Contempo Magazine Blog

Texas Hispanic Candidates Embracing Tea Party Movement

Tony Magana — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 00:15:28 +0000

by Dr. Tony Magana

The political shock felt by the Democrats in Massachusetts could be only a slight tremor compared to what may happen in the traditionally Democratic and predominately Hispanic South Texas election scene where the Tea Party movement is growing. A political debate held in the Rio Grande Valley shows Hispanics views mirror those developing across the country.

Since before World War II the most southern area of Texas along the Mexican border, known locally as the Rio Grande Valley, has been a staunch Democratic bastion tightly controlled by a “party boss system”. With a population that is nearly 90% Hispanic (the highest percentage in the U.S.) conventional wisdom has always been that local candidates will be only Democrats.

The Republican party made significant inroads in getting Texas Mexican-Americans to vote for state-wide and national candidates during the Reagan and Bush era by addressing socially conservative issues attractive to Catholic and evangelical protestant Hispanics until the beginning of the second George W. Bush term.

The Obama campaign managed to capture almost 70% of the Hispanic vote by portraying himself as a somewhat conservative Democrat. Many Hispanics perceived anti-immigration movements by some in the Republican party to be veiled racism. Mainstream media pundits predicted that Hispanics as a group who had previously been thought of as swing voters would now forever vote way to the left.

Now we are one year and counting after the Obama election and find that the liberal pundits predictions about Hispanics especially in a Democratic stronghold may be faulty. When the Tea Party movement began last spring in South Texas, the first reaction of local media and political pundits was that no Mexican-Americans would be involved.

Today a live debate which was simultaneously streamed online was held in Edinburg,Texas where political candidates from both the Republican and Democratic primaries in Congressional as well as local elections participated. This is by itself an unusual event, because the status quo has always been for the Democratic party bosses to decide who runs in the primary rather than have true open primaries.

Conventional mainstream media “wisdom” is that Hispanics views will be always be left of center (ignoring that Marco Rubio in Florida, a Reagan conservative, is ahead of incumbent Governor Crist). The McAllen Candidate Forum held today was sponsored by organizations of the Tea Party movement but most of those presenting themselves as candidates were Hispanics. The viewpoints they expressed publicly in the hopes of being elected were very much at odds with conventional liberalism.

Should children of illegal aliens be allowed to stay in the U.S. or be given citizenship? Almost of all them agreed that children born to parents who are in the U.S. illegally should not be allowed to stay in the U.S. or be given citizenship. At first glance this coming from Hispanics looking for office in a predominantly Hispanic community might seem shocking.

The great farm labor organizer, Ceasar Chavez, was a strong advocate for stopping illegal immigration because he recognized that uncontrolled immigration only weakened the bargaining position of farm workers to earn a decent wage. Uncontrolled immigration harms the poor and relatively uneducated workers in the Hispanic community most. When you understand this it is not so hard to comprehend how the Hispanic community will support immigration controls. However, what got the Republican party in trouble was that the rhetoric about immigration from certain politicians sounded much more like thinly veiled racism than a concern for workers.

Should photo identification be required for voting? Almost all the candidates strongly supported this idea and one even noted that such a requirement is currently the law for voting in Mexico. Although some well meaning liberal organizations have tried to portray this as discriminatory against Hispanics, a poll done in the state of Texas has shown that a majority of Hispanics would support such a measure.

Hispanics support photo identification because they have all experienced machine politics controlled by party bosses. They inherently distrust the fairness of the election system and feel that a photo identification would do more good than harm.

Should American history be taught differently? Almost all the candidates support the idea of teaching our children about American values of religion and free enterprise. Liberal advocates forget that Hispanic immigrants came to America to become Americans and to share American values. This does not mean giving up all of one’s cultural heritage but neither does it mean that high school history should be courses in everything America has done wrong.

Other conservative ideas expressed included supporting a flat tax, preserving secret ballot in union elections, being more aggressive in war against terrorism (keeping Guantanamo open and using military tribunals), cutting Texas taxes, and balancing all government budgets.

In the end, liberal pundits should not be so surprised that Hispanic Americans would tend to share similar values with other Americans because if you ask them to describe who they are in one word it is not “Hispanic” or “Latino” it is American.

A portion of the debate can be seen here

Thanks for reading Contempo Magazine blog which discusses issues for McAllen, the Rio Grande Valley, and America from a conservative Hispanic point of view. Tony Magaña grew up in McAllen Texas, attended Texas A&M University, served as an officer in Army Reserve, and holds a doctorate from Harvard University. The co-founder of Contempo Magazine has participated in Valley business for over 20 years. He is a member of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists and also writes for the American Daily Review. Follow him on twitter http://twitter.com/contempomagazin

Commentary:The Value of the Independent Voter to Democracy

Tony Magana — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:26:48 +0000

By Dr. Tony Magana

The American political process is often characterized as a “two-party” system, implying that members of the electorate will belong to either the Republicans or the Democrats. However, the reality is at least half and often more of participating voters in election are actually independents who hold no real affiliation. Although political parties are a useful instrument to allow the organization of political candidate’s campaigns and their alliances with others, they must not be confused as being an end goal in themselves.

Many political pundits were flabbergasted by the recent special election for the United States Senate in Massachusetts. Conventional wisdom held that the state was the “bluest of the blue”. The only election which mattered they mistakenly believed was the Democratic primary because only 13 percent of the voting public was Republican.

What both political parties seem to forget is that voters should vote for the individual not the party. The increasing education level of the average voter, the internet, the development of competing news media with various points of view, and the scandals unveiling crony-ism of both Republicans and Democrats all contribute to a rising level of not only dissatisfaction but outright mistrust in the sincerity of political parties. The ready access of the public to facts and figures in modern society today creates an unavoidable environment of transparency which limits the ability of political party hacks to deceptively spin their agendas.

Americans must continue to move away from the concept of political parties being the center of political theory or practice and instead see them in a more realistic light of being campaign facilitators. Most Americans of any political persuasion would agree that there are both good and bad Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Political parties serve the public best when they have relatively small enrollments of the overall voting public and must prove their point to a greater majority then when they represent a monopoly. This forms the real engine of positive change.

There is nothing inherently wrong with being a Republican or a Democrat in our advocacy for a particular issue or candidate, but being so on any and every issue should only occur after we have examined the issue or the candidate through our own independent point of view unfiltered by the prejudice of party affiliation.

Party labels do not help the unemployed find jobs or the sick to get health care. Those who hold leadership positions in government should not have to be “bribed” with secret back room deals to convince them to do the right thing for their constituents. Instead of being a conduit to promote overall societal improvement, the American public has too often recently seen established political party leaders became fixated on personal power acquisition through narrow focused partnerships with special interests.

The nineteenth century commentator on the American political process, Alexis de Tocqueville, lamented that the power of the majority would overwhelm the ability of a small group of enlightened intellectuals who would be best fit to rule a nation. He felt that the American success story had occurred by luck rather then design and predicted future chaos. Now almost 200 years later, we continue to marvel at the genius of our founding fathers in their conception of a government which most highly values the inherent goodness and judgment of the common man expressed in the form of the independent voter.

The Texas Democratic Party Owes Hispanic Voters an Apology

Tony Magana — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:30:48 +0000

By Dr. Tony Magana

Many Texans including Texas Democratic Chairman, Boyd Richie, point with pride that a fellow Texan, President Lyndon Johnson, signed into law in 1964 the Civil Rights Act which was created to stop discrimination against minority voters in registering or carrying out their right to vote. Yet, according to LULAC attorney, Luis Roberto Vera Jr., this same Texas Democratic party now finds itself in his words “challenging the constitutionality of the Civil Right’s Act itself”. Mr. Vera was interviewed by this writer for this report.

For decades the Texas Democratic party has held presidential primaries and caucuses whose rules were controlled by a few elite members of the party. The process traditionally happened so late in the national election cycle that it had little effect on who would be the ultimate party candidate. In 1988 the process was changed to a “hybrid” that replaced the old fashioned caucus process with a combination open primary election and local caucuses.

Writing in the Democratic blog, The Texas Blue, Texas Democratic party chairman, Boyd Richie, on the eve of the primary defended the “Texas Two step” as it has come to be named. Even though he admitted that several writers and prominent Texans had called for a “simplified “ delegate selection plan he defended the status quo saying that it would give a “greater voice to the grassroots”.

In 2008, the Texas Democratic primary came sooner and right on the heels of a contested multi-state Super Tuesday primary event then ever before. For the first time in recent history, the Texas Democratic primary could have an effect on the national election. Although then Senator Barack Obama was riding a national populist wave, Senator Hillary Clinton had close ties with and the support of many in the Mexican-American community which makes up the majority in South Texas.

