Sign that you need sleep - you can't stop giggling about these "ads"
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
Big surprise - Travis County still needs election workers
Labels:
election 2010,
travis county
The Travis County Elections division sent out a frantic call for 100 more election workers this morning.
So what happened to the 350 that the Travis County Republican Party recruited?
Texas Broadside has more.
The best part, IMHO:
So what happened to the 350 that the Travis County Republican Party recruited?
Texas Broadside has more.
The best part, IMHO:
We suggest that Dana DeBeauvoir resign as County Clerk, but realizing that it is unlikely that she will take responsibility for her failures, we suggest that voters cast their votes on Tuesday for Libertarian Party candidate Gillian Dreesen. Even knowing very little about Ms. Dreesen we are confident that she could do no worse than our current Clerk and would likely do a much better job.The Austin Chronicle has DeBeauvoir's response.
Voter intimidation in 2010
I'm trying to follow this story that has been ongoing down in Houston, Voter Fraud Capitol of Texas. This came from the Liberty Institute in the last hour:
Meanwhile, here in Travis County.....
The Travis County Democratic Party sent spies to a recent poll watcher training put on by the Travis County Republican Party, then used what they heard to spin a web of lies about Republican poll watcher intentions and activities. Republicans in Travis County are used to the stories that come from Austin's minority communities, about some of the same things the King Street Patriots are witnessing down in Harris County, and have decided to station poll watchers at key places where voter intimidation is known to happen. The Democrats took this and spun it wildly out of context, telling minority groups to beware of Republican intimidators at the polls.
Having witnessed the shenanigans of certain Democrats' volunteers at polling locations in north Austin these last two weeks, I can speak for the absolute absurdity of the TCDP's claims - a little house-cleaning on their side would do some good. Or does the TCDP really think it is acceptable to walk up to people getting out of their cars at grocery stores, stick signs in the their faces, and argue policy with them in an impudent and rude manner? Not that this is the worst thing that can happen, of course.
Bottom line - be wary, and report misconduct at the polls. We've heard reports today about Asian American voters being bullied at a polling location in north Austin. Take nothing for granted - when elections are this tight, you never know what to expect.
Last week, we told you how Liberty Institute is representing King Street Patriots, a group of volunteer citizens in Houston who are working to ensure the election process is free from fraud. Through their “True the Vote” initiative, they have trained hundreds of volunteer poll watchers, many of whom are senior citizens and soccer moms, who just want to make sure everyone’s vote counts. What they are reporting is shocking:
1. Election clerks are actually voting for people,
2. Election officials are asking voters if they want to vote straight ticket Democrat,
3. People harassing poll watchers, and in at least one case, a poll watcher was physically assaulted by an election clerk.
Tensions are so high that yesterday King Street Patriots asked the Department of Justice to monitor Harris County elections and attend their final poll watcher training on Monday. In the meantime, the Texas Democratic Party and two George Soros-funded organizations continue their legal attacks upon these good citizens.
Meanwhile, here in Travis County.....
The Travis County Democratic Party sent spies to a recent poll watcher training put on by the Travis County Republican Party, then used what they heard to spin a web of lies about Republican poll watcher intentions and activities. Republicans in Travis County are used to the stories that come from Austin's minority communities, about some of the same things the King Street Patriots are witnessing down in Harris County, and have decided to station poll watchers at key places where voter intimidation is known to happen. The Democrats took this and spun it wildly out of context, telling minority groups to beware of Republican intimidators at the polls.
Having witnessed the shenanigans of certain Democrats' volunteers at polling locations in north Austin these last two weeks, I can speak for the absolute absurdity of the TCDP's claims - a little house-cleaning on their side would do some good. Or does the TCDP really think it is acceptable to walk up to people getting out of their cars at grocery stores, stick signs in the their faces, and argue policy with them in an impudent and rude manner? Not that this is the worst thing that can happen, of course.
Bottom line - be wary, and report misconduct at the polls. We've heard reports today about Asian American voters being bullied at a polling location in north Austin. Take nothing for granted - when elections are this tight, you never know what to expect.
Democrats spamming UT students?
Word reached me earlier this week that students at the University of Texas had begun receiving emails from Lloyd Doggett and the Travis County Democratic Party, urging them to go vote Democrat and attacking Doggett's Republican opponent, Dr. Donna Campbell. Today, the Young Conservatives of Texas have called on the university to investigate the matter.
The university policy regarding the use of the student directory reads: “This online directory service is provided by the University to facilitate the research, teaching, learning, and service missions of the University community. Solicitation on University computing and network resources is prohibited by the Rules and Regulations of the University of Texas Board of Regents. Accordingly, the contact information provided in this online directory service may not be used for transmission and distribution of unsolicited e-mail or other commercial purposes.”
So what on earth were the TCDP and Congressman Doggett doing? According to the press release from YCT:
YCT-UT Chapter Chairman Tyler Norris: “This is not the first time since I began attending the University that student email accounts have been misused. Its time for the University to investigate how students were sent emails of such a partisan nature, especially so close to election time. At this time it is unclear how both the TCDP and Doggett campaign acquired UT student email addresses, we feel that’s something students would like to know.”
I think many people would like to know the answer to that. University (read: TAXPAYER-FUNDED) resources being used explicitly for partisan campaign purposes?
Sounds a bit shady to me. Rhetorical question for the audience: is the UT lobby so powerful that this kind of activity will continue without comment from the legislature (certain members of which would be interested, no doubt, to know how UT's appropriation is being spent)?
The university policy regarding the use of the student directory reads: “This online directory service is provided by the University to facilitate the research, teaching, learning, and service missions of the University community. Solicitation on University computing and network resources is prohibited by the Rules and Regulations of the University of Texas Board of Regents. Accordingly, the contact information provided in this online directory service may not be used for transmission and distribution of unsolicited e-mail or other commercial purposes.”
So what on earth were the TCDP and Congressman Doggett doing? According to the press release from YCT:
The Travis County Democratic Party and the Lloyd Doggett campaign sent unsolicited spam emails to UT students this week, in violation of University policy. The TCDP email, sent Monday, included an image of President Obama and urged students to “Vote Straight Democratic.” The email sent from the Doggett campaign attacked his opponent, Dr. Donna Campbell, and encouraged students to vote early on campus. In a humorous twist, Doggett’s email was so hastily written that the receivers of the email were addressed by an incorrect name. “I don’t know who Kimhoang Thi Nguyen or James Richard Haecker are, but neither they nor I likely want to receive spam emails from Democrats just because we’re UT students,” said UT Law Student and YCT State Senior Vice Chairman Tony McDonald.
YCT-UT Chapter Chairman Tyler Norris: “This is not the first time since I began attending the University that student email accounts have been misused. Its time for the University to investigate how students were sent emails of such a partisan nature, especially so close to election time. At this time it is unclear how both the TCDP and Doggett campaign acquired UT student email addresses, we feel that’s something students would like to know.”
I think many people would like to know the answer to that. University (read: TAXPAYER-FUNDED) resources being used explicitly for partisan campaign purposes?
Sounds a bit shady to me. Rhetorical question for the audience: is the UT lobby so powerful that this kind of activity will continue without comment from the legislature (certain members of which would be interested, no doubt, to know how UT's appropriation is being spent)?
Thursday, October 28, 2010
GQ, Glee, and the continued failure of feminism
Labels:
where are the feminists
Since I don't typically watch shows on Fox (yes, I'm still bitter about the cancellation of Firefly), I haven't ever seen an episode of Glee, a popular television show set in a high school, around the hijinks, drama, and comedy thereof. But, pop culture junkie that I often am, I haven't missed the hype or the general gist of the show's plot. I can certainly see the appeal, too, and the music that has come out of the show has often been quite a treat.
But the recent GQ shoot of stars Lea Michele and Dianna Agron drives home a point about the way our culture views and treats women, and while I don't know the show well enough to speak eloquently on the hypocrisy, I do have an opinion about this.
In college, I was privy to an interesting time in the history of feminism, one that is still taking place today. The "love your body" movement, seemingly innocent in encouraging young women to stop falling for media standards of beauty, has failed to address what was once an important part of feminism. Stopping the objectification of women used to be a hallmark of the cause. It hasn't been a focal point for many years now, and in fact many feminist groups and self-proclaimed feminists have gone so far as to celebrate this very problem instead of working against it. The Vagina Monologues, college campus "Love Your Body" days featuring co-eds walking around in their underwear, the magazine spreads that talk body image on one page and exhort women to entice men on the opposite page. "Women's" magazines that have blatant pornographic photos on the cover, and sit kid-eye-level at grocery stores.
