Fiscal Conservatives are tired, disillusioned and lost in the wilderness.

You can sense that a dangerous trend is upon us.

Let me explain.

Every week, I get e-mails from conservatives who say they have had enough with the Republican Party. They are just fed up. Their lack of involvement is their way of showing displeasure. Why?

(Note: I am referring to the conservatives who have a libertarian bent. We are the “I don’t trust government crowd” and not the social conservatives. My religious/social conservative friends are religious about social issues. They are religious about our fear and distrust of government.)

It is the arrogance of power. That is the root of the problem.

Us: We want less and smaller government

Them: More government, more spending and even more government.

Us: We want less nanny-style government leadership.

Them:  Let us solve all your problems with one more program.

Us:  Reduce the influence of special interests in government.

Them: Merck lobbies Perry with money and we get a forced vaccine. 

Us: “We, The People” want a say in our government.

Them: Executive Orders, endless no-bid toll roads and mandates.

Republicans did not lose both houses of Congress because we were humble and focused on less government spending. Our loss was obvious in retrospect. Fiscal conservatism was thrown out the door by many in our own party. It was arrogance. We lost our way because our moral compass was broken. Our direction was skewed. Think about that for one moment.

We lost both house of Congress in one sharp and painful blow.

It happened because the independents, conservative Democrats, Fiscal Conservatives and Republicans lost faith in our leadership. They stayed home to make a point.

Where am I going with this?

We could lose Texas if the state Republican Party continues to lose conservatives of all stripes.

Governor Rick Perry is successfully alienating thousands of conservatives every month with this endless barrage: toll roads (eminent domain issues), the forced vaccine, the margin business income tax and strong arm executive orders which convey one message- I am the King of Texas.

Conservatives have this point of view: “Republicans: You need us. We don’t need you. Get your act together. Start leading with humility and dump the attitude. Focus on our core values and quit acting like Democrats with your endless programs.”

Feel free to ignore this message. In South Texas, we lost our seven-term Congressman to a liberal Democrat who was supported by former President Bill Clinton.

Over and over, this newsletter warned the leadership. 

Stop the spending. End the arrogance. Focus on smaller government.

Return to the values of the party that made us respected and respectable.

The loss of the 23rd was a wake up call.

Conservatives are sending the same message to Rick Perry in Austin.

We are told we don’t get it. We have no compassion.

Rick Perry picked up 35% of the vote in Bexar County.

The exodus has already started.

When will they learn?

I suspect losing both Congress and Austin might finally do it.

They can’t say they weren’t warned.

Shape up or we’re staying home.

You can take that to the bank.
 

Electoral success last November galvanizes contributors and activists.

Saluting legislators during session is a frequently used fundraising theme during session by both parties and their affiliates. Although the law prohibits fundraising by elected officials during a legislative session, the prohibition does not extend to political parties or other election-inspired groups.

With recent election successes, the Texas Democratic Party is on track to almost triple its fundraising from the comparable salute last session.
 

With construction of the first leg of the NAFTA superhighway (the Trans Texas Corridor) scheduled to begin this year, Texans are in for a shock when they calculate the cost of the toll. The corridor is promoted by bureaucrats and politicians who have lined their pockets with campaign donations. They promote the corridor as an answer to the increased traffic congestion in urban areas. This is intellectually dishonest because the corridor will circumvent the metropolitan traffic areas. Beware! As Ronald Reagan said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I am from the government, and I am here to help.’”

Follow the money trail, and it is easy to see that the corridor is not about transportation. It is all about revenue. It is not about the people, but about politicians who have forgotten the people and whose primary ambition is reelection and not representation.

Texans are victims of not only the largest land grab in Texas history, but are also victims of what will be one of the largest tax increases in Texas history. Yes, it is a tax increase because the tolls are nothing more than a tax!

What will it cost the average Texan to make a daily commute on the new corridor? The contract does not place a cap on the amount of tolls charged. TxDot bureaucrats agreed to “whatever the market will bear.” Based on TxDot estimates, the toll will cost from 12¢ to 24¢ per mile. We all know how the government works, so we can plan on 24¢ per mile. A fifty-mile round-trip commute to work or school will cost $12 per day, which would be about $3,000 per year. For a couple, it would cost $6,000 per year, the equivalent of 12 car payments a year. Or, another way to look at it, in 10 years a couple would pay $60,000, a substantial down payment on a home. This is highway robbery!

