Monthly Archives: April 2014

Uncategorized

Cruz asks trick question on ACA

Ted Cruz is a smart Texas lawyer and a U.S. senator who ought to know this basic tenet about the legal profession: Never ask a question without knowing the answer you’ll get.

Well, the junior Republican lawmaker from Texas posed this question March 24 on Facebook: “Quick poll: Obamacare was signed into law four years ago yesterday. Are you better off now than you were then? Comment with YES or NO!.”

The question received more than 55,000 responses and the respondents were — are you ready for this one? — quite positive in their comments on the Affordable Care Act.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/ted-cruz-obamacare-facebook-poll-105306.html?ml=tb

You’ll recall that Sen. Cruz staged that fake filibuster on the Senate floor as he sought to persuade his colleagues to join him in killing the ACA. It didn’t work.

Also, you might recall that the Cruz Missile said he’d do “whatever it takes” to eliminate the law, to wipe off the books a law that an earlier Congress approved and the president signed.

One of his tactics, apparently, was to gin up support on Facebook for his effort. That didn’t work out too well, either.

As Politico.com reports, of the 100 most recent comments on Cruz’s Facebook page, only two of them were negative. The rest of them were testimonials on how the ACA has helped people’s lives, provided them with affordable health insurance and actually reformed the nation’s health care system.

Cruz staff says the results were cooked up by liberal websites that had rallied their followers for responses among those who favor the law. The senator’s staff insists the law is wildly unpopular with Americans.

OK, if that’s the case, then where were their responses to this, um, survey?

Uncategorized

Now it might be Clinton vs. Bush 2.0

Get ready for another Clinton-Bush slugfest for the White House.

Or … maybe not.

Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida and brother and son of two former presidents, has emerged as the Republican candidate of the moment. The Clinton in this matchup is Hillary Rodham Clinton, the wife of the former president sandwiched between the Bushes as well as a former U.S. senator and secretary of state.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/03/jeb_bush_2016_presidential_run_why_it_would_be_hard_on_the_gop.html

Ask yourself: Is the nation really up for a presidential campaign featuring these two political heirs?

I’m not yet convinced.

Clinton likely is going to run for the presidency. The smart money says she’s a sure-fire lock for the Democratic nomination, Vice President Joe Biden’s interest notwithstanding.

As for Bush, well, the GOP’s establishment candidate du jour once was New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie — before he got caught up in that bridge lane-closing matter. The lane-closing calamity well might blow over eventually. Christie’s brand as a hands-on, no-nonsense administrator may be damaged beyond repair — and that’s if he escapes the hounds looking for some culpability in the lane-closure or in its aftermath. If he’s dirty, he’s toast.

The GOP has a number of tea party types jockeying for our attention: Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, John Kasich and Bobby Jindal all are among the tea party favorites being bandied about.

Jeb’s mother, the always-candid Barbara, once said she hoped her son wouldn’t run. The country is “tired” of the Bush name in politics, Mama Bush said famously.

And as John Dickerson notes in the link attached to this blog, the Bush brand itself might be poison to many elements within the Republican Party. Do you ever hear any of the supposedly potential candidates for 2016 sing George W.’s praises, calling for a return to the good old days of warfare and cataclysmic recession? What’s more, the right wing never will forgive George H.W.’s decision to renege on his “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge that in reality was the smart thing to do.

As for Clinton, she brings her own baggage. After all, she is married to the second president ever impeached and as irrelevant as that sordid saga is to her own public service record, the Republicans are sure to remind us that electing Hillary means Bill returns to the White House, where he did those naughty things with that young intern.

Just think: The next presidential election is still more than two years out. We’ve got plenty of time to get sick of it all.

Uncategorized

Fort Hood … again

Violence has erupted at Fort Hood yet again.

It’s early in the aftermath of the latest shooting rampage at the sprawling Army post in Central Texas.

Four people — including the gunman — are dead and many others are injured.