NOW and other groups sit quietly by, and take a kind of vengeful joy in the campaign rhetoric that focuses on what women candidates wear, and how they look. They actually celebrate when women (who, conveniently, don't tout feminist agendas in their campaigns) are called whores. So it comes as no surprise that NOW and other groups hold their tongues when a popular television show that caters directly to young women becomes a breeding ground for sexism and objectification. The GQ photo shoot, which involved the Glee stars in stripping and posing almost-nude for the camera in suggestive poses (around a cheerful, dominant male no less), should horrify, outrage, and motivate feminists.
This season, Glee has followed suit with the latest cry against bullying, specifically against homosexuals. Bullying is a problem for many American teenagers, for all kinds of reasons, and their righteous indignation rings patently false when colored by the GQ shoot and its broader implications. These young women are setting trends for their contemporaries. They are, for better or worse, used as measuring sticks by which young men will judge their female peers - and find them, inevitably, wanting.
Bullying is a problem in American high schools, there is no question (and Glee, a show ostensibly about misfits, generally gets that). But can we have a conversation about how nudity, the promotion of sexual attributes over intellectual worth, and the tantalization of young men fundamentally damages young women? Can we now talk about the fact that there are girls in America right now who are holding back tears, cutting themselves, starving themselves, because someone teased them about their breast size, about their virginity, about their lack of sexual prowess - or in some cases, because of the other extreme?
It is a sad, terrible time for American women, if our culture cannot use the success of feminism to put behind us the idolization of the female form above female intellect. It is a tragic time for young women, if our culture prevents us from showing them that there is more to life than sex, and not all men expect them to be horny, half-dressed teenagers for life. And it is tragic, too, for young men who are even now forming their expectations of female sexual desire based on images like those of the Glee stars in GQ.
But the recent GQ shoot of stars Lea Michele and Dianna Agron drives home a point about the way our culture views and treats women, and while I don't know the show well enough to speak eloquently on the hypocrisy, I do have an opinion about this.
In college, I was privy to an interesting time in the history of feminism, one that is still taking place today. The "love your body" movement, seemingly innocent in encouraging young women to stop falling for media standards of beauty, has failed to address what was once an important part of feminism. Stopping the objectification of women used to be a hallmark of the cause. It hasn't been a focal point for many years now, and in fact many feminist groups and self-proclaimed feminists have gone so far as to celebrate this very problem instead of working against it. The Vagina Monologues, college campus "Love Your Body" days featuring co-eds walking around in their underwear, the magazine spreads that talk body image on one page and exhort women to entice men on the opposite page. "Women's" magazines that have blatant pornographic photos on the cover, and sit kid-eye-level at grocery stores.
NOW and other groups sit quietly by, and take a kind of vengeful joy in the campaign rhetoric that focuses on what women candidates wear, and how they look. They actually celebrate when women (who, conveniently, don't tout feminist agendas in their campaigns) are called whores. So it comes as no surprise that NOW and other groups hold their tongues when a popular television show that caters directly to young women becomes a breeding ground for sexism and objectification. The GQ photo shoot, which involved the Glee stars in stripping and posing almost-nude for the camera in suggestive poses (around a cheerful, dominant male no less), should horrify, outrage, and motivate feminists.
This season, Glee has followed suit with the latest cry against bullying, specifically against homosexuals. Bullying is a problem for many American teenagers, for all kinds of reasons, and their righteous indignation rings patently false when colored by the GQ shoot and its broader implications. These young women are setting trends for their contemporaries. They are, for better or worse, used as measuring sticks by which young men will judge their female peers - and find them, inevitably, wanting.
Bullying is a problem in American high schools, there is no question (and Glee, a show ostensibly about misfits, generally gets that). But can we have a conversation about how nudity, the promotion of sexual attributes over intellectual worth, and the tantalization of young men fundamentally damages young women? Can we now talk about the fact that there are girls in America right now who are holding back tears, cutting themselves, starving themselves, because someone teased them about their breast size, about their virginity, about their lack of sexual prowess - or in some cases, because of the other extreme?
It is a sad, terrible time for American women, if our culture cannot use the success of feminism to put behind us the idolization of the female form above female intellect. It is a tragic time for young women, if our culture prevents us from showing them that there is more to life than sex, and not all men expect them to be horny, half-dressed teenagers for life. And it is tragic, too, for young men who are even now forming their expectations of female sexual desire based on images like those of the Glee stars in GQ.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Connect the Dots: Strama, Mostyn, and Annie's List
Earlier today, I was alerted to a website concerning liberal Democrat Loretta Haldenwang, running in HD 105 in Irving. What I found interesting, aside from the depth of Haldenwang's ties to the radical wing of her party, was the video of a poetry slam starring Genevieve Van Cleve. Central Texans will remember Van Cleve from the 2008 Diana Maldonado campaign; she's the Annie's List Austin-based deputy political director.
Now, Van Cleve is involved locally with the Austin Poetry Slam, and the video on Liberal Loretta is of an expletive-ridden, anti-Christian rant performed by Van Cleve.
What does all of this have to do with Mark Strama, you ask? Strama, in addition to support received from pro-choice groups similar in nature to Annie's List, gives money to Annie's List. Here are the records of two donations, one in 2006 and the other in 2009, taken from the Texas Ethics Commission (click pictures for full versions - it was $1000 in '06 and $100 in '09)
Strama's support of this organization is outrageous, especially in light of his recent claims to bipartisan, moderate views and actions. Annie's List is a group which chooses to employ vulgar, obscene individuals such as Van Cleve, in addition to being a distinctly pro-choice organization, and having a redistricting agenda of drawing districts for Democratic women.
Just to keep connecting the dots for you - Annie's List's board of directors includes Amber Anderson Mostyn. Mrs. Mostyn's last name should ring a bell- she's the wife of Democratic operative and Texas Trial Lawyer Association funder Steve Mostyn.
These connections should be damning. And do you see how the liberal Democrat agenda all goes back to the same key things? Redistricting, overturning tort reform? Over and over again.
Mark Strama carries water for these interests. His claims to bipartisanship are thin at best, and his claim of being a "moderate" Democrat is transparent. He is part of the greater agenda for the Democratic takeover in Texas, and as has been stated elsewhere by smarter people than me, you can't wait for these kinds of politicians to run for Congress before you replace them in office.
Thursday, ETA: I should have linked to this back in September, so you could get an even clearer idea of what Mostyn is up to in Texas.
Now, Van Cleve is involved locally with the Austin Poetry Slam, and the video on Liberal Loretta is of an expletive-ridden, anti-Christian rant performed by Van Cleve.
What does all of this have to do with Mark Strama, you ask? Strama, in addition to support received from pro-choice groups similar in nature to Annie's List, gives money to Annie's List. Here are the records of two donations, one in 2006 and the other in 2009, taken from the Texas Ethics Commission (click pictures for full versions - it was $1000 in '06 and $100 in '09)
Strama's support of this organization is outrageous, especially in light of his recent claims to bipartisan, moderate views and actions. Annie's List is a group which chooses to employ vulgar, obscene individuals such as Van Cleve, in addition to being a distinctly pro-choice organization, and having a redistricting agenda of drawing districts for Democratic women.
Just to keep connecting the dots for you - Annie's List's board of directors includes Amber Anderson Mostyn. Mrs. Mostyn's last name should ring a bell- she's the wife of Democratic operative and Texas Trial Lawyer Association funder Steve Mostyn.
These connections should be damning. And do you see how the liberal Democrat agenda all goes back to the same key things? Redistricting, overturning tort reform? Over and over again.
Mark Strama carries water for these interests. His claims to bipartisanship are thin at best, and his claim of being a "moderate" Democrat is transparent. He is part of the greater agenda for the Democratic takeover in Texas, and as has been stated elsewhere by smarter people than me, you can't wait for these kinds of politicians to run for Congress before you replace them in office.
Thursday, ETA: I should have linked to this back in September, so you could get an even clearer idea of what Mostyn is up to in Texas.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Political ad irony!
So I finally saw Mark Strama's "attack ad" on Patrick McGuinness.
I find attacking someone for being a blogger, when you have been a supposed "champion" for social media, highly ironic.
Hilarity ensued when the ad quoted the Statesman as having "expected a lot" from Strama as state representative. Of course they did, they're the Statesman. But funnier than that was the idea of Strama as a "moderate Democrat."
Do moderate Democrats regularly get contributions from George Soros' daughter-in-law in their first campaigns? Mark Strama did.
Do moderate Democrats file legislation to force Texans to pay for expensive energy subsidies? Mark Strama did.
Do moderate Democrats endorse Barack Obama, Bill White, and Rick Noriega? Mark Strama did.
Do moderate Democrats receive support from pro-choice organizations and Planned Parenthood? Mark Strama has.
Do moderate Democrats work to turn a relatively peaceful legislative session into a bill-killing nightmare by pseudo-filibuster?
So much for putting Texas above "politics." Strama's latest tack shows he's feeling the pressure - no Democrat is a safe incumbent this year, no matter how slick or charming.
