from peter stern ...
It is NOT the People of Texas who want Perry
The millions in Gov. Rick Perry's reelection campaign "trust fund" were contributed by a handful of select investors. It is the same small crowd that has provided Perry consistently with support and funds for years. The millions must speak volumes to Texas voters!
Last week Gov. Rick Perry notified publicly that he had raised 4.2 million in the last 9 days of June for his reelection bid.
However, the reports filed today shows that $3.4 million of that money were from 75 contributors.
Mica McCutchen Mosbacher of Houston gave $225,000. Interesting note: Ms. Mosbacher was appointed to the University of Houston System Board of Regents in 2008 by Governor Rick Perry and will serve through August 31, 2013. Her husband Robert Mosbacher is the former Secretary of Commerce.
The $100,000 contributors highlight a "who's who" of well-known wealthy political lobbyists: Red McCombs of San Antonio; investor Gary Petersen, homebuilder Bob Perry and the Gallagher Law firm, all of Houston; and tax consultant George Ryan and businessman Harold Simmons of Dallas.
The AT&T Texas Political Action Committee was the largest corporate PAC, with a donation of $50,000.
While it was a lot of money for Perry to raise, most of it came from the usual suspects, which leaves open the question of how much they are willing to invest to ensure Perry gets back into office. Note: Many of these donors have a long history of being "heavy hitters" when it comes to contributing to the campaigns of politicians who will support their profiteering efforts.
Political Action Committees (PAC's) rule the Texas political arena and the lives of Texas taxpayers. During the past decade the interests of Texas residents have been overshadowed by those of wealthy special interest PAC's who make it very clear that they are lobbying with big dollars to ensure that whichever candidates become Texas leaders, they will ensure increased profiteering by the companies promoted by the PAC's.
Texas voters remain "in the bellies of the [PAC] beasts".
It is time for Texans to recognize that Gov. Rick Perry is NOT the candidate for mainstream citizens. He continues to govern in the best interests of wealthy special interests. As long as Perry remains chief executive of the state of Texas, he will continue to provide these wealthy campaign contributors with anything and everything they need to make increasing profits while ignoring the needs of the people.
Consequently, if Perry wins reelection he will continue the path of his 8-year reign, to the detriment of hardworking and hardly-working Texans:
Texans will continue to pay the highest property taxes and home insurance premiums in the nation
Health insurance will remain unaffordable
Deregulation of various industries will prevail, causing the escalation of consumer costs increasing costs of goods and services, e.g., electricity, higher education, communications, etc.
Perry will continue to push for the Trans-Texas Corridor and for toll road plans, forcing Texans to pay ongoing and ever-increasing toll taxes
Instead of accepting President Obama's stimulus package, Perry has forced the state to borrow billions from the Federal Government, which places taxpayers into more long-term debt, while making it look as though Washington leaders are the culprits of our state issues rather than being the fault of a renegade and special interest Texas governor.
Gov. Rick Perry is "An Enemy of the People" and the sooner Texans recognize this fact the quicker voters will elect a better candidate for governor.
Perry must go and the first chance Texans have to get rid of Perry is to vote for Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison for Governor in the 2010 GOP Primary. While Sen. Hutchison is not without her faults, she is a better alternative for hardworking Texans.
In summary and to the point: Perry is NOT a governor of the people, rather, he remains the cornerstone of special interest profiteering. After 8 years of Perry's reign as "King of Texas" the people need a change for the better.
Peter Stern of Driftwood, TX is a political writer well-known and published frequently throughout the Texas community and nationwide. He is a Vietnam-era Disabled Veteran and holds three post-graduate degrees. You may contact Peter Stern at: pstern@austin.rr.com
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Report: Texas PAC Spending Jumps 21 Percent in 2008 Elections
from texans for public justice ...
Ideological PACs and Democratic Resurgence Fuel Record Spending
Austin -A record number of political action committees (PACs) spent almost $120 million in Texas' two-year 2008 election cycle, a 21 percent increase over the preceding cycle, a new report finds. This jump is remarkable for a non-gubernatorial election year. Ideological PACs led the expansion, pouring money into close races that affected the partisan make-up of the Texas House. Fueled by plaintiff-lawyer dollars, Democratic-leaning PACs dominated the arms race. Democrats fell short of a legislative majority but helped elbow out a Republican hardliner as speaker.
Read the report at Texans for Public Justice. www.tpj.org
Ideological PACs and Democratic Resurgence Fuel Record Spending
Austin -A record number of political action committees (PACs) spent almost $120 million in Texas' two-year 2008 election cycle, a 21 percent increase over the preceding cycle, a new report finds. This jump is remarkable for a non-gubernatorial election year. Ideological PACs led the expansion, pouring money into close races that affected the partisan make-up of the Texas House. Fueled by plaintiff-lawyer dollars, Democratic-leaning PACs dominated the arms race. Democrats fell short of a legislative majority but helped elbow out a Republican hardliner as speaker.
