Monthly Archives: October 2015

national news, political news

Wrong direction for U.S.? Check out the numbers

barack

It intrigues me greatly how the naysayers manage to hog all the attention and persuade people to believe things that aren’t true.

Check out the link here: Trend is good

FactCheck.org is a website run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center. It’s known to be a credible source for those who wish to know the facts about the political rhetoric being tossed around.

We’ve heard much over the past, oh, six-plus years about how Barack Obama’s presidency has led the nation into oblivion.

Hmmm. FactCheck.org says something quite different about the trend since Obama took office in January 2009.

Jobs are up; joblessness is down; energy production is up; energy imports are down; the number of uninsured Americans is down; the stock market is way up.

It’s not all peaches and cream. Food stamp recipients have increased; home ownership is down; median household income is down.

Yet, despite the evidence to the contrary, we keep hearing from presidential candidates that America is going straight to hell. One of them wants to “make America great again.” Others label the president’s policies as disastrous, dangerous, lawless.

Are we in the perfect place? Of course not. Far from it. We’re still fighting that war against international terrorists that, in my view, is likely to be ongoing long after many of us have departed for the Great Beyond.

However, as the political season heats up and the rhetoric starts churning, let us look at the big picture and take the stump speech sound bites and laugh lines with the skepticism they deserve.

national news, political news, State news

Win or lose, Cruz may pay steep price

cruz

Ted Cruz stormed onto the U.S. Senate floor in January 2013 and began immediately demonstrating his lack of understanding of institutional decorum.

The Texas Republican began making fiery floor speeches. He accused fellow senators — and former senators — of doing things detrimental to national security. He sought to shut down the government over the Affordable Care Act.

Along the way, he decided to run for president of the United States … and while running for the White House, he accused Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of being a liar.

Cruz facing hurdles

The Texas Tribune reports that win or lose in his bid for the presidency, Cruz faces a serious problem with his Senate colleagues. Many of them don’t like him. They don’t like his brash attitude. They dislike his lack of manners. They believe he’s self-serving and egotistical — which, coming from U.S. senators with monstrous egos of their own is really saying something, if you get my drift.

If the Cruz Missile gets elected to the presidency next year — which I do not believe is going to happen — he’ll have to cut deals with the very senators he’s managed to anger. If his campaign falls short, he’ll return to Capitol Hill and, well, he faces the same chilly reception from his colleagues.

The Tribune reports that some political observers doubt Cruz’s ability to legislate. “Texas has been short a senator since the day Cruz was elected,” said Jenifer Sarver, an Austin-based GOP consultant and former staffer for U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Cruz’s predecessor. Sarver continued: “As someone who worked for Senator Hutchison, who was an absolute and constant champion for Texas, it’s disappointing to see his lack of regard for how his political posturing could impact Texans.”

Sure, Cruz has his fans among conservatives in Texas and around the country. I surely get that many Americans applaud the man’s in-your-face style. Cruz calls his approach merely “anti-establishment.”

But the young man is just one of 100 men and women from both political parties who need to work together on occasion to get something done for the good of the country or for their own states.

To date, as near as I can tell, Sen. Cruz — who is serving in his first-ever elected office — hasn’t yet read the memo that reminds him of how a legislative body is supposed to function.

 

 

local news

MPEV fight: Goliath vs. David

3 Comments

amarillo MPEV

Two groups have formed to carry the fight forward on Amarillo’s multipurpose event venue, which will be decided Nov. 3 in a non-binding municipal referendum.

Under normal circumstances, I’d be pulling for the underdog in such a contest, the one with little money, name ID or significant political backing.

Not this time.

In one corner is Vote FOR Amarillo, which is campaigning in favor of the $32 million MPEV, ballpark component and all. In the other corner is Amarillo Citizens for Tomorrow, which opposes the MPEV design.

VFA vs. ACT. There you have it.

As my friend Jon Mark Beilue reported in the Amarillo Globe-News on Sunday, the differences between the organizations go well beyond their respective views on the MPEV.

For example:

  • Paul Matney, a highly respected — and admired — former Amarillo College president and community leader, is leading the VFA effort; ACT doesn’t appear to have anyone leading it.
  • VFA has registered as a political action committee; ACT has not.
  • Matney and Wendi Swope are serving as spokespersons for VFA; ACT hasn’t designated anyone to speak for the group.
  • VFA has secured the backing of dozens of key community leaders, business groups and civic organizations; ACT calls itself a “grassroots organization.”