I find attacking someone for being a blogger, when you have been a supposed "champion" for social media, highly ironic.
Hilarity ensued when the ad quoted the Statesman as having "expected a lot" from Strama as state representative. Of course they did, they're the Statesman. But funnier than that was the idea of Strama as a "moderate Democrat."
Do moderate Democrats regularly get contributions from George Soros' daughter-in-law in their first campaigns? Mark Strama did.
Do moderate Democrats file legislation to force Texans to pay for expensive energy subsidies? Mark Strama did.
Do moderate Democrats endorse Barack Obama, Bill White, and Rick Noriega? Mark Strama did.
Do moderate Democrats receive support from pro-choice organizations and Planned Parenthood? Mark Strama has.
Do moderate Democrats work to turn a relatively peaceful legislative session into a bill-killing nightmare by pseudo-filibuster?
So much for putting Texas above "politics." Strama's latest tack shows he's feeling the pressure - no Democrat is a safe incumbent this year, no matter how slick or charming.
How to find dead voters and more
A quick link round-up of interesting things this fine, busy Monday afternoon.
The Sunshine Review Blog has a great guide to finding dead voters, and lets us know that Texas Watchdog will be giving more information on this matter during #FOIAchat on Friday afternoon (1pm CST).
Speaking of voter fraud, Pajamas Media's Bryan Preston has some information about allegations of poll worker misconduct in Harris County (home of the now-infamous voter registration fraud and voting machine fire).
The Texas House of Representatives website finally got a redesign (now we just need to replace about a dozen of the state reps whose pictures are on this page, and I'll feel pretty good). The Texas Senate is still lagging behind in the 20th century.
Texans for Lawsuit Reform is letting the public know that plaintiffs' attorneys donations are high this election cycle. At this point, I'd like to remind people that plaintiffs' attorneys aren't the only ones with dubious motives this election cycle.
Don't believe everything you're hearing about the GOP and CD-17. Bill Flores is doing quite well, and all the DCCC spinning in the world won't stop him.
Someone please tell Paul Krugman to stop drinking his own Kool-Aid.
Five signs your political party is in trouble.
Tabitha Hale reminds us: COMPLACENCY IS NOT AN OPTION.
The Colorado Supreme Court is going to take up concealed carry on college campuses.
David Bernstein talks about alternatives to Woodrow Wilson, and Jonah Goldberg has a response to a Slate magazine article that attempted a defense of Wilson. This is for you history buffs who get that elections have ramifications. All elections.
We may be looking at Perry winning by ten, according to the new UT/TT poll released today. And this is just one of the reasons why, I think.
More Texans are choosing to vote early - but I should note, unaffiliated general election voters are still not really getting to the polls. We will know more tomorrow night in Travis County (and incidentally, I've learned that Hays County gets their voter turnout data out same-day - Travis needs to learn a few lessons in efficiency and service).
The Sunshine Review Blog has a great guide to finding dead voters, and lets us know that Texas Watchdog will be giving more information on this matter during #FOIAchat on Friday afternoon (1pm CST).
Speaking of voter fraud, Pajamas Media's Bryan Preston has some information about allegations of poll worker misconduct in Harris County (home of the now-infamous voter registration fraud and voting machine fire).
The Texas House of Representatives website finally got a redesign (now we just need to replace about a dozen of the state reps whose pictures are on this page, and I'll feel pretty good). The Texas Senate is still lagging behind in the 20th century.
Texans for Lawsuit Reform is letting the public know that plaintiffs' attorneys donations are high this election cycle. At this point, I'd like to remind people that plaintiffs' attorneys aren't the only ones with dubious motives this election cycle.
Don't believe everything you're hearing about the GOP and CD-17. Bill Flores is doing quite well, and all the DCCC spinning in the world won't stop him.
Someone please tell Paul Krugman to stop drinking his own Kool-Aid.
Five signs your political party is in trouble.
Tabitha Hale reminds us: COMPLACENCY IS NOT AN OPTION.
The Colorado Supreme Court is going to take up concealed carry on college campuses.
David Bernstein talks about alternatives to Woodrow Wilson, and Jonah Goldberg has a response to a Slate magazine article that attempted a defense of Wilson. This is for you history buffs who get that elections have ramifications. All elections.
We may be looking at Perry winning by ten, according to the new UT/TT poll released today. And this is just one of the reasons why, I think.
More Texans are choosing to vote early - but I should note, unaffiliated general election voters are still not really getting to the polls. We will know more tomorrow night in Travis County (and incidentally, I've learned that Hays County gets their voter turnout data out same-day - Travis needs to learn a few lessons in efficiency and service).
Early voting - historical trends and analysis from ACC
This is extremely interesting, if you're a numbers geek and/or like to try and read the proverbial tea leaves. The Austin Community College Center for Public Policy and Political Studies released this study after a year's worth of work by Professor Stefan Haag, and I found it up on Burnt Orange Report.
I'll be interested to see whether 2010 early voting follows some of the trends (the steady uptick over the years of early voters, the tendency for early voters to be Anglo-American, female, over a certain age). It will also be interesting to see whether we have a huge upswing in early voters at the end of this week (history shows us we will, and while there have been slight anomalies we are so far seeing just what we'd expect.
Incidentally, early voting is open this week in Travis County from 7am to 7pm, every day through Friday. There are also a handful of mobile voting locations open throughout the county. Exercise your right, fulfill your duty, and VOTE.
I'll be interested to see whether 2010 early voting follows some of the trends (the steady uptick over the years of early voters, the tendency for early voters to be Anglo-American, female, over a certain age). It will also be interesting to see whether we have a huge upswing in early voters at the end of this week (history shows us we will, and while there have been slight anomalies we are so far seeing just what we'd expect.
Incidentally, early voting is open this week in Travis County from 7am to 7pm, every day through Friday. There are also a handful of mobile voting locations open throughout the county. Exercise your right, fulfill your duty, and VOTE.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
Thursday, October 21, 2010
State Legislature Corruption
Labels:
political corruption
This aired on ABC's Nightline last night. I warn you now, it's pretty disturbing. There is only one Texan who makes an appearance, early on in the video.
Every time you kvetch about having to give your name, employer, and occupation when you donate to a candidate, just know that it is the least you can do toward promoting an open government. The very least.
Every time you kvetch about having to give your name, employer, and occupation when you donate to a candidate, just know that it is the least you can do toward promoting an open government. The very least.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
What the Texas House will need to "address the budget shortfall"
An email from Speaker Straus this afternoon laid out the following four principles for addressing the budget shortfall:
• One: We must spend no more than our available revenue;
• Two: We must not assume the use of the Rainy Day Fund;
• Three: We must limit government, and
• Four: We must not raise taxes.
In addition to principles, let me suggest that to achieve them, Texans will need to do the following in the next two weeks:
Get rid of as many incumbent Democrats in the Texas House as possible.
Vote 'em out. Why? Because the Democrats do not have the ability, nor the will, to limit government - they talk pretty, but can't make themselves commit to actual cuts or limitations so as to avoid spending more than available revenue. They do not believe that the Rainy Day Fund should be used for anything other than perpetuating bureaucracy. I don't think I have to say anything about how Democrats feel about taxes.
I'm excited that the Speaker intends to lead a fiscally responsible House during session - but he'll need the right members following him in order to achieve it.
• One: We must spend no more than our available revenue;
• Two: We must not assume the use of the Rainy Day Fund;
• Three: We must limit government, and
• Four: We must not raise taxes.
In addition to principles, let me suggest that to achieve them, Texans will need to do the following in the next two weeks:
Get rid of as many incumbent Democrats in the Texas House as possible.
Vote 'em out. Why? Because the Democrats do not have the ability, nor the will, to limit government - they talk pretty, but can't make themselves commit to actual cuts or limitations so as to avoid spending more than available revenue. They do not believe that the Rainy Day Fund should be used for anything other than perpetuating bureaucracy. I don't think I have to say anything about how Democrats feel about taxes.
I'm excited that the Speaker intends to lead a fiscally responsible House during session - but he'll need the right members following him in order to achieve it.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Defining "bipartisan" down
We all hear the term "bipartisan" thrown around during election season - it's a word that is used to convey how "affable" a politician is, how much they'll reach across the political aisle to get work done. Merriam-Webster defines "bipartisan" as "of, relating to, or involving members of two parties; specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties." Fair enough. Bipartisan in the strictest sense implies compromise. Compromise implies that the parties meet halfway. It suggests a little give and a little get.
Democrats LOVE the word "bipartisan." It tests well in controlled settings, among voters who don't have strong ideological ties or leanings. This campaign season, "bipartisan" is being used to combat Republicans who have objections to things like the individual mandate, the coming tidal wave of taxes and spending associated with the health care "reform" legislation, and the "stealth" influence of partisan Democrats in the 81st Legislative Session in the Texas House of Representatives.