Texas’s fastest growing ethnic group which makes up almost a third of the eligible voting population and are overwhelmingly registered Democrats expected that their vote would be more then significant but instead experienced confusion, misinformation, and betrayal reminiscent of the days of the poll tax and Jim Crow. Most Latino Democratic voters were under the impression that they had one vote which would be cast in an open primary held on March 4, 2008 but they did not know that there were “conventions” held after the primary closed to select additional delegates. In the end, although Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, Barack Obama won more delegates because his organizers dominated the post-election conventions.

Following the election, the Texas Democratic party was embarrassed by revelations that no formal documentation of not only how the delegates where ultimately chosen but even who was officially chosen were made. In hearings held by the Democratic party, the late Jim Mattox testified about the utter chaos that occurred that lead to a universal agreement among the majority of Democratic voters that delegates should only be selected by the primary vote and not caucuses, however, the leaders of the Texas Democratic party have not accepted this conclusion.

On behalf of Texas voters, the League of United Latin American Citizens filed a suit in Federal Court alleging the so-called “Texas Two-Step” process was a violation of voter’s civil rights. Initially U.S. District Court Judge Fred Biery ruled that the case was not relevant because the law did not apply to political parties but LULAC appealed to the higher Court of Appeals in New Orleans which reversed Judge Biery and remanded the case back.

This past week the three judge panel of the Texas Western District Federal Court ruled against the Texas Democratic party. According to Vera, the stage is now set for the court to issue a summary judgment against the Texas Democratic party for violating the rights of not only Latino voters but possibly the elderly and disabled. As a result of the inequity of the “Texas Two Step” process, the Democratic party violated Hispanic voters rights in at least the seven state senatorial districts which have major Hispanic populations he adds.

One cannot help but wonder why this issue even went to court? Why has the Chairman of the Texas Democratic Party, Boyd Richie, and the executive committee not acted strongly and decisively to correct this problem but instead chosen to fight against the rights of Latino voters in court? Mr. Richie falsely claimed that Latin0 voters were informed about the late night caucuses.

Why has not Attorney General, Eric Holder, and the Justice Department under the Obama administration stepped in to file an amicus curae brief in defense of Texas Latino, elderly, and handicapped voters?

Mr. Vera states categorically that he believes the leadership in the Democratic party of Texas does not want to relinquish control by the old white party establishment. He sees the continuing opposition of the Democratic party leadership to change to a newer fairer system as a continuation of the old Texas ways and called the recent naming of a Latino executive director for the Texas Democratic party “window dressing” because in reality he notes that position has “no power.”

Mr. Vera says the Texas Democratic party has ten days to answer the recent court ruling. A key issue still to be decided is whether a new Democratic party primary rule will have to be approved by either the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, or the District Court in Washington DC. So far the court has urged this as a voluntary measure but could make it mandatory.

The truth is that the alliance between Texas Mexican-American community and the Democratic party has always been rough. For this writer what is most shocking if not unfortunately most surprising is that the leadership in the Democratic party would be so resistant to changing an obviously discriminatory practice. Following the post election hearings I would have expected the Democratic party to issue an apology to the Hispanic community and rapidly change the process, not lawyers representing the Democratic party in court arguing that loopholes exist in the Civil Rights Act which they can exploit.

The Texas Democratic party must show Hispanic voters not only the respect but also the dignity they deserve. In the general election, they supported Barack Obama by an almost 70 percent to 30 percent margin. They seem to have forgotten the old saying “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you”. However, this loyalty can only be tested so far. The right thing for the Texas Democratic party and especially the Chairman, Boyd Richie, is to issue an apology to Texas voters and to immediately denounce any continuation of the Texas Two Step. The Texas Democrat Party should immediately agree to fully adhere to the spirit and the letter of the law in the Civil Rights Act without hesitation or compromise. This remnant of the old Texas has no place in the future of Texas.

Health Care Reform Town Hall Meeting with Congressman Henry Cuellar

Shaine Mata — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:20:56 +0000

by Shaine Mata

photos copyrighted by Contempo Magazine

The Democratic U.S. Representative representing a majority Hispanic and Democratic constituency along the Texas-Mexican border clearly backtracked on his earlier support of the Democratic House plan saying he could not vote for it in its current form.

Yesterday, Congressman Henry Cuellar held a Town Hall Meeting at the McAllen Convention Center. The event was organized by the McAllen Chamber of Commerce. They expected around 400 people to attend. This quickly swelled to 700. An overflow room was opened up to allow the additional attendees to observe the meeting.

Attendees were required to register and pass a security check prior to entering the ballroom. No weapons, signs, banners, publications, flyers, noise-makers, sound amplifiers, or food were allowed. The Chamber wanted to ensure civil discourse between the Congressman and the audience. There were some protesters at the entrance of the convention center; but not a large quantity of them. The weather was probably too hot.

Prior to this event, representatives of the Rio Grande Valley have been hesitant to have a town hall meeting in the region, claiming that they often hold town hall meetings in other locations. Congressman Cuellar deserves credit for taking the plunge by having a meeting in South Texas. Previously, he had a Teletown Hall Meeting in which he fielded questions from throughout his district. There was no way of knowing how such an event would turn out. The Rio Grande Valley is generally a democrat-controlled area; however, there has been a growing movement by the tea parties in South Texas.

Prior to the event, I expected to see the factions turn out to skew the perception of the community. If the Democrat groups could pack the house; then the questions would seem to favor health care reform. If the conservative groups could pack the house; then the community would seem to disfavor health care reform. Given the volume of people who showed up and the predominant age group, the turnout may very well have been representative of the community with respect to political bias.

From my point of view, many of the questions seemed to come from a conservative standpoint. The questions were often very direct, like how the Congressman would vote. He answered that he would not vote on the bill the way it is now; he would like to see some changes made.

Congressman Cuellar did get some tough questions from the crowd. To his credit, the Congressman was able to skillfully address those questions by giving the four criteria that form the basis of his decision. There were a couple of occasions where the crowd expressed dissatisfaction with his answers; but they let him know and he clarified his position. Cuellar often expressed his values, which he uses to make decisions on how to vote.

Walking around the room during the town hall, you could feel the energy in the crowd. They were there to have questions answered. The audience had a mix of people of different ages; however, the majority were clearly older people, who typically are more interested in politics and are more likely to vote. It did seem that many of the people selected to ask questions came from Mission, Texas. After a while it was a bit of a joke where we would chuckle every time somebody identified themselves as being from Mission. The moderators made it a point to make random selections of those wishing to ask a question.

The entire event was very well executed by the McAllen Chamber of Commerce. They were well organized and kept everything under control. If you really, really had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find something objectionable, it would be the time. Most families, had to attend to their children on their first day of school. Many older people already have some medical coverage through Medicare or Medicaid to various extents. What is in question is healthcare for those of us who are younger and have children; presumably we have more at stake being the ones who will be affected by the legislation and burdened by the taxes for a much longer time. However, if a better time were chosen, we could have possibly had too many people show up; meaning the Chamber would have been criticized for that, instead. The key is that we at least had an opportunity to speak to our Representative, whereas there were no opportunities before this.

One thing Congressman Cuellar mentioned is that he has had town hall meetings in the past; but they never turned out such a large crowd. He expressed surprise that the issue of health care reform has generated such an interest by the public. This is significant because it demonstrates the level of apathy the public generally shows when it comes to Washington, D.C. It takes something major and unsettling as health care reform to get people motivated enough to go talk to their Congressman. And they did.

As citizens, we are motivated to action when there is something historic to support; we are also motivated when there is something life changing to oppose. In a Legislature and Executive office completely controlled by the Democrats, health care reform should have been a slam dunk before the public knew what hit them. The pause in pushing the reform through may be indicative of the public’s reaction to the proposed legislation. Whether you think that health care reform is merited or not, it is important for our leaders to listen to the public. Congressman Cuellar has likely increased the respect from his constituents for coming out to listen to their concerns. Who knows, the experience may even serve him to better represent us when the bill comes to vote.

Thank you for reading Contempo Magazine blog with Shaine Mata who writes about politics, technology, and social media for McAllen, the Rio Grande Valley, Texas and America. He is a co-founder of Advantj Media Consortium

photos copyrighted by Contempo Magazine

Americans Outraged at Scottish Release of Mass Murderer

Tony Magana — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:46:36 +0000

By Dr. Tony Magana

The cold blooded killer of Pan Am 103 in 1998 was released from prison by Scotland and awaits a hero’s welcome in Libya. Americans are rightfully outraged and should demand not only a Scottish boycott and sanctions for Libya unless al Megrahi is placed in prison. Future crimes against Americans should only be tried in American courts.

The families of 259 passengers and crew of Pan American World Airways Flight 103 who suffered an incalculable loss when the Libyan government sanctioned the mass killing of their loved ones were dealt a second perhaps even greater blow today when the Scottish government decided to release Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, an admitted agent of the Libyan government, who was convicted of involvement with the bombing. Scottish officials say that the rule of law allows compassionate release of prisoners who have less than 3 months to live and claim that medical experts have determined that al-Megrahi meets that criteria by suffering with advanced prostate cancer. However initial reports indicate that the application of this specific law is discretionary with at least a third of applicants being refused.