It was less than five years ago that Army Major Nadal Hasan opened fire on his fellow soldiers while protesting the Pentagon’s war policies in Afghanistan. Hasan, a psychiatrist and a devout Muslim, had been ordered to Afghanistan; he wouldn’t go, so he embarked on a senseless rampage. An Army court martial convicted him and sentenced him to death.

Now this event.

The nation’s heart breaks once again at this senseless shooting. President Obama vows to get to the bottom of what transpired. Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey said the Pentagon’s main focus right now is to support the families of those who were killed or wounded.

Meanwhile, the simplest of questions arises from this tragic act. Why?

Uncategorized

Money to speak even more loudly

You’ve heard the saying that “Money talks and bull—- walks.”

Hang on to your wallet and dial in your BS detector. Money is about to have a lot more say in who we elect to public office, thanks to the United States Supreme Court.

The court ruled 5-4 along ideological lines on a case that removes caps on all political donations. The five-member conservative wing of the court won the argument — of course.

The case involves McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, and it follows through on the landmark Citizens United case of 2010 that removed most limits on campaign donations by corporations. This latest ruling removes the rest of the restrictions involving caps on direct donations to candidates and political parties.

Is it a First Amendment issue, as Chief Justice John Roberts noted in his majority opinion? Sure … if you buy the argument that a billionaire’s monstrous bankroll has no more influence on political candidates than a middle-class blue-collar employee writing a $20 check to the candidate of his or her choice.

Billionaires, be they on the left or the right, have infinitely more influence on these matters than John Q. Citizen.

Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissent took note of the impact of today’s decision. “If the court in Citizens United opened a door,” he said, “today’s decision may well open a floodgate.”

And money is going to pour through that floodgate.

I make no apologies in my defense of the First Amendment’s clause dealing with political expression. Still, there’s something quite unseemly about the burgeoning influence of money on political campaigns. Billionaire George Soros’s efforts to elect Democrats is troublesome only in that his voice can be heard so much more clearly than someone with a lot less money. The same can be said for the Koch Brothers, who are involved up to their armpits in electing Republican office seekers.

The greater the influence of money in these campaigns, the lesser the influence you and I are going to have in getting these candidates to listen to our concerns.

This ruling marks a bad moment in American political history.

Uncategorized

Let the wind keep blowing

Hey, it’s been windy lately.

You know what? The wind has produced at least one amazing positive result: an increase in megawatts, meaning electricity, meaning less use of fossil fuels.

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2014/03/a-beneficial-blow-wind-energy-surpasses-10k-megawatt-mark.html/

The Electrical Reliability Council of Texas announced that on March 28, it passed the 10,000-megawatt barrier for the first time ever. Texas, which has been the leader in wind energy in the nation, set the record nationally.

We’re No. 1!

I get that not everyone is enamored with wind energy. It’s expensive to generate electricity from all those turbines planted all across our High Plains plateau. However, the more electricity created by wind, the less of it is created by fossil fuels that, last I heard, remain a finite source of energy. The stuff is going to run out eventually.

The wind? We’ll have it forever and ever.

It’ll keep blowing, sometimes at great velocity. It’ll annoy the daylights out of us, blowing dirt into our motor vehicle air filters and wafting its way into our homes.

But as ERCOT notes, wind can heat and cool our dwellings with a virtually infinite energy supply.

Let it blow.

Uncategorized

Lt. gov. runoff will tell us plenty about Texas GOP

The upcoming runoff between Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and state Sen. Dan Patrick is going to send a stark message about the state of the Texas Republican Party.

If Dewhurst wins the runoff — which is beginning to look unlikely — the so-called “establishment wing” of the state party will have fended off a major uprising with the GOP ranks. If Patrick wins, well, Katy bar the door.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/03/31/analysis-gop-year-hunter/

It still is a bit of a stunner to me that Dewhurst is in this position. He lost the U.S. Senate Republican primary contest in 2012 to Ted Cruz. He then staked out a far more conservative posture during the 2013 Texas legislative session, seeking to avoid another challenge from his right. It didn’t work, as Patrick emerged as the favorite to defeat Dewhurst in the runoff set for May 27.

