Here’s the way I look at President Obama’s proposed 2014 federal budget.

If both sides are angry with him, he must have done something right.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/292851-obama-to-unveil-1058t-budget

Obama released his budget today to groans from conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats. He wants the rich to pay more in taxes because, the president said, he doesn’t want to reignite the economy “on the backs of the middle class.” That notion has angered Republicans who think the rich pay enough in taxes already. Obama also wants to overhaul Medicare and Social Security by reducing the rate of growth in both those programs. That proposal has drawn the wrath of liberal Democrats who consider those programs to be immune to any change.

The proposed budget projects a deficit of “only” $744 billion. Think about that for a minute. When did a budget deficit of less than a trillion dollars seem like an improvement? But it is, given the size of the deficit over the past half-dozen years or so.

I haven’t yet heard any remarks from lawmakers such as, “The president’s budget is ‘dead on arrival’ on Capitol Hill.” At least not yet. Presidential budgets never emerge on the other side in the form they are presented. Congress has the right, indeed the obligation, to tinker and mess with them. This Congress no doubt will do that with Obama’s proposed budget.

But legislating involves making some people angry. President Obama has done that with his budget proposal. He’s ticked ‘em off on both ends of the political see-saw.

In my view, that’s a positive sign. Barack Obama is learning how to compromise.

Amarillo spends the greatest amount of its municipal budget on police and fire protection.

I know. It’s hard to believe. Actually, this might be a major non-event. It does illustrate the importance people place on vital government services. I cannot think of anything more vital than protecting people’s safety, even their lives.

http://www.connectamarillo.com/news/story.aspx?id=882927

The link attached to this note sketches the city expenses for police and fire. The city’s 2012 budget totals around $258 million, with $88 million of it spent on public safety issues, or about 34 percent of the total.

I haven’t heard of a single community in America that doesn’t place top value on its police and fire protection. Every human being wants to be safe in their homes. To that end, Amarillo is answering the call.

But this link mentions the potential for future change in the city’s priorities. The way I see it, water might edge its way toward the head of the line. It’s not that the city will devalue public safety. It’s that the development of water resources is going to become more critical, particularly as the city’s water supply becomes, shall we say, a bit more endangered.

I mention water as a critical need mainly because without it, none of the rest of it – police, fire, roads, lights, libraries, trash pickup, parks, you name it – will matter.

But for now, thanks ought to go to City Hall for recognizing the need to keep its residents safe.

Texas Senate Higher Education Committee Chairman Kel Seliger, R-Amarillo, is on point with his call to Gov. Rick Perry.

The governor needs to use the bully pulpit of his office to calm the rising tensions between the Legislature and the University of Texas System, according to Seliger.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/04/08/seliger-governor-should-resolve-tension-ut-system/

“When things turn out to be bad for an institution or bad for the state, the person who can resolve this quickest is the governor,” Seliger told the Texas Tribune on Monday. “He ought to do what’s best for the state of Texas. Turmoil in an institution for no good reason is something we certainly ought to be wary of. It’s not productive.”

And the UT System isn’t just any old government “institution.” It is a top-tier university system that carries the state’s name in its title.

The dispute involves the UT regents’ relationship with Bill Powers, president of the UT-Austin campus and legislators’ desire to examine emails and other correspondence generated by the university. The regents are trying to keep some of that information from public view.

Perry to date has been relatively quiet, which is odd given the governor’s occasional fits of loquaciousness. Indeed, Perry has a big stake in this fight, given that he has appointed so many of the regents to their position. Thus, his own reputation is on the line if regents cannot settle this matter.

Well, governor?

U.S. Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma is getting grouchier with age.

He has described Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s decision to donate part of his salary back to the Treasury in response to the mandated “sequestration” budget cuts as “childish,” and a publicity stunt.

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/292667-inhofe-donating-pay-over-sequester-childish

I beg to differ with the distinguished gentlemen from the Sooner State.

The decision isn’t childish. It demonstrates a desire to lead by example, which, where I come from, is the most effective type of leadership of all.

Hagel has been joined by President Obama and a handful of other executive branch officials in giving back 5 percent of their salaries. It’s interesting to me that House members and senators aren’t too eager to join the ranks of those willing to give back some of their salary. Those folks – along with the president – are responsible for the sequestration in the first place.

Inhofe says he has no plans to follow Hagel’s and Obama’s lead. He must need the money.

Sen. Inhofe ought to set aside his crabby attitude, though, and recognize that folks have differing views on how to handle the ongoing federal budget struggle. No one believes these gestures are anything more than symbolic. They won’t balance the budget.

Still, these gestured do matter when our leaders ask others to sacrifice for the good of the country.

