What Hath They Wrought?

As expected, the $825,000,000,000 (give or take) American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H.R. 1) passed the House today. Now, anyone who knows me knows that I think very little of this bill. And why is that?

Well, for starters...

• $1 billion for Amtrak
• $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
• $400 million for global warming research (no word on whether any of this will be directed to finding out why it snows every time Al Gore shows up to talk about climate change)
• $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects
• $150 million for the Smithsonian Institution
• $6 billion for mass transit

That's all well and good, but how about...

• $81 billion for Medicaid
• $83 billion for Earned Income Credit payments
• $66 billion for education (My guess: none of it will be spent to determine the efficacy of incredibly large federal block payments into state education programs. Actual truth: this money is prohibited from being used for vouchers.)

Are these new, incredibly large, payouts justified in any meaningful way?

Oh, and finally...

• $30 billion for road/highway projects
• $40 billion for other infrastructure projects
• $20 billion for business tax cuts

And those three items are arguably the only payouts that will lead to any meaningful job creation. The rest seems like Democrats rewarding their donors to me.

(These are just a few of the items pointed out by the Wall Street Journal.)

Rather unexpectedly (at least to me), every Republican voted against this thing, including Michael McCaul and Lamar Smith (for people in my local area). Lloyd Doggett ignored my call pleading with him to vote against, unfortunately (but as I figured he would). Full rollcall vote is here.

My take on this bill: a disaster. I (like most of us, I would think) would like to see the economy improve, but I cannot believe that this bill will do it. I do, however, think that the Democrats will use this bill to take credit for the natural cycles that will turn this economy back into an upswing.

TX-21 and TX-25 update

With five days to go (and thank God for that!), TX-21 and TX-25 pretty much remain the way the conventional wisdom has called them: fairly safe seats for their incumbents. Lamar Smith, who still doesn't have a campaign website, and Lloyd Doggett, who still doesn't have much of one, seem content to coast through November 7. Mr. Doggett, in particular, was painted by the American-Statesman (in this article) as having no "real opposition".

However, to win, the incumbents (or anyone, of course) must receive over 50% of the popular votes in their district; otherwise, we get another month of ads and a runoff. Most sources seem to paint both districts as safe for their incumbents, but we'll see soon enough.

Neither incumbent, however, seemed to help their causes with their rather pompous statements in declining to debate their challengers. Both of them basically stated that since they are set to win at this point, they did not want to bother possibly upsetting the tea cart. (That was pretty much a paraphrase of the Smith campaign statement; Mr. Doggett's statement of not debating because he hadn't seen his opponents really just sounds lame.)

That said, KEYE has the best voter's guide I've seen for Texas, allowing you to find the races for your address. It also has position statements for many of the candidates, allowing you to compare two candidates at a time. I know it does leave out some races, particularly the judicial ones, but it's better than what Texans have been getting to determine which races apply to them. (California, I'm told, sends out a sample ballot to voters; why can't Texas take this online voter's guide and allow people to view their sample ballot online?)

Oh, I did promise earlier to have more on Jim Strohm in TX-21, even though the race remains basically Smith vs. Courage, as it was before the redistricting. Mr. Strohm wants to introduce articles of impeachment against the President...as his first act. At least he's honest about it.

Does Courage lack courage?

The first candidate at which this blog will look in regard to these questions will be John Courage. Mr. Courage was the Democratic candidate for TX-21 before the redistricting, and if I recall correctly (the information is no longer on his webpage) he easily received enough signatures to requalify for the ballot without paying the filing fee. The Democratic party establishment has rallied around Mr. Courage (which is no surprise, given that the only other Democrat in the race is perennial also-ran Gene Kelly).

I assumed that Mr. Courage was all for openness and dialogue; this was based on this post from his blog slamming incumbent Lamar Smith for closing a public meeting when Mr. Courage and his supporters arrived. So, I thought Mr. Courage would be happy to articulate his positions, especially given his personal passion for education. Unfortunately, Mr. Courage waited a week and then finally declined to answer the questions. So much for openness. His communications director directed me to his blog and his webpage. Quite frankly, if I had found all the answers I wanted, I wouldn't have needed to send the questions.

