Big Brother is a Big Bully

I wrote the below column last week for the Georgetown Advocate, Hill Country News, and Jarrell Star Ledger, but this story just keeps growing, and none of the news is encouraging.  

Original Column:  

“They'll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices.”
-Barack Obama, May 5, 2013

There is no shortage of news stories on government overreach these days.  Allegedly the IRS has harassed conservative applicants for tax exempt status and targeted a significant number of Republican donors for audits.  Attorney General Eric Holder is facing questions about secret warrants targeting Fox News reporters and possible perjury in Congressional testimony.  The EPA is under fire for giving preferential treatment to liberal groups while hampering conservatives seeking open records.   Even the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has harassed and intimidated Republican-owned Gibson Guitars. 

 

One of the most disturbing stories to date takes place right here in the Texas, where multiple government entities have harassed True the Vote founder Catherine Engelbrecht.  Not only did the IRS demand excessive and unreasonable information for Englebrecht’s organization, but her business was audited, and both she and her husband faced personal IRS audits.  Furthermore, the Engelbrecht’s were subject to repeated investigations by the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol and Firearms, OSHA, and the EPA.  It is hard to believe any of this is a coincidence. 

 

Clearly the administration has many tools at its disposal for the harassment and intimidation of political enemies.  Now, however, technological advances are enabling our government to collect unprecedented amounts of personal data, a factor that will vastly increase federal power. 

 

For example, in the name of ‘free health care,” bureaucrats will soon have access to our medical records, and it seems that those medical records will include more detailed information than ever before.   Some health questionnaires now ask about gun ownership and other personal habits, and there is really no limit to what information could be included in the national Electronic Medical Record database mandated by the Affordable Care Act.  Such information will be in the hands of…IRS agents. 

 

Public Schools are also collecting extensive data on our children.  President Obama’s Common Core initiative not only imposes questionable curriculum standards, but implements a national electronic database of students.  While Texas has at least nominally rejected Common Core, the state is in the process of creating its own Texas Student Data System (TSDS).  Under this system, every student at a Texas public or charter school will have a “Unique ID.”   Although the systems are purportedly to track academic progress, it isn’t a stretch to see that much more information can be included in these student databases.  Schools often offer health screenings, and some academic ‘assessment tools’ involve asking students to write very personal essays about family life and experiences.  Will those details be added to these electronic records?  Who will have access and what will be done with the collected data 10, 20, or 30 years later?

Now also the Supreme Court has approved the taking of DNA without a warrant.  Unlike fingerprints, DNA samples contain the entire blueprint for individual human beings.  Since some scientists believe they can predict behavior and outcomes based on DNA analysis, how might such information be used in the future?

While the naïve will dismiss such concerns as so much paranoia, a review of last week’s top news stories shows that abuse of government power is happening right now and we are often unaware.  Government entities are not only monitoring our phone activity, but every move we make on the Internet.  Obviously there are more than a few individuals in government who are willing to abuse this power.  I fear that in the quest to create a utopia, we have delivered ourselves into the hands of a very powerful bully. 

 

Our founding fathers sought to craft a government that could never tyrannize the people.  If we are to stop these government abuses, we must first enforce constitutional protections, and bureaucrats who abuse power should be punished within the full extent of the law.  Secondly, we must find ways to check government power in the electronic age.  Without new protections for privacy and liberty, any government, current or future, could easily impose tyranny.  And contrary to the President’s assurances, the threat of tyranny is a clear and present danger. 

No Labor Unions In Texas? Think Again...

Below is a column I wrote for the Georgetown Advocate, Hill Country News, and Jarrell Star Ledger  newspapers recently.  I am pleased to see that Attorney General Greg Abbott is paying attention to the problem of union growth in Texas and has proposed some new worker protections.  (H/T Push Junction.)  I sure hope more of our Texas legislators get on board.

****

Since Texas is classified as a “Right to Work” state, many people mistakenly believe that there are no labor unions in the state.  The truth is that state law only prohibits compulsory membership; unions in Texas may engage in collective bargaining and, in many cases, have the right to strike.  And while the U.S. Bureau of Labor reports that union membership declined across the nation last year, membership in Texas increased by 65,000.