President Obama is trying to make a simple plea about gun violence legislation.

If senators who are opposed to overhauling the nation’s gun laws are willing to cast a “no” vote in that regard, they ought to be free to do so. But it appears unlikely that a minority of senators, mainly Republicans, are not going to allow that to happen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/us/politics/obama-in-connecticut-to-push-for-gun-control.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Obama went to Hartford, Conn., Monday to make the case for an up-or-down vote in the Senate on a package of bills the president thinks will help curb gun violence. He wants universal background checks on anyone purchasing a gun and limits on the size of magazines that hold ammunition.

Whether they’ll do the trick is the subject of debate. The National Rifle Association and its allies say they won’t; proponents of the gun laws say they will. The debate is raging. Obama, though, is expressing justifiable frustration – bordering on anger – over senators’ tactics to block even a vote. About 15 of them, led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., are erecting procedural roadblocks to bringing the issue to a vote.

This is wrong. If a majority of senators don’t want to change the gun laws, then let them put it on the record. Let them state clearly why they think existing gun laws are sufficient. Let them then explain to their constituents – who just might favor tougher gun regulations – why they voted the way they did. And let them defend that vote at election time when their careers just might be on the line.

I happen to side with the president on this key point: Nothing in the legislation violates the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans to own a firearm.

As the president said in Hartford, with family members of the children and teachers killed in the Newtown, Conn., school massacre listening to his words, most Americans favor the background checks and want to see limits placed on the size of magazines. Even families that belong to the NRA favor them, he said. Democrats favor them; so do Republicans.

So … let our elected Senate cast a vote to defeat these measures if most of its members want to do so. And then let them explain to their constituents why they’re refusing to do the people’s will.

When word came out this morning that Margaret Thatcher had died at age 87, my memory immediately flashed back to April 1982.

That was when Britain’s Iron Lady, its first woman prime minister, showed her mettle, her resolve and her unbelievable toughness. I’ll forgo discussing some of the negative aspects of her record-setting stint as British prime minister – the union-busting, for example.

It’s the way she responded to a foreign invader that sticks in my memory today.

In April of 1982, Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, a British territory off the coast of the South American nation. It had been disputing the land with Britain for many years and so the Argentines decided to take matters into their own hands. The military action incensed Thatcher.

Thatcher’s response? She sent a naval task force south from the British Isles to the Falklands. This was one of the most telegraphed military counter-offensives of the 20th century. Everyone on the planet knew what was going to happen once the fleet arrived. The Argentines certainly knew it. Thatcher had given them all kinds of warning: Get off the islands or else face the wrath of our military might.

The Argentines stayed and waited. The Brits arrived and proceeded to pound the Argentines without mercy. The fighting lasted until June and it resulted in the collapse of the military junta that ruled Argentina. The nations broke off diplomatic ties for a time, but they were restored in 1989.

Everyone knew Thatcher came honestly by her Iron Lady moniker. She didn’t suffer fools. She was a classic cold warrior, who sensed that there could be deals struck with a new Soviet ruler named Mikhail Gorbachev. She forged a lasting personal bond with her American soul mate Ronald Reagan and counseled him on how to handle Gorbachev.

Was she my kind of leader? I wouldn’t have voted for her if I had the chance. But that doesn’t matter.

What does matter is that when the chips were down and another nation invaded her nation’s sovereign territory, she responded with firmness and strength.

Hillary Rodham Clinton made me look like a moron in 2000.

I predicted in writing 13 years ago that she wouldn’t run for the U.S. Senate. Why would she want to work with individuals, many of whom voted to remove her husband from office two years earlier in an impeachment trial? How could she forgive them for saying what they said about President Clinton, who had been impeached by the House of Representatives because he lied to a grand jury about a scandal involving a White House intern?

Well, she proved me wrong. She ran for the Senate from New York and won in a landslide. She then proceeded to become an effective representative for the Empire State. She won friends on both sides of the political aisle. More than that, she won their respect for her work ethic. Then she became arguably one of the top two or three secretaries of state in U.S. history when President Obama selected her for that job.

Now some of us are wondering: Is she going to run for president – again! – in 2016.

I am not going to bet against it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/04/07/fox_news_sunday_panel_is_hillary_clinton_running.html

Her 2008 run for the Democratic presidential nomination would have taken it out of most mortal human beings. Not Hillary Clinton. She answered the new president’s call and worked tirelessly to promote U.S. interests abroad. Was her tenure error-free? No. The attack in Benghazi, Libya that killed four Americans, including our ambassador to Libya, will remain an indelible stain on her record.

