Even though I’ve endorsed Ted Cruz, I think it only fair to point out that Dewhurst has, in fact, constantly stated that he’s in favor of repealing ObamaCare pretty much since he joined the Senate race. (I even used the Wayback machine to verify it.) However, Cruz has been more fervent and articulate in campaigning against ObamaCare, making the phrase “repeal every syllable of every word of Obamacare” one of his stock talking points from the very beginning of his campaign. He’s also discussed the 10th Amendment reasons why ObamaCare is unconstitutional, something that I don’t recall Dewhurst doing. (Dewhurst has mentioned the 10th Amendment in support of the Texas Voter ID law.)
Cruz’s worry (which I think is legitimate) is that Dewhurst might be willing to compromise on ObamaCare. And I could easily see Dewhurst signing on with some “Group of 14” (or whatever) to needlessly save ObamaCare despite a Republican House, Senate, and White House, rather than push for full repeal.
Which is why this rings a little hollow to me:
But unlike some of Dewhurst’s other ads, at least that one probably won’t cost him votes…
Here’s the video of last week’s Cruz-Dewhurst debate:
The Dewhurst campaign is pointing to this Cruz appearance on the Dan Patrick show as evidence Cruz is a hothead:
34 minutes? No time to listen tonight…
And here’s still another journalist opining that the mid-Summer runoff date will mean. Memo to the MSM: IT’S TEXAS! IT’S HOT! WE’RE FREAKING USE TO IT!
Grady Yarbrough and Paul Sadler also debated last week. Yarbrough said he supported a border wall, saying that the Berlin Wall was effective. Hmmm, I don’t think I would have made that analogy…
Speaking of things I’m not watching tonight, here’s KERA’s embeddable video of the Democratic debate:
More on the Democratic debate. Another summary. My summary of those two summaries: Yarbrough wants a border wall and legal pot, and Sadler is against both of those. Sadler does actually say the national debt is too high.
Just got off a Texas Public Policy Foundation conference call with Chuck DeVore and Arlene Wohlgemuth on the effects of the Supreme Court ObamaCare decision. Just in case you hadn’t read anything on the Internet today, that ruling was 5-4 affirming ObamaCare as constitutional, majority opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, not on Commerce Clause grounds, but on congress’ ability to tax:
The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.
Here some no-doubt random bits of information I gleaned from the conference call:
Of all the possible scenarios experts looked at in a possible ObamaCare ruling, this wasn’t one of them.
All the cost drivers and massive increase in bureaucracy is still there.
Texas was already looking at a $5 billion Medicaid shortfall for the next biennium; ObamaCare will likely make that a $15 shortfall.
No one knows if Texas will undertake Medicaid expansion or not.
ObamaCare was a consequence of Republican losses in 2006 and 2008, and a cause of Republican victories in 2010.
As a tax, ObamaCare can be repealed with 51 Senate votes (no filibuster).
Roberts’ decision “built a fence” around the Commerce Clause, possibly preventing further expansion of federal powers under that guise. (This has lead to some observers to suggest that Roberts is playing the “long game” of constraining the growth of the federal government.)
The court did invalidate (7-2) Medicare/Medicaid penalties for non-compliance, in that states cannot be “dragooned” into post-facto changes with the threat of withdrawn funding for established programs. DeVore: “This is a victory for the 10th Amendment and Federalism.”
That change might offer challenges to a whole lot of legislation.
The politicized way in which the Obama Administration has granted waivers to the politically connected might also offer avenues for equal protection challenges.
This TPPF policycast also covers some of the same topics discussed on the conference call.
So: That’s my brief recap of the conference call. I’m still digesting the ruling itself, and reactions to the ruling. I might be doing that for some time…
Today brings news that Austin just surpassed San Francisco in population to become the 13th largest city in the country. In fact, Texas had six of the top seven fastest growing cities over the past 14 months: Round Rock, Austin, Plano, McKinney, Frisco, and Denton placed 2-7, topped only by a post-Katrina New Orleans. And at only 7,000-odd residents behind Jacksonville and Indianapolis, expect Austin to be the 11th largest city in the country the next time this list is updated.
And that news gives me a great excuse to to another roundup of Texas vs. California!
“Texas has been doing very well. If you draw a triangle whose points are Houston, Dallas and San Antonio, enclosing Austin, you’ve just drawn a map of the economic and jobs engine of North America.”
“California may be dreaming, but Texas is working. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, from 2000 to 2010, California lost a net of 519,600 jobs while Texas gained 1,093,600 jobs.” Lots of additional statistics here make the case for the measurable superiority of Texas’ Red State model over California’s Blue State model.