Much of the Texas union growth actually occurred in the private sector, which is startling considering that private sector unions have been on the decline for several decades.  While private businesses cannot long survive under unsustainable union contracts, government entities are not necessarily responsive to economic realities; consequently most union growth has been in the public/government sector.

One possible explanation for the Texas uptick in private sector union membership stems from the increasing number of job-seekers fleeing other states.  While these Nouveau Texans come for better employment opportunities, they haven’t yet made the connection between union power and the economic decline of their home states, and they are importing union membership to Texas. 

But another reason for the uptick is that unions are targeting Texas for growth as part of a larger Democratic strategy.  Former Obama national field director and labor union activist Jeremy Bird is heading up “Battleground Texas,” which promises to incorporate local labor unions in their efforts to turn Texas ‘blue.’

At the local level, union bosses are especially targeting police, firefighters, and teachers, since these workers have a highly positive, ‘hero’ status with the general public.  It is psychologically difficult to differentiate between the local teacher and the ‘teachers’ union,’ and many voters mistakenly believe that unions are speaking for all teachers.  Another clever strategy in Texas is to completely avoid the word ‘union,’ with its negative connotations.  Most public sector unions in Texas refer to themselves as ‘associations,’ or other such benign terms.  For example, few Texans realize that “Education Round Rock” is actually a local chapter of the American Federation of Teachers union, an organization that enjoys a cozy relationship with President Obama, and has played an active role in opposing reforms in other states.

These local associations can wreak havoc with small municipalities.  In the small community of Leander, Texas, the local Professional Firefighters ‘Association’ (LPFA) is pressing for “civil service status.”  Because of loose state laws governing union power, the LPFA only needs 125 signatures to place the matter on the ballot this May.  Conversely, if voters wanted to end civil service, more than 50% of registered voters would need to approve.   Considering that local election turnout rarely tops 10%, the union’s status will be a permanent fixture. 

 

Civil Service status is highly problematic for a small community like Leander.   For starters, the city would have to pay increased benefits, create a new civil service commission, and hire a director and civil service attorney.  Even worse, the measure would effectively ban the 27 volunteer firefighters Leander now uses.  If the city hires only 1 new firefighter to replace every 3 volunteers, the annual cost to taxpayers would be $1,000,000 per year.  Leander already has the highest tax rate of any municipality in the region, and will be forced to pay even higher tax rates.  Unfortunately, as a local chapter of state and national labor unions, the LPFA will have ample manpower and financial resources for promoting the civil service measure and impacting future elections in the community.

While unions do not have to disclose all spending, the Labor Department reports unions spent at least $3.3 billion of union dues on political activity over a six-year period, and plenty of those dollars are spent to influence Texas elections.  Pro-big-labor elected officials close to President Obama are eager to dismantle Right to Work laws, and implement mandatory union membership and other unfair union policies. 

 

While we have enjoyed the benefits of our Right to Work status, we must not be complacent about union growth in Texas.  We must strengthen Right to Work protections by requiring the exact same standards for establishing or revoking civil service status for all public sector unions.  Furthermore, we need a ‘Paycheck Protection’ bill that would stop state and local governments from acting as union agents by collecting union dues from employees.  Instead of automatic deductions, union members should pay their dues directly to the union, and should be made aware of how those dues are spent. 

 

Texas is in relatively good shape, for now.  But unrestrained union power is not good news, and we need to act before it’s too late. 

Fascinating CSCOPE Hearing at Texas Legislature

I was not able to attend yesterday's Senate Education Committee hearing on CSCOPE, but it sounds like I missed a highly interesting event.  The Voices Empower blogsite has a post up detailing much of the activity.  I have written about CSCOPE previously (Dismantling Democracy in Public Ed,) but I had no idea of the extent of the program's problems. 

