Voice in the Wilderness

Forwarded from a friend at the UT Law School.....

The Student Endowed Centennial Lectureship (SECL) and the Student Events Center Distinguished Speakers Committee (DSC) are pleased to invite UT Austin students, faculty, and staff to a lecture with Ann Coulter, political columnist and best-selling author. Ms. Coulter will speak on Tuesday, May 3, 2005, at 7:30 p.m. in the LBJ Auditorium. Passes are free and will be available on a first-come, first-served basis to those with a valid UT ID (students, faculty and staff) beginning at 8 a.m. Monday, May 2 at the Student Events Center front desk, located at the north end of the 4th level of the Texas Union (UNB 4.300).

It might be a good opportunity to see Austin's professional protester class in action again. Stay tuned...

House Bill 1006 Can Help Break the Cycle of Taxpayer Co-Dependency

Late at night, he goes down to city hall to yuck it up with his buddies and enablers, the Texas Municipal League, the Texas Association of Counties, and the Texas Conference of Urban Counties, leaving you to take care of affairs all by yourself. This is ok….sometimes.

He’s always trying to get more of what he wants out of you. Using stealthy, manipulative means like hiding behind county tax appraisers to increase property valuations, he gets more out of you than you realize. Then you wonder where he’s at and hope he’s using with the money you gave him for the well being of you and your family.

Unfortunately, he’s often sneaking around on you, trysting with other constituent blocks to buy their votes. Using what he took from you, which you worked hard to provide, he showers them with smooth talk and sentimental gifts, to draw them into his web of deceit.

But when one of these affairs doesn’t work out, it’s your fault!
You didn’t care enough…
You weren’t compassionate enough…
You weren’t smart enough to figure it out…
You didn’t give enough…

Oh sure, he’s all hugs, kisses, flowers, and chocolates around election time, making you feel all warm and squooshy inside. But once he gets what he wants from you, he returns to his old habits of neglect and abuse.


He takes you for granted, manipulates you, and victimizes you. He’s your local politician, addicted to binge spending and you are co-dependent. You want to change but feel powerless to do so.
But you don’t have to be a victim anymore! HB 1006, the Truth in Taxation Act, can help!

Passed out the Texas House of Representatives on April 26, HB 1006 can help you set boundaries and take control by:

1. Requiring a public hearing and vote for most tax rate increases (excluding school districts….unfortunately) that are 3% or more above the current effective rate.
2. Lowering the rollback rate for all taxing units (excluding school districts) from 8% to 4% above the effective tax rate for maintenance and operations.
3. For rollback elections (that is, elections where you decide on resetting taxes), citizen petitions need only collect 10% of the number of voters who voted in the last gubernatorial election. Under current law, 10% of registered voters must sign a petition.
4. Requiring any rollback election to be on a uniform election date to eliminate costs associated with holding a special election.

These provisions help you put your foot down by making him bring proposed, local tax increases out in the open and make a case for those new taxes, as well as giving you the final say on those taxes.

HB 1006 will help him break out of denial about his binge spending. It will encourage him to sober up anytime a spending initiative comes before him and make him question the true cost that should be involved.

Of course, you can never change him. Yet, by taking a firm but loving stance, you can not only break out of local taxpayer co-dependency, you can also help make your local politician want to change.

Contact your state senator today about HB 1006 and help your local politician get on the road to recovery.

City Elections Offer Slim Pickin’s for Conservative Voters;
A Search for the Least Nutty

4/26/05 update: I've posted a review of the two initiatives also on the ballot, the smoking ban and the ACC annexation proposal here.

If you are a City of Austin property owner like me, you probably received your property tax appraisal last week. Over the next few weeks leading up to May 7, we get to have a say in the spending of that money by electing the people who guide how some of that money is spent, the Austin City Council. Unfortunately, many local voters I talk to have little sense for what goes on down at City Hall and why it is important to them.

To get a sense of what Austin city politics is really like, look at the new city hall. I get mad every time I drive by this monstrous eyesore foisted on local taxpayers. But it is instructive. Seen from afar, the building appears to be in a state of disrepair, with sections of the roof collapsing and walls buckling, as if the foundation was unsure. The building design is also completely out of synch with the surrounding structures. However, when you get closer, you realize the building was actually designed to look that way. On the north side of the building, a large, copper protrusion welcomes drivers on 2^nd Street. It is as if the structure itself was trying to excrete the gratuitous aesthetic hubris that indwelt its design and construction. The city paid good money to raise an edifice that is in conflict with the natural order. Many other things about Austin politics are like that.