Read the report at Texans for Public Justice. www.tpj.org
sullivan on state legislative earmarks
from michael quinn sullivan ...
Friend, what do you think of earmarks?
You know, they aren't just part of the porky diet of Washington, DC. Our lawmakers in Austin engage in the same behavior.
Who is the porkiest of them all? Who is the king and queen of earmarks? We started looking through Article XI of the budget and found the Earmark Queen is State Rep. Dawnna Dukes (D-Austin), while the King is State Rep. Pete Gallego (D-Alpine).
Dukes likes big and flashy. She stuck in the single biggest earmark: $75.5 million in for "community care services."
On the other hand, Gallego took a "spread the (your) wealth" approach. He led the House in the number of pet projects seeking taxpayer funding – to the tune of $20 million!
He's giving $100,000 to Sul Ross University. But that is separate from another $100,00 for the "Center for Big Bend Studies" at Sul Ross. Oh, and he is giving a third $100,000 to the Museum of the Big Bend at Sul Ross. See a trend?
Gallego also very generously wants $3 million from your wallet to fund the construction of a combined Department of Public Safety/Parks & Wildlife/ Department of Transportation facility in Marfa. Let’s not forget the “not less than $3 million” he put in for to build a TxDOT facility in Alpine, just 26 miles away.
He also earmarked for a $6 million pool and recreation center for you to build in Presidio County (population of 7,575). That's $800 per resident; that pool better have an awesome slide.
Meanwhile, State Rep. Tommy Merrit inserted into the budget an amendment that requires the Department of Public Safety to buy a $4.3 million helicopter to be based in his hometown of Longview. But it's a bird that won't take flight: there's no money for pilots or maintenance.
Only Mr. Merritt could earmark a flightless bird that isn't just a taxpayer turkey, but an earth-bound porker.
Whether the earmarks are done in Washington or Austin, taxpayers deserve to know our dollars are being spent on appropriate priorities, not for political playthings.
For Texas,
Michael Quinn Sullivan
& the EmpowerTexans.com Team
Friend, what do you think of earmarks?
You know, they aren't just part of the porky diet of Washington, DC. Our lawmakers in Austin engage in the same behavior.
Who is the porkiest of them all? Who is the king and queen of earmarks? We started looking through Article XI of the budget and found the Earmark Queen is State Rep. Dawnna Dukes (D-Austin), while the King is State Rep. Pete Gallego (D-Alpine).
Dukes likes big and flashy. She stuck in the single biggest earmark: $75.5 million in for "community care services."
On the other hand, Gallego took a "spread the (your) wealth" approach. He led the House in the number of pet projects seeking taxpayer funding – to the tune of $20 million!
He's giving $100,000 to Sul Ross University. But that is separate from another $100,00 for the "Center for Big Bend Studies" at Sul Ross. Oh, and he is giving a third $100,000 to the Museum of the Big Bend at Sul Ross. See a trend?
Gallego also very generously wants $3 million from your wallet to fund the construction of a combined Department of Public Safety/Parks & Wildlife/ Department of Transportation facility in Marfa. Let’s not forget the “not less than $3 million” he put in for to build a TxDOT facility in Alpine, just 26 miles away.
He also earmarked for a $6 million pool and recreation center for you to build in Presidio County (population of 7,575). That's $800 per resident; that pool better have an awesome slide.
Meanwhile, State Rep. Tommy Merrit inserted into the budget an amendment that requires the Department of Public Safety to buy a $4.3 million helicopter to be based in his hometown of Longview. But it's a bird that won't take flight: there's no money for pilots or maintenance.
Only Mr. Merritt could earmark a flightless bird that isn't just a taxpayer turkey, but an earth-bound porker.
Whether the earmarks are done in Washington or Austin, taxpayers deserve to know our dollars are being spent on appropriate priorities, not for political playthings.
For Texas,
Michael Quinn Sullivan
& the EmpowerTexans.com Team
hartnett white: Carbon Tax and Ration
By Kathleen Hartnett White
Carbon cap-and-trade proposals have carried staggering price tags, but check out the carbon whopper in President Barack Obama’s budget plan.
In the section entitled “Jumpstarting the Economy and Investing for the Future,” the President proposes an “auction” of initial carbon allowances. Sound market friendly? Not really! This is a new tax per ton of manmade carbon dioxide (CO2) imposed on current levels.
A tax pure and simple, the budget tables list the anticipated “climate revenues” at $646 billion. Senior White House staff later revised that estimate upward, to a range of $1.3 trillion to $1.7 trillion in the first eight years.