Not only does it seem that operatives have been using CSCOPE to implement Obama's Common Core (which has been rejected by the State of Texas,) but there were some really disturbing revelations about the funding and ownership of the so-called curriculum management system. 

I won't replicate what has been written elsewhere, but parents and taxpayers should being paying attention to the disturbing trends in public education. 

I don't necessarily agree with every point made by these authors, but here are some sources:

Texas CSCOPE Review.

Deliberate Dumbing Down:  The Death of Free Will.

What is Common Core?

Common Core Standards' Devastating Impact on Literary Study and Analytical Thinking.

Common Core Math Standards.

Five Questions to Ask About Common Core.

America Is Number One

(I am writing a regular column for the Hill Country News and the Jarrell Star Ledger.  This is my most recent...)

America is number one again, but hold your applause. Since Japan slashed its corporate tax rate by 5% last week, the United States now holds the title for “highest corporate tax rate” in the world. In this case, our 'number one' status does not bode well for the future of our country.

Although the official U.S. corporate tax rate stands at 35%, combined with state taxes the effective rate is a punitive 39.2%. The world average is 25% and European welfare states are even lower. Having significantly higher tax rate than the rest of the world dramatically reduces the ability of American businesses to compete in what is now a global economy.

Contrary to what the political Left would have us believe, higher taxes do impact behavior and productivity. Part of the justification for so-called 'sin' taxes on items like cigarettes and alcohol is that the higher taxes will reduce use of those items. However, when it comes to taxes on both corporations and individuals, proponents always assume those targeted will maintain the same levels of profitability. But that's just not the way it works in the real world.

Historically, higher rates of taxation actually reduce revenues. High tax proponents claim that revenues do not change much as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product, however, such claims often ignore the changes in total GDP due to increased economic activity. While the percent of GDP may remain unchanged or even fall, increases in GDP mean bigger revenue slice from a bigger pie. After Ireland slashed corporate taxes from 50% to 12.5%, its economic growth doubled that of the United States and tax revenues soared until the global recession. (Unfortunately, Irish politicians went on an unrestrained spending spree and now the country is struggling under massive debt; sound familiar?)

But our highest rate status is not the only problem with the U.S. corporate tax law. Not all companies pay the top rate since our government is very much in the business of choosing winners and losers. Companies in the 'right' industries pay little or nothing, while demonized businesses, such as ExxonMobil pay a whopping 45%.

Supposedly President Obama has proposed cutting the corporate rate from 35 to 28%, but, as seems to be the case with any of this administration's proposals, there's a catch. Obama's plan will further increase penalties on new investment and increase taxes on companies competing in the global market. His 'reform' will effectively impose $250 billion in additional taxes on corporations. And while the President's plan closes some loopholes, it creates a whole new set of loopholes for a new set of 'favored' industries.

While we wish the President would look to the policies of successful job-creation states like Texas (which created more than half of all jobs in the US over the past two years,) Obama clearly prefers what he calls 'government investment' over private investment. Never mind that according to various CBO figures, the average cost for a job 'created' by recent so-called government 'stimulus' programs is $407,241.*

Although there are relatively successful areas like Texas, current federal tax rates are already inhibiting growth and preventing repatriation of overseas profits. If the President gets his way and the federal government increases the penalties for economic activity, the bottom line is that there will be even fewer jobs for Americans.

Just another reason to hope for change in November 2012.

*There are numerous estimates for the average cost of creating a job via the government:  Some are as low as $228,000, some say $586,428, and I've seen a few claiming nearly $1 million.  Since our federal government is not exactly transparent, and no-one has a clear answer as to how many jobs the government 'created,' it's really hard to pin down...

Who Really Cares About Women's Health?

In an astounding misrepresentation of events, many news outlets have been reporting that Texas Republicans and Governor Rick Perry are canceling the Women's Health Program (WHP). The program, a Medicaid initiative to provide preventative health services to low-income women, is in fact slated to be canceled. However, it is President Obama who is trying to kill the program, and largely to make a political point.