Because of the praetorian, one-party rule and “place” elections (where each Council Member is voted on city wide) that help protect that rule, the local political establishment seems isolated from competition of ideas and true, geographic representation. Thus, Austinites are in a bit of a jam when it comes to choosing local government officials. Last week, the Austin American Statesman lamented the dominance of the Republican Party at the state level in Texas. Of course, it probably did not occur to the editorial writers that the same arguments could be made about the Democrats running Austin. Years of ideological insularity have produced debaucheries such as:

• Abortions funded by local tax payer money
• A hideously conceived regional mobility plan that clearly did not take in proper public input and now many local pols are running from it as fast as they can…thus delaying any constructive mobility planning and development
• The proposed $750,000 “loan” (read: shakedown by the local civil rights agitators) to a local club that burned down and apparently some police officers made reference to 70’s disco songs about it.
  
• A hospital district that, for all practical purposes, is a non-elected taxing authority
• And, of course, the new city hall building

Therefore, let us right-thinking voters be a voice in the wilderness to a political culture gone mad this election season. To that end, I have assembled information on the candidates and initiatives you will see on the ballot when you vote. Sources include the Austin American Statesman, the Austin Chronicle, Young Conservatives of Texas, the candidates web pages and my own observations and insights about certain candidates.

City Council, Place 1
The candidates are:

• Casey Walker: Website appears slightly anti-business, but does echo my position of single member districts. He is very anti-toll road and the Austin Toll Party endorses him.
• Scott Williams
• James Paine
• Lee Leffingwell: Considered the favorite. His views are center-left. All the local legacy media endorse him. (Note: His wife was very recently found dead and police suspect suicide. Please pray for Mr. Leffingwell and his family)
• Andrew Bucknall: Eastside activist recently told South Austin audience, "I'm your progressive candidate."
• Certified write-candidate: Steve Adams): I have met Steve on a couple of occasions. He is personable and energetic, and the most conservative candidate in any race. He opposes the smoking ban and seems to understand that government micromanaging can have deleterious effects on the local economy. I just wish he would have filed his papers on time to be listed as regular candidate.

VitW endorses Steve Adams for City Council, Place 1 because his policy views are the most conservative regarding taxation and spending restraint. Furthermore, I like his emphasis on bringing more accountability and transparency to the Austin City Council.

City Council, Place 3
The candidates are:

• Jennifer Kim: Owner of a Computer Moms franchise. Supports quotas for city hiring and worked for state Senator Judith Zaffirini, a liberal Democrat.
• Margot Clarke: Austin Toll Party has endorsed her. She supports the smoking ban. She has lobbied for several liberal interest groups in the past including Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, and Planned Parenthood. Thus, she is not likely to support ending taxpayer-funded abortions in Austin.
• Mandy Dealey: Worked as board member for Planned Parenthood. Endorsed by Austin Lesbian/Gay Political Caucus and University Democrats. A smoking ban proponent.
• Gregg Knaupe (pronounced “nap”): Attorney and Texas Hospital Association lobbyist. He previously worked for former state representative Barry Telford, a moderate Democrat. He opposes the smoking ban, denounced the taxpayer-funded pay off to the Midtown Club. A big initiative is bringing a medical school to Austin. Was for the Travis County Hospital District.

This is the most competitive race of the three. Clarke and Dealey are liberal ideologues and clearly out of the mainstream, even for Austin. Kim and Knaupe are more intriguing. Both seem less nutty than the others and have some economic development chops, at least for Democrats. I like Knaupe’s vision for the medical school and how it can help with both economic development and indigent health care. Pulling it off will be tricky, but he seems to have thought through the idea and his health care cache will help make it happen.

VitW endorses Greg Knaupe for City Council, Place 3.