When Democrat House members point to their status as committee chairmen in the 81st session, and use Speaker Straus' "trust" in them as a symbol of their "bipartisanship," you should think twice before believing them. Let's recall the election of the speaker - how it was the large Democratic minority and a handful of moderate/liberal Republicans who got him elected. Don't you think - don't you realize - that it wasn't the spirit of bipartisanship that led to their appointments, but good old-fashioned cronyism ("you scratch my back, I scratch yours")? Good or bad, shouldn't we tell the truth about committee chairmanships, and stop using them as evidence of so-called "bipartisanship?"
When Democrat House members say with a cute smile and affable shrug of their shoulders that they want to leave "ideology" at the door, and put Texas ahead of "politics," it would be wise to look again at the recording of the Democratic filibuster of voter identification legislation. The meltdown at the end of last session, which caused important legislation (like Texas Dept. of Insurance and Texas Dept. of Transportation sunset legislation) to be pushed to 2011, was orchestrated and perpetrated by partisan Democrats. Their fear of one piece of legislation led to partisan rancor that matched that of the 2003 session. Just who participated in that filibuster? The May 27, 2009 front page of the Austin American Statesman shows Mark Strama, Jim Dunnam, and Trey Martinez-Fischer - and gives each of them credit for participating in the slowdown.
Why was this so important? Voter identification is one of the most popular issues among the Texas electorate. Beyond that, however, the filibuster showed that any "bipartisan" spirit would quickly be thrown to the wind if the Democrats didn't get their way. Forget compromise! Forget the work that had gone into major sunset legislation! All of it must DIE to appease the liberal minority in the Texas House!
All of this is before we start looking at voting records (Strama ranked as one of the three most liberal Democrats last session by the state's longest and most consistent ranking system). When we go even further, and look at bills filed and donations made/received, we start seeing more of the truth.
So, is "bipartisanship" a good or a bad thing? In this country, the term often means more compromise on the right than on the left, and when Republicans are accused of not being "bipartisan" enough, it almost always means they've refused to kowtow to Democratic interest groups and platform issues. Democrats are never accused of not being bipartisan enough - even though they stick together within their echo chamber to endorse each other and champion each other's pet causes.
Cooperation among elected officials of varying ideological tendencies and party affiliation is not a bad thing in and of itself. But it is deceptive for Democrats to pull the mantle of bipartisanship over themselves to deflect criticism - it is all too often a way for them to avoid discussing why they not only receive money from radical pro-choice groups, but also give money to them. A way for them to avoid discussing why they've never given their names or their money to Republicans, but expect Republicans to do both for them. A way for them to avoid explaining why they vote in favor of and file radical, unpopular legislation, and participate in shutting down the productivity of government to avoid having to vote against legislation that could end their careers.
Democrats LOVE the word "bipartisan." It tests well in controlled settings, among voters who don't have strong ideological ties or leanings. This campaign season, "bipartisan" is being used to combat Republicans who have objections to things like the individual mandate, the coming tidal wave of taxes and spending associated with the health care "reform" legislation, and the "stealth" influence of partisan Democrats in the 81st Legislative Session in the Texas House of Representatives.
When Democrat House members point to their status as committee chairmen in the 81st session, and use Speaker Straus' "trust" in them as a symbol of their "bipartisanship," you should think twice before believing them. Let's recall the election of the speaker - how it was the large Democratic minority and a handful of moderate/liberal Republicans who got him elected. Don't you think - don't you realize - that it wasn't the spirit of bipartisanship that led to their appointments, but good old-fashioned cronyism ("you scratch my back, I scratch yours")? Good or bad, shouldn't we tell the truth about committee chairmanships, and stop using them as evidence of so-called "bipartisanship?"
When Democrat House members say with a cute smile and affable shrug of their shoulders that they want to leave "ideology" at the door, and put Texas ahead of "politics," it would be wise to look again at the recording of the Democratic filibuster of voter identification legislation. The meltdown at the end of last session, which caused important legislation (like Texas Dept. of Insurance and Texas Dept. of Transportation sunset legislation) to be pushed to 2011, was orchestrated and perpetrated by partisan Democrats. Their fear of one piece of legislation led to partisan rancor that matched that of the 2003 session. Just who participated in that filibuster? The May 27, 2009 front page of the Austin American Statesman shows Mark Strama, Jim Dunnam, and Trey Martinez-Fischer - and gives each of them credit for participating in the slowdown.
 |
| Caption from Statesman, May 27, 2009: "There was no shortage of talk in the House chamber Tuesday as Democrats - including Reps. Mark Strama of Austin, Trey Martinez Fischer of San Antonio, and caucus leader Jim Dunnam of Waco - tried to run out the clock on the voter identification proposal by debating bills at length." |
Why was this so important? Voter identification is one of the most popular issues among the Texas electorate. Beyond that, however, the filibuster showed that any "bipartisan" spirit would quickly be thrown to the wind if the Democrats didn't get their way. Forget compromise! Forget the work that had gone into major sunset legislation! All of it must DIE to appease the liberal minority in the Texas House!
All of this is before we start looking at voting records (Strama ranked as one of the three most liberal Democrats last session by the state's longest and most consistent ranking system). When we go even further, and look at bills filed and donations made/received, we start seeing more of the truth.
So, is "bipartisanship" a good or a bad thing? In this country, the term often means more compromise on the right than on the left, and when Republicans are accused of not being "bipartisan" enough, it almost always means they've refused to kowtow to Democratic interest groups and platform issues. Democrats are never accused of not being bipartisan enough - even though they stick together within their echo chamber to endorse each other and champion each other's pet causes.
Cooperation among elected officials of varying ideological tendencies and party affiliation is not a bad thing in and of itself. But it is deceptive for Democrats to pull the mantle of bipartisanship over themselves to deflect criticism - it is all too often a way for them to avoid discussing why they not only receive money from radical pro-choice groups, but also give money to them. A way for them to avoid discussing why they've never given their names or their money to Republicans, but expect Republicans to do both for them. A way for them to avoid explaining why they vote in favor of and file radical, unpopular legislation, and participate in shutting down the productivity of government to avoid having to vote against legislation that could end their careers.
WilCo Democratic chairman resigns, endorses Gonzales in HD 52
He cites differences with the state and national Democratic parties, and his personal support of Larry Gonzales for House District 52 as his reasons for stepping down.
H/T Williamson County Conservative.
Monday, October 18, 2010
First day of early voting saw high turnout
Labels:
early voting,
election 2010,
travis county
We'll have more data once we know who all voted today, but we do have the initial number for Travis County: 10,058.
That's twice the number who voted early on the first day of early voting in 2006, at least according to the Travis County Democratic Party's tweet from earlier this evening.
That's twice the number who voted early on the first day of early voting in 2006, at least according to the Travis County Democratic Party's tweet from earlier this evening.
Ethics complaint filed against Diana Maldonado
Williamson County Conservative alerted us to this last week. An official complaint has been filed against Rep. Maldonado - she's made a habit, it seems, of leaving off contributions and expenditures from her campaign ethics reports. A second report was filed last week claiming that Maldonado's Personal Financial Statement failed to report any income.
Should be interesting to see what comes out of this.
Should be interesting to see what comes out of this.
What are they saying about HD 50?
Travis Precinct 211 has a breakdown of the candidates and issues in HD 50.
UrbanGrounds posts about the race here, and endorses Patrick McGuinness here.
Travis Monitor talks about Texans for Lawsuit Reform's misguided and possibly nepotistic endorsement of Mark Strama (it was also reprinted by Texas Broadside). There are more details in this post. Travis Monitor also discussed Strama's dubious voting history in this post from July.
Ramparts360 shares the Patrick McGuinness television advertisement here. The blog also posted one of McGuinness' letters to supporters and voters in HD 50, and shared an introductory video in this post.
Disrupt the Narrative talked about Strama and McGuinness in this post.
Williamson County Conservative posted here about poll results in HD 50.
UrbanGrounds posts about the race here, and endorses Patrick McGuinness here.
Travis Monitor talks about Texans for Lawsuit Reform's misguided and possibly nepotistic endorsement of Mark Strama (it was also reprinted by Texas Broadside). There are more details in this post. Travis Monitor also discussed Strama's dubious voting history in this post from July.
Ramparts360 shares the Patrick McGuinness television advertisement here. The blog also posted one of McGuinness' letters to supporters and voters in HD 50, and shared an introductory video in this post.
Disrupt the Narrative talked about Strama and McGuinness in this post.
Williamson County Conservative posted here about poll results in HD 50.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Rep. England, why did you switch parties?