The President's desire to end the program is due to new rules passed by the Texas Legislature in 2011. Texas now prohibits any WHP funds from going to entities that “perform or promote elective abortion,” a ruling that effectively excludes abortion-oriented Planned Parenthood. Critics of the new rules claim Planned Parenthood is essential to providing 'health-care' to low-income women, but the facts tell another story.

To begin, there are some 2,500 qualified providers in the WHP operating more than 4,600 locations. But there are only 44 Planned Parenthood sites, representing less than 2% of the clinics. According to a recent map published by the Texas Tribune, the Planned Parenthood clinics are concentrated in a few urban areas and surrounded by other WHP providers. 

But even if Planned Parenthood had more participating clinics, it appears they do not provide the kind of services most Americans associate with health care. According to public records, no Planned Parenthood clinic in Texas maintains equipment or licensing for mammogram machines. Furthermore, if a patient needs a doctor for anything other than abortion, she must be sent to another WHP clinic, since Planned Parenthood 'doctors' only perform abortions. Texas legislators wisely chose to cut out the middle man and send patients directly to comprehensive clinics.

Another troubling aspect of Planned Parenthood's participation in WHP is the organization's apparent disregard for the law. In 2009, Planned Parenthood San Antonio was fined more than $100,000 for operating four illegal abortion facilities without a license, and had to return hundreds of thousands of WHP funds. In the same year, Planned Parenthood of El Paso was found to have engaged in Medicaid fraud, and closed abruptly.

And the allegations keep coming. Last year former Planned Parenthood employee Karen Reynolds filed a complaint with the Texas Attorney General and the U.S. Department of Justice alleging that the organization systematically falsified medical charts for abortion clients to make it appear as if these clients came in for other services. Included in Reynold's complaint are memos instructing employees to falsify records to obtain Medicaid reimbursements. And just last week the Washington Times reported that former Planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson has filed a federal lawsuit accusing Planned Parenthood clinics in Southeast Texas of submitting more than $6 million in fraudulent Medicaid claims.

In addition to legal and ethical problems (Planned Parenthood is also under investigation for sex trafficking of minor girls and failure to report abuse,) the abortion business doesn't provide much value to the taxpayer. According to the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, Planned Parenthood's cost per client is 43% higher than most other WHP providers.

Despite multiple issues surrounding Planned Parenthood's participation in the Women's Health Program, President Obama prefers to cancel the entire service rather than provide comprehensive health-care for low-income women. Furthermore, Planned Parenthood and the White House are attempting to blame Governor Perry for the demise of WHP. However, the Governor announced last week that Texas would replace the funds Obama canceled and will continue the program. It seems that while the President prefers to make political points about abortion, it is Texas and Governor Perry who are looking out for women's health.

Planned Parenthood Not the Only Game in Town

As expected, reporters at the Texas Tribune are whining that the Texas Women's Health Program is in jeopardy because of the eeevil Texas Legislature.  They carefully avoid mentioning that it is President Obama who is threatening to kill the program since Texas has excluded Planned Parenthood from participation.   The popular narrative seems to be that Planned Parenthood is the only game in town, and excluding PP clinics will deprive poor women of health care. 

Only the Tribune also includes an interactive map of participating clinics, and surprise!  Most of the WHP clinics are not Planned Parenthood affiliates after all.  In fact, the few Planned Parenthood facilities who participate are surrounded by multiple other clinics that do not affiliate with the abortion business. 

So it looks like continuing the Women's Health Program while excluding Planned Parenthood won't deprive any women from receiving services, but it will keep the nation's number one abortion provider from receiving about $17 million in subsidies.

View the Tribune map for yourself:  http://www.texastribune.org/library/data/texas-womens-health-program-providers/

Limiting the Little Gods Of Government

Last month President Obama announced new national health care rules requiring all employers to provide 'free' contraception. He claimed the rules constitute a compromise with Catholics, because supposedly the insurer, not the employer, will absorb related costs. Certain Catholic Bishops who initially supported Obama's health care plan, reacted with dismay and anger, since the President had promised to respect their beliefs about contraception and abortion. But they should not have been surprised by the betrayal; although their intentions were good, their efforts were doomed by a misplaced faith in Government.