Some proponents argue that the alternative is to increase the gas tax from 20¢ to $1.40 per gallon. Well, this is not the truth and nothing but the truth so help me God. It is a white lie. According to Corridor Watch, the leading corridor watch dog group, tolls at just 15¢ per mile will cost Texans more than ten times the present gasoline tax. Moreover, commercial carriers will pass the toll costs on to consumers--you and me.

Politicians need to stop looting the gasoline tax fund, quit spending on pet projects, balance the budget, and take care of the business of the people.  President Ronald Reagan had a heart for the people and despised big government. Reagan said, “We the people tell the government what to do; it does not tell us. We the people are the driver; the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world’s constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which we the people tell the government what it is allowed to do. We the people are free.” However, we will not remain free if we sit idly by and fail to speak out against this type of government abuse and fail to vote for statesmen rather than politicians.
 

BOMBSHELL! TxDOT cooked the books Enron Style; Citizens call for AG Investigation of TXDOT!

Record 800 witnesses participated in Senator Carona's hearing on tolls! Experts: We don't need the TTC/Keep toll roads PUBLIC!
 

What took you so long to discover Perry was a RINO? Just like his predecessor in the White House both have led the conservative movement astray. I started six years ago voting against Republicans in state and federal races. What Clinton did for the conservatives in the 90's

is what Bush is doing for the Democrats in the 21st century.

Why don't you withdraw your kids from government schools if you want to avoid King Perry's vaccine program? Besides, a government education only ensures a liberal education for children.  Government education is about the money, power and control of your children, not learning about our Constitution and the American way of life.

WAKE UP JOE---KAY BAILEY AND MOST REPUBLICRATS ARE JUST

LIKE PERRY OR WORSE.
 

First, Toomey was a lobbyist, a very successful, highly paid and effective one prior to his becoming chief of staff for Perry. He did not make a lot of money as a result of his role with Perry. He was making a lot of money prior to that time, and now after leaving Perry's office, he is once again making a lot of money. Good for him, I guess. After all, isn't that what free enterprise is all about?

Second, the role of a lobbyist is to represent your clients whether you agree with them or not. His job is to present the client's case and work to see their issues addressed/passed/defeated. The lobbyist may or may not agree with his clients' positions and doesn't have to agree with or disagree with his clients' positions.

As a result of his role and success, as with anyone else in that sort of business or really in any type of business who is successful, over time you become a target for whatever reason. That is just part of the game.

While we may or may not agree with the role of lobbyists, they perform a service for a fee. Their success rate in turn determines their fee structure and their ability to attract and retain clients.

I didn't know if you knew Toomey's background or not. In addition to having served as Perry's Chief of Staff, he was also Governor William Clements' Chief of Staff and a State Representative back in the early 80s. He became a lobbyist after his stint as a state representative (if I remember correctly, which may be possible, even at this age).

A number of, but not all, state representatives and state senators have gone on to become lobbyists at all levels of government throughout the country. As former elected officials these folks have developed relationships with other elected officials and their staffs, have a working knowledge of the various governmental functions/agencies, the various "players" (from the far left to the far right) both inside and outside of government, etc. Not every former elected official has the qualifications, interest, desire, etc. to become a lobbyist (which is good), just as not everyone one of us with access to a computer and the internet can/will become a "blogger" (and there is nothing wrong with being a "blogger" no matter what the issue).

While we may not agree with the concept and/or need for lobbyists, they are a fact of political life.  Personally, I think lobbyists serve an important role. If I were an elected official I would much rather have someone who can ACCURATELY ARTICULATE an issue than some of the rabble-rousers with a personal agenda (that is not in the best interests of the entire community) that continually cause trouble at City Hall.
 

Maybe they are scared because they were never conservatives, but pretended to be so that they could be elected to office?  Maybe the reason they are scared is because they want to be liked more than they want to be right? I am sure there are other reasons also. Newt Gingrich is a very intelligent man, but he isn't a true conservative. He is a true politician though. Senator Kay Bailey isn't a true conservative either, but she likes our votes. If a true conservative, someone who will stay the course, runs against her, I will vote for that candidate. President Bush has moved away from conservative issues as well, but I knew he wasn't a true conservative to start with. He still beats any of the Democrats and the RINO's I can name.

What can we do? It appears that politicians are more concerned about getting into office and being liked more than they like being conservative. We need to get out there and find some Ronald Reagan conservatives. I suspect Perry will not be our next governor.  How about Dewhurst???