Texas stands in the crosshairs of this policy. The nation’s leading energy producer with an economy larger than Canada’s, Texas could pay seven times more carbon tax than most other states.
The President’s budget would impose the tax through an initial 100 percent auction of carbon allowances for baseline emissions of CO2. This forced purchase of federal permission for business-as-usual activity adds a massive upfront cost to a cap-and-trade scheme and increases the cost of compliance with future caps.
In contrast, the cap-and-trade systems in the Lieberman/Warner bill and the European Union’s Emission Trading System grant most of the initial baseline allowances of CO2.
According to the President’s budget: “Through 100 percent auction to ensure the biggest polluters do not enjoy windfall profits, this program will fund vital investments in clean energy …. The balance of the auction revenues will be returned to …. Especially vulnerable, families, communities, and businesses.”
The budget tables dedicate 20 percent of the revenues to clean energy technologies. The remaining 80 percent goes to the President’s “Making Work Pay” program for tax credits to low and middle-income individuals.
The President explained that these tax cuts will help defer what he characterized as the “skyrocketing energy prices” caused by carbon tax and cap. Yet his “Making Work Pay” tax cut would redistribute the carbon tax revenues on a per capita basis.
People living in cold climates and who rely on coal-based power would face higher costs. The “skyrocketing” electric rates, however, would likely exceed the planned tax cuts. Thus, the initial carbon tax creates an indirect power tax on all consumers, contradicting the President’s campaign promise to lower taxes on all but the wealthiest Americans.
Allocation of carbon allowances by forced purchase at a federal auction is not slightly but vastly more expensive. A major U.S. power company estimates that initial auction would increase electric rates four times more than allocation of allowances.
And this huge carbon cost would begin at the inception of the program, denying the time and money necessary to retrofit plants with control technology in advance of the lower caps. Without time to develop controls or to deploy carbon-free nuclear power, reducing generation is the likely alternative.
Don’t count on the appealing renewables. Wind and solar provided less than one percent of U.S. electric power last year. With no alternative, an initial carbon tax leads to energy rationing.
Texas is the CO2 state and would pay a disproportionate amount of this carbon tax. For a thumbnail estimate, take the annual volume of man-made CO2 attributed to Texas multiplied by $20 to $50 per ton of CO2, the predicted range in a federal auction. The EPA estimates that Texas currently emits about 664 million metric tons of CO2 per year.
In this range, Texas would pay a carbon tax between $13 billion and $33 billion. No other state approaches the CO2 volume from Texas. Second place California is well below Texas at 391 million metric tons. The average among all states is roughly 100 million metric tons. With a carbon tax, Texas is hit seven times harder.
When 87 percent of energy derives from fossil fuels, CO2 emission levels are proportional to economic activity. Texas fuels the country, provides 60 percents of the chemicals and feedstocks, has a robust manufacturing sector, the second largest state population, and long roads! This proposed carbon tax would transform Texas’ energy income into federal tax revenue to be redistributed across the country.
The economic stakes for Texas could not be higher. Texas must demand a wiser path forward.
Kathleen Hartnett White is Distinguished Senior Fellow in Residence and Director of the Center for Natural Resources at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. White is the former Chair of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
Carbon cap-and-trade proposals have carried staggering price tags, but check out the carbon whopper in President Barack Obama’s budget plan.
In the section entitled “Jumpstarting the Economy and Investing for the Future,” the President proposes an “auction” of initial carbon allowances. Sound market friendly? Not really! This is a new tax per ton of manmade carbon dioxide (CO2) imposed on current levels.
A tax pure and simple, the budget tables list the anticipated “climate revenues” at $646 billion. Senior White House staff later revised that estimate upward, to a range of $1.3 trillion to $1.7 trillion in the first eight years.
Texas stands in the crosshairs of this policy. The nation’s leading energy producer with an economy larger than Canada’s, Texas could pay seven times more carbon tax than most other states.
The President’s budget would impose the tax through an initial 100 percent auction of carbon allowances for baseline emissions of CO2. This forced purchase of federal permission for business-as-usual activity adds a massive upfront cost to a cap-and-trade scheme and increases the cost of compliance with future caps.
In contrast, the cap-and-trade systems in the Lieberman/Warner bill and the European Union’s Emission Trading System grant most of the initial baseline allowances of CO2.
According to the President’s budget: “Through 100 percent auction to ensure the biggest polluters do not enjoy windfall profits, this program will fund vital investments in clean energy …. The balance of the auction revenues will be returned to …. Especially vulnerable, families, communities, and businesses.”