While the President touts the new rules as a compromise, opponents note that a number of employers self-insure, and even outside insurance companies indirectly pass the costs to employers. Directly or indirectly, employers will bear the costs of 'free' contraception. But this isn't just about birth-control pills. 'Contraception' as defined by government bureaucrats includes surgical sterilization and chemical abortions. President Obama's new rules will force coverage of abortion procedures.

While not all Americans agree with Catholic values regarding the sanctity of life, all should take heed of the dangers of investing too much power in the hands of Government.

Misplaced faith in the institutions of government is nothing new. People of various faiths have repeatedly turned to 'Government' to cure societal ills and take care of all needs. Ancient Jews infamously begged for monarchy, Thomas More suggested an imposed Utopia, and even Plato proposed a powerful Philosopher King. The premise is that a benevolent dictatorship can eradicate human suffering and allow us to all live happily ever after.

Unfortunately, the 'Government' on which we want to depend does not exist. Rather than better angels, government is made up of mere humans -who at best will make mistakes. At worst they will be utterly corrupt, and the majority will fall somewhere in between. In order to reach a theoretical Utopia, we must surrender rights and liberties to other mortals. Unfortunately, men and women in government often resemble the capricious and petty gods of Olympus, and our Philosopher King is more apt to behave like Zeus or Hera rather than a just and virtuous deity.

The Catholic Bishops were deceived when led to believe the President would respect their religious principles. However, even if Obama were a devout Catholic (hard to imagine, I know,) he is neither eternal nor omnipotent. Eventually some other 'god' would become president or king, and other judgments and values would be imposed. By then, government control over Catholic employers would have been firmly entrenched and religious objections rendered inconsequential.

Differences between various belief systems will never disappear, and with those differences there will always be a degree of intolerance. Recently in Central Texas, an anonymous person left notes objecting to Bibles on the desks of Cedar Park City Councilmen Tony Dale and Matt Powell. Apparently, 'Anonymous' would like the power to forbid Bibles on government property. But inordinate government power can lead to persecution of any group, and we could find that the Qur’an, Bhagavad Gita, or Communist Manifesto are banned as well.

The lesson here is that while we all desire a better society, surrendering too many of our rights and liberties to 'Government' is doomed to failure. Many countries have attempted a government-imposed 'perfect' society, but the worst of human nature usually takes the helm and produces the kind of suffering that characterized Stalinist Russia. Government can provide a framework for society and work to protect the innocent, but its power must be limited. Excessive trust in the god of 'Government' never results in Utopia, but may very well create Hell on earth.

The above column was published in The Hill Country News and the Jarrell Star Ledger.  I was amused by one critic who said including the Communist Manifesto was inappropriate since it is a political work.  However, it takes a great leap of faith in the 'little gods of Government' to believe in the Communist Manifesto!  In fact Marx used the work to draw up a 'catechism' entitled Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith.  I would suggest that it is indeed, a work of theology.  I guess my critic missed the point entirely. 

Governor Perry: Obama Administration Placing Pro-Abortion Politics Over Women's Health

Editorial by Governor Rick Perry on the President's plan to cancel the Texas Women's Health Program.  You may thank the Governor for continuing this fight to provide comprehensive health care for poor women here. 

March 1, 2012
 
President Obama's Administration plans to cancel funding for a long-standing and cost-effective health and wellness program for more than 100,000 Texas women. This move will cut off access to screenings for breast and cervical cancer, hypertension and diabetes, STD testing and family planning services for Texas women who otherwise could not afford them.

Unfortunately, President Obama and his allies are once again putting their political agenda ahead of sound policy and the delivery of cost-efficient health care. They are trampling on the rights of states like Texas to create programs like the Women's Health Program and to administer it for Texans by Texans.