I am not going to denigrate the grassroots aspect of ACT’s political base. However, it is important — to me, at least — that a political action group is marching forward with critical backing from a diverse base of business and civic interests.

VFA wants the MPEV to proceed as it’s been presented. The ballpark will be more than a ballpark, Matney and others have declared. It could play host to a number of outdoor activities that could attract visitors to a revived downtown district.

One of the more curious arguments being offered by ACT has been its contention that hotel-motel tax revenue that would pay for the MPEV’s maintenance and operation would be “exhausted in a few years,” forcing the city to increase property taxes to pay for future Civic Center improvements and expansion. I’m not quite sure what one has to do with the other.

Even if the city were to expand and dress up the Civic Center first, it would do so with certificates of obligation or perhaps submit the proposal to voters for their decision on whether to approve a bond issue election. Either way, property taxes would come into play.

I continue to support the MPEV as it’s been developed and presented. Moreover, I will continue to put my faith in an effort led by someone with the credibility that Paul Matney has earned through his many years of service to his hometown.

 

 

 

national news, political news

More guns means less mayhem?

guns

The processing of the latest gun-violence massacre is continuing across the nation — perhaps even the world.

Nine people were gunned down in Roseburg, Ore., this past week and we’ve heard the mantra from gun-owner-rights advocates: If only we could eliminate these “gun free zones” and allow more guns out there …

The idea being promoted — and I haven’t yet heard from the National Rifle Association on this — is that more guns in places such as Umpqua Community College, where the Roseburg massacre occurred, could have stopped the madman.

NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said infamously after the Newtown, Conn., bloodbath that killed 20 first graders and six teachers, that the “only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.”

I’m not in favor of disarming American citizens. I believe in the Constitution and the Second Amendment, although for the life of me I still have trouble deciphering its literal meaning: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The question has been posed: When did “well-regulated Militia” get translated to meaning the general population? Still, the courts have ruled time and again that the Constitution guarantees firearm ownership to all citizens. I’m OK with that.

But I am not OK with the idea that more guns means less violence, less mayhem, less bloodshed, fewer deaths and injuries.

Surely there can be a way to tighten regulations gun ownership in a manner that does not water down the Second Amendment, one of the nation’s Bill of Rights.

If only our elected representatives could muster the courage to face down the powerful political interests that simply will won’t allow it.

 

national news, political news

Terror vs. gun deaths

terrorism12115

Here’s an interesting statistic that today drew some attention on one of the many Sunday morning TV news/talk shows.

In the past decade, 153,144 people have died in this country from gun violence; 3,046 individuals have died at the hands of terrorists during that same period.

This came from Chuck Todd, moderator of “Meet the Press,” citing the stats provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

He asked Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review, about whether the country needs to do as much to combat gun violence as it has done to battle terrorism.

Lowry gave a reasonable and intelligent answer, which was that government’s fundamental role is to protect citizens against foreign enemies; he added that any gun-related action “on the margins” won’t do anything and that more comprehensive action runs the risk of infringing on the Constitution’s Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.”

Meet the Press tackles gun violence

The discussion was fascinating.

Still, I’m a bit baffled by the fact that with such a huge disparity between gun-violence deaths and terror-related deaths, we still have been unable — or unwilling — to deploy government’s machinery to impose additional restrictions on gun ownership that does not infringe on citizens’ right to own a firearm.

After all, the government created a whole new Cabinet-level agency — the Department of Homeland Security — immediately after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Still, madmen take guns into public places and massacre thousands more innocent victims … and we do nothing?

 

local news

MPEV ballot language becomes an issue

ballpark

Amarillo voters are going to decide a non-binding ballot measure that says the following:

“Should the multipurpose event venue (MPEV) to be constructed in downtown Amarillo include a baseball stadium at the approximate cost of $32 million? A ‘for’ vote would be in favor of including a baseball stadium in the project; a ‘no’ vote would be against having a baseball stadium as part of the MPEV.”

The ballot measure language, as I read it, appears to be quite restrictive.

But if you’ll allow me this tiny bit of nitpicking, the ballot measure’s language also is a bit imprecise. The opposite of a “for” vote would be an “against” vote, not a “no” vote.

But I digress …

The ballpark element has become the focal point of the discussion on the MPEV. Indeed, the MPEV proposal exists because of the ballpark.