The 1998 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland has been controversial in many ways. Although the crime occurred on American sovereign territory, an American owned airliner, the Clinton administration decided to let Scottish authorities prosecute the case. Many liberals have sought for the United States to surrender its sovereignty to “world courts” or other nations. It now appears this decision has come with a heavy price. Early reports are coming in that the British government may have been acting with self-interest because it wants access to the oil fields off the Libyan coast in the Gulf of Sidra.

Many vague incriminations have been made that various law enforcement or intelligence agencies may have missed warnings that could have prevented the tragedy but little doubt now remains about the veracity of the involvement of al-Megrahi in the bombing and the complicity of the Libyan government. In 1993, the Libyan government sent a letter to the United Nations Security Council in which they admitted the actions of officials of the Libyan government were to blame for the terrorist act.

The world was shocked to watch the terrorist treated like royalty as he was driven in an limousine to a jet waiting at the airport. He was greeted by the son of Libya’s longtime leader, Gaddafi who will accompany him to a hero’s welcome and celebration in Libya. Clearly this event had been planned some time ago, yet the Obama administration is pretending that they are surprised. Secretary of Hillary Clinton has been quoted as saying she was only “deeply concerned “

Americans should be more than concerned, they should be outraged that the country that many consider our closest ally would sell out justice for cheap oil. Never again should we compromise justice by allowing another country to try a case of terrorism against American citizens on American territory be it a ship, a plane, or an embassy.

Americans must demand an immediate boycott of all British products and travel to British territories. The President of the United States must immediately demand that Congress pass legislation mandating American justice for crimes against Americans on American territory. Any and all diplomatic relations, aid, and/or trade with Libya must cease until Libya places al-Megrahi in a prison.

The ‘Catch-22′ Effect of Health Reform in South Texas

Tony Magana — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 03:42:30 +0000

by Dr. Tony Magana

The mostly Hispanic population of South Texas and the Rio Grande Valley finds themselves in a “Catch-22” dilemma regards health care reform. While they could gain health insurance will it be at the cost of losing their jobs?

While most of the United States has been suffering a severe recession, that level of downturn as yet has not happened in the border communities along the lower Rio Grande River. These areas are still seeing significant job growth and economic output albeit at a much reduced level compared with several years ago. The robust economy of area is driven by large volumes of trade and commerce with the much larger Mexican population across the border including the industrial power house of Mexico, the city of Monterrey.

Proximity to trade routes, however, has not been the only key ingredient in recipe for success. Compared to other major metropolitan areas of the United States, the cost of labor, land, and taxes is much lower. Although the area has one of America’s least educated work populations they historically have a strong work ethic. With a percentage of the population under age 25 that is the highest in the nation, this helps contribute to the paradox of having high rates of job growth at the same time as having an unemployment rate of over 10%. A hard figure on how many of these workers is without employer based health insurance is difficult to measure because so many workers work for very small companies but most agree that perhaps half or more of all workers in South Texas do not have employer based health insurance.

“Non-partisan” liberal advocacy groups such as those sponsored by the Tides Foundation have stated that the Congressional House bill which mandates a health insurance public option, income surtaxes, and elimination of the Bush tax cuts will help the very small businesses of the Rio Grande Valley by providing subsidies to these workers. What they leave out is that the subsidy is an after-tax assistance to the worker but really no help to the employer. Essentially every employer whose gross income is over $250,000 will have to pay not only additional income tax but also an 8 percent tax of the salary for his entire payroll.

The Democratic house bill further mandates an expansion of Medicaid that could could potentially double the number of participants in the Texas Medicaid program. The burden for funding for these new enrollees will fall on the state rather than the national government. Texans small business owners therefore, will not only see their federal income tax rate go up but also their state tax bills increase. Although no formal plan exists currently on where that money could come from, political expediency would seem to make it likely that the state franchise tax on gross business receipts would be significantly increased. The $1 million dollar exemption could be removed forcing all Texas businesses no matter how small to pay for the Medicaid mandate.

The Congressional Budget Office is just one of many authoritative sources to have determined that the cost of the new health care program will further add to the national debt. Advocates for the Democratic program have remarked that the debt problem will be temporary because once the economy recovers and health care costs are controlled the debt will be paid off such as was the case for the deficit incurred during World War II and that government take over will control costs. They are gambling that both of these situations will come true but there is considerable opinion against this theory.

Recently a noted British economist, Stephen King, who admits he is a believer in Keynesian theory (that is the theory of pouring tax payer money into a recession), said that the United States and Western Europe should now adopt a period of fiscal austerity because even if the economy starts to recover it may take years or decades to see a real growth. Both liberal and conservative economists in the United States have drawn similar conclusions remarking there is going to be a permanent change in America.

As our society gets older and science develops new discoveries the increase in health care costs is going to be a significant problem. Although it is true that many countries in the world are giving reasonable care to their citizens for less money than we are doing in the United States, every country is in reality trying to deal with rising costs. No one is arguing against making the system more efficient but no American government program in history has ever saved money.

I call the situation a “Catch 22” for the Rio Grande Valley because although health care reform as proposed by the Congressional House bill could theoretically enable low skilled and low educated workers to get coverage there will be a paradoxical effect. First of all the mandate of new costs to businesses will eliminate the relative competitiveness for any business to locate in the Rio Grande Valley. The Valley is not like Austin with a plethora of engineers and computer scientists creating a high tech industrial base. Hopefully in another generation or two that will happen but we must deal with the current truth of our circumstances. Secondly, there will be imposed a tremendous incentive against small business to hire employees because the only return they will get for more employees is higher taxes.

A good example of what can happen to industry when the medical cost of low skilled workers becomes prohibitive is illustrated by the sugar industry in South Florida. Even though the American sugar industry is protected by tariffs against imports, there was constant pressure on the industry to increase workman’s compensation benefits so that ultimately thousands of workers became more expensive than machines. Today that industry, just as the auto industry in the economically troubled Midwest, has become largely mechanized and only employs a fraction of the previous workforce.

The health care system we have is not perfect but those who advocate reform must understand there are limits to what can be accomplished and potentially substantial and injurious consequences for rash decisions made out of emotion rather then reason. Our best hope for the future is to emphasize the education of our work force and protect the competitive advantages for business in South Texas lest we become the next “rust belt”.

Can Hutchison or Perry Win Hispanic Support in the Texas Governor Race?

Tony Magana — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:53:17 +0000

By Dr. Tony Magana

Close to 30% of eligible voters in Texas will be Hispanic by the time of the next election. A Republican candidate who can match George Bush’s ability to garner significant Hispanic support in his gubernatorial and Presidential elections could find a winning strategy. But will this be possible for Hutchison or Perry?

The upcoming gubernatorial race in Texas could prove to be a test for how Republican candidates can develop a successful strategy to gain the Hispanic vote. The most successful campaigner in Texas history, Governor Rick Perry is facing a serious challenge from the popular Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. On the surface this appears to be a race between a socially and fiscally conservative Republican incumbent versus a moderate Republican but in reality is a much more complex situation with numerous possible outcomes.

The southwestern states including Texas have a eclectic mix of voting groups affecting elections including fast growing Hispanic populations, conservative Republicans who were once Democrats, and transplanted northerners which consist of young professionals and retirees. The Democratic party has been making progress in gaining seats in the Texas legislature and also making the races closer in state wide elections. Apart from gerrymandered urban districts in state and local elections, the typical Texas Democrat tends to be a centrist or ‘blue dog” more often than a traditional East coast progressive. But despite their gains, the Texas Democratic party like the Republicans still have problems with minority voters.

There remains considerable controversy about what happened in the 2002 Texas gubernatorial race where a Mexican-American candidate from South Texas, Tony Sanchez, who outspent Perry 2 to 1, did so poorly in the election as did Houston area legislator, Rick Noriega, against incumbent John Cornyn in the 2008 Senate race. Both elections recorded a high percentage of Hispanic voters voting for the Hispanic candidates but this occurred in the setting of an overall very low voter turn out by Hispanic voters. The final election tally showed the Democratic candidates did much worse than pre-election polling had predicted.

The Texas Democratic party remains immersed in a lawsuit over the Presidential primary process. The 2008 primary was a strange concoction were convention attendees and their votes for the candidates were determined by a two separate means. Instead of relying upon just the popular vote, for the first time, caucuses were held in the late evening which also awarded delegates to the convention but on a formula based upon the previous election’s turnout. Many Hispanic supporters of Hillary Clinton maintain that they were never told about these caucuses. Although Clinton won the popular vote in the Texas primary, Obama ultimately got the majority of delegates from Texas because his supporters dominated the late night caucuses. In addition, areas like South Texas which had low voter turnouts in the previous elections were penalized, some say unfairly, while other areas like Houston’s African American districts received extra delegates because the previous election featured an African American, Ron Kirk, in a statewide election.