Sincerely, Laura
 

By John Merrifield,
Professor of Economics
Director, Entrepreneurial Conservatism Institute
March 5th, 2007

God and the devil are in the details. A Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) must restrain government growth while providing budget stability over the business cycle, and the flexibility to address emergencies, and changes in priorities within the government, and between private and public spending. The appropriate limit on spending growth is population growth, plus inflation (POP+INFL). Since productivity growth raises incomes faster than inflation, a POP+INFL limit on spending growth above the previous year’s limit will yield surplus revenue most years. And over time, a POP+INFL growth cap would shrink the state government’s share of total income. 

Many, many issues arise. For example, what is meant by spending? I would only exempt specific spending fully supported by a specific user fee; for example, spending of road toll revenues to maintain and expand the roads where the money was collected. I would definitely NOT exempt borrowing by the state, or any state-created, or controlled (like local government) entity. ‘State-created’ is an important loophole to close.  Caps on spending growth tempt legislators to go ‘off-budget,’ either through mandates to local government (they should also have POP+INFL TABORS), or by creating ‘Off-Budget Enterprises’. OBEs are surprisingly little-know, large end-runs around spending limits.

To avoid the ‘ratchet down’ effect of recessions that has been a troublesome aspect of the Colorado TABOR’s otherwise fabulously successful POP+INFL cap, the base for each year’s allowed spending growth should be the previous year’s TABOR limit, not revenue or actual spending, which could be lower depending on rules for use of money in the budget stabilization fund. Some states call it a ‘rainy day’ fund.

The revenue generated above the TABOR limit on spending growth should be divided between taxpayer refunds, tax rate cuts, additions to an emergency fund, additions to a budget stabilization fund, and if capital spending is budgeted separately, an addition to the capital spending fund. Refunds to taxpayers are awkward, so there needs to be a criterion established that would determine when refunds signal that rates are too high.

The POP+INFL cap on spending growth should apply to capital spending except in actual or projected economic downturns. Actual vs. projected is an under-explored issue. Of course it would be better to respond to a recession, if at all, before it’s a year old, or more. During periods of slow economic growth, the permitted rate of increase in capital spending should rise by the positive difference between the average annual rate of increase in personal income growth over the preceding ten years and the projected (or most recent actual) personal income growth. So, for example, if the average annual rise in personal income has been 7%/year for the past ten years, and the upcoming year is projected to have personal income growth of 4%, the permitted rate of increase in capital spending for the upcoming year is POP + INFL + 3 (3 = 7% - 4%).

Within tight enforcement of those overall limits, legislators should be left with the discretion to decide what to tax, and where/when to re-allocate spending. That’s why we send them to the capitol; to make tough decisions about how to use limited resources. The TABOR keeps them from ducking tough decisions with rapid growth in spending and then tax hikes in bad times to avoid difficult cuts. So, unlike the authors of some actual, and proposed, TABORS, I would not require a public vote to enact new taxes. Voters have too much to vote on as it is. I would provide only for voter referenda on whether to exceed the TABOR limit on spending growth.
 

Published: 02-26-07

Source: Texas Insider, one of the fastest growing political newsletters in Texas.

AUSTIN – Legislation filed by State Rep. Joe Straus (San Antonio) to repeal an obsolete telecommunications tax was heard by the House Regulated Industries Committee today. Straus’ legislation, House Bill 735, which enjoys strong bipartisan support, would repeal the Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund (TIF).

The TIF was created by the Legislature in 1995 to provide funding to schools, libraries, universities and public hospitals for computers, telecommunications networks, training and other technology-related projects.

The fund generates close to $400 million bi-annually from Texas telephone consumers and reached the $1.5 billion cap in 2003. Texas faced a significant budget crisis that year, and the TIF was extended and the funds were directed into the state’s General Revenue, a move that allowed lawmakers to manage the budget shortfall without having to raise taxes.

“The TIF was an excellent tool that has helped bring modern technology to countless schools, libraries and hospitals across Texas,” Straus said. “The fund has served its purpose and is no longer used to fund technology projects. It’s accomplished the mission the Legislature intended back in 1995, but it is simply no longer needed today.”

Straus stressed that a separate program to provide discounts on telecommunications services for schools, libraries and hospitals would continue unchanged under HB 735.

The TIF is assessed on monthly wireless, long-distance, local telephone and paging bills. On a $50 bill, the amount would be approximately 63 cents.