Don't ask State Rep. Kirk England (D-Dallas) about his party switch. The one-time squishy Republican switched parties a few cycles ago, and was asked about this move last night at a League of Women Voters event.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Straus, Berman react to Chisum annoucement
Current Speaker of the Texas House, Joe Straus, responded to Rep. Chisum's announcement. Lone Star Report has the full story, and here's the key quote from Speaker Straus:
"In these critical weeks before the election, I believe my fellow Republicans should be focused on building our Republican majority in the Texas House, as I am working hard to do." (more on what Straus has been doing for Republicans here)
Meanwhile, Rep. Leo Berman (R-Tyler) has also reacted - you'll recall that earlier this summer, he announced his intention to run for speaker as well. He's pulling out and backing Chisum - Texas Tribune has more.
"In these critical weeks before the election, I believe my fellow Republicans should be focused on building our Republican majority in the Texas House, as I am working hard to do." (more on what Straus has been doing for Republicans here)
Meanwhile, Rep. Leo Berman (R-Tyler) has also reacted - you'll recall that earlier this summer, he announced his intention to run for speaker as well. He's pulling out and backing Chisum - Texas Tribune has more.
Official: Chisum running for speaker (updated)
The Statesman is reporting that legislators received word from Rep. Warren Chisum (R-Pampa) that he is officially running for speaker.
Confirmation from staffers that the letter was hand-delivered.
Jason Embry, the Statesman's Capitol bureau chief, reports that Chisum called current Speaker Straus "weak and ineffective."
The story will be updated as the day goes on. Check out Embry's post here.
ETA: So who is Warren Chisum? He's a Pampa native who has served in the Legislature since 1989. He was chairman of the House Appropriations Committee from 2007-2009. He represents HD 88, a west Texas district encompassing the counties of Armstrong, Bailey, Briscoe, Castro, Childress, Collingsworth, Donley, Hall, Hansford, Hemphill, Hutchinson, Lamb, Lipscomb, Ochiltree, Parmer, Roberts, Swisher, and Wheeler.
Rep. Chisum has a cumulative lifetime rating of 76 from Young Conservatives of Texas; in the last session, he rated an 80 from the group. He received a 90% rating from Empower Texans in the last session and has been endorsed by the organization (that rating is up from 64.29% in the previous session). Chisum served as vice chairman for the Environmental Regulation Committee last session, and was a member of the Select Committee on Federal Legislation and the committee on Licensing and Administrative Procedures.
How does all of that compare to the current speaker, Republican Joe Straus of San Antonio? I wrote an analysis of Straus' voting history as a representative in 2009, which you can view in its entirety here.
ETA 2: Texas Tribune and the Lone Star Report each have a copy of the letter that went to legislators from Chisum today. Texas Watchdog tweeted moments ago to share Chisum's 2010 personal financial statement.
ETA 3: I have a follow-up post here with Straus' reaction and Berman's plans.
Confirmation from staffers that the letter was hand-delivered.
Jason Embry, the Statesman's Capitol bureau chief, reports that Chisum called current Speaker Straus "weak and ineffective."
The story will be updated as the day goes on. Check out Embry's post here.
ETA: So who is Warren Chisum? He's a Pampa native who has served in the Legislature since 1989. He was chairman of the House Appropriations Committee from 2007-2009. He represents HD 88, a west Texas district encompassing the counties of Armstrong, Bailey, Briscoe, Castro, Childress, Collingsworth, Donley, Hall, Hansford, Hemphill, Hutchinson, Lamb, Lipscomb, Ochiltree, Parmer, Roberts, Swisher, and Wheeler.
Rep. Chisum has a cumulative lifetime rating of 76 from Young Conservatives of Texas; in the last session, he rated an 80 from the group. He received a 90% rating from Empower Texans in the last session and has been endorsed by the organization (that rating is up from 64.29% in the previous session). Chisum served as vice chairman for the Environmental Regulation Committee last session, and was a member of the Select Committee on Federal Legislation and the committee on Licensing and Administrative Procedures.
How does all of that compare to the current speaker, Republican Joe Straus of San Antonio? I wrote an analysis of Straus' voting history as a representative in 2009, which you can view in its entirety here.
ETA 2: Texas Tribune and the Lone Star Report each have a copy of the letter that went to legislators from Chisum today. Texas Watchdog tweeted moments ago to share Chisum's 2010 personal financial statement.
ETA 3: I have a follow-up post here with Straus' reaction and Berman's plans.
Circuit breaker tax attempt in the 81st Lege
Labels:
81st legislative session,
taxes
Did you know that Democrats in the Texas Senate, and the Texas House, made an effort to create an income tax last session? The Williamson County Conservative has more on this.
HB 3983 was initially an innocuous local bill filed by Rep. Rodriguez - in the Senate, Sen. Watson added on a measure (previously a failed bill by Rep. Villareal) that would have required the State Comptroller's office to study the possibility of instituting a so-called "circuit breaker tax" in Texas.
Among the House conferees on HB 3983 were Rep. Diana Maldonado and Rep. Donna Howard, two of central Texas' dubious liberal stars.
What would a "circuit breaker tax" mean for Texans? WilCo Conservative chimes in with this, emphasis mine: "This so-called affordable housing measure has several troubling implications. For one, the State would be required to compensate local government entities for any reduction in revenue, placing an additional burden on the State budget. Even worse is Maldonado and friends' attempt to redistribute income. Under HB 3983, lower income individuals buying homes above their means would be rewarded with a reduced tax bill, and inevitably, higher-earning individuals who prudently purchased more modest homes would be punished with a heavier property tax bill. In other words, regardless of your home-purchase decisions, your 'property tax' assessment would be based on your income."
Governor Perry vetoed the bill, and so such things never came to pass. But count on Villareal and his central Texas cronies to bring this one back up - assuming they all come back next session.
Which, with things like this stealth income tax in their voting history, should not be a foregone conclusion.
(Update: UrbanGrounds makes the case to boot Diana Maldonado from the House here)
HB 3983 was initially an innocuous local bill filed by Rep. Rodriguez - in the Senate, Sen. Watson added on a measure (previously a failed bill by Rep. Villareal) that would have required the State Comptroller's office to study the possibility of instituting a so-called "circuit breaker tax" in Texas.
Among the House conferees on HB 3983 were Rep. Diana Maldonado and Rep. Donna Howard, two of central Texas' dubious liberal stars.
What would a "circuit breaker tax" mean for Texans? WilCo Conservative chimes in with this, emphasis mine: "This so-called affordable housing measure has several troubling implications. For one, the State would be required to compensate local government entities for any reduction in revenue, placing an additional burden on the State budget. Even worse is Maldonado and friends' attempt to redistribute income. Under HB 3983, lower income individuals buying homes above their means would be rewarded with a reduced tax bill, and inevitably, higher-earning individuals who prudently purchased more modest homes would be punished with a heavier property tax bill. In other words, regardless of your home-purchase decisions, your 'property tax' assessment would be based on your income."
Governor Perry vetoed the bill, and so such things never came to pass. But count on Villareal and his central Texas cronies to bring this one back up - assuming they all come back next session.
Which, with things like this stealth income tax in their voting history, should not be a foregone conclusion.
(Update: UrbanGrounds makes the case to boot Diana Maldonado from the House here)
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Down the ballot in Travis County
Labels:
bond election,
city of austin,
eanes isd,
election 2010,
taxes
After you cast your vote in the elections for various government officials, your ballot may have propositions from your local government entities. Depending on where you live, there could be many. I've taken the liberty of posting here each of the ballot propositions on Travis County ballots; not everyone in Travis County has the ability to vote on these, and many of them are rather limited. Where possible, I've put the precincts to which each of these apply. I've also tried to include any research information that might be useful to you (for/against, background, etc).
To help you out further, I suggest checking out Ballotbook, an extensive online resource for candidate information and general election information. News8 has an interactive election map. The Travis County Elections website has sample ballots and polling location information.
City of Austin Bond Election (many precincts - full list on sample ballot)
Prop. 1, City of Austin
The issuance of $90,000,000 in tax supported general obligation bonds and notes for constructing, improving, and reconstructing roads and streets; constructing, improving, and reconstructing sidewalks, bikeways, and other bicycle and pedestrian mobility infrastructure; improving traffic signal synchronization and control systems; acquiring and installing traffic signals, constructing, improving, and reconstructing and improving drainage facilities related to these improvements; funding design and engineering for roads, streets, drainage, traffic signal, sidewalks, bikeways, and other bicycle and pedestrian mobility infrastructure; and acquiring land and interests in land and property necessary to do so; and the levy of tax sufficient to pay for the bonds and notes.