With that being said, a study of Mr. Courage's website yielded the following information:

Fiscally: Mr. Courage wants to keep Social Security and Medicare solvent. He wants a prescription drug program "that actually works for our seniors". (That means a much larger one than the boondoggle President Bush signed.) He's big on veterans' benefits and the environment, and he "is committed to develop a real plan for American energy self sufficiency". (That means he doesn't have one now.)

Foreign policy/Iraq/War on Terror/National Security: Says "the United States cannot be the policeman for the world." He also says protecting our borders should be the primary aim. Couldn't tell what that is saying about immigration, since from what I can tell, he never once mentions it on his site. Maybe if we ignore it, it'll go away...

Differences from Other Candidates: He concentrates solely on Mr. Smith, assuming, most likely correctly, that the two of them will be the top vote getters. He's attacked Mr. Smith for not supporting a direct vote on the annual Congressional COLA, and also for his sitting on the ethics committee when it appeared Tom DeLay might be brought before it. His website mentions Lamar Smith's name possibly more than his own.

Education: Fix No Child Left Behind, have smaller class sizes, and pay teachers more. Those are all nice enough, but he doesn't really offer any way to pay for all this. And really, what exactly does fixing NCLB involve, anyway? Somehow I'm thinking it involves more federal government control.

I do want to thank Meredith of "Team Courage" for taking the time to talk with me, even though her boss wouldn't. More on TX-21 in later entries.

What are our defining issues for TX-21 and TX-25?

A couple of weeks ago, this blog attempted to interview by e-mail several TX-21 and TX-25 candidates. Should I have expected any answers? Who knows; this blog isn't that old. Anyway, the interview was a rather short four questions:

1. What are your opinions on President Bush's fiscal policies? His foreign policies? In what areas, if any, would you like to see changes made?

2. In which areas are your views most different from those of your opponents?

3. What should the federal government's role in public education be?

4. How should the United States resolve the Iraq situation? What is the best way for the US to handle the War on Terror (assuming, in your opinion, that
such a war exists)?

The rationale behind these questions was something like this:

1. I cannot believe that the Republicans are going to march in lockstep with President Bush on every issue. Of course, the Democrats surely aren't, either. Clarifying the differences between the candidates' ideas and the president's, rather than either saying nothing or issuing blanket statements slamming the president, would help. (Or, if no differences exist between the candidate and the president, articulating those positions would help also.)

2. Same thing, basically. I want to know what each candidate sees as a strength that distinguishes them from the others. This is especially helpful in 21 & 25, where we now have seven and four candidate, respectively.

3. What can I say; I have kids. I want to know what to expect from my representatives: will it be more mandates, more money, or a whole new paradigm.

4. Hey, guess what...every candidate is going to say let's support the troops and bring them home as soon as possible. Let's have some details.

Future entries will explain candidates' positions on these issues.

And what should the other important issues be for these districts? (aside from bringing this area a cell phone throwing contest, that is...)

TX-21 update

Thanks to the third round of redistricting since 2000, the Texas 21st Congressional District now will have an open election.

Our candidates (per our friends at the Austin American-Statesman):

Lamar Smith (R, incumbent): apparently so confident in his win that he hasn't bothered to have a campaign website, Mr. Smith is tied by his detractors to a certain former House Majority Leader over in TX-22. Pretty strict on immigration, pretty lousy on tax policy.

The rest, in alphabetical order:
Tommy Calvert (I, consultant, San Antonio): his website states that he is "running on a centrist platform". That is the only issue-related statement on the whole site.

John Courage (D, teacher, San Antonio): his website is well organized, with statements regarding many issues. One of the most important to him appears to be veterans' benefits. Another, as one might expect from a teacher, is education. As I have said before, his ideas give no indication of how they are to be funded. More on Mr. Courage in a later entry.

Gene Kelly (quasi-D, perennial candidate, Universal City): no website, and he is apparently banking on the hope that a lot of people don't realize that Gene Kelly, the actor, has been dead for 10 years. And since this guy doesn't articulate any positions, I'll go off the board and just say that the other Gene Kelly was quite a good actor, and I really enjoyed Singin' In the Rain.

James Lyle Peterson (I, computer programmer, Austin): couldn't find anything online for him, either. Also, he does not share a famous name. In a seven-man race, those two points together can't help your chances.