The budget tables dedicate 20 percent of the revenues to clean energy technologies. The remaining 80 percent goes to the President’s “Making Work Pay” program for tax credits to low and middle-income individuals.
The President explained that these tax cuts will help defer what he characterized as the “skyrocketing energy prices” caused by carbon tax and cap. Yet his “Making Work Pay” tax cut would redistribute the carbon tax revenues on a per capita basis.
People living in cold climates and who rely on coal-based power would face higher costs. The “skyrocketing” electric rates, however, would likely exceed the planned tax cuts. Thus, the initial carbon tax creates an indirect power tax on all consumers, contradicting the President’s campaign promise to lower taxes on all but the wealthiest Americans.
Allocation of carbon allowances by forced purchase at a federal auction is not slightly but vastly more expensive. A major U.S. power company estimates that initial auction would increase electric rates four times more than allocation of allowances.
And this huge carbon cost would begin at the inception of the program, denying the time and money necessary to retrofit plants with control technology in advance of the lower caps. Without time to develop controls or to deploy carbon-free nuclear power, reducing generation is the likely alternative.
Don’t count on the appealing renewables. Wind and solar provided less than one percent of U.S. electric power last year. With no alternative, an initial carbon tax leads to energy rationing.
Texas is the CO2 state and would pay a disproportionate amount of this carbon tax. For a thumbnail estimate, take the annual volume of man-made CO2 attributed to Texas multiplied by $20 to $50 per ton of CO2, the predicted range in a federal auction. The EPA estimates that Texas currently emits about 664 million metric tons of CO2 per year.
In this range, Texas would pay a carbon tax between $13 billion and $33 billion. No other state approaches the CO2 volume from Texas. Second place California is well below Texas at 391 million metric tons. The average among all states is roughly 100 million metric tons. With a carbon tax, Texas is hit seven times harder.
When 87 percent of energy derives from fossil fuels, CO2 emission levels are proportional to economic activity. Texas fuels the country, provides 60 percents of the chemicals and feedstocks, has a robust manufacturing sector, the second largest state population, and long roads! This proposed carbon tax would transform Texas’ energy income into federal tax revenue to be redistributed across the country.
The economic stakes for Texas could not be higher. Texas must demand a wiser path forward.
Kathleen Hartnett White is Distinguished Senior Fellow in Residence and Director of the Center for Natural Resources at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. White is the former Chair of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
whitehead: What Is Wrong with the Federal Hate Crime Law?
By John W. Whitehead
After 12 years of protracted debate, it looks as if the nation will finally get a federal hate crimes law that applies to crimes motivated by a person's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. All this despite the fact, according to the FBI, that of the nearly 1.5 million violent crimes in the U.S. in 2007, only 1,460 were reportedly based on sexual orientation.
The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act of 2009, currently before the House Judiciary Committee, is expected to come up for a vote before the House of Representatives later this spring. This proposed law gives federal officials greater authority to engage in hate crime investigations at the local and state level. It also removes the current prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally protected activity like voting or going to school. In other words, it opens the door for federal law enforcement officials (whether it be agents from the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and so on) to crack down on undesirable behavior wherever it occurs.
The problem, which few want to acknowledge for fear of being labeled politically incorrect, or worse homophobic, is that in order to crack down on hateful behavior, hateful thoughts and expression must also be targeted--which runs diametrically counter to the First Amendment's protections for free speech and expression.
It's a complicated, polarizing issue that stirs up deep-seated wells of prejudice, fear and bigotry. However, even with the best of intentions behind it, hate crime legislation on the whole is riddled with problems--and that was the case even before protections for sexual orientation were included.
First, hate crime laws are shortsighted in that they favor a particular class of individuals for protection and seek to punish certain prejudices. For instance, the Hate Crimes Act singles gay people out for expanded protection from hate crimes, yet fails to address the thousands of crimes that occur each year against people who, while not gay, just don't "fit in." As one journalist asked, "Why not accord the same enhanced protection to kids who stutter, teenagers with bad acne, or adults who are overweight, homeless, or have unusually large ears?"
What advocates of hate crime laws fail to understand is that in targeting people who hold certain viewpoints for censure, they're creating a preferred class and a victim class of discontents. In other words, by targeting for censure entire groups of people who, either due to education, upbringing, religious views or some other influence, subscribe to views that may be perceived as politically incorrect, they are laying the groundwork for an underclass of discontents--one that may eventually be driven underground and become violent. In other words, hate crime laws may be the spawning ground for a new class of domestic terrorists.