MPEV ballot measure

So, if we are to believe that a vote against the MPEV doesn’t doom the project, we are being told that the MPEV has a secret component that someone is going to unveil if the measure goes down in the Nov. 3 election.

I happen to support the MPEV and I will vote “for” the project when Election Day rolls around. I believe in the ballpark aspect of the MPEV and I also believe that the venue can be used for a wide variety of events — not just baseball games.

The language used in the ballot measure quite clearly appears to the work of those on the City Council — comprising a majority of the governing body — who oppose the MPEV. They dislike the ballpark; they oppose the manner in which the project was developed; they want the city to go in another direction than the one it has taken in its effort to rebuild, revive and renew its downtown district.

That’s their call.

The ballot measure as it is written, though, must be seen for what it is: an effort to torpedo a project cobbled together over a period of several years by elected and appointed city officials and residents of this community.

If there is a Plan B, then let’s see it … now.

 

national news, political news

VP teeters on brink of huge decision

biden

Vice President Joe Biden is giving me heartburn.

Will he run for president in 2016 … or not?

I’ll stipulate up front that I’m not going to predict what he’ll do. I didn’t think Democrat Hillary Clinton would run for the U.S. Senate in 2000 after she and her husband left the White House; she did. I thought Republican Colin Powell might run for president in 1996; he didn’t.

I’ve waffled on the vice president’s immediate political future so much I’m giving myself motion sickness.

Biden ponders run

Part of me wants him to run. I happen to like the vice president and admire his long record of public service — gaffes and all.

He’s experienced immense personal tragedy, with the deaths in 1972 of his wife and daughter in a car crash that injured his two sons; then came the death of his older son, Beau, of brain cancer just a few months ago.

Biden has shown courage and grace in the face of these tragic events.

Another part of me, though, wants him to avoid being labeled for the rest of his life as a “loser” if he fails to win the Democratic nomination. Clinton is the frontrunner, although she’s been damaged by controversy involving e-mails and Benghazi. Biden has run twice already, in 1988 and again in 2008.

Joe Biden isn’t the perfect alternative to Clinton, but he’ more perfect than, say, socialist U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, who’s polling quite well these days head to head against Clinton.

Only the vice president and his family know what he’ll decide. He’s expected to announce his plans within the next 10 days or so.

As tempting as it is in this forum to try to guess out loud what he’ll do, I’ll remain quiet. It’s Joe Biden’s call to make all by himself.

It’s clear that Biden wants to be president. It’s not at all clear whether he believes he’s got what it takes to derail the frontrunner.

I’m trying to imagine the immense pressure that accompanies a decision like the one facing the vice president. I can’t comprehend it.

You do what your heart tells you to do, Mr. Vice President.

 

national news

Roseburg seeks comfort in anonymity

douglas county

Roseburg, Ore., residents have picked up on the sentiments of Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin, who told reporters: “You will never hear me say his name.”

The name belongs to the young man who gunned down nine people at Umpqua Community College and then — reportedly — killed himself.

Shooter remains nameless

The world, of course, knows the shooter’s name. It’s been published, posted and reported. But I have to say that I support the decision by the sheriff and I applaud the community’s reaction to what he declared.

Roseburg has become the latest city to be identified with a horrific act of gun violence, joining a growing list of other cities across the country that have been shaken beyond belief over unspeakable tragedy.

The reaction, though, to the “name thing” instigated by Sheriff Hanlin has created a fascinating back story.

The Roseburg News-Review published the gunman’s name along with a small picture of him. According to the Los Angeles Times, the furious reaction by the community on social media has prompted the paper to quit referring to the individual by name.

The city’s residents do not want to give the gunman a trace of fame or notoriety by flashing his name all over the media. They figure, I reckon, that the maniac’s dastardly actions have spoken loudly and clearly enough all by themselves.

What will all of this do substantively to the community? Will it allow Roseburg to heal any more thoroughly or completely? The community mission to keep the shooter’s name out of any public reference to this tragedy won’t do anything … except this:

It will give the shaken residents of Roseburg some measure of undefinable comfort. If that’s all it takes, then I’m all for the notion of never mentioning the gunman’s name out loud.

 

national news, political news

What’s happened to the budget deficit?

BudgetDeficit

Remember the federal budget deficit?

