Texas legislators want us to believe they are acting out of goodness in their heart by considering a nice raise for state district court judges.

Oh, but wait. There’s a kicker. If the Legislature approves the raise, there’s something in it for legislators. Their retirement pension gets a boost. Good-heartedness has its limits, yes?

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/05/10/pay-raise-little-something-extra/

At issue is a $26,000-plus annual raise for the judges. For every $1,000 added to the increase, the state legislators’ retirement pension fund kicks in $23 additional annually for every of service in the Legislature.

It’s a nice way to pad your retirement account without ever having to vote openly and overtly for it. They’re doing it for those hard-working judges all across Texas, you see.

We amend the Texas Constitution for almost everything under the sun. Not so with the U.S. Constitution, which has been amended all of 27 times. The most recent amendment comes to mind here. It’s the one that says no congressional or executive branch pay increase can take effect until after the next congressional or presidential election. I’m unaware of any such provision in the Texas Constitution that stipulates that kind of provision.

Maybe it’s time to consider something like it, even if it applies to legislators’ retirement funds. Either that or make these fine legislators vote on their own retirement income in the open. Up or down. Stand tall, legislators!

It’s good to see Olympic medal-winning wrestlers wanting to keep their sport as part of the Games.

The International Olympic Committee wants to dump wrestling as an Olympic sport beginning with the 2020 Games at a site to be named this year.

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/298645-wrestlers-go-to-mat-to-keep-sport-in-olympics-

It would be a travesty of the highest order to eliminate one of the original Olympic sports. The IOC would keep rhythmic gymnastics, synchronized swimming and polo. But wrestling? No, the IOC says fan interest has waned to a level that detracts from the overall Olympic experience.

What a croc!

I’m pulling for the Olympic medal-winners to persuade the IOC to change its mind, restore its sanity and rekindle the spirit of the Games that began with wrestlers grappling with each other – in the nude, I should add – in Olympia, Greece, beginning in 776 B.C.

I’ve had the honor of walking through the original Olympic site with my wife in 2001. We were awestruck just knowing what had happened there nearly three millennia ago. For the keepers of that spirit to think of throwing over one of the world’s oldest sports is unthinkable … or so I thought.

I might have to change my way of thinking on the wisdom of reducing the federal budget deficit if some high-powered private- and public-sector economists are correct.

They say that reducing government spending and tax increases have slowed the economic recovery and that the jobless rate might be a percentage point lower than it is today if we didn’t do those two things in 2011.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/us/deficit-reduction-is-seen-by-economists-as-impeding-recovery.html?_r=2&

What’s going on here? Didn’t the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Reps tell us that deficit reduction was Job One the past two years – right up there with defeating President Barack Obama? And didn’t they tell us that slashing government spending would jumpstart the economy by handing it all over to the private sector, which is so much better at job creation than the federal government? As for taxes, didn’t the Democrats tell us that rich folks who could afford to pay more should do so and it wouldn’t harm middle-income Americans’ pocketbooks?

I’m still grappling with trying to understand which strategy is more wrongheaded – spending reductions or tax cuts. I’m tending to believe that severe government spending cuts has been the big inhibitor.

More than three decades ago, Ronald Reagan ran for president when the deficit was a then-staggering $40 billion annually. The economy was in the tank and he blamed President Jimmy Carter for wrecking the nation’s economy, not to mention turning out national mood so sour. The voters agreed with him, electing Reagan president in a stunning landslide in 1980. The economy continued to stumble along for the first two years of his presidency, then it took off – right along with the deficit.

Now some economists are saying that deficit spending isn’t the bogeyman Republicans have labeled it.

Time to rethink everything … maybe.

It’s fascinating what a successful re-election campaign can do for a public official who decides to walk straight into the belly of the political beast.

President Obama ventured to Texas today to talk about jobs and his ideas for creating more of them. Texas, of course, isn’t exactly Obama Country. He carried 41 percent of the vote here in 2012 compared to Mitt Romney’s 57 percent total.