Second, the ramifications go far beyond the intended purpose of dissuading acts of violence against a protected class to actually chilling free speech. On the whole, hate crime laws unnecessarily blur the distinction between what might be constitutionally protected, albeit deplorable, speech and criminal behavior. Eventually, this will spill over into criminalizing any kind of speech that government officials deem to be hateful or distasteful. Thus, hate crime laws, well-meaning though they may seem, punish not just the act but the motive and open the door for a whole new realm of prosecutions, namely thought crimes. In other words, when a crime is committed, hate crime legislation adds additional penalties for the "motivation" (or thoughts) the individual had in carrying out the crime.
Hate crime legislation also gives the government yet another heavy-handed tool for censoring expression. For example, peaceful free expression has been prosecuted as a hate crime. In one instance, a group of Christians were prosecuted under a state hate crime law for "singing hymns" and peacefully "carrying signs" while attending a homosexual fair in Pennsylvania. Because the signs challenged the morality of homosexuality, these Christians were charged with three felonies and five misdemeanors and faced 47 years in prison for attempting to preach at a homosexual street fair.
Thus, there is no way hate crime legislation will not chill constitutionally protected speech. Under such a rubric, all speech will automatically become suspect, the prelude to an act of violence. Thus, an off-color joke you once told could be used against you as an example of hate speech; casual remarks you once made could be turned into a history of hateful rhetoric.
Hate crime laws also remove the burden of assuming that someone is "innocent until proven guilty." Indeed, this mindset is already taking hold. According to the Anti-Defamation League, the concern isn't so much with organized "hate" groups such as the Skinheads. Rather, "[y]our next-door neighbor or the kid in your classroom with misinformed ideas are much more numerous and require more attention."
Third, this expanded hate crime law creates a whole new class of investigative techniques by government agents and the police. Hate crime laws create a bureaucratic nightmare that poses real threats to our constitutional rights. By providing millions of dollars in funding to help state and local agencies pay for investigating and prosecuting hate crimes, hate crime legislation incites prosecutors to further intimidate defendants by piling on the charges. Under the proposed federal hate crime law, every crime could potentially be a hate crime. If you happen to be charged with assault and battery against someone, under the law, the government will be looking to see if somewhere along the way you expressed views reflecting hatred for the victim's class.
For example, take a case in Wisconsin where three white men attacked a black man who was sitting in a park talking with his wife, who is white. During the attack, one of the attackers identified himself as a "skinhead" and used a racial slur. At the trial that followed, prosecutors pointed out that one of the attackers, Matthew David Cannon, had a tattoo inside his lip that says "skins," another tattoo on his leg that says "LSD," which stands for "Local Skins Division," and a shaved head at the time of the assault. Cannon's objection that the government was persecuting him for his membership in an unpopular group was rejected in light of the fact that he had engaged in an act of "racial hatred." Following along, any person sporting such a tattoo would have to become a suspect in future incidents involving racially-motivated attacks.
The Hate Crimes Act will also create the need for a whole new type of surveillance for individuals possessing politically incorrect viewpoints. In fact, it dovetails neatly with NSA programs such as Aquaint that are intended to not only track your internet activity but formulate patterns based on what you read and browse and predict your behavior, and recent reports from the Department of Homeland Security calling for greater surveillance of individuals possessing so-called "extremist" views.
Fourth, hate crime laws are redundant. There are already a host of stiff penalties on the books for those who commit acts of unspeakable horror, whether the crimes are based on an individual's race, religion, national origin or sexual orientation. Furthermore, 45 states, as well as the District of Columbia and the federal government, already have hate crime laws on their books, making a federal law unnecessary.
Thus, what we are building up to with the Hate Crimes Act of 2009 is a society that is monolithic in its viewpoint (one where the political right and left comfortably meet and agree) and where everything you do that diverges from the mainstream will be perceived as politically incorrect and extremist.
Yet the bottom line is simply that you cannot legislate an end to ignorance, prejudice and bigotry, and that's the problem with the Hate Crimes Act. All legislation will do is punish actions and sweep in more innocent people. But it won't change hearts and minds--and that's where you have to start in combating hatred and bigotry.
www.rutherford.org
After 12 years of protracted debate, it looks as if the nation will finally get a federal hate crimes law that applies to crimes motivated by a person's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. All this despite the fact, according to the FBI, that of the nearly 1.5 million violent crimes in the U.S. in 2007, only 1,460 were reportedly based on sexual orientation.
The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act of 2009, currently before the House Judiciary Committee, is expected to come up for a vote before the House of Representatives later this spring. This proposed law gives federal officials greater authority to engage in hate crime investigations at the local and state level. It also removes the current prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally protected activity like voting or going to school. In other words, it opens the door for federal law enforcement officials (whether it be agents from the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and so on) to crack down on undesirable behavior wherever it occurs.