Albeit, this time it appears there will no major Hispanic or minority candidate from either the Democrats or the Republicans in the upcoming primaries for governor. A few political Texas insiders from the Democratic party say that popular former Dallas mayor and African American, Ron Kirk, was given the position of U.S. Trade Representative, to clear the way for a white Democrat to run for governor and the Senate. Although pundits would argue that Hispanics will overwhelmingly vote in the Democratic primary, if a Republican candidate in this assuredly close race makes an effort to court the Hispanic vote this could have significant consequences not only for the Republican primary but also whether the Republicans can win the general election.

No doubt feeling the pressure from the conservative base, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, joined Senator John Cornyn in voting no to the nomination of Judge Sonya Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Governor Rick Perry has a close relationship with radio commentator, Rush Limbaugh, and even named Limbaugh an “honorary Texan” so most Hispanics will have assumed had Perry had a vote his would have been similar to Hutchison.

Anyway you look at it, for the Republicans in Texas to get any significant Hispanic support they have to understand they first have to dig themselves out of hole. Some analysts have pointed to the fact that Republican Senators from Texas and Arizona who voted against Sotomayor, despite having large Hispanic populations, might have insight into those populations as being more conservative then conventionally supposed. Abortion, gun rights, and pro-faith issues which are potentially strong in the Hispanic community of the Southwest may mitigate the long term effect of the negative Sotomayor vote somewhat goes the unproven theory.

Conversely, reflection on the poor showing of John McCain in the Presidential election of 2008 despite his being a strong advocate of immigration reform by Hispanic voters from the Southwest had little to do with his own personal feelings, in my opinion, but was in fact a protest vote against the Republican party as a whole for tolerating the likes of Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo with their shameful anti-Hispanic rhetoric.

For either Hutchison or Perry to capture a significant portion of the Hispanic vote they will have to switch from a passive mode of appeal where Hispanics are assumed to be in the general population of conservatives to an active one that addresses issues relative to the Hispanic community where a conservative answer will have appeal. They will need to find an issue which could mobilize a higher turnout for their own Hispanics supporters and just as important also not risk triggering anti-Republican turnout.

Following the Presidential election, the Pew Hispanic Research Center did a survey of what issues were relative to Hispanics. The major issue was not immigration (only 31 percent reported this) but was first, the economy at 57 percent, followed by education at 51 percent. Immigration as a primary issue of political discussion will not likely cause a major increase in turnout by Hispanics but can be a dangerous issue in the negative. Anti-immigration rhetoric that is perceived as veiled racism is a Republican mistake that cannot be repeated. Currently both political parties have taken an attitude to “let sleeping dogs lay”.

Although the vast majority of Hispanics are pro-life, up to now community or political activism to the greater community on this issue has been mute. In recent times, for example, most Hispanic voters have not applied a pro-life litmus test to candidates but that could change. The stepping up of the Catholic Church in denouncing public support of abortion and the growing presence of Hispanic evangelical protestants could spell trouble for the pro-life advocate, Kay Bailey Hutchison. Governor Perry is in a favorable position to garner at least the evangelical Christian vote in both the primary and general election.

One of the fastest growing segments of the population in Texas is the Hispanic small business owner. Governor Perry was the author of the state franchise tax which is really an income tax on small business. Although many Hispanic small businesses are exempt because they have revenues of less than $1 million, this is already become a major focus of attack of the Hutchison campaign on the record of the incumbent. On the other hand, Kay Bailey Hutchison, voted for the stimulus bill which a majority of Americans and even more so of Texans see as being a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Both Governor Perry and Senator Hutchison need to pay more attention to South Texas then they have in the past. Republican Senator John Cornyn has spent considerable time developing close relationships with local elected Democratic mayors and legislators from South Texas. Even when he has disagreed with local politicians on issues like the construction of the border wall which was going to be an unstoppable federal mandate, he went out of his way to get funding for levee repair and new international bridge construction. His activism should serve as model for the two candidates. Hutchison has shown a compassionate side to the poor in South Texas in the past but has never engaged the Rio Grande Valley to the same extent as Cornyn. Governor Perry has in the past made statements about conditions or situations about the border without consulting local leaders. This is a faux pas that must end.

In my opinion, the most important issue that the Republicans should address if they wish to garner Hispanic support is education. Texas remains one of worst states with a fifty percent dropout rate of Hispanics who enter high school and one of the lowest rates of Hispanics under the age of 25 who attend college.

Governor Perry has been an advocate for school choice and voucher programs in the past but not consistently. At times he has called for vouchers and distribution of state wide resources to create a statewide equitable school system but then when faced with budget problems hastily retreated from those positions. The incumbent has not been a major player in the potential development of a Tier 1 university or medical school in the Rio Grande Valley which is one of the few major metropolitan areas in the country with a population well over 1 million without these facilities.

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has been a strong advocate for improving school curriculum in math and science. She supported a temporary voucher program for students displaced by Hurricane Katrina to attend private schools and also vouchers for students living in Washington DC. Her record on education has been one that favors school prayer, vouchers, and education savings accounts but has consistently voted against more federal subsidies or mandates to local schools.

If either Rick Perry or Kay Bailey Hutchison wants to win the support of Texas Hispanic voters, they will need to develop a clear and concise education plan to change the status quo for Hispanic education. This commitment will need to be more then just a minor side issue, but must reflect a political will to make responsible but significant financial investments and system changes to convert a failed education system to one that makes Texas a leader in education rather then a disgrace. All Texas families need to be given choices on which schools their children will attend, school systems must involve communities and families more and be held more accountable. Finally, in situations where private schools or religious institutions or other public school districts can provide better learning opportunities at lower cost per student then a failed public school then students must given vouchers to attend these schools just as they do in Washington DC.

The Obama Rationing Plan-Why Senior Fears Are Real

Tony Magana — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 03:42:19 +0000

by Dr. Tony Magana

The rationing system Obama does not want to talk about does raise a reasonable fear in America’s elderly.

The “complete lives system” is being contemplated as the ultimate medical rationing strategy to be used by the Obama administration to deal with the scarcity of medical resources. This concept was described in minute detail by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel in an article published in the British medical journal, Lancet, in January of this year. The priorities for receiving care would fall on younger people who have not yet lived a complete life, prognosis for recovery, saving the most lives, lottery, and “instrumental value principles”.

The most important tenet of Dr. Emanuel’s proposal is the prioritization of younger people who without the aid of society will not get a chance to complete “unfulfilled” projects. Right to life advocates would think upon hearing this, that this principle would therefore call for the cessation of abortion and improvement of prenatal care. However, a strange twist of logic is injected into the theory regarding fetuses and young infants. Because society has invested little effort and cost in children until they are adolescents, young children and infants are of little value.

On the other end of the spectrum, the elderly are considered near the end of the road whose major project accomplishments are now past. In his article, Dr. Emanuel admits the complete lives system “discriminates against older people” but says it is not an invidious discrimination because eventually, unless one dies sooner, every person will experience the same treatment.

Albeit, the most controversial aspect of the rationing plan deals with how the disabled are scored in terms of where they would would go on the priority ladder. Those with disabilities would be given a priority score that was created by a multiplier fraction and the number of productive years they have left to live. For example, a blind person’s multiplier might be 0.6 as compared to 1.0 for a person with no disabilities such that medical treatment with scarce resources for blind people would only be made available 60% of time as compared to 100% of time for the non-disabled. On other occasions, Dr. Emanuel has written the the care for those with dementia should include restrictions on the use of expensive technology because there is no possibility of future productiveness.

This week the British astronomer and physicist, Stephen Hawkins, received the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Hawkins was born with neuro-muscular dystrophy which is a progressive disease leading to almost complete paralysis. By 1974 he was unable to feed himself or get out of bed and by the 1980s had lost his ability to speak yet he has made historic contributions to our understanding of the universe and mathematics. Under the plan put forward by Dr. Emanuel, how many Hawkins will never get the chance to help society?

Dr. Emanuel concluded his paper by saying that the allocation system must be considered legitimate and the route to achieving this legitimacy should involve public discussion and revision. Yet he also said that although the rules once established could make for “procedural fairness” they could not assure “justice”.

Some on the right have compared the rationing concept and withholding of treatment put forth by Dr. Emanuel as being similar to the German Aktion T4 euthanasia program carried out under the Nazi regime. Although much of the rhetoric of that time dealt with what we now call “ethnic cleansing”, the truth is there are similarities in the wording and concepts of that terrible era and the “complete lives system”. The Germans killed off the youngest and the oldest based upon their inability to lead “useful lives”.

At the time, Dr. Emanuel wrote this piece he was the Department of Bioethics, The Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda which is an official arm of the federal government. Now he is also a key adviser to the President on health care issues and reform.