City of Austin website on Mobility Bond
COST Austin Recommends "No" Vote
KVUE story on Mobility Bond debate
City of Rollingwood, Texas Special Election (Precinct 307)
Prop. 1, City of Rollingwood
Letters to editor in Westlake Picayune on water and taxes in Rollingwood
Texas Local Goverment Code Section 505.154 and 505.304
City of Bee Cave Special Election (Precincts 316, 324)
Prop. 1, City of Bee Cave
City of Round Rock Proposition Election (Precincts 200, 219, 225)
Prop. 1, City of Round Rock
Prop the Rock - Vote Yes
City of Round Rock article on Prop. 1
News 8 story on Prop 1
Austin Community College District Special Election, Elgin ISD Annexation (Precincts 106, 107)
ACC Proposition Elgin ISD Annexation
ACC's What Elgin Senior Citizens Need to Know
Bastrop residents fighting ACC annexation
Opposition to annexation article on Austin Chronicle
Coupland ISD info from city of Coupland
Kandice Samuelson is former Coupland ISD school board president (Google search)
Mike Welch is current incumbent
Martin Samuelson, Jami Sewalson, are former Coupland ISD board members
Suzy Clifton is involved with the Coupland PTA
No information available on Kenny Laymons or Mark Krenek (Google search on Mark Krenek)
Eanes Independent School District Bond Election (Precincts 307, 317, 318, 324, 330, 338, 345, 347, 364)
Prop. 1, Eanes ISD
To help you out further, I suggest checking out Ballotbook, an extensive online resource for candidate information and general election information. News8 has an interactive election map. The Travis County Elections website has sample ballots and polling location information.
City of Austin Bond Election (many precincts - full list on sample ballot)
Prop. 1, City of Austin
The issuance of $90,000,000 in tax supported general obligation bonds and notes for constructing, improving, and reconstructing roads and streets; constructing, improving, and reconstructing sidewalks, bikeways, and other bicycle and pedestrian mobility infrastructure; improving traffic signal synchronization and control systems; acquiring and installing traffic signals, constructing, improving, and reconstructing and improving drainage facilities related to these improvements; funding design and engineering for roads, streets, drainage, traffic signal, sidewalks, bikeways, and other bicycle and pedestrian mobility infrastructure; and acquiring land and interests in land and property necessary to do so; and the levy of tax sufficient to pay for the bonds and notes.
City of Austin website on Mobility Bond
COST Austin Recommends "No" Vote
KVUE story on Mobility Bond debate
City of Rollingwood, Texas Special Election (Precinct 307)
Prop. 1, City of Rollingwood
- The use of the Type B (Rollingwood Community Development Corporation) sales and use tax proceeds for infrastructure relating to water supply facilities or water conservation programs, as authorized by Sections 505.154 and 505.304, Local Government Code.
Letters to editor in Westlake Picayune on water and taxes in Rollingwood
Texas Local Goverment Code Section 505.154 and 505.304
City of Bee Cave Special Election (Precincts 316, 324)
Prop. 1, City of Bee Cave
- Shall the street and maintenance sales and use tax authorized under Texas Tax Code Chapter 327 be reduced from the rate of one-fourth of one percent to the rate of one-eighth of one percent to continue providing revenue for maintenance and repair of municipal streets and the Type B economic sales and use tax be increased from the rate of one-fourth of one percent to the rate of three-eighths of one percent to undertake any project authorized by the voters when such sales tax was originally authorized by the voters or which now is authorized by Chapter 505 or Chapter 501, Texas Local Government Code.
Texas Local Government Code Chapter 505 and Chapter 501
City of Round Rock Proposition Election (Precincts 200, 219, 225)
Prop. 1, City of Round Rock
- Expand the purposes of the existing Type B sales and use tax for those authorized projects as described in Chapters 501 and 505, Texas Local Government Code?
Prop the Rock - Vote Yes
City of Round Rock article on Prop. 1
News 8 story on Prop 1
Austin Community College District Special Election, Elgin ISD Annexation (Precincts 106, 107)
ACC Proposition Elgin ISD Annexation
- Annexation of the following territory for junior college purposes: All of the territory in the Elgin Independent School District.
ACC's What Elgin Senior Citizens Need to Know
Bastrop residents fighting ACC annexation
Opposition to annexation article on Austin Chronicle
Austin Community College District Special Election, Hays CISD Annexation (Precincts 310, 403, 404, 406)
ACC Proposition Hays CISD Annexation
- Annexation of the following territory for junior college purposes: All of the territory in the Hays Consolidated Independent School District.
Coupland Independent School District School Board Trustee Election (Precinct 107)
Coupland ISD Board of Trustees - Vote for none, one, two, three or four- Mike Welch
- Kenny Laymons (Write-in)
- Jami C. Sewalson (Write-in)
- Suzy M. Clifton (Write-in)
- Kandice J. Samuelson (Write-in)
- Martin Samuelson (Write-in)
- Mark Krenek (Write-in)
Coupland ISD info from city of Coupland
Kandice Samuelson is former Coupland ISD school board president (Google search)
Mike Welch is current incumbent
Martin Samuelson, Jami Sewalson, are former Coupland ISD board members
Suzy Clifton is involved with the Coupland PTA
No information available on Kenny Laymons or Mark Krenek (Google search on Mark Krenek)
Eanes Independent School District Bond Election (Precincts 307, 317, 318, 324, 330, 338, 345, 347, 364)
Prop. 1, Eanes ISD
- The issuance of $72,000,000 of school building bonds for acquiring, constructing, renovating, improving, and equipping school buildings, purchasing necessary sites therefor, acquiring school buses, and the levying of a tax in payment of the bonds and to pay the costs of any credit agreements executed or authorized in anticipation of, in relation to, or in connection with the bonds.
Prop 2, Eanes ISD
- The issuance of $57,000,000 of school building bonds for acquiring, constructing, renovating, improving, and equipping school buildings, purchasing necessary sites therefor, including constructing, renovating, improving, and equipping elementary schools, and the levying of a tax in payment of the bonds and to pay the costs of any credit agreements executed or authorized in anticipation of, in relation to, or in connection with the bonds.
Prop. 3, Eanes ISD
Travis County Emergency Service District No. 4 Local Sales and Use Tax Election (Precincts 101, 105, 111, 121, 141, 151, 153)
Prop. 1, TCESD NO. 4
Comptroller's office website on local sales and use tax
Travis County Emergency Service District No. 5 Also Known as Manchaca Local Sales and Use Tax Election (Precincts 302, 309, 310, 315, 321, 323, 354)
Prop. 1, TCESD NO. 5
Manchaca Fire & Rescue on Facebook
Comptroller's office website on local sales and use tax
- The issuance of $20,500,000 of school building bonds for acquiring, constructing, renovating, improving, and equipping school buildings, purchasing necessary sites therefor, including a swim center, student fitness and activity facilities and parking facilities, and the levying of a tax in payment of the bonds and to pay the costs of any credit agreements executed or authorized in anticipation of, in relation to, or in connection with the bonds.
Travis County Emergency Service District No. 4 Local Sales and Use Tax Election (Precincts 101, 105, 111, 121, 141, 151, 153)
Prop. 1, TCESD NO. 4
- The increase in the rate of the local sales and use tax imposed by Travis County Emergency Services District No. 4 from one percent (1.0%) to two percent (2.0%) for all territory within the district except the territory that is located within the Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
Comptroller's office website on local sales and use tax
Travis County Emergency Service District No. 5 Also Known as Manchaca Local Sales and Use Tax Election (Precincts 302, 309, 310, 315, 321, 323, 354)
Prop. 1, TCESD NO. 5
- The adoption of an increase in the rate of local sales and use tax imposed by the Travis County Emergency Services District No. 5 Also Known as Manchaca fire/rescue from one percent (1.0%) to two percent (2.0%) for all territory within the district except the territory that is located within the corporate boundaries of the city of San Leanna.
Manchaca Fire & Rescue on Facebook
Comptroller's office website on local sales and use tax
Sunday, October 10, 2010
November 2010 Ballot Propositions
Labels:
election 2010,
what's on the ballot
(If you live in Travis County, I've written out a guide to ballot propositions across the county - including precincts to which they apply. Check it out here)
I want to let you all in on a little secret about general elections in Texas in even-numbered years.
The only propositions on November ballots in even-numbered years are going to be from your city, your county, or other local entity. Not the state of Texas. The reason for this - amendment propositions from the state of Texas show up in the November elections in odd numbered years, after the Legislature passes bills that require them. That's it.
And there are party-oriented ballot propositions in the March primaries, which only happen in even-numbered years.
To find out what local ballot propositions may be on your ballot this November, you need to check with your county elections office (here's the link for Travis County). And the National Taxpayers' Union has a nifty guide to local ballot propositions here. The Texas Secretary of State's office has a great "what's on the ballot" feature for you as well.