City Council, Place 4
The candidates are

• John Wickham: Owner of the “Elysium” nightclub. Running to protest the smoking ban.
• Wes Benedict: Engineer and former Texas Libertarian Party Executive Director. Opposes smoking ban and all city tax incentives for business. Has earned the Austin Toll Party’s endorsement. He is also hammering Dunkerley with ethics charges.
• P. Byron Miller: Austin public library employee. Seems to be a political neophyte.
• Betty Dunkerley: Incumbent and fairly able administrator. She is not particularly ideological, which in Austin is a plus. Weakly for the smoking ban. Mildly against toll roads. Endorsed by everyone under the sun, except Austin Toll Party.
• Jennifer Gale: Her address and occupation are unclear. According to the Austin Chronicle, she says "smoking (of marijuana as well as tobacco) should be legalized and allowed in all public buildings with good ventilation."

Dunkerley will probably run away with this race, though Benedict has some intriguing positions. However, his strident “no tax incentives” stance seems too extreme given the way businesses are currently sold on moving to/staying in a city. I identify with the desire to make the tax rate and other factors so attractive in and of themselves that tax incentives are not needed, but we are not at that point yet. Curiously, his website is devoid of the same, detailed policy positions that the other credible candidates provide.

VitW endorses Betty Dunkerley for City Council, Place 4.

Click here for voting days, times and locations.

Click here for a primer on the smoking ban and Austin Community College initiatives also on the ballot this May 7.

Ballot initiatives are a double-edged sword; be sure to grab at the hilt end

I am conflicted about ballot initiatives, in general. On one hand, it seems like the pols are fobbing off their responsibilities for making tough decisions on the voters, who may not have the time or savvy to really understand the issue in question. On the other, it does give the public a chance have some input on key issues of the day, particularly when they are about to be subject to a new tax or taxing authority. So, with that ambivalent primer in mind, here are the two ballot initiatives on the local ballot for this May 7.

The Smoking Ban: Tell the Do-Gooders to Butt Out
The Travis County sample ballot says:

AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES: AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AUSTIN‘S CURRENT ORDINANCE RELATING TO SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES AND REPLACING IT WITH A NEW ORDINANCE THAT MAINTAINS THE CURRENT PROHIBITION AGAINST SMOKING IN MOST PUBLIC PLACES, INCLUDING WORKPLACES, AND EXPANDS THE PROHIBITION AGAINST SMOKING TO APPLY TO ALL BARS, RESTAURANTS, BOWLING ALLEYS, AND BILLIARD PARLORS, EXCEPT FOR RESTAURANTS WITH RESTRICTED PERMITS THAT ARE RENEWABLE THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1, 2012.

The current ordinance places highly restrictive regulations on businesses that do allow smoking and was hammered out as a compromise last year between local bars and the do-gooders pushing the ban. However, if the local business owners thought the anti-smoking crusaders were negotiating in good faith last year, they now realize that was a pipe dream.

This proposal would ban smoking in all indoor, public places. In addition to being dirty double-dealing by the tobacco police, this proposal is completely unnecessary, an abuse of government power, and a unilateral rush to regulate that could leave Austin in an economic quagmire. If someone is concerned about the supposed health effects of second hand smoke, there are 46,000 smoke free public establishments they can patronize or work at while the smokers inhabit the 211 that allow smoking. I have blogged extensively on this topic here and here.

VitW is for small business and private property rights and against the smoking ban.

ACC Risky Tax Scheme

Austin Community College has a stealthy initiative on the ballot that reads:

ACC PROPOSITION: ANNEXING, FOR JUNIOR COLLEGE PURPOSES ONLY, THAT PORTION OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN THAT IS NOT PRESENTLY INCLUDED WITHIN THE CURRENTLY EXISTING BOUNDARIES OF AUSTIN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT.

This would be a backdoor property tax increase forced on a minority of Austin residents (those in Eanes, Round Rock, and Pflugerville ISD’s) by the majority. According to the Save our Taxpayers website, this proposal should only be voted on by voters in those areas to be annexed. If ACC thinks they can make a good case for these areas to be annexed, why not make the sale directly to them and let them vote on it separately? One recommendation for ACC: I would trade this annexation for ACC board of trustee elections in November, when more regular voters are paying attention and not just the employees of ACC.

VitW is against the ACC annexation.

Click here for voting days, times and locations.

Click here for an overview of the May 7 Austin City Council elections.