To be fair, he is a man clearly of almost unequaled accomplishment, dedication, and intellect into the field of medicine. He has devoted considerable effort and developed deep expertise into the realities of death and limited resources which are challenges we cannot ignore. His “complete lives system” does represent a way to attempt to quantify these difficult resource allocation decisions in a way that is reproducible and fairly dispensed but also unfortunately seems to lack a sense of humanity by defining human life so coldly.

At the time of this writing there is a lot of personal attack being directed towards Dr. Emanuel for his writings but I believe this is being misdirected. The real anger should be directed to the Obama administration for not being honest with the American people that this is very likely to be the rationing system to be used. Mr. Obama seems to be ignoring the advice that Dr. Emanuel gave that there needed to be a public discussion of this issue not a denial that it exists.

Should Personal Responsibility Be Enforced in Health Care Reform?

Tony Magana — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 01:14:31 +0000

By Dr. Tony Magana

We know a good portion of the population will take advantage of preventive services once they are adequately explained but what about those who do not? Should society put in incentives for participating in preventive care and create punitive responses for those who do not?

One of the key issues of health care reform on which most Democrats and Republicans agree is the idea of more coverage for preventive health services. The goal of encouraging patients to do things like stop smoking, change their diets, and get routine screening is from the government’s point of view a way to cut down on health expenditures and from the patient’s point of view to improve the quality of life.

Medical studies have shown that there are disparities in American society as to who currently receives preventive services. Lower income, racial minority status, and and lower education would seem obvious contributing factors to the casual observer of whether people in the United States receive preventive services. However, a study looking at poor African-Americans in both rural and urban settings found about a ninety percent compliance with preventive measures could be obtained by making patients aware of the services and having them develop a relationship with a primary care physician. Still about ten percent of the population who was at risk for developing severe complications from untreated or undiagnosed conditions did not take advantage of preventive care.

In 2005, the state of West Virginia created a special “enhanced” Medicaid program that offered more benefits than the standard program but with a hitch. Patients who enrolled in the new plan had to agree to comply with a “Health Improvement Plan” and a “Member Responsibility Agreement”. Patients are required to read materials and attend educational classes. They must keep all appointments and follow goals set to improve their health such as stopping smoking and losing weight.

West Virginia’s approach has created significant controversy since the plan’s inception. Some medical ethicists and the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine editor voiced concerns early on in the program that “children would be penalized by their parents errors” or that vulnerable patients who would be denied care. Ethicists note that putting doctors in the position of reporting non-compliant patients to the government was inappropriate while proponents noted that physicians were given great lee way in determining whether patients were compliant.

In April, now three years into the program, a research team from West Virginia University reported that only about 10% of the eligible population had taken advantage of the enhanced plan although they said they found “wide spread support for the concept of people taking personal responsibility”. One potential contributing factor to the failure to have large enrollments was that a majority of people who did not enroll were only notified about the new program by mail many of whom it turned out had very poor reading skills.

A recent analysis by Dennis Smith at the Heritage Foundation revealed that those who did enroll in the enhanced program were often afflicted a serious chronic illness, usually smokers, and had a pessimistic attitude towards their future health. So far it is too early to tell whether the program will save a certain amount of money or dramatically improve patient outcomes over the basic plan. However, one fear that those who stayed with the basic plan would suffer more severe medical consequences with less benefits has not been realized.

Now more then ever, America is realizing that health care is a collective enterprise and no longer an individual concern. If we are asking everyone to contribute by way of taxes then is it not only fair to expect everyone to be reasonably compliant in participating in preventive services? Assuming that we should all pay more taxes initially to jump start preventive care according to the President’s plan, then should not those who are going to benefit have to contribute their compliance?

How should society deal with potentially hundreds of thousands of people benefiting from tax payer dollars but refusing to take their blood pressure medicine, check their blood sugar, exercise, or lose weight? How many times will we pay for a drug addict to go through rehab? Should persistent smokers who have had heart attacks and receiving care through the public programs not have to face some consequences?

Introducing reasonable requirements for medical compliance from people with chronic conditions for their own benefit as well as a means to control the overall medical costs of our society in my opinion would likely help garner more support for health reform. Those who wish to not participate in preventive measures certainly have the right to do so but since society can force citizens to pay for their care by taxes it should have the ability to say that coverage will be reasonably conditional on cooperation with the system.

The Left’s New Town Hall Army- Duped and Exploited College Students

Tony Magana — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:09:29 +0000

By Dr. Tony Magana

The Democrats plan to counter citizen outrage at recent town hall forums on health care? Dupe young college students into employment at less then minimal wage and with fake health benefits.

Recently the left has complained that the high degree of public dissatisfaction demonstrated at town hall meetings held by members of Congress during the August recess to discuss the Democratic hodge-podge of reforms was not a grass roots movement but instead was “astro-turf”. This is a term they created to describe participants of whom they accuse conservative organizations of planting.

Rather than try to start their own “grass roots movement’ it appears the Democratic response will involve using paid staff, instead of a real grass roots volunteer effort, to try to save the progressive health reform movement from crashing. Today a real revelation was made apparent on the website, Craiglist. A coalition of progressive activist groups is advertising jobs that pay $6000 for a two month period of time for becoming a paid activist. The jobs were created by the Fund for Public Interest and are located in 50 offices across the country and in Washington DC. Leadership positions they claim will work with paid staff to carry out door to door drives, fund raising, organize coalitions, and news conferences.

The Craigslist listing is linked to a website called Jobs That Matter. An impressive list of organizations including the Sierra Club and the Human Rights Campaign that raise millions of dollars each year from America’s prosperous progressive elite such as movie stars promise great pay and experience for doing social good. The ad does not mention anything about volunteerism or community service.

On the surface, this appears to be a wonderful opportunity for college students or recent college graduates to get paid for political activity, but the promise did not turn out to be real for Christian Miller. From 2002 to 2006 he was employed as a “canvasser” in Los Angeles raising money for prominent organizations including the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and Save the Children. Employee dissatisfaction according to his account lead to a move by employees to try to unionize in 2005 which was resisted successfully by the Fund for Public Interest. They tried to get help from the sponsoring organizations like the Sierra Club but instead just found a cold shoulder. According to Miller, the Fund would not pay wages for mandatory worker training sessions and other events with mandatory attendance resulting in actual pay amounting to less than the minimum wage.

J.D. Castigilione was employed as a “Canvass Director” in Washington DC office. His experience was very similar to that of Mr. Miller. Although the “Fund” promised an income of almost $20,000 per year in reality that was almost impossible to achieve.

In 2002, several employees in Los Angeles complained that they were not being reimbursed for out of pocket expenses and denial of promised health benefits. Tamara Rettino suffered a severe kidney infection during her employment only to find that the health coverage promised by the Fund did not exist. Only after she threatened a lawsuit did the Fund finally pay her medical bills. That same year, Directors Brande Jackson and Dan Binaei made a request to the state labor board to unionize. Their request was greeted by an immediate termination.

Going back many years the Fund for the Public Interest has been involved in controversy over how it treats employees. Former employees have complained that they have not been paid for overtime, were disallowed from forming a union, and did not received health care benefits that were promised. A lawsuit has been filed on the behalf of former and current employees in Northern District Federal Court of California to “recover overtime and related claims”. The law firm involved confirmed no settlement of the abused workers claims has been reached. Despite these complaints the liberal organizations that contract with the Fund have never taken any action to force the Fund to improve conditions and pay for its employees.

The ultimate hypocrisy is that after accusing conservatives of improper activism the left is now desperately going to rely on an organization with a clear cut history of abuse including denial of health benefits to its own employees as the champion of health reform.

New White House Political Plan:Collect Private Information on Opponents

Tony Magana — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 03:47:48 +0000

By Dr. Tony Magana

A new White House plan to collect “causal speech and emails” originating from private citizens opposed to President Obama’s health care proposal is generating considerable controversy after being brought to light by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX). Denials by WH Press Sec. Gibbs conflict with WH policy and Democratic website practices.

The communications director for the White House’s Health Reform Office, Linda Douglass, and White House Director of New Media, Macon Phillips, incited the beginning of a scandal on August 4 when they posted on the official White House website a request to collect information from the public on disinformation put out by opponents of health care reform spread through emails or even “casual conversation”. They requested that anything “fishy” be sent to the an official government email address interestingly named “flag@whitehouse.gov”

Subsequently, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) sent a letter to the White House today concerned that the new White House plan was an intent to collect information on political opponents that is historically unprecedented and contrary to normal political discourse and free speech. He raised concerns that IP addresses, names, and addresses collected by the government of those who are opposed to the President’s proposal could be misused. These communications he points out would be classified as private and referring them to the White House is more than inappropriate.