“We must always look closely at the money we collect from Texans, whether we truly need to collect the money, and we need to always look at how the money is used,” Straus said. “We cannot separate being good stewards of public money and good stewards of public trust. House Bill 735 will discontinue collecting a tax that is no longer needed and honor our commitment to using Texans’ money prudently.”

Straus also expressed his appreciation to his joint authors, Rep. Phil King (Weatherford), who chairs the Regulated Industries Committee, Rep. Senfronia Thompson (Houston), Rep. Jim Keffer (Eastland), Rep. Carl Isett (Lubbock), and Rep. Yvonne Davis (Dallas).

Straus represents northeastern Bexar County including Alamo Heights, Olmos Park, Terrell Hills, Windcrest, and part of San Antonio. He was elected to the Texas House of Representatives in February 2005 in a special election. Straus serves on the Committee on Regulated Industries, Local and Consent Calendars, and as the Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Economic Development.
 

Welcome back to the world of La Prima! This week has been an average one, with nothing unexpectedly happening. Or can one truly say politics is boring? Evidently, enough of you are junkies and come looking for some kind of jolt to keep you going until the next event happens. We shall examine this further.

Jolt number one—District 8 has the beginnings of interest with scandal brewing in the wings. One candidate is facing a possible lawsuit over the skeletons from her past sliding out of a locked closet door. Will she be able to keep things locked up or will the inevitable come falling out?

If that isn’t enough, another candidate is now drawing negative comments about qualifications to be a viable councilperson. Can one survive if all she has is a teaching certificate? Of course being an educator is an extremely difficult and often trying situation, but one needs schooling in many aspects in order to serve the constituency properly.

Then there is the candidate who is checking the minimum age requirements of holding public office to see if he might squeak in by a few months. Or, how about the candidate who is plagued with health issues that may or may not be quite serious. Could this be some form of denial?                                                                  

Perhaps the candidates think one must only put a well-recognized name on the ballot and that will suffice to get elected without doing anything or saying anything to stimulates the voters to go out and cast a decisive vote for them. That strategy might possibly be smart if everyone in the pack is indistinguishable.                       

Another candidate is questionable only because he has a high paying and prestigious job, which he would have give up to work for a whopping $20 a week. Or, is it $20 per month? It should also be noted that women are out and about their district knocking on doors, but the men are glaringly absent.     

Jolt number two—District 5 is having its candidates having to sell tacos in order to survive the expensive world of politics. Too bad District 8 couldn’t share some of its overwhelming wealth with the west side of our fair city. But diversity is where it’s at, the saying goes. Candidate Lourdes Galvan was quick to point out this is the beginning of celebrating Women’s month in history.

It is refreshing to see so many women trying to make a difference in Bexar County. We might even see more women on the ballot as time moves toward the deadline. While we are speaking of Lourdes, we must note she was able to gather a fair number of folks for her announcement on March 1.                    

She has support from not only her husband, but her former husband as well. If everyone in office took a page from hers on working with past and present, we might see another face of actually getting hard issues resolved. Too bad the media’s coverage was not as extensive for her as they were for another candidate.                                                                                                                                             

Moving on to District, Mary Alice Cisneros was able to have a tremendous send off for her announcement. The media couldn’t get there fast enough to out-scoop the others, beginning with her pre announcement the evening before, the radio shots the morning before, and the press conference itself. Good thing she is able to stand on her own two feet, as it was extremely noticeable that Henry was not present for her moment. At least she wasn’t overshadowed this time, and everyone was able to focus on her alone. Was this a twist of fate he had to be out on business, or a cleverly schemed plot to keep the thunder all to herself?       

In the midst of all these press conferences, it is also noted another expected face was absent from the crowds. Where was our esteemed Party Chair? As most of the candidates for City Council have a very distinctive leaning towards the Democratic Party, one might expect to see Madam Chair somewhere in the mix.

She has time to run to private meetings, and some not so private to take credit for trying to bring a well-known Presidential candidate (John Edwards) to San Antonio. She has been known to exclaim to any and all who will listen that “I AM the chair” so many times that one would question whether or not she is trying to convince herself that this phenomenon has really occurred.                                                         

Or perhaps she is still asleep and dreaming of the day it could happen, or that someone has not recognized her importance and all that goes with the title.   

Unless something arises from the unknown horizons, we will continue to explore city politics one more time. Rumors abound that the unopposed candidates might have unexpected competition from some very unlikely quarters. Something to read until the real races heat up or at least I can hope. Until then I shall remain La Prima, lest you all forget.                                                            

That is the moderate viewpoint, I AM also the Republicrat PLUS!