schools from the state's Permanent School Fund.  It also allows the state to distribute up to $300 million more per year from what's known as the Available School Fund.  All told, that translates into more money for Texas schools and schoolkids.

Proposition 1 - Tax Exemption for Disabled Veterans' Spouses: The state already provides a full property tax exemption to veterans who are completely disabled.  This proposition would extend that benefit to the surviving spouses of those veterans as long as they continue to meet certain conditions.

Proposition 3 - Higher Education Bonds: This would let the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board issue debt to pay for student loans, subject to restrictions such as a maximum amount of debt outstanding at any one time.

Proposition 9 - Pardons and Community Supervision: This lets the Governor, with the written recommendation of the state Board of Pardons and Paroles, grant a pardon, reprieve or commutation of sentence to someone who completes deferred adjudication community supervision.

Not quite as major, but still needed, propositions

There are also a handful of propositions that, for technical legal reasons, need to pass so that the state and its local governments can function more efficiently and accountably.  (I hope that explanation is reassuring as you're trying to figure out why you need to weigh in on this stuff in the same way you help pick the President of the United States.)

Proposition 4 allows counties to issue tax-supported bonds to develop or redevelop certain areas within the county.

Proposition 5 lets cities and counties contract with each other without having to meet certain conditions.

Proposition 10 extends the length of an unexpired term-in-office that triggers the automatic resignation of some local elected officials should those officials announce they're running for something else.

And, of course, there's Proposition 7.  Good luck, El Paso.

Seriously, these are all good propositions and they deserve your support.  Early voting starts October 24.  Don't miss it.

Temporary Maps for the 2012 Election Cycle?

by: Michael Li

Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 00:32 AM CDT

The move had been strongly urged by the Mexican-American Legislative Caucus and the Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force.

In pleadings filed yesterday, MALC and the Latino Task Force argued that it was unlikely that a required preclearance ruling would come in the parallel D.C. case before start in earnest of the 2012 cycle.  

Therefore, they urged that the San Antonio panel "consider deadlines after which an interim court plan should be implemented to avoid disruption of the 2012 election process."

The State of Texas had equally strongly opposed the move, calling it "premature."

Today, the panel agreed with MALC and the Latino Task Force, explaining:

Trial on the merits [in the San Antonio case] began on September 6, 2011 and concluded on September 16, 2011. . . . However, the law precludes this Court from issuing a final decision on the merits until there has been a determination on preclearance under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.  Preclearance is not a function of this Court, and it has no control over the preclearance process.  The State chose the initiate preclearance proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia instead of directly through the Department of Justice.  That legally permissible choice likely has delayed a decision on preclearance, possibly causing delays in the 2012 electoral process.

                                       . . .

Because this Court cannot resolve the merits of the case until there is a determination on preclearance, its hands are tied. . . . [I]t appears that those proceedings are far from the final decision-making phase.  Thus, a resolution of Section 5 preclearance issues prior to the upcoming election deadlines is becoming more unlikely.

With that in mind, and with the understanding that the Court will continue its work on the issues that are before it, the Court has an obligation to the public to consider other available options so that the 2012 election process may move forward. One of those options is consideration of an interim court-ordered plan.

Under the court's order the parties are to file briefs by October 7 advising the panel about their thoughts on drawing temporary maps and file proposed plans by October 17.

Objections to proposed maps are due October 24.

Then panel scheduled a hearing starting November 2 at 8:00 a.m. to consider proposed maps. This is the same day that oral argument is scheduled to take place in Washington on the State of Texas' motion for a judgment in its favor on preclearance.

So, stay tuned.  It'll be an interesting and fast-paced month ahead.

Here's the court's order:

http://tinyurl.com/3mcwhju

Texas Redistricting Maps Halted - For Now

by: Edward Garris

Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 08:18 PM CDT

The case is Perez, et al. v. Texas, et al., 11- CA-360-OLG-JES-XR.  

The order can be viewed here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/6700...