But is it a deal-breaker? Will it dissuade her from running once more for president? That, by itself, won’t do it. What would do it? Maybe her health could fail her. She’ll be 69 years old when the 2016 election rolls around. Then again, that’s the same age Ronald Reagan was when he was elected in 1980 … and he managed to serve two terms.

My sense is that the former first lady, senator and secretary of state is preparing an announcement sometime next year that she’s going to make one more run for the big prize. I’d go the other way, predicting she won’t do it, except that I won’t ever underestimate any national politician’s ambition.

The power struggle that’s enveloping the University of Texas System is not going to end well if the system regents don’t back off and let the man they hired to run the flagship campus do his job without interference.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/04/08/the-brief-top-texas-news-for-april-8-2013/

UT-Austin President Bill Powers has been in an ongoing battle with regents who many critics are saying – in an increasingly loud voice – are meddling in administrative matters that should be within the purview of the campus’s chief executive officer.

The Texas Tribune reports that the temperature is elevating once more in the regents’ board room. Regents Chairman Gene Powell has asked Attorney General Greg Abbott if the system can withhold information from state legislators who are seeking system records. My advice, for what it’s worth, to the AG is to force the regents to give everything up. And this is where Senate Higher Education Committee Chairman Kel Seliger, R-Amarillo, can step in. He runs the committee that oversees higher ed affairs – in which the UT System, of course, is a huge player.

No one is suggesting malfeasance on Powers’s part. No one is saying out loud that he’s doing a poor job of running the UT System’s mother-ship campus. If he was doing badly, he’d be fired.

My strongest hope is not necessarily for Bill Powers, who I do not know. It is for the UT System, which has graduated a lot of fine folks with whom I am acquainted. Some of ‘em even are good friends of mine. They’re sick about what’s going on there.

Fix this problem, ladies and gentlemen.

I just learned that CNN is looking for a way to resurrect the “Crossfire” program that used to run on the news network.

I’m hoping CNN brings it back. But it needs to be uber-selective in who it wants to face off.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/04/cnn-looking-to-relaunch-crossfire-160968.html?hp=r9

You’ll recall that “Crossfire” was a debate show that pitted a liberal against a conservative. Pundit v. pundit. Rightie v. leftie. The network has had some stellar folks on both sides of the table.

My favorite conservative probably was Pat Buchanan, the former speechwriter for President Richard Nixon and one-time communications director for President Ronald Reagan. The man is glib and clever.

My favorite liberal? I’ll go with Paul Begala, the former policy wonk who served President Bill Clinton. Begala is a Texan who’s just as quick-witted as Buchanan.

Begala still can be found on CNN as a “contributor” and “political analyst.” Buchanan’s been bouncing a round a bit over the years. He’s now with the Fox News Channel after MSNBC let him go about a year or ago.

I wouldn’t mind seeing them square off on the new “Crossfire.”

But I don’t want to have the last word on that one. Any ideas out there on who you would like to see on this news show? Talk to me. I’m all ears.

Fort Worth has enjoyed remaking its downtown business/entertainment district into a subject of immense civic pride.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/04/06/4754667/tif-spending-helps-downtown-fort.html

A big part of the success has been the creation of a tax increment finance (TIF) arrangement that looks somewhat like the tax increment reinvestment zone (TIRZ) created for Amarillo. Indeed, Amarillo has patterned much of its own downtown redevelopment strategy after what’s been done in Cowtown.

It’s working there. It can work here.

Oh yes, there are critics here who dismiss the strategy. The Fort Worth TIF sets aside tax revenue to pay for public improvements. Amarillo’s TIRZ is set up to do essentially the same thing. It’s got a different name and it sets aside money derived from property value appreciation within the district.

Tomato, tom-ah-to. The concepts are similar.

For my money, downtown Fort Worth has it all over downtown Dallas. The two Metroplex cities compete at almost every level, but as far as downtown livability and enjoyment, Big D likely threw in the towel years ago to Fort Worth.

Fort Worth success has come with public help. Amarillo is seeking to kick start its downtown redevelopment through entirely private money in its first phase, estimated to cost about $113 million. The city is supposed to get a new parking structure and a minor-league ballpark – eventually.

After that, who knows? I do understand, though, that Amarillo’s venture must include some public money, which is where the TIRZ strategy kicks in, to the dismay of nay-sayers.

I want to stipulate one more time in response to gripes I keep hearing about Amarillo’s downtown project. It will not copy Fort Worth’s in size and scope. It cannot, given that our city comprises not quite 200,000 residents compared to the 800,000 or so folks who live in Fort Worth. But when you scale it all down to size and examine the benefits of setting aside tax revenue derived from property within a certain boundary, then you understand how one city’s concept can work in another one.

I’m all for copying another community’s success.