Dewhurst is an establishment kind of guy. He’s wealthy, well-connected with big-time donors and has shown an ability to work with Texas Senate Democrats as well as Republicans. He’s a conservative, but under the new rules that define conservatism, he isn’t conservative enough.

Patrick is another kind of Republican. He’s thrown down the gauntlet to moderates within his party and to Democrats that, by golly, Texas is a conservative state and he intends to run the state Senate that way. He has blasted Dewhurst for giving key Senate committee chairmanships to Democrats.

It appears to be working. Patrick is a pistol and he’s firing live political ammo at the other guy constantly.

If Dewhurst can hold on to this party’s nomination, he’ll get to face one of his Senate colleagues, Democrat Leticia Van de Putte, in the fall. I am not familiar with their relationship, but something tells me he’ll be a kinder, gentler Republican nominee than Patrick.

If it’s Patrick vs. Van de Putte, look for another kind of fall campaign altogether.

My choice in this runoff? I’m going to pull for Dewhurst.

Uncategorized

Rand Paul makes sense on outreach

Listen up, tea party wing of the Republican Party.

One of your own is making sense on ways your party can reach out more effectively to a growing minority of voters in the United States.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/rand-paul-gop-must-get-beyond-deportation-105241.html

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., a possible candidate for president in 2016, says the GOP must get “beyond deportation” if it hopes to attract Latino voters.

Think about that. So many leading Republicans were saying during the 2012 presidential campaign that deportation — or “self-deportation,” as Mitt Romney called it — was one way to rid the country of illegal immigrants.

“The bottom line is, the Hispanic community, the Latino community is not going to hear us until we get beyond that issue,” Paul said this week.

Who wants to wager whether the Republican Party is going to heed this sound advice? I’m not yet willing to believe the tea party wing of the GOP — the minority within the party with the loudest voice — is going to take the bait.

I do admire Paul, though, for telling the harsh truth to his GOP tea party brethren. Indeed, another key member of that wing of the party — Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas — is an immigrant himself. The Texas Cruz Missile, though, keeps talking tough on immigration, brushing off efforts to reform the system in a comprehensive, constructive way.

Keep driving home the message, Sen. Paul. Maybe one day they’ll get it. Then again, maybe they won’t.

Uncategorized

Big government takes over in Louisiana

Can it be that big-government know-it-alls are running amok in the Louisiana Legislature?

And isn’t Louisiana a bastion of small-government, local-control ideology that prides itself on letting communities decide for themselves what’s best for their constituents?

Welcome to paternalistic, big-government (dare I say it?) socialism over yonder in Louisiana.

http://www.theneworleansadvocate.com/home/8778876-172/bill-to-curb-traffic-cameras

A Louisiana House committee has passed a bill that would enable the state to ban the use of electronic cameras to regulate traffic. You know, it’s those dreaded red-light cameras … kind of like those currently deployed right here in Amarillo.

According to the New Orleans Advocate, “The bill would ban local governments from using traffic cameras to issue tickets on state highways, including those within city limits, unless motorists are traveling more than 10 miles per hour over the posted speed limit.”

It passed the Louisiana House Transportation Committee by an 8-7 vote and now heads to the full House for what is likely to be a raucous debate.

The Texas Legislature once had a ban on cities deploying red-light cameras. Then it relented. Some cities now use them with varying degrees of success. Some cities have yanked them, citing public unhappiness over them.

State Rep. Jeff Arnold, D-New Orleans, a critic of the cameras, said, “We are here to stand up for the citizens.”

Well, OK. But what if some cities want the option of deploying them while allowing other cities to forgo them? Isn’t that the essence of small-government legislation? Let communities make these calls for themselves.