When asked about this at today’s White House press conference, the Press Secretary Gibbs initially blurted out “nobody is collecting names” and lamely explained that they often use the White House website as a tool to “debunk things that are simply not true” because they are after all the standard of truth. But in the same press conference, follow up questions, brought out immediate contradictions to Mr. Gibbs pronouncement. Under federal law requiring an archive be keep of all White House records, all information sent to the White House must be officially collected. Reporters asked if the government had a duty to let private citizens know that their private speech or communications were being sent to the government? Mr. Gibbs dismissed that notion as irrelevant because in his words there is no evidence of a “government conspiracy”.

During the weekend of June 6, 2008 the current White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs intentionally and in a pre-meditated fashion lied to the White House press corp leading them to board a flight to nowhere. Mr. Gibbs said that the agenda of Barack Obama was and in the future would be a sufficient justification for telling lies.

This was not the end but only the beginning of a White House policy of deception. Seasoned White House reporter, Patrick Gavin with Politico (a somewhat liberal news outlet) just this week wrote an article about Mr. Gibb’s “methods of evasion”. In this article which includes quotes from other White House reporters who echo that Mr. Gibb’s evasiveness is extraordinary. The writer even gives over thirty specific examples where the White House has wished to maintain the President’s “privacy” even though this President promised an an new era of transparency.

The main political internet tool of the White House and the Democratic National Committee is a website called Organizing for America. The privacy policy specifically stated on the website contradicts the statements made by President Obama’s political appointees in the White House on how information gathered through the internet is handled for political purposes.

The website says “We may also make personal information available to organizations with similar political viewpoints and objectives, in furtherance of our own political objectives.” This puts into complete clarity the belief held by the Obama administration that any information gained could be used for political gain.

A further disclosure is even more revealing. Using spy-ware technology and IP address collections, the Democrats admit that they use this internet portal in way that could collect and maintain very personal information. Curiously, although they say they have no malevolent intent, they also warn that other third parties might have access to personal data.

The concerns raised by Senator John Cornyn are serious and have more than ample evidence supporting their importance. The use of casual speech and private communication to smear individuals for political gain was last seen during the Joe McCarthy black listings. Given Obama’s declining popularity one cannot help but wonder if the desperate Democrats now feel that the end justifies the means in pursuing a new type of political gangsterism.

The ultimately authority on truth vs. disinformation should be the American public not the President, the Congress, or the pundits. Can Press Secretary Gibbs and President Obama be trusted in their benign explanations of the intent on collecting private information about individual Americans? Will Americans now have to fear that what they say casually at a party or write in an email to a friend will end up on some official black list at the White House?

Americans Must Defend Freedom of the Press Abroad and at Home

Tony Magana — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 04:20:53 +0000

By Dr. Tony Magana

Recent events in Venezuela should remind us about the importance of protecting freedom of the press both abroad and at home. President Chavez is putting in place a Fairness Doctrine to control the media similar to those proposed by liberals in the United States like Congressman Hinchey (NY) and Speaker Pelosi.

This weekend 34 privately owned radio stations in Venezuela were shut down on the order of President Hugo Chavez because in his words, the government is going to “democratize the airwaves”. The Socialist supporters of Chavez complain that private enterprise and the international media are conspiring to give false information to the people.

This is only the beginning as the Chavez government is currently considering closing up to 200 more stations through out the country. Additionally, according to Reuters News Service, the Venezuela chief prosecutor is planning to draft new laws that would send anyone, who in the government’s opinion is spreading “false information that harms the interests of the state”, to prison.

The freedom of the press guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States is rarely found in other countries even democracies. Our neighbor to the south, Mexico practiced rather severe restriction of freedom of the press under the ruling party, PRI, until they were thrown out of the Presidency in 2000. More recently however, there have been increasing numbers of murders or other crimes against journalists in Mexico. In addition many arbitrary rules have been created to strictly regulate political advertising on television and radio in way that has returned significant power to the PRI , who now has regained a plurality of elected representatives in the Mexican Congress.

Unfortunately, it is not only Mexican politicians who want to control the press but even in America there are some calling for new restrictions. Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) has become the leading advocate for a movement to restrict the American press. Ever since talk radio attacked President Bill Clinton following the Monica Lewinski scandal, the radical left has openly sought to shut down conservative media.

Up until 1987, there was in place an FCC rule called the “Fairness Doctrine” which required that broadcasters provide opposing views of issues in order to keep their broadcasting licenses. Hinchey is sponsoring legislation that would allow federal regulators to arbitrarily determine the balance and fairness of debate and also control who would own media outlets throughout the country. Hinchey’s reasons for doing so amazingly seem to echo those of Hugo Chavez.

To further protect the Constitutionally guaranteed right of the freedom of the press the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 was introduced in January of this year. The bill’s sponsors are Republican Senators Jim DeMint (SC) and John Thune (SD) as well as House members Mike Pence (IN) and Greg Walden (OR).

The sponsors warn that the real goal of re-instituting the Fairness Doctrine is to allow the government to cherry pick what issues it wants to call “controversial” and thus stop their discussion by conservatives. The rules as written in the legislation by Congressman Hinchey could allow a liberal slanted government to call liberal issues not controversial effectively stymieing any opposition. If adopted, for example, Christian radio stations might have put on atheists to counter religious broadcasts.

The current freedom of the press allows the American public to listen to many different sources of information and opinion. Although the printed press is in decline it has been replaced by a massive cyber-world of ideas on the internet and 24 hour news cable networks. The American public can hear leftist idealism on Link television, MSNBC, or read it on the Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and the king of the American media, The New York Times, which remains the most read news website in the world. They can compare this by looking or reading Fox News or the Wall Street Journal and others like this blog. The only conclusion that can be drawn about the intentions of Congressman Hinchey and his associates like Speaker Nancy Pelosi is that they want to have control like Hugo Chavez.

Government control of the media can be more powerful than any army because it can control the flow of information that allows a free society to make good decisions in government. Our government must publicly condemn the actions of Hugo Chavez and even more importantly cast aside any dispersions of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. If America loses the precious value of the freedom of press at home and does not denounce it abroad that will only give further license to more severe actions by Hugo Chavez and his political clones.

Is the Democrats Health Reform Too Much Like Soylent Green?

Tony Magana — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 02:30:18 +0000

By Dr. Tony Magana

Changing how doctors get paid from a system of fee for services rendered within reasonably accepted quality standards to an annual salary based upon national quality and economic standards could have a major effect on the mechanics and outcome of end of life decisions made by physicians and families.

The traditional medical model of the doctor patient relationship believed that the best outcomes were obtained in the interests of patients when parties outside the relationship such as government or insurance companies did not have standing in the decision making process. Medical ethics have long documented that the creation of physicians with allegiances to parties outside the patient and his family lends itself to contamination of decision making by other sets of demands and obligations. Some classic examples are the “company” doctor who provides workman’s compensation care for injuries sustained while on the job, military physician’s evaluating combat stress in a combat theater or Veteran’s Administration doctors deciding on a chronic disability rating, and of course medical experts hired by the defense against patient’s claims of injury. The recognition that bias could be introduced into such situations is so widely accepted that almost universally patients have been given the right to challenge opinions and ask for independent evaluations from physicians who are not being directly paid or employed by an entity with an interest against the patient.

Lately there has been a significant volume of discussion raised about the issue of new initiatives that the federal government may take to pay doctors for giving end of life counseling to patients who presumably would be facing a medical condition without a “reasonable chance” for recovery. Up to now, the physician had no personal stake in the decision of the patient and his family as to whether, for example, they chose an all out expensive try everything approach to deal with this situation or contrarily, adopted a passive acceptance of minimal cost hospice type care.

However, imagine that in the future, doctors will be “graded” and paid on their costs per taking care of a certain volume of patients as well other measures such as complications, death rates, days of hospitalization, and other measures. For those patients that have conditions for which there is a likely but not certain death rate such as 50%, one can easily imagine that choosing aggressive care in a few patients with marginally improvement in survival will radically alter the cost/quality curve rather dramatically. On the other hand, non-aggressive treatment will only slight increase the overall mortality rate but could dramatically lower costs.

Physicians will come under enormous pressure to alter their thinking about treatment and their counseling to patients and their families because the higher goal now will not be the individual patient but how the statistics look within a given period of time. This type of cherry picking was seen to occur when the government began to monitor complication rates for cardiac bypass surgery, such that many centers were refusing to treat patients who were high risk for re-do coronary artery bypass surgery because the potential for complications or death could negatively effect the provider’s and hospital’s rating.

I can not help but be reminded of the 1973 science fiction movie, Soylent Green (MGM Production-based upon the novel, Make Room! Make Room! By Harry Harrison), in which a society running out of resources resorts to mercy killing of the elderly and ultimately uses them for a food source. In that society, participants were convinced there was a high value in undergoing a short lived wondrous death experience and a low value in living a life as an elderly disabled or in-firmed nonproductive citizen.