Mark J. Rossano (I, automotive management, Austin): several empty pages on his site (plus solitications for signatures for the May deadline), but he does have a platform page spelling out his positions, which apparently include heavy government involvement/interference (take your pick) in health care and energy. This includes reinstating the wildly popular windfall profits tax, which will make those people nostalgic for the 1979 gas lines happy.

James Strohm (L, technical writer, Austin): he readily admits that his website is still under construction. His three issues of choice appear to be immigration, taxes, and "good government", though only the Taxes section has any information. As has been mentioned on this site, he is a FairTax supporter. More on Mr. Strohm in a later entry as well.

This race was originally dominated by Mssrs. Smith & Courage, and honestly, it probably still will be. The loudest supporters are definitely those of Mr. Courage, but TX-21 is still majority-Republican, so it appears that Mr. Smith will retain his seat. But we'll see.

Maybe someday Texas will get it right...

How nice...thanks to the third redistricting process in Texas since 2000, I now longer find myself in TX-21, but in TX-25, in which my new Congressman is the same as my old one before I moved, Lloyd Doggett. Not a great development...Mr. Doggett has not shown himself, in my experience, to be as responsive as Lamar Smith was with regard to inquiries from constituents. (Not that I won't continue to try...) As shown here by the Club for Growth, Mr. Doggett scored a whopping 7 out of 100 for being pro-growth. But then again, this is Austin, the home during the 80s and 90s of the "if we don't build it, maybe they won't come" mindset regarding infrastructure, or lack thereof. (Drive I-35 or Mopac at 5:15 any weekday afternoon and tell me that's not true.)

Mr. Doggett's opponent, before the redistricting, was to be Grant Rostig, who was running as a Libertarian. Since the redistricting, it was decreed that there would be an open election, with a possible runoff in December. In the meantime, Mr. Rostig's name has mysteriously disappeared from the Libertarian Party's list of candidates. (However, I did notice a FairTax-supporting Libertarian in TX-21...check out his website.) Mr. Rostig's site now lists him as a Republican (though the state GOP site doesn't list him there either). In any case, Mr. Rostig is a FairTax supporter who is in favor of limited government, so at this point, if in fact he is still running, I know who is getting my vote.

My assumption is that the candidates for the redrawn districts will fall into place pretty quickly, so that we can get on with the usual three months of annoying advertisements (followed by the two months during which signs remain up on Mopac). But we'll see.

Pork: the only white meat...for Lamar Smith

After having lived in the Texas 21st Congressional District for a few years, I thought I had a handle on Lamar Smith. I appreciated the fact that he faced a generally angry mob last year just to hear his constituents' comments. I definitely appreciated his listening to my comments on the FairTax, and I appreciated his (office's) writing to me to explain why he didn't support it. (The short answer apparently involves his not having read the bill, it seemed to me.) I also appreciate that he hasn't rubber-stamped the immigration amnesty proposals swirling around Washington at the moment.

And, as it turns out (from the Club for Growth, he scored a 57 out of 100 for being pro-growth. About what I expected, in that regard.

Maybe that's why I'm so disappointed that, per this article, he voted in favor of 19 pork barrel projects ranging from a swimming pool in California to tourism development in Kentucky (I'll save them the money on that: there's this horse race in May...). Each and every time an amendment came up to strip a pork project from a bill, dear Mr. Smith voted to keep it in. Apparently he believes our government isn't already wasting enough money as it is.

And, while I expected Ron "Dr. No" Paul to have the best score, out of the Austin-area Congressional delegation, on these 19 amendments (which he easily did, voting yes on all 19), I would have expected Mr. Smith to have a better score than Lloyd Doggett, the neighboring Democrat. Yet, as it turns out, Mr. Doggett voted yes on three of the amendments, which is three more than were supported by Mr. Smith. Pathetic.

Of course, his November opponent, John Courage, really doesn't provide much of an alternative in that respect. Content to watch Social Security slowly run dry, Mr. Courage also seems to support throwing money at other problems (of course, without mentioning how he intends to fund it), most notably education, in the hope that somehow it'll help, this time. Somehow that doesn't seem terribly pro-growth either.

Sadly, TX-21 seems stuck with no really good choices and another two years of more of the same. But just in case something actually changes, we'll keep an eye open.