What’s more, the president has been pilloried at every opportunity by one of the individuals who greeted him warmly today in Austin: Gov. Rick Perry.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/05/09/obama-perry-visit/

But the president came, released from the bonds of having to campaign ever again for elected office. Think about that for a moment. During the 2012 campaign, Obama ventured into Texas only to attend private fundraisers that generated a lot of money for him. We saw no public stump speeches from him; no plant-gate handshaking; no baby-kissing at the State Fair in Dallas.

Now that his final election is behind him, Obama has come to Texas to speak about jobs.

And I’m glad to see the Republican governor there to greet him. They made nice in public, which is a good thing given that the president serves all the people of this country, not just those who voted for him.

But oh man, I would love to be a fly on the wall in a room where President Obama and Gov. Perry can speak candidly to each other. In diplomatic parlance, I’m quite certain their discussions would be “frank.”

An East Texas district judge has given some high school leaders something to cheer.

Good for him, and for them.

Hardin County District Judge Steve Thomas ruled that the Kountze High School cheerleaders may display religious messages on their run-through banners prior to the start of their football games. He said the banners do not establish a state religion and that it does not violate the First Amendment to the Constitution that prohibits such an establishment.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/05/08/tx-judge-cheerleaders-can-keep-bible-verses-banner/

I’m with him on this one.

Here’s where I draw the line.

The kids want to display the banner containing Scripture passages. No one is forcing them to do it. Had the Kountze Independent School District ordered the students to put the messages out there – as agents of a government entity – that would violate the First Amendment that disallows government from taking such action. But since the students are acting on their own volition and the community supports their display, then – if you’ll pardon the mixed metaphor – no harm, no foul.

The case has drawn national attention. Some civil libertarians opposed the banners because they contend they foist religion on non-religious spectators attending these football games. C’mon, folks. No one forces anyone to read these banners, let alone adhere to their message.

Thomas’s ruling states: “The evidence in this case confirms that religious messages expressed on run-through banners have not created, and will not create, and establishment of religion in the Kountze community.”

The fact that the students are free to do as they please means they are exercising their liberties as citizens of a country that encourages freedom of expression.

Dick Cheney may have more gall than any politician living today.

The former vice president of the United States says the Benghazi, Libya attack last year that resulted in the deaths of four Americans – including the U.S. ambassador to Libya – is an example of President Obama’s failed leadership in foreign policy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/dick-cheney-benghazi_n_3237605.html?show_comment_id=251281870#comment_251281870,sb=1147791,b=facebook

Simply astounding, coming from this man … of all people.

He must be suffering from amnesia. He has forgotten, apparently, that 9/11 occurred on the watch of the administration he served. Wasn’t the vice president part of the national security team when terrorists flew airplanes into the Twin Towers and into the Pentagon? Weren’t they responsible for the colossal breakdown that allowed the terrorists carry out that hideous attack against Americans on U.S. soil?

And wasn’t it the Bush administration that tried and failed to bring Osama bin Laden to justice? If memory serves, that triumph occurred in May 2011 when President Barack Obama – the man Cheney criticizes with such gusto – ordered the commandos to conduct the raid that killed bin Laden.

I’ll acknowledge that plenty went wrong in Benghazi. Chaos ensues whenever firefights erupt. It happened in Benghazi and the Obama administration did a terrible job in its aftermath of explaining what happened on that terrible day.

But to hear Dick Cheney describe the attack as the result of a leadership breakdown simply takes my breath away. If there ever was a breakdown, it occurred in the months leading up to the events of Sept. 11, 2001 – when President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were in charge of keeping the country safe.

All right, the South Carolina First Congressional District election Tuesday didn’t turn out the way I would have wanted.

But since I don’t live there, I didn’t have a direct say in who the voters would send to Congress to represent them. I’m just a silly ol’ blogger out here in Flyover Country who thinks Republican Rep.-elect Mark Sanford is a terminal narcissist who doesn’t give a hoot about anyone other than himself.

But that’s just me thinking out loud.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/house-races/298415-sanford-victory-could-spell-trouble-for-house-gop-leadership

Sanford is going to have some challenges ahead as he takes his seat after defeating Democratic opponent Elizabeth Colbert Busch in a special election to fill the seat once held by Sen. Tim Scott, who was appointed to the Senate after Jim DeMint left to lead the Heritage Foundation.