Lest you think this is some kind of fluke, or that taxes are not the determining factor in this “escape from NY and California,” it isn’t just Texas that is gaining all these fleeing residents. The U.S. Census reported that all of the top 15 states for population growth during the past decade are no tax or low tax states like Nevada, Florida, Arizona, Utah, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina. It seems Americans are smarter than politicians give them credit for- they are voting with their feet for lower taxes, pro business attitude, and more economic freedom.
Because no state in the union has a better economy, let’s look “up close and personal” at the Texas miracle. Texas practices what I proudly call “Wild West Cowboy Capitalism.” And it works!
Texas has zero state income tax, zero capital gains taxes, and zero death taxes. It is a “right to work” state where employees may choose to join a union, but are never forced to. It is pro business and anti-lawyer (discouraging class action lawsuits and the first state to pass a “Loser Pays” law). Texas is also tight-fisted with welfare and entitlement benefits- unlike New York and California. The result of this limited government attitude is people with high incomes, assets, and ambition are moving into Texas, while those who lack work ethic, and feel entitled to handouts are moving out. Good riddance.
But the most important attribute of Texas is that its constitution limits the time that politicians can meet. The Texas Legislature is limited to meeting only 4 months every other year. That pretty much explains everything. Texas and my state of Nevada have no state income taxes and the fastest growing populations in America…not in spite of, but because the politicians aren’t allowed to sit in their seats all year long thinking of new ways to re-distribute income, impede business, and destroy jobs.
California’s pension crisis continues to fester, and Democrats appear to be unwilling to grapple with the issue. (And here’s more on the pension bomb from Walter Russell Mead.)
Gary Farmer, head of the Austin Economic Development Corp. tells California audience exactly how Austin lures business from their state. “The key reason for the state’s success in luring business from other locations is a better political and regulatory climate, he added. Texas has a corporate tax of 1 percent on adjusted gross receipts, while California’s is 8.84 percent of income. Texas has no personal income tax while California’s is 9.3 percent.”
“Parents are yanking their kids out of the ‘progressive,’ $32,000 per-year private school founded by the Blue Man Group—which has no books and no tests—because their kids are barely learning to read.”
You mean that “progressive” education doesn’t work, even in a school founded by mimes? Who knew?
Well, guess I’ll have to cancel my graduate school application for The Marcel Marceau School of Advanced Particle Physics…
Whether this was done by convicted felon Brett Kimberlin, his likely associate Neal Rauhauser, or anyone else on Team Kimberlin, I don’t think they’ve thought their cunning scheme all the way through. Did it ever occur to the people setting up these SWATings that police really, really don’t like being made to look like fools? Having police officers kill an innocent person based on a malicious prank has to rank pretty high among nightmare scenarios at police headquarters.
You SWAT people once or twice and and police may shrug it off as a prank. You do it repeatedly, as the supergeniuses on Team Kimberlin have done, and you’re really going to piss them off. So much so, that they’re going to start sharing information between departments in an effort to track down the people behind it and nail them to the wall. And they’re going to start calling their friends among the feds and private security consultants for help. Eric Holder may not be interested in helping conservative bloggers, but there are a lot of feds that still want to do the right thing.
Team Kimberlin better be having fun messing with the bull now, because I have a strong feeling they’re not going to like what comes next…
Even for convicted felon Brett Kimberlin this seems ham-handed. They seem desperate to punish conservative bloggers. Or perhaps distract our attention from Obama’s lousy job as President. Whatever the reason, they’re doubling-down on the nasty tactics.
Texas Democratic U.S. Representatives Al Green, Ruben Hinojosa, and the retiring Charlie Gonzalez all kicked money into New York Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel’s reelection fund.
On reason I’ve kept on this story is that once I uncovered the Ron Paul connection, it was obvious the MSM would run with Chi as a “Right Wing Extremist.” Which is already happening in the comments for various stories. But, as I showed, it’s not that simple. Chi is also on record as supporting organic food and opposing religion, corporations and genetically modified food, all of which are hardly typical Ron Paul positions. I wanted to get the facts out there before the MSM clouded the issue.
“In a criminal complaint unsealed in federal court Wednesday, the FBI identified Anson Chi as the suspect accused of setting off a bomb while tampering with a gas main earlier this week.”
But the MSM is only reporting what I concluded on Tuesday .
A typical piece on the race. But notice how the reporter mentions “As he did at the Republican State Convention, Cruz got a more vocal and enthusiastic reception than Dewhurst.”
The Texas Tribune looks at the immigration/amnesty muddle in the race. Some voters are still confused about where Cruz stands.
Paul Burka wonders if this is a viable attack issue for Dewhurst to hit Cruz with. Since it takes him a thousand words just to explain it (Cruz evidently overlooked an obscure military statute in arguing a Supreme Court case over whether imposing the death penalty for raping a child was constitutional or not), I’m guessing not. Also, the headline (“Cruz Control”) is just lazy.