(I noticed a spike in Google-search-related hits to my blog posts about the November 2009 and March 2010 ballot propositions, hence this post. I hope the information here is helpful)
ETA: I heard today that there are emails circulating that are prompting people to call their legislators and demand more information on Props. 2 and 3, that were on the ballot last November (both of them passed, by the way). Please please please, check the email for signs that the information is out of date - statewide ballot props, and constitutional amendments, are NOT on the November 2010 ballot. If you need information on local ballot props, see the links above. Thanks!!
I want to let you all in on a little secret about general elections in Texas in even-numbered years.
The only propositions on November ballots in even-numbered years are going to be from your city, your county, or other local entity. Not the state of Texas. The reason for this - amendment propositions from the state of Texas show up in the November elections in odd numbered years, after the Legislature passes bills that require them. That's it.
And there are party-oriented ballot propositions in the March primaries, which only happen in even-numbered years.
To find out what local ballot propositions may be on your ballot this November, you need to check with your county elections office (here's the link for Travis County). And the National Taxpayers' Union has a nifty guide to local ballot propositions here. The Texas Secretary of State's office has a great "what's on the ballot" feature for you as well.
(I noticed a spike in Google-search-related hits to my blog posts about the November 2009 and March 2010 ballot propositions, hence this post. I hope the information here is helpful)
ETA: I heard today that there are emails circulating that are prompting people to call their legislators and demand more information on Props. 2 and 3, that were on the ballot last November (both of them passed, by the way). Please please please, check the email for signs that the information is out of date - statewide ballot props, and constitutional amendments, are NOT on the November 2010 ballot. If you need information on local ballot props, see the links above. Thanks!!
Friday, October 08, 2010
Gambling interests taking bets in Texas House races
The infamous Texans for Economic Development, a PAC set up to support pro-gambling candidates for state office in Texas, threw around quite a bit of cash in time for the 30-day reports.
I'll highlight the central Texas legislators and candidates who have benefited from the gambling lobby's biggest funder. $5000 contributions went to Democrats Mark Strama, Donna Howard, Diana Maldonado, Abel Herrero, Allen Vaught, Chris Turner, Ellen Cohen, Hubert Vo, Joe Heflin, Joe Moody, Kristi Thibaut, Paula Pierson, Robert Miklos, Valinda Bolton, Veronica Gonzales, and Yvonne Gonzales-Toureilles. TED also gave $5000 contributions to Republicans Dan Branch and Chuck Hopson.
Their $2500 went to Democrats Scott Hochberg, Rolando Gutierrez, Lon Burnam, Jessica Farrar, Jim McReynolds, and Patrick Rose.
Texans for Economic Development currently has $230,000 in cash on hand, so don't expect that their spending ended on 9/23.
This particular PAC isn't the only funder that supports gambling, but their influence in these races is specifically meant to champion gambling expansion in Texas. When you look at the races they're involved with, it's easy to see that protecting certain elected officials is important to their scheme. Many of the weaker Democrats on this list will be instrumental in passing gambling legislation. Make no mistake about whether gambling will be an issue this coming session, either - House Appropriations Chairman Jim Pitts has already brought it up as a possible "solution" to the projected budget shortfall. The Texas Senate remains the major obstacle for gambling expansion - and Lt. Gov. Dewhurst is not particularly keen on it, either - but the greater clamor in the House could make the difference.
This is another reason, in a long line of reasons, why what happens in the down-ballot Texas State House races is so vital this election cycle. Y'all probably know how I stand on this particular issue, but even if you don't agree with me on it, you can probably see how the Texas House could affect your own hopes for it.
There is a lot of PAC money in these Texas House races, both Republican and Democrat. Should make for interesting reading.
I'll highlight the central Texas legislators and candidates who have benefited from the gambling lobby's biggest funder. $5000 contributions went to Democrats Mark Strama, Donna Howard, Diana Maldonado, Abel Herrero, Allen Vaught, Chris Turner, Ellen Cohen, Hubert Vo, Joe Heflin, Joe Moody, Kristi Thibaut, Paula Pierson, Robert Miklos, Valinda Bolton, Veronica Gonzales, and Yvonne Gonzales-Toureilles. TED also gave $5000 contributions to Republicans Dan Branch and Chuck Hopson.
Their $2500 went to Democrats Scott Hochberg, Rolando Gutierrez, Lon Burnam, Jessica Farrar, Jim McReynolds, and Patrick Rose.
Texans for Economic Development currently has $230,000 in cash on hand, so don't expect that their spending ended on 9/23.
This particular PAC isn't the only funder that supports gambling, but their influence in these races is specifically meant to champion gambling expansion in Texas. When you look at the races they're involved with, it's easy to see that protecting certain elected officials is important to their scheme. Many of the weaker Democrats on this list will be instrumental in passing gambling legislation. Make no mistake about whether gambling will be an issue this coming session, either - House Appropriations Chairman Jim Pitts has already brought it up as a possible "solution" to the projected budget shortfall. The Texas Senate remains the major obstacle for gambling expansion - and Lt. Gov. Dewhurst is not particularly keen on it, either - but the greater clamor in the House could make the difference.
This is another reason, in a long line of reasons, why what happens in the down-ballot Texas State House races is so vital this election cycle. Y'all probably know how I stand on this particular issue, but even if you don't agree with me on it, you can probably see how the Texas House could affect your own hopes for it.
There is a lot of PAC money in these Texas House races, both Republican and Democrat. Should make for interesting reading.
Who's in it for the taxpayer?
Labels:
empower texans,
taxpayer protection pledge
Texans for Fiscal Responsibility has launched a website for the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, giving you a really simple way to find out who has signed the pledge and who hasn't.
In other words, who is in for the taxpayer, and who isn't.
In other words, who is in for the taxpayer, and who isn't.
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Blue STATE blues for the Dems?
Labels:
election 2010
Obama's approval numbers are dropping dramatically in states he won comfortably in 2008:
Public Policy Polling has this to say from their results:
The key to all of this - the worst thing that can happen to the bottom of the ballot candidates (judges, state races, county level) is Republicans who are tempted to stay home, either because the midterm election doesn't interest them, or because they aren't passionate about top-of-the-ticket gubernatorial and congressional races.
Public Policy Polling has this to say from their results:
One of the most amazing things in our polling over the last month has been how dreadfully bad Barack Obama’s approval numbers are with likely voters in a lot of states that he won by large margins in 2008. We’ve polled 12 states since the beginning of September that Obama won by at least 9 points and in all but 3 of those states- Hawaii, California, and New York- his numbers are under water.
The states where we do now find Obama with negative numbers that he won easily in 2008- Michigan, Wisconsin, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Delaware, Maine, Connecticut, Colorado, and Illinois.What is so important here is how this is going to affect Democrat races down-ballot - PPP says the Dems are likely going to lose governorships in Michigan, Wisconsin, New Mexico, and Maine, and it isn't out of the realm of possibility that Illinois and New Hampshire could flip. There are several Senate races up in the air, and the more chatter about all of this, the more it looks like Congressional seats and on down will begin to flip accordingly.
The key to all of this - the worst thing that can happen to the bottom of the ballot candidates (judges, state races, county level) is Republicans who are tempted to stay home, either because the midterm election doesn't interest them, or because they aren't passionate about top-of-the-ticket gubernatorial and congressional races.
COST Recommends NO Vote on Austin “Mobility” Bond (Proposition 1)
Labels:
bond election,
city of austin,
election 2010
Passing this on from my friends at COST. I urge you to read this and consider voting NO on Prop. 1 if you live in the city of Austin!
Coalition On Sustainable Transportation (COST) - Vote NO on Austin “Mobility” Bond (Prop. 1)
The Coalition on Sustainable Transportation (COST) joins the overwhelming and growing number of Austin organizations and citizens in opposing the City Council’s proposed “Transportation” bond referendum to be placed on the November 2, 2010 election ballot.
This proposed $90 million dollar bond package has been created with little transparency and lacks integrity. The package is a veiled hodgepodge of projects deceptively mislabeled “transportation and mobility” improvements. The city has provided scant data regarding the costs and transportation benefits of any proposed project.
Austin area citizens use roadways for 99% of their travel. Contrary to the City’s deceptive presentation, more than one-half of the bond money will be spent on projects which have no impact on roadway mobility and congestion, including the following defined projects:
In addition, another $12.3 million is allocated to projects for sidewalks, trails and bike lanes making a total of $36.7 million.
More than one-third of the $90 million bond is a “blank check” for the city because specific projects are not identified.
The largest true roadway project is $4 million for temporary improvements to the highly congested “Y” at Oak Hill. Undefined neighborhood streets are allocated $16.35 million of which $2.7 is for ‘traffic calming’ and ‘quiet zone’ funding. Almost $20 million is allocated for street reconstruction which appears to be ‘deferred/neglected maintenance’ with little mobility improvement. An additional $2 million is to support Capital Metro’s Bus Rapid Transit and Urban Rail which has not even been approved by voters. Clearly Cap Metro should fund this and zero should be spent anticipating Urban Rail.