Why would the Obama Administration take away access to health care for low-income Texas women? Because this administration puts funding for abortion providers and affiliates ahead of funding for women's cancer screenings and other preventative health care. Texas, operating under the direction of an overwhelming and bipartisan majority of legislators, prohibits abortion providers and affiliates like Planned Parenthood from receiving taxpayer money.

Because Texas refuses to fund abortion providers and their affiliates, the federal government has announced that it will cancel the Women's Health Program. To me, this reflects a twisted set of values, not to mention a continued disregard for the basic concept of states' rights.

Under federal law, Washington leaves it to state leaders to administer the Medicaid program and set criteria for who is, and is not, a qualified provider. Consistent with state and federal law, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) developed a program that would ensure continued access to care by qualified providers across Texas and asked the Obama Administration for approval.

However, the Obama Administration apparently is unwilling to allow the exclusion of organizations like Planned Parenthood, as Texas law requires, even though that organization represents less than 2 percent of enrolled providers. Texas has more than 2,500 qualified providers in 4,600 sites across the state, ready to deliver care.

If this debate were really about health care, the Obama Administration would allow the Texas Women's Health Program to continue.

Instead, the administration's stated intention to reject the Texas program reflects nothing more than its pro-abortion agenda, and is a blatant pander to the president's liberal base, which has made Planned Parenthood's abortion services a celebrated cause.

Texas is an easy target for such attacks because we value life and have worked hard to preserve and protect its sanctity over the years. We've passed laws requiring that parents be notified and give consent before their minor daughters abort a child, ensuring parents will be involved and ready to provide much-needed guidance and advice at the most critical of moments.

We've funded and promoted alternatives to abortion, and provided counseling for women on these other options, including adoption, which - in addition to saving a child - is one of the greatest gifts anyone can give a waiting mother and father.

We also created a law that will prevent abortions in Texas until the mother has a sonogram, because we believe women deserve to have all the information before making such a life-ending decision.

At our nation's founding, the architects of our constitution clearly spelled out precisely which powers were enumerated to the federal government and left the rest - explicitly - to the states.

While Washington has steadily undermined and weakened the authority of states and local communities to govern themselves, it wasn't until the last few years when states - especially more conservative states - were actively targeted by a presidential administration.

The Obama Administration has seized control of Texas' air-permitting process, put radical new interpretations of the Clean Air Act into effect and, worst of all, imposed a health care mandate on individual citizens and state governments that threatens to bankrupt us all.

The Texas women who face the prospect of losing access to preventative health care are only the latest to be caught in the crossfire of the Obama Administration's ongoing efforts to seize more control over the actions of every state, every town and every household.

Here in Texas, we will continue to fight back against all manner of federal encroachment into our lives, and any and all efforts to destroy or dilute the protections we've put in place for our unborn. President Obama, please abandon this misguided and unhealthy course of action and allow the Texas Women's Health Program to continue providing preventative health care and cancer screenings for Texas women.

Obama's Bridge Problem

Standing beside a 'functionally obsolete' bridge last week, President Obama insisted Congress must pass his $447 billion jobs bill so that aging bridges across the nation can be repaired and Americans can get back to work. While a few remaining Obama enthusiasts support the plan, most Americans and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are skeptical, and understandably so.

The claim we lack funds for bridge repairs is an obvious red herring. Federal law requires states to use 10% of transportation funds for 'enhancements,' including the establishment of transportation museums, scenic areas, and pedestrian education programs. The set-aside has been used to build a 'twin dragons' gateway to Chinatown in Los Angeles, a Corvette simulator in Kentucky, and a squirrel observation area in Tennessee. Entertaining as these enhancements may be, they hardly seem prudent when America's bridges are supposedly on the brink of collapse.

Of course the idea that we cannot repair our transportation infrastructure unless we raise taxes and/or sink the country further into debt is absurd. The number of federal spending programs that most Americans would consider dispensable are too numerous to list here, and the GAO recently reported that duplication in government costs taxpayers over $100 billion per annum. Surely amongst all this waste there are ample funds for bridge repair.