The problem, which few want to acknowledge for fear of being labeled politically incorrect, or worse homophobic, is that in order to crack down on hateful behavior, hateful thoughts and expression must also be targeted--which runs diametrically counter to the First Amendment's protections for free speech and expression.
It's a complicated, polarizing issue that stirs up deep-seated wells of prejudice, fear and bigotry. However, even with the best of intentions behind it, hate crime legislation on the whole is riddled with problems--and that was the case even before protections for sexual orientation were included.
First, hate crime laws are shortsighted in that they favor a particular class of individuals for protection and seek to punish certain prejudices. For instance, the Hate Crimes Act singles gay people out for expanded protection from hate crimes, yet fails to address the thousands of crimes that occur each year against people who, while not gay, just don't "fit in." As one journalist asked, "Why not accord the same enhanced protection to kids who stutter, teenagers with bad acne, or adults who are overweight, homeless, or have unusually large ears?"
What advocates of hate crime laws fail to understand is that in targeting people who hold certain viewpoints for censure, they're creating a preferred class and a victim class of discontents. In other words, by targeting for censure entire groups of people who, either due to education, upbringing, religious views or some other influence, subscribe to views that may be perceived as politically incorrect, they are laying the groundwork for an underclass of discontents--one that may eventually be driven underground and become violent. In other words, hate crime laws may be the spawning ground for a new class of domestic terrorists.
Second, the ramifications go far beyond the intended purpose of dissuading acts of violence against a protected class to actually chilling free speech. On the whole, hate crime laws unnecessarily blur the distinction between what might be constitutionally protected, albeit deplorable, speech and criminal behavior. Eventually, this will spill over into criminalizing any kind of speech that government officials deem to be hateful or distasteful. Thus, hate crime laws, well-meaning though they may seem, punish not just the act but the motive and open the door for a whole new realm of prosecutions, namely thought crimes. In other words, when a crime is committed, hate crime legislation adds additional penalties for the "motivation" (or thoughts) the individual had in carrying out the crime.
Hate crime legislation also gives the government yet another heavy-handed tool for censoring expression. For example, peaceful free expression has been prosecuted as a hate crime. In one instance, a group of Christians were prosecuted under a state hate crime law for "singing hymns" and peacefully "carrying signs" while attending a homosexual fair in Pennsylvania. Because the signs challenged the morality of homosexuality, these Christians were charged with three felonies and five misdemeanors and faced 47 years in prison for attempting to preach at a homosexual street fair.
Thus, there is no way hate crime legislation will not chill constitutionally protected speech. Under such a rubric, all speech will automatically become suspect, the prelude to an act of violence. Thus, an off-color joke you once told could be used against you as an example of hate speech; casual remarks you once made could be turned into a history of hateful rhetoric.
Hate crime laws also remove the burden of assuming that someone is "innocent until proven guilty." Indeed, this mindset is already taking hold. According to the Anti-Defamation League, the concern isn't so much with organized "hate" groups such as the Skinheads. Rather, "[y]our next-door neighbor or the kid in your classroom with misinformed ideas are much more numerous and require more attention."
Third, this expanded hate crime law creates a whole new class of investigative techniques by government agents and the police. Hate crime laws create a bureaucratic nightmare that poses real threats to our constitutional rights. By providing millions of dollars in funding to help state and local agencies pay for investigating and prosecuting hate crimes, hate crime legislation incites prosecutors to further intimidate defendants by piling on the charges. Under the proposed federal hate crime law, every crime could potentially be a hate crime. If you happen to be charged with assault and battery against someone, under the law, the government will be looking to see if somewhere along the way you expressed views reflecting hatred for the victim's class.
For example, take a case in Wisconsin where three white men attacked a black man who was sitting in a park talking with his wife, who is white. During the attack, one of the attackers identified himself as a "skinhead" and used a racial slur. At the trial that followed, prosecutors pointed out that one of the attackers, Matthew David Cannon, had a tattoo inside his lip that says "skins," another tattoo on his leg that says "LSD," which stands for "Local Skins Division," and a shaved head at the time of the assault. Cannon's objection that the government was persecuting him for his membership in an unpopular group was rejected in light of the fact that he had engaged in an act of "racial hatred." Following along, any person sporting such a tattoo would have to become a suspect in future incidents involving racially-motivated attacks.
The Hate Crimes Act will also create the need for a whole new type of surveillance for individuals possessing politically incorrect viewpoints. In fact, it dovetails neatly with NSA programs such as Aquaint that are intended to not only track your internet activity but formulate patterns based on what you read and browse and predict your behavior, and recent reports from the Department of Homeland Security calling for greater surveillance of individuals possessing so-called "extremist" views.