The city’s selection criteria for bond package projects are decidedly ‘anti-automobile’ and ‘anti-mobility.’ They are biased against projects which should have the highest priority: Those which are cost effective in relieving the most road congestion and improving mobility for the greatest number of people.
Voters should vote NO on this poorly formulated bond proposition and require the city to present a cost-effective package with total transparency and mobility benefits data.
Mobility bonds with mixtures of very different kinds of projects, some of which provide little or no mobility improvement, should not be placed in the same “catch-all” proposition. Voters should be allowed to vote separately on necessities versus amenities. Voters should also be provided a projection of the City’s plan to fund and complete ‘design only’ projects in any current bonds.
Normal, ongoing road maintenance should be included in the city’s general fund. It is too expensive to use bond funding.
COST strongly recommends a significant, revised bond package comprised of cost-effective projects to relieve road congestion for the most citizens.
——————————————————————————————
The mission of the Coalition on Sustainable Transportation (COST) is to promote sustainable, cost-effective people mobility solutions for the Austin region. COST’s purpose is to seek and provide objective, analytically based and understandable information which allows citizens, elected officials, other community leaders, and transportation officials to assess people mobility alternatives and select those which equitably serve the Austin region’s greater good.
COST web site: http://www.costaustin.org
Coalition On Sustainable Transportation (COST) - Vote NO on Austin “Mobility” Bond (Prop. 1)
The Coalition on Sustainable Transportation (COST) joins the overwhelming and growing number of Austin organizations and citizens in opposing the City Council’s proposed “Transportation” bond referendum to be placed on the November 2, 2010 election ballot.
This proposed $90 million dollar bond package has been created with little transparency and lacks integrity. The package is a veiled hodgepodge of projects deceptively mislabeled “transportation and mobility” improvements. The city has provided scant data regarding the costs and transportation benefits of any proposed project.
Austin area citizens use roadways for 99% of their travel. Contrary to the City’s deceptive presentation, more than one-half of the bond money will be spent on projects which have no impact on roadway mobility and congestion, including the following defined projects:
- The most expensive project in the package is a $14.4 million boardwalk on the south side of Lady Bird Lake.
- The second most expensive is $10 million for American Disabilities Act sidewalk improvements.
- The third most expensive is $8 million labeled as “Arterial Streets” but is primarily bike lanes and sidewalks for the 3rd street Lance Armstrong Bike Boulevard.
In addition, another $12.3 million is allocated to projects for sidewalks, trails and bike lanes making a total of $36.7 million.
More than one-third of the $90 million bond is a “blank check” for the city because specific projects are not identified.
The largest true roadway project is $4 million for temporary improvements to the highly congested “Y” at Oak Hill. Undefined neighborhood streets are allocated $16.35 million of which $2.7 is for ‘traffic calming’ and ‘quiet zone’ funding. Almost $20 million is allocated for street reconstruction which appears to be ‘deferred/neglected maintenance’ with little mobility improvement. An additional $2 million is to support Capital Metro’s Bus Rapid Transit and Urban Rail which has not even been approved by voters. Clearly Cap Metro should fund this and zero should be spent anticipating Urban Rail.
The city’s selection criteria for bond package projects are decidedly ‘anti-automobile’ and ‘anti-mobility.’ They are biased against projects which should have the highest priority: Those which are cost effective in relieving the most road congestion and improving mobility for the greatest number of people.
Voters should vote NO on this poorly formulated bond proposition and require the city to present a cost-effective package with total transparency and mobility benefits data.
Mobility bonds with mixtures of very different kinds of projects, some of which provide little or no mobility improvement, should not be placed in the same “catch-all” proposition. Voters should be allowed to vote separately on necessities versus amenities. Voters should also be provided a projection of the City’s plan to fund and complete ‘design only’ projects in any current bonds.
Normal, ongoing road maintenance should be included in the city’s general fund. It is too expensive to use bond funding.
COST strongly recommends a significant, revised bond package comprised of cost-effective projects to relieve road congestion for the most citizens.
——————————————————————————————
The mission of the Coalition on Sustainable Transportation (COST) is to promote sustainable, cost-effective people mobility solutions for the Austin region. COST’s purpose is to seek and provide objective, analytically based and understandable information which allows citizens, elected officials, other community leaders, and transportation officials to assess people mobility alternatives and select those which equitably serve the Austin region’s greater good.
COST web site: http://www.costaustin.org
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
Austin City Council asking for $90 million bond - COST says vote no
Initially, I wasn't totally opposed to the idea of a transportation bond - shocker, I know - but the more I read and hear about the Austin mobility bond scheduled for the November ballot, the more I'm convinced this is a bad, bad idea.
Would someone do me a favor and add up the cost in added tax dollars that Lance Armstrong has burdened Texas taxpayers with? Seriously.
I hope to have some more information to post on this issue soon. Early voting begins in less than two weeks - now is the time to get educated on the issues and candidates if you aren't already!
The Travis Monitor has posted a press release from the Coalition for Sustainable Transportation that is definitely worth a read.
From the press release (emphasis mine):
Austin citizens use roadways for 99% of their travel. Contrary to the City’s deceptive presentation, more than one-half of the bond money will be spent on projects which have no impact on roadway mobility and congestion, including the following defined projects:
1. The most expensive project in the package is a $14.4 million boardwalk on the south side of Lady Bird Lake.
2. The second most expensive is $10 million for American Disabilities Act sidewalk improvements.
3. The third most expensive is $8 million labeled as “Arterial Streets” but is primarily bike lanes and sidewalks for the 3rd street Lance Armstrong Bike Boulevard.
In addition, another $12.3 million is allocated to projects for sidewalks, trails and bike lanes making a total of $36.7 million.
More than one-third of the $90 million bond is a “blank check” for the city because specific projects are not identified.
The largest true roadway project involves $4 million in temporary improvements to the highly congested “Y” at Oak Hill. Undefined neighborhood streets are allocated $16.35 million of which $2.7m is for ‘traffic calming’ and ‘quiet zone’ funding – terms that are not well defined. Almost $20 million is allocated for street reconstruction which appears to be 'deferred/neglected maintenance' with little mobility improvement. An additional $2 million is to support Capital Metro's Bus Rapid Transit and Urban Rail which has not even been approved by voters. Clearly Cap Metro should fund this and zero should be spent anticipating Urban Rail.
Would someone do me a favor and add up the cost in added tax dollars that Lance Armstrong has burdened Texas taxpayers with? Seriously.
I hope to have some more information to post on this issue soon. Early voting begins in less than two weeks - now is the time to get educated on the issues and candidates if you aren't already!
Friday, October 01, 2010
Austin City Council gives land deal to Planned Parenthood
Labels:
austin city council,
planned parenthood
First Travis County approves a budget that includes funding for abortions, and now the Austin City Council has approved measures to benefit Planned Parenthood. The measures below were both passed 7-0 earlier this week (and got barely a smidge of MSM news coverage)
Thanks to Texas Legislative Update for this news. It is disappointing to know this happened, and that taxpayers in Austin have once again been "had" by the city council. The only news coverage I saw of this particular council meeting focused on the city's approving $50,000 for First Night, which is supposed to be handled by private entities - from the coverage I saw on KVUE, one would have thought this was the agenda item citizens were most concerned about. It is obvious that, at least in Austin, the city council and county commissioners are less interested in representing the people and much more interested in pushing an agenda.
I still want partisan, November elections for city councils, and this just reinforces it.
Agenda Item #4: Authorize the negotiation and execution of a ten (10) year lease renewal with one (1) option to extend for an additional ten (10) years with PLANNED PARENTHOOD, INC, for the use of a City-owned .35 acre tract of land improved with a 3,720 square foot free standing building located at 1823 E. 7th Street, for the purpose of operating a family planning clinic. The lease revenue is $1 annually.
Agenda Item #9: Authorize negotiation and execution of a $50,000 contract amendment and 6-month contract extension with PLANNED PARENTHOOD of Austin, TX, to provide teen pregnancy prevention services to youth for an amended 15 month contract amount not to exceed $85,605, and a total contract amount not to exceed $133,078. Funding in the amount of $50,000 is available in the Fiscal Year 2009-2010 Operating Budget of the Health and Human Services Department. The contract period is January 1, 2010 – March 31, 2011.
Thanks to Texas Legislative Update for this news. It is disappointing to know this happened, and that taxpayers in Austin have once again been "had" by the city council. The only news coverage I saw of this particular council meeting focused on the city's approving $50,000 for First Night, which is supposed to be handled by private entities - from the coverage I saw on KVUE, one would have thought this was the agenda item citizens were most concerned about. It is obvious that, at least in Austin, the city council and county commissioners are less interested in representing the people and much more interested in pushing an agenda.
I still want partisan, November elections for city councils, and this just reinforces it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)