There is, however, a more fundamental problem with the American 'Jobs' bill: it is based on the false premise that government spending programs will create lasting jobs and strengthen the economy. While infrastructure repairs might create temporary jobs, raising taxes above sustainable levels will result in reduced economic activity, increased unemployment, and declining tax revenues over the long-term.

Proponents of higher taxes as a solution to our economic woes ignore the reality of human behavior. We acknowledge, and even hope for, potential behavior changes when advocating for 'sin taxes' like those on cigarettes and alcohol, but Leftists assume there will be no resulting change in behavior due to taxes on economic activity.

In practice, excessive taxes remove incentive and the very ability of private citizens to invest in economic activity, and they transfer capital into the hands of government bureaucrats. According to economic analysts James Sherk and Rea Hederman, each $1 increase in government spending reduces private-sector investment by as much as $.97. Historically, taxes above Laffer Curve levels have reduced economic activity and income levels, and resulted in declining tax revenues.

But the economic problems created by high taxes and excessive government spending and debt are not limited to the federal government. Texas has fared relatively well in this recession due to (relatively) conservative state fiscal policies, but analysts are sounding the alarm on local government activity. In our own community, the Leander school district's $1.2 billion in bond debt has led to one of the highest ISD property tax rates in the area and a 'negative outlook' designation from the Fitch Group. These problems are beginning to impact the local economy, which is seeing reduced growth and falling property values.

While the Left argues that deficit spending creates needed jobs, government programs are notorious for waste and inefficiency. Analysts note that recent 'stimulus' bills cost taxpayers a minimum of $228,055 for each job created or “saved.” Although government spending has increased 4.8% since 2008, national unemployment and poverty rates continue to grow at alarming rates.

If our elected leaders are serious about 'stimulating' economy, they should look at factors that inhibit business. The United States has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, and according to Senator Susan Collins, federal agencies are working on another 4,200 new regulations that will further handcuff American businesses. A better solution would be to reduce corporate taxes and burdensome regulation.  Add to this picture some $14.7 trillion in debt, and the outlook is dismal indeed.

It is past time to get serious about our economic problems, and we must address these issues at all levels of government. Tax, Borrow, and Spend policies are destroying this country, and raising taxes to repair bridges or construct school buildings that stand empty for years is not the answer. Yes, Mr. President, let's repair those bridges, but not in a way that further injures our ailing economy.

Maldonado Moving Right?

One positive thing I have to say about the Maldonado campaign: They have some very good handlers for the beleagured incumbent representative.  After her disastrous performance at a Round Rock Chamber event earlier this week, the campaign quickly trotted out a press release in which Maldonado seems to join Tea Party types in calling for increased border security. 

According to the release sent Thursday morning, Representative Maldonado allegedly joined "several colleagues in the Texas House" in addressing a letter to President Barack Obama.  To my knowledge, the actual text of the letter is not included in the release itself, which is posted at Texas Insider, and no other House members are mentioned by name. Supposedly, the letter requests two MC-12 Aircraft to beef up security on the border.

Wow.  I feel better already.

Sources who were present at the Round Table Discussions, said comments attributed to Representative Maldonado in the release are in stark contrast to her performance at the event earlier this week.  She was vague and somewhat evasive, especially on Voter Photo ID legislation, telling the questioner that they "just disagree on this issue."  Her answer to a border security query  included an ambiguous reference to troops returning from Iraq, leading the audience to wonder if she was suggesting placing combat troops on the Mexican border. 

Of course this isn't the first time Representative Maldonado has written to Obama.  In March of this year she joined other liberal politicians in the Progressive States Network to urge the President to push through socialized health care reform, specifically the Senate Bill (sans Stupak,) even though most Americans vehemently opposed the legislation.  Maldonado got her way, and now we are all gearing up to pay the consequences. 

While Representative Maldonado doesn't necessarily understand the reasons for voter frustration, she and her campaign must realize to some extent that the future does not bode well for liberal-progressive candidates in conservative-leaning districts.   Their actions indicate they are trying very hard to 'move Maldonado to the Right,' but unfortunately for them, her record doesn't leave much doubt as to where she really stands.