All of us and our families should have frank discussions about what might be appropriate in a circumstance where our quality of life or likely coming death are anticipated. Our most important counselor in that situation should be a physician who is not influenced by an obligation to a government agency to maintain statistics. Such a practitioner may no longer exist under some reform proposals. If the government develops narrow recipes for treatment in the official Washington cookbook of medical care then the discussion with physicians by vulnerable families in these times of crisis will be transformed away from frank discussions of options and into an explanation of government policy.

Utah’s Consumer Centered Health Reform Plan Could Work for Texas and America

Tony Magana — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:18:43 +0000

By Dr. Tony Magana

Since 2005 Utah has been developing a novel consumer centered health insurance program which is different then the traditional employer health based insurance held by most American workers. A defined contribution plan like Utah’s could be the solution to finding a cost effective way of providing health insurance to the millions of Texans and Americans working for small businesses.

The deadline set by President Obama and the ruling Democratic party in Congress will likely come and go without the passage of the progressives’ nirvana, a government run single payer health plan. Up to now the liberal mass media has been so driven to support the Pelosi and her crew that the only discussion going on in the public venue has been that there were two options, the Dems way or the highway.

This week the chaos on Capital hill created by the predictable insurrection of moderate and conservative Democrats who mostly, it appears, want to be reelected in 2010 has finally been the vehicle to bring the discussion about reform out of the clouds and onto the ground.

So far most of the plans put forward as either government health care or insurance reform are based on a type of insurance that actuaries call defined benefit. Under this type of insurance, the employer buys insurance for a specific company and set of benefits for a specific premium. The cost of the premium is based upon the risk of payout. Anything over the defined benefits must be paid by the policy holder.

Since World War II, defined benefit plans have been the main type of employer based health insurance used in the United States. Organized labor often used health care benefits obtained by defined benefit plans as a bargaining chip in negotiating for better compensation for their employees. They have generally resisted the concept of defined contribution plans because they would be removing a source of contention in labor negotiations with employers.

Since 2005 the state of Utah has been working on a different paradigm called a defined contribution plan. Under this alternative approach the employer promises to make a specific contribution for the workers which will allow them to purchase a health plan of their personal choice. In a recent review of the Utah plan by Edmund F. Haislmaier , Senior Fellow in Health Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation, he remarked that there were three key elements:

Insurance market reforms to create a new “defined contribution” coverage option for businesses and their workers;
A board to design and manage a companion risk adjustment mechanism; and
A “virtual” health insurance exchange to coordinate the various administrative functions of a consumer-choice market.

Unlike the rushed government health care animus hastily thrown together by Congessional staffers that so far no Congressman has admitted reading (Yesterday Detroit Congressman John Conyers told the press he never reads bills) the Utah reform has been in progressing in development for three years.

Utah is very similar to Texas and many other states in that the majority of its residents work for small business at modest salaries. The defined contribution Utah plan was created to allow a consumer-centered health insurance market that specifically addresses the needs and concerns of small business and their employees but is also widely applicable for large employers, the self employed, and eventually Medicare or Medicaid enrollees.

The Utah plan gives employers the option to offer a traditional defined benefit plan or participate in the new defined contribution plan. Under this arrangement, the employer pays a defined contribution and the employee does as well (pre-tax under existing Federal tax law).

The system functions as a “virtual” insurance exchange. Transactions and consumer education will be facilitated by the internet rather then creating a costly bricks and mortar administration.

This month Aaron Mckethan and his group at the Engelberg Center for Health Reform at the Brookings Institute published a report looking a four state initiatives that were focused on helping small business and the self employed obtain insurance. They looked at the design features of the programs for Arkansas, Tennessee, Massachusetts, and Washington. Previous attempts at pooling traditionally uninsurable patients usually resulted in higher costs because higher risk pools landed in the programs and often the numbers enrolled was too small to make a competitive bid on the insurance market.

The Utah model would cut down on administrative costs and make for large pools of enrollees rather just the uninsurable. A board of the interested parties including citizens,providers, and insurers would oversee the process with a new and substantial transparency.

If the Brookings recommendation for creating Federal state partnerships is added to the Utah plan then one problem of creating enough economy of scale to draw competitive pricing from insurance companies could be accomplished. Rather then acting as a supervising authority, the Federal government could bring to bear resources to monitor effectiveness. Over time state health programs would be allowed to evolve in efficiency and cost containment by comparing what works and what does not in the various states.

This type of approach maintains patient choice and provides a scenario to encourage high quality with cost efficiency. Once a year enrollees could have the option to change their insurance. If they wish to change jobs, the plan they have will be portable.

Insurance would not be a one size fits all product. This type of plan allows for deferring levels of benefits as well as financial instruments like medical savings accounts.

Currently the state of Texas leads the nation in the number of uninsured adults and children affecting somewhere between 25 and 40 percent of the population. If enacted the current Democratic proposals before Congress promise to create severe burdens on the state budget by a massive increase in the Medicaid budget.

Our state and Federal lawmakers should take a closer look at the Utah plan because our fellow Westerners have a better idea than the Washington bureaucrats.

The Good,Bad,and Ugly About Treasury’s Housing Program

Tony Magana — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:23:23 +0000

By Dr. Tony Magana

Recent reports of the inadequacy of the Treasury Department in assisting troubled homeowners serves once again as an example of how the care taker model of government cannot succeed. A review of this is timely at a time when many progressives are clamoring for a new government care taker health program. While Treasury struggled to help only 180,000 out of 4 million homeowners with troubled mortgages about 53 percent were able to find their own solutions without any government “assistance”.

The onset of the financial crisis last year in the months preceding the Presidential election lead to an impetuously contrived program schemed by Congress which debited billions of dollars of taxpayer’s future earnings for stimulus payments to financial institutions who had been the cause of the crisis by allowing the extension of credit to otherwise poor risk borrowers which subsequently artificially inflated the value of domestic residential real estate in many states.

An examination of recent General Accounting Office (GAO) reports on the management and success of the Treasury Departments program to assist home loan borrowers in distress is troubling. The GAO was asked by Congress to study the evolution and the current state of the home loan market.

Their focus was the time period which was the heyday for nonprime loans which are divided into Alternative-A and subprime divisions. Alt-A paper loans which were given to borrowers with lower credit scores, multiple existing properties already under loan, and/or the lack of documentation for things like proof of long term income that prevented qualification for a prime loan. The subprime loan was seen as a even greater credit risk with FICO scores usually less then 640. None of these loans would have ever been made had it not been for laws passed by Congress like the Community Reinvestment Act which mandated that banks and other lenders must offer loans to individuals who would otherwise not meet the standard criteria for a mortgage.

The nonprime mortgage market had its heyday from 2000 to 2007 with a peak in 2006. The total value of loans in this category went from $100 million to $600 billion. According to the GAO the percentage of home owners who held a mortgage of this type went from just 12 percent in 2000 to 34 percent in 2006 with 2/3 participating in a subprime loan that was adjustable. Between the years of 2000 and 2006 the number of subprime loans actually multiplied in number by a factor of five. These nonprime loans were usually used by borrowers to refinance their homes rather then to purchase a new home. Because borrowers often had multiple loans in force the number of loans is well in excess to the number of borrowers. Thus the government was encouraging people who had suitable housing already to use their home like a credit card discouraging personal responsibility and thrift.

During the period from 2000 to 2007 about 14.4 million of nonprime loans were made of which 80% were subprime. As of March 31, 2009 about 11 percent or 1.6 million of those loans that failed had completed foreclosure. There remains about 5.2 million subprime loans left in the United States of which 80 percent are subprime. Out of these loans still outstanding about 23 percent or 1.2 million are at risk for serious default. Almost 2.5 million nonprime loan holders are in default or in the foreclosure process.

The GAO said there were indications “ that hundreds of thousands of additional nonprime borrowers are at risk of losing their homes in the near future.”Very few mortgages made since the implementation of new credit guidelines was made in 2007 have failed as 93 percent of loans currently in foreclosures were originally made between 2004 and 2007.

The Congress created the Home Affordable Modification Program which received $50 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program to assist struggling homeowners who were “victims” of inappropriate nonprime loans. The HAMP was supposed to act in four ways to help homeowners including modifying first-lien mortgages for those in danger of foreclosure, encourage the modification of mortgages in areas suffering severe property value depreciation, reduce or pay-off second-lien mortgages, arrange the sales of properties where the debt was more than then the homes value as an alternative to foreclosure, and provide incentives for at risk borrowers to get refinancing.

The GAO published an assessment this week of the progress of the HAMP. The Treasure Department was found to not be “fully meeting its goals”. Estimates were that about 3 to 4 million borrowers would be in need of assistance but as of July 20, 2009 only about 180,000 have began the process of loan modification.

The main impression one gains from reading the report was that the Treasury was overwhelmed and apparently this is an opinion shared by the Congressional Oversight Panel and Federal banking regulators.

The good news in this report is that 53 percent of the homeowners without any help from the government were able to find a way to refinance their homes with a better loan or arrange an alteration of their loan with their private lender.