That’s not how some folks see it. Some in the Texas Legislature continue to harp on keeping the state’s hands wrapped tightly around these traffic enforcement policies. Meanwhile, mayors and senior city law enforcement authorities say they can use the electronic assistance in helping them enforce traffic laws.

Big government is supposed to be anathema in these so-called “red states,” right? But is it? Really?

Uncategorized

ACA deadline passes, the sun rose this morning

What do you know? The Affordable Care Act’s first open enrollment deadline passed and Planet Earth didn’t spin off its axis.

Here’s another tidbit: The White House announced that it met its enrollment goal of 7 million Americans signed up for health insurance. Was the deadline glitch-free? No. But it came, it’s history and millions of Americans who didn’t have health insurance before have it now.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/obamacare-enrollment-deadline-special-enrollment-105239.html?hp=t1

Let’s remember, though, that critics will continue to declare the law a total failure. They’ll continue to assert that the president runs the most “lawless” administration in the history of the Republic. They’ll suggest the White House “cooked the books” on the ACA enrollment numbers. They’ll likely have more votes in Congress to seek to repeal the law.

President Obama asserted the following today in a White House Rose Garden ceremony: “There are still no death panels. Armageddon has not arrived. Instead, this law is helping millions of Americans.”

We’ll need to remember that many of the ACA’s basic tenets came from Republicans. One of them, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, helped push through a health care law in the Bay State that became a significant model for the federal law that was enacted in 2010. Romney would try to distance himself from his own creation as he ran for president in 2012. The strategy didn’t work, as Americans re-elected Barack Obama.

Yes, some Americans got an extension on the deadline. Those are the folks who got hung up in the application process. The White House gave them a few extra days to finish it up.

Where this law goes from here remains a bit of an open question. It shouldn’t be repealed. It needs tweaking, just as Medicare needed it when it was created in 1965. That program has been a godsend to elderly Americans.

Of course, GOP efforts to toss out the ACA will continue. However, as more Americans sign up for health insurance and report back the positive impact of that coverage, there might be enough of a reaction that sends a stern message to ACA critics: Back off; the law is working.

Uncategorized

Global warming risks mount up

The United Nations says that global warming is putting billions of Earth residents at risk.

OK. Earth’s climate is changing and we’d better do something about it. Or else. That settles it, right?

Not even close.

http://news.msn.com/world/global-warming-dials-up-our-risks-un-report-says

You see, what’s going to happen now is that global warming-climate change deniers are going to take dead aim at the authors of this report. They will say the U.N. is nothing but a bunch of politically correct greeners, lefties whose major intent is to destroy industry as we’ve known it and, while they’re at it, destroy our way of life.

“We’re now in an era where climate change isn’t some kind of future hypothetical,” said the lead author of the report, Chris Field of the Carnegie Institution for Science in California. “We live in an area where impacts from climate change are already widespread and consequential.”

I happen to concur with what the basic outline of the report, which is that the planet’s climate is changing. I’m trying to keep something of an open mind as to the cause: manmade or part of the planet’s ecological cycle.

But let’s assume for a moment that the change in Earth’s climate is all part the planet’s cycle, that there’s nothing we can do about it. Does that mean, then, that we should just sit back and let nature take its course? I think not, given that the very lives of billions of people are going to be affected by things such as sea level increases and possible loss of livelihood as natural resources diminish and possibly disappear.

Extreme weather is getting more extreme. The planet is getting warmer, believe it or not. Yes, we had a chilly winter with lots of snow and ice. The bigger picture tells us that average temperatures continue to rise.

Would reductions in greenhouse gas emissions matter? Must we end the massive deforestation in the tropics? Yes to both. Is there a relationship between the deforestation and the increase in greenhouse gas? Duh!

That’s one example of how humans can affect the change in climate. The report is much more comprehensive and should be taken seriously.

Yes, especially if it comes from the United Nations.