GOP Leaders File Bill to Kill Social Security and Double Down on "Ponzi Scheme" Rhetoric

by: Eric Roberson

Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 11:13 AM CDT

BILL WOULD DESTROY SOCIAL SECURITY AS WE KNOW IT

Texas Congressmen Pete Sessions, Jeb Hensarling, Randy Neugebauer, and Lamar Smith co-sponsored H.R. 2109, called the Savings Account for Every American Act (SAFE Act)
Under the terms of the bill, employees would immediately be able to redirect their portion (6.2%) of their social security taxes from the social security system and instead place their taxes into federal IRA equivilents called SAFE Accounts.  Within 5 years, the employer portion of social security taxes could also be diverted into the SAFE account.

Amazingly, the terms of the bill have no provision for replacing the money that is removed from the Social Security system or dealing with the fact that Social Security is a Pay-as-you-go system that requires money be going in the pipeline to pay current beneficiaries, and that this bill drastically reduces the money going into the pipeline.  

GOP CONGRESSMEN DOUBLE DOWN ON PONZI SCHEME RHETORIC

Meanwhile, GOP leader Paul Ryan - Chairman of the House Budget Committee, and the richest member of Congress - Texas GOP Congressman Michael McCaul, have both doubled down on the Rick Perry's "Ponzi Scheme" rhetoric.  

Voter ID and Preclearance: What Does the DOJ Letter Mean?

by: Edward Garris

Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 01:29 AM CDT

AIDS Walk Austin Matching Donations Today!

by: BeckyH

Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 11:51 AM CDT

Well if we've met you know I have 2 big passions besides electing more & better Democrats - AIDS Walk Austin (for which I was the biggest non-board member fundraiser last year) and the Hill Country Ride for AIDS, which I'll be participating in next April. I have a crazy big fundraising goal this year - $5,000. I know that's insane in this economy but the agencies that benefit from this event serve people who really, truly need help. And this morning, the first 25 donations of $100 or more are being matched. Come with me below the fold for more information -- and a song. You'll never guess who the song is by.

There's a match challenge this morning. The first 25 donations of $100 or more will be matched by Walgreen's Pharmacy, one of the sponsors. The information I have from the Walk office doesn't mention a cap; so the first 25 wanting to donate $100, $250, $500 ++, would automatically be contributing $200, $500 or even $1000 ++ to helping people with AIDS. You can donate right here at my Walk page

Light of Truth - Shockingly, Federal Safety Net Programs are Constitutional

by: Eric Roberson

Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 06:00 PM CDT

While it one would seem absurd to feel the need to defend such programs, there is no doubt that these programs, once thought fully bipartisan, are under the attack of the Tea Party dominated GOP:

• "The idea that they're telling us how to educate our children or how to deliver health care or how to, for that matter, clean our air is really nonsense. If you really want to get America back to this vibrant economy then respect the Tenth Amendment allow the states to be the laboratories of innovation."  Gov. Rick Perry

• "There's no authority [in the Constitution]. Article I, Section 8 doesn't say I can set up an insurance program for people. What part of the Constitution are you getting it from? The liberals are the ones who use this General Welfare Clause. ... That is such an extreme liberal viewpoint that has been mistaught in our schools for so long and that's what we have to reverse-that very notion that you're presenting."  Rep. Ron Paul

• Responding to the question if he wants to see FEMA ended, "[I]f you want to live in a free society, if you want to pay attention to the constitution, why not? I think it's bad economics. I think it's bad morality. And it's bad constitutional law. Se. Rand PAul

We who stand for the traditional interpretation of the Constitution must know the document better than those who wish to rewrite over 200 years of Constitutional thought.

The core of this recent Tea Party driven obsession with declaring everything Washington does unconstitutional is a mistaken belief that the well understood constitutional limits on federal power, including the lack of general police power, and the Tenth Amendment, somehow mean that any federal program not expressly articulated in Article I of the Constitution is reserved to the states.  

There arew many problems with the Tea Party argument.  Most importantly, to reach the Tea Party conclusion, large sections of the Constitution must be ignored.  Specifically, Article I, Section 8 the section dealing with enumerated congressional powers, states in part:

• "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes ... and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States ...."

Thus, the proper constitutional question is not whether the founding fathers ever even contemplated a Department of Education or a Federal Emergency Management Agency (or an Air Force for that matter), better whether education, FEMA, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are in furtherance of the general welfare of America (or whether the Air Force improves the common defence of America).
Because the answer to these questions is clearly "YES," the Tea Party needs to read the Constitution again.