Fourth, hate crime laws are redundant. There are already a host of stiff penalties on the books for those who commit acts of unspeakable horror, whether the crimes are based on an individual's race, religion, national origin or sexual orientation. Furthermore, 45 states, as well as the District of Columbia and the federal government, already have hate crime laws on their books, making a federal law unnecessary.
Thus, what we are building up to with the Hate Crimes Act of 2009 is a society that is monolithic in its viewpoint (one where the political right and left comfortably meet and agree) and where everything you do that diverges from the mainstream will be perceived as politically incorrect and extremist.
Yet the bottom line is simply that you cannot legislate an end to ignorance, prejudice and bigotry, and that's the problem with the Hate Crimes Act. All legislation will do is punish actions and sweep in more innocent people. But it won't change hearts and minds--and that's where you have to start in combating hatred and bigotry.
www.rutherford.org
trowbridge: Where Charity Is Right and Wrong
By Ronald L. Trowbridge, Ph.D.
I worked in Washington, D. C., with Congress virtually every day for nine years. I know how the place works, and I have come to the findings that most government activity can be boiled down to two words: coerced charity.
How can any human being be against charity for others in genuine need? Do we tell people without health insurance to go ahead and suffer or die? But charity coerced through increased taxes comes at the expense of:
* Individual liberty.
* Progress—which is humane. It’s not “people not profits.” It’s “people because of profits.” As Fabian Socialist George Bernard Shaw argued in Major Barbara, “Poverty is the world’s greatest evil,” and it is money that comes to the rescue.
* Leveling up. Those seeking the social justice of a level playing field generally level down.
* “Creative destruction,” as economist Joseph Schumpeter observed. Capitalism brings competition, which creates while it destroys. Capitalism and competition created the automobile industry while destroying the horse-and-buggy industry. Today, capitalism and competition appear to be creating the automobile industry in the South while destroying it in the North.
John Stuart Mill observed in On Liberty, “The initiation of all wise or noble things comes and must come from individuals; generally at first from some one individual.” There’s an apt story where an assistant rushes into the laboratory of Charles Kettering, exclaiming, “Mr. Kettering, Charles Lindbergh just crossed the ocean—all by himself,” to which Kettering responded, “Tell me when he does it by committee.” The automobile industry was founded by one man.
We must remember when it comes to coerced charity that government does not make one dime money: it can only collect and redistribute it. Therefore, in giving “social justice” to some, government must necessarily take a commensurate amount from others.
The present administration in Washington, for example, seeks to implement “social justice” by means of universal healthcare. Who can be against the intent? But it comes with a steep price and the following flaws:
* It will be staggeringly expensive, paid for by others through coerced charity.
* It will prove to be, as always, far more expensive than anticipated or budgeted.
* Abuse will be rife. A recent news article reported that nine patients had a total of 2,678 emergency room visits during a period of six years. Look for this kind of hypochondria to run rampant with free universal health care and no co-pay.
* The “comparative effectiveness” of health care that the current stimulus bill now mandates will necessarily lead to rationing and limitations of medical service. Patients will be told that they must take this generic drug, not that brand one; that they can get this screening, but not that one. Today, for example, Medicare covers periodic colonoscopies, but not effective virtual colonoscopies, so patients put off the exam at their peril.
And doctors will be limited to Medicare reimbursement rates, so they will make up for lost private- sector revenue by dint of increasing patient volume, which means that patients will have to wait longer for shorter appointments. Boding ill is a 2008 survey by the Texas Medical Association that found that only 38 percent of primary-care doctors in Texas took new Medicare patients.
* It will be painfully inefficient. My wife died March 7, 2006. More than three years passed before the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reported to her Medicare insurance provider that she had died. You want these folks in sole control of managing your mandated healthcare?
“Coerced charity” is good and bad. Today, we are much further along on the spectrum toward coercion than toward individual liberty, progress, or choice. I am not omniscient enough to know precisely where the line between the two should be drawn, but neither is the government. But it is fair to say that government has gone much too far in one direction.
Ronald L. Trowbridge, Ph.D., is a visiting research fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. Dr. Trowbridge formerly served as vice president of Hillsdale College in Michigan.
I worked in Washington, D. C., with Congress virtually every day for nine years. I know how the place works, and I have come to the findings that most government activity can be boiled down to two words: coerced charity.
How can any human being be against charity for others in genuine need? Do we tell people without health insurance to go ahead and suffer or die? But charity coerced through increased taxes comes at the expense of:
* Individual liberty.
* Progress—which is humane. It’s not “people not profits.” It’s “people because of profits.” As Fabian Socialist George Bernard Shaw argued in Major Barbara, “Poverty is the world’s greatest evil,” and it is money that comes to the rescue.
* Leveling up. Those seeking the social justice of a level playing field generally level down.