Do you also remember how Republicans used to rail against it and how Democrats used to ignore it? Republicans said the deficit would keep growing and would bankrupt the nation. Democrats insisted that the government needed to “invest” public money on public projects.

Flash back to the 1980 presidential campaign.

  • GOP nominee Ronald Reagan’s campaign ran TV ads that parodied House Speaker Tip O’Neill and the Democrats in Congress as wasteful spenders. President Carter oversaw a deficit that “ballooned” to about $40 billion.

Reagan won the election in a landslide.

What happened then? President Reagan fought for tax cuts and exploded defense spending. The result: the federal deficit effectively tripled.

Let’s move ahead to the 1992 election.

  • Democratic nominee Bill Clinton ran against President George H.W. Bush, proclaiming “It’s the economy, stupid.” The nation was struggling through a recession. Clinton won the election. Then the Republicans took control of Congress after the 1994 mid-term election.

What happened after that? The Democratic president, working with the Republican-led Congress, balanced the budget. Clinton left the White House in 2001 and the budget was running a hefty surplus.

  • Republican George W. Bush was elected in 2000. Then came the 9/11 terrorist attacks. President Bush pushed through more tax cuts, but then took the nation to war against terror groups overseas. The result of that effort? The deficit returned and exceeded $1 trillion annually.

But the argument evolved into something else. It didn’t matter that the deficit was exploding, the president and his allies contended, because it constituted a minuscule portion of the Gross Domestic Product. Didn’t the vice president at the time say, “Deficits don’t matter”?

Well, I guess they did.

  • OK, now we come to the 2008 election. The economy has tanked. Financial institutions are going under. The housing market has crashed. So has the auto industry. The deficit was exploding.

Democrat Barack Obama won the election. He got Congress to kick in billions of dollars to jump-start the economy and bail out some of the leading industries.

What happened then? The economy began to recover. The jobless rate, which zoomed to 10 percent, began inching its way back down. Today it stands at 5.1 percent.

Oh, the deficit? It’s been cut by two-thirds.

It’s still too great. It’s a long way from the surplus delivered by President Clinton and his friends in the GOP-controlled Congress.

However, the traditional argument delivered by Republicans that deficits are bad and that Democrats are to blame for spending us into oblivion no longer is relevant.

Just think: The presidential campaign that’s unfolding before us has been called one that defies all conventional wisdom.

I believe the history of the federal budget deficit suggests conventional wisdom got tossed aside long ago.

 

religious news, State news

Texas AG speaks to the faithful

faith

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has been quiet lately … since his indictment in Collin County on charges of securities fraud.

The case hasn’t yet been settled. Paxton, though, spoke to a conservative political group, Texas Values, and asserted that Christians are being “marginalized” in public life.

I believe I’ll disagree with him on that.

Paxton calls for Christians to seek public office

I agree with the attorney general that people of faith should run. They should rely on their faith to inform their decisions. I cannot question either of those two notions that Paxton put forward.

Then again, I welcome people without faith to run as well. This country belongs to them as much as it belongs to believers.

Moreover, I have to draw the line on the idea that the so-called “marginalization” is anything new.

The U.S. Constitution has been quite clear on the role that faith should play in government. The founders knew what they were doing when they omitted the very word “religion” in the document. The only reference comes in Article VI, which declares that “no religious test” shall be applied to candidates running for public office.

Isn’t that crystal clear? It is to me.

Not to Paxton, apparently.

According to the Texas Tribune: “It’s important to understand opponents of religious liberty aren’t going away anytime soon,” said Paxton, a Republican, as he spoke to a crowd of about 100 people gathered at Pflugerville’s First Baptist Church. “We must refuse to be marginalized in the name of political correctness.”

Political correctness? What’s he talking about?

Religious liberty is a comprehensive term. It means different things to different people. To some, it means that we should be free to practice whatever faith we wish. To others, sadly, it means believing only in the faith they worship, as many Muslim-Americans have learned over the years when they encounter protests from non-Muslims.

And to even more Americans, the term “religious liberty” means being guaranteed the right to not worship any faith at all.

I do not believe what Paxton said in Pflugerville that there’s been an “ugly and frightening turn of events” that turns on people of faith who seek and hold public office.

If he’s referring to that Kentucky county clerk who refuses to grant marriage licenses to gay couples — and I suspect that’s Paxton’s point of reference — I’ll just remind him that she took an oath to serve all the residents of her county.

Even those who are gay.