The House leadership turned its back on Sanford. It didn’t help him with campaign cash or appearances by the speaker of the House. Why? Because Sanford is a seriously flawed guy. He cheated on his wife and then lied to his constituents about his whereabouts on Mothers Day weekend of 2009. He put the word out he was hiking in the woods when he was actually in Argentina frolicking with his girlfriend, who he now plans to marry.

Character ought to matter. Oh sure, both houses of Congress are full of scoundrels who wear both party labels. But when given the chance to elect someone who wasn’t toting the baggage draped around Sanford’s shoulders, they went with this clown anyway.

One social media comment noted that now Sanford can get out of South Carolina, head back Washington and he’ll somehow be out of his constituents’ hair. Not exactly. He’ll still be making decisions on their behalf.

They’ll just need to watch him like a hawk to ensure he’s actually doing what they’re paying him to do.

A Facebook friend of mine had perhaps the best response to Sen. Mike Lee’s demand that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid apologize for calling Sen. Ted Cruz a “schoolyard bully.”

She said that Reid’s comments were no more offensive than Cruz, R-Texas, calling his Senate colleagues “squishy.” My pal also noted that neither comment is profane.

I think Cruz, who was just elected to the Senate in November 2012 and who has elevated his public profile to rival those of his more senior and knowledgeable colleagues, has thrust himself onto center stage because of some self-aggrandizing strategy.

That Harry Reid would call him a “schoolyard bully” is tame compared to the language many other of Cruz’s colleagues are likely to use to describe his conduct as the months and years progress.

Lee ought to consult with his vastly more senior Senate colleague from Utah, fellow Republican Orrin Hatch, about what kind of language crosses the line. Hatch has served in the Senate since the late 1970s and has crafted friendships and alliances with many senators of both political parties, most notably with the ferocious liberal lion, the late Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts. Kennedy was known to raise his voice to a near-scream while arguing for whatever point he was seeking to make on the Senate floor. He, too, used some intemperate language on occasion.

That’s the nature of the institution in which all of these folks serve.

Take it easy, Sen. Lee.

U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, wants Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to apologize to Sen. Ted Cruz for calling the Texas Republican a “schoolyard bully.”

Lee says Senate decorum doesn’t allow such angry language.

Oh really?

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/298183-boehner-on-sanford-house-members-dont-get-to-choose-their-colleagues

He’s probably right about the need to follow decorum. But someone ought to remind the junior senator from Utah that much worse things have been said to senators by their colleagues.

My favorite outburst came from then-Vice President Dick Cheney, who was serving as the presiding officer of the Senate – the VP’s role under the U.S. Constitution. Cheney was involved in a heated argument on the Senate floor with Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. I can’t recall the topic at the moment, but Cheney ended up telling Leahy – within earshot of several other senators – to, shall we say, do something quite unnatural to himself.

I’ll merely invoke my late father’s favorite description of the term Cheney used on his colleague: Dad would call it the “functional four-letter word.”

Sen. Lee needs to chill out. “Schoolyard bully” is far from the worst transgression ever committed on the floor of the Senate.

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner said he would welcome Mark Sanford “with open arms” into his party’s House ranks.

Then he said members of Congress don’t get to choose those with whom they serve.

Where I come from, that’s what I call “damning with faint praise.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/298183-boehner-on-sanford-house-members-dont-get-to-choose-their-colleagues

Sanford is the former South Carolina governor who once served in the House. He’s running for the First Congressional District seat against Democratic challenger Elizabeth Colbert Busch. The race is neck and neck, or so they say.

It’s close because the First District is as reliably Republican as, say, the 13th District of Texas. Colbert Busch has a chance of winning the seat against Sanford, who you’ll recall left the governorship after his much-publicized dalliance with his Argentine girlfriend. He lied about where he was, saying he was hiking in the woods when he was in Argentina doing whatever.

It’s oh, so seedy.

But here he is, trying to climb back into the arena.

First District South Carolinians are voting today whether to send this clown back to public office or entrust their interests to a newcomer. My proverbial money is on the new kid, who I hope sends Sanford backpacking.

Maybe this time he’ll really hike the Appalachian Trail.