* “Creative destruction,” as economist Joseph Schumpeter observed. Capitalism brings competition, which creates while it destroys. Capitalism and competition created the automobile industry while destroying the horse-and-buggy industry. Today, capitalism and competition appear to be creating the automobile industry in the South while destroying it in the North.
John Stuart Mill observed in On Liberty, “The initiation of all wise or noble things comes and must come from individuals; generally at first from some one individual.” There’s an apt story where an assistant rushes into the laboratory of Charles Kettering, exclaiming, “Mr. Kettering, Charles Lindbergh just crossed the ocean—all by himself,” to which Kettering responded, “Tell me when he does it by committee.” The automobile industry was founded by one man.
We must remember when it comes to coerced charity that government does not make one dime money: it can only collect and redistribute it. Therefore, in giving “social justice” to some, government must necessarily take a commensurate amount from others.
The present administration in Washington, for example, seeks to implement “social justice” by means of universal healthcare. Who can be against the intent? But it comes with a steep price and the following flaws:
* It will be staggeringly expensive, paid for by others through coerced charity.
* It will prove to be, as always, far more expensive than anticipated or budgeted.
* Abuse will be rife. A recent news article reported that nine patients had a total of 2,678 emergency room visits during a period of six years. Look for this kind of hypochondria to run rampant with free universal health care and no co-pay.
* The “comparative effectiveness” of health care that the current stimulus bill now mandates will necessarily lead to rationing and limitations of medical service. Patients will be told that they must take this generic drug, not that brand one; that they can get this screening, but not that one. Today, for example, Medicare covers periodic colonoscopies, but not effective virtual colonoscopies, so patients put off the exam at their peril.
And doctors will be limited to Medicare reimbursement rates, so they will make up for lost private- sector revenue by dint of increasing patient volume, which means that patients will have to wait longer for shorter appointments. Boding ill is a 2008 survey by the Texas Medical Association that found that only 38 percent of primary-care doctors in Texas took new Medicare patients.
* It will be painfully inefficient. My wife died March 7, 2006. More than three years passed before the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reported to her Medicare insurance provider that she had died. You want these folks in sole control of managing your mandated healthcare?
“Coerced charity” is good and bad. Today, we are much further along on the spectrum toward coercion than toward individual liberty, progress, or choice. I am not omniscient enough to know precisely where the line between the two should be drawn, but neither is the government. But it is fair to say that government has gone much too far in one direction.
Ronald L. Trowbridge, Ph.D., is a visiting research fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. Dr. Trowbridge formerly served as vice president of Hillsdale College in Michigan.
peter stern on perry eminent domain press release
from peter stern: Slime-Ball Perry Rides Again
Governor Rick Perry is scamming the people of Texas again.
Perry's recent Press Release conveys the message that he signed an eminent domain bill HJR 14 that gives Texans the right to vote in November on this proposed amendment to protect their homes and property from being taken by the government and given to someone else.
This is more Perry posturing. The Texas Governor does NOT have to sign for a prospective amendment to go to a public vote. If a majority of the Texas Congress {which it did on this bill] approves a proposed amendment it goes directly [NOT TO THE Governor] to the Secretary of State who will place it on the ballot in the next amendment election.
Perry is using this eminent domain issue to try to build support for his reelection. This behavior underscores Perry's irresponsible behavior, his under-handed methodology in his gubernatorial rule and his lack of ethics. Clearly, Texans need to vote in another candidate for governor in November of 2010.
Peter Stern of Driftwood, TX is a political writer well-known and published frequently throughout the Texas community and nationwide. He is a Vietnam-era Disabled Veteran and holds three post-graduate degrees. You may contact Peter Stern at: pstern@austin.rr.com
Governor Rick Perry is scamming the people of Texas again.
Perry's recent Press Release conveys the message that he signed an eminent domain bill HJR 14 that gives Texans the right to vote in November on this proposed amendment to protect their homes and property from being taken by the government and given to someone else.
This is more Perry posturing. The Texas Governor does NOT have to sign for a prospective amendment to go to a public vote. If a majority of the Texas Congress {which it did on this bill] approves a proposed amendment it goes directly [NOT TO THE Governor] to the Secretary of State who will place it on the ballot in the next amendment election.
Perry is using this eminent domain issue to try to build support for his reelection. This behavior underscores Perry's irresponsible behavior, his under-handed methodology in his gubernatorial rule and his lack of ethics. Clearly, Texans need to vote in another candidate for governor in November of 2010.
Peter Stern of Driftwood, TX is a political writer well-known and published frequently throughout the Texas community and nationwide. He is a Vietnam-era Disabled Veteran and holds three post-graduate degrees. You may contact Peter Stern at: pstern@austin.rr.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