The bad news is that the government program to help those who could not help themselves or perhaps were induced to wait for government help rather than seek their own solution has only helped 180,000 out of 4 million.

The ugly is that this is what can be expected to happen when the American public becomes too dependent upon government. The current culture of the Obama administration that all problems will be solved by government is a false promise with a high price. The high price occurs because the government’s pledge of support stymies the individuals initiative to help himself .

Government programs need to encourage individual responsibility and individual initiative in dealing with the necessities of our lives. We too often forget the American spirit which separates our nation and culture from the rest of the world is greatly due to the contribution of rugged individualism and individual responsibility. Government needs to be about giving people options and opportunities to find ways to help themselves rather then making narrow mandates.

We should not hesitate to step in, support, and guide those who are unable to help themselves as our Christian values demand but simultaneously we should expect that each individual will bear responsibility for themselves as they are able.

Americans should see this failure of the Treasury as a warning about will happen if we let the government take over the health care system.

Whose Trade Policy Will Prevail?-Is Obama a “De Facto” Protectionist?

Tony Magana — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:59:27 +0000

By Dr. Tony Magana

Although President Obama publicly criticizes protectionism policies he has yet to articulate a coherent and consistent trade policy. Within the Democratic party a deep division is developing between those who are pushing for extending free trade initiatives and opponents who who seek to institute radical protectionism. Congressmen Henry Cuellar of Texas and Mike Michaud of Maine seem unavoidably headed for a confrontation on the future of American trade policy. Whose side will the President take?

On June 24, 2009 Congressman Mike Michaud (D-ME) introduced a bill called “Trade Reform, Accountability, Development and Employment (TRADE) Act,” (H.R. 3012) which is nothing less than a direct assault on the economic vitality of the American export industry and by definition on the future economic well being of the United States. The Congressman is the Chairman of the House Trade Working Group which is determined to implement protectionist revisions into America’s trade policy.

The new legislation would stipulate all existing trade agreements become null and void then mandates their renegotiation with some non-negotiable terms always included. All future trade accords will beseech the inclusion of a “Buy American” provision which protects domestic production, a mandate that foreign government follow labor and environmental standards as determined not by their elected governments but by the U.S. government, and throws out patent protections for American drug makers allowing the special import of foreign low cost generic drugs.

Under the Constitution, the President has the authority to negotiate treaties and the Senate the duty to ratify them. Now the liberal left in Congress wants to covertly and radically alter the Constitution without going through the formal process of amendment. Instead of the President negotiating trade treaties, the new legislation establishes a “special super congressional committee chaired by the Ways and Means and Finance Committee chairs to work with the President” on formulating treaties.

The money and political muscle behind the new initiative is not surprising -a coalition of rust belt groups, labor unions, and liberal social activists. This alliance falsely blames America’s economic decline as primarily driven by bad trade decisions which led to a decline in domestic manufacturing and ever increasing trade deficits. They are scheming that the perpetuation of politically convenient myths about trade will allow organized labor to become the predominant factor in American politics.

Recently a symposium was held by the libertarian CATO Institute where their Associate Director for the Center for Trade Policy, Daniel J. Ikenson, reviewed these myths.

While it is true that overall jobs in manufacturing peaked in 1979, the years since that time have seen significant evolvement in the economy. Gone are the days where America was the only major consumer in the world of major goods. The emergence of India and China into modern economies with populations more than several fold larger than the United States has transformed this equation forever. The new reality is we cannot prosper in a world of protectionism.

Protectionism was tried at the beginning of the Great Depression following the stock market crash at the end of the 1920s. There is essentially universal agreement among historians and economists this historical blunder prolonged the duration, delayed the recovery, and increased the intensity of the economic woes of the time.

Ikenson points out that in the emerging world economy the role of the United States in manufacturing has not declined but undergone a positive metamorphosis. While it is true that America no longer produces many low cost and low tech items that is not the whole story. The future for America and the best promise for America has been and will continue to be the conversion of manufacturing from low tech and low added value items to high tech and high added value items.

Americans complain that simple every day items like tools are made in foreign countries but they fail to appreciate that while those jobs have left, high tech items like computer components are the real catalysts for economic prosperity. Outsourcing of simple manufacturing has only been responsible for 3% of America’s recent job loss. The replacement of low tech and low value added manufacturing with high value added industry relatively increases jobs and the overall gross domestic production of the country many fold more than older conventional manufacturing.

Another common myth surrounds the concept of trade surplus and trade deficit. The Japanese economy has had a trade surplus for many years but still has been saddled with “anemic” growth in their domestic economy. Most of the trade deficit experienced by the United States is due to oil imports rather than the importation of relatively low tech goods. It is good for China to make low tech and value added items but it is even better for the United States to make high tech and value added items.

The liberals pushing protectionism claim that a major failure of trade agreements has been their lack of enforcement. They cite the fact that there was a dramatic reduction in trade disputes brought up in the setting of NAFTA and WTO agreements during the last Bush administration as compared with the Clinton administration.

Advocates for free trade including not only the CATO Institute but also a leading Democrat, Congressman Henry Cuellar of Texas, who represents one of America’s most important trade zones extending between Laredo and McAllen Texas on the border with Mexico see the decrease in disputes as a positive sign. The Congressman points out that the initiation of trade agreements forms the foundation for an interdependent relationship between nations which fosters dialogue and cooperation. Once both countries are benefiting there is a tremendous incentive to avoid disputes and act in mutual interest.

On his website, Congressman Michaud makes some very incorrect and important deceptions about the Hispanic community and trade. He openly claims that Latinos are for protectionism and support the new legislation but nothing could be further from the truth.

Congressman Cuellar is not a signatory or supporter of the protectionist trade bill. Instead he has formed a Pro-Trade Caucus and unabashedly opined that protectionism should have no place in the “Democratic Creed”.

The growing commerce with Latin America has seen the development of a vibrant Hispanic business sector. As Congressman Cuellar frequently points out, the thousands of American companies who do business with Latin America are more often than not small to medium size businesses. Many of these concerns are Hispanic owned or contain Hispanics in major positions of management. The familiarity with culture and language not only helps foster business cooperation but also allows these Hispanic entrepreneurs to be positive role models for Latin American development. Their businesses function as unofficial ambassadors of good will and influence for American interests in the region.

Research performed by the University of Houston and others has shown that one of the key ingredients contributing to the explosive growth of Hispanic businesses in the Southwest United States has been a symbiotic relationship between native born Hispanics and newly arrived immigrants. In a very real sense, this symbiosis is extended when these companies participate in international trade with Latin America.

Congressman Cuellar has become a principal voice for trade policy. He is quick to point out that he does not believe in absolute unconditional free trade. His approach to trade however is quite different then what is being espoused by Congressman Michaud.

During a recent symposium, Cuellar outlined his trade philosophy. America he says is in a new era of trade that requires a new bi-partisan approach. He recalled that as a Democrat in the minority during the Bush administration he was often excluded from discussion by the Republicans and warns that the new Democratic majority needs to avoid the same mistake.

The beginning a good trade policy begins with the recognition of the sovereignty of a potential trading partner. He says “why should we know whats better for those countries than their own elected officials.”

Rather than be confrontational at the outset, the goal should be to establish a good working dialogue which allows the partner nations to work to their mutual interest. This approach is substantiated when one compares the current status of trade with nations that are in free trade agreements versus those without says Cuellar. Overall in 2008, trade with the United States grew by 18% within which a $10.3 billion surplus was created with the fourteen nations who have free trade agreements with the U.S. representing a 158 percent increase against only a 7 percent increase with non-free trade agreement nations.

The effect of fostering trade he is proud to say has transformed his home district on the Texas-Mexican border and says those who advocate a turn back to protectionism will be making a mistake.

During his Presidential campaign, Obama was very critical of the current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton’s support of NAFTA and promotion of trade. Since his election he has been very obtuse about what are his true intentions. During the G-20 summit in Europe and in comments about protectionist measures included in the Democratic cap and trade legislation he voiced misgivings about the appropriateness of the timing of restrictions on trade. The President seems to be complaining about the degree of protectionism and the timing of its application rather than making a frank and clear statement against a policy of protectionism.

This week Ikenson and Scott Linicicome, an international trade attorney, complained in article for the CATO Institute that Obama’s lack of a trade policy is “de facto protectionism” and subversive to the economic and foreign policy well being of the nation.

Obama appears to have muzzled his new trade representative, Ron Kirk, the former mayor of Dallas who liberal Democratic critics felt was too pro-trade and Secretary Clinton in that they have made essentially no public statements about trade for months of any substance.

Under pressure from unionized labor interests and truckers, the President unilaterally violated the NAFTA agreement by stopping a program to develop the ability of Mexican trucks to operate on American highways. At the time Obama promised to quickly come to a new agreement but instead has essentially taken no action which invited the Mexican government to impose $2.4 billion in duties against American products and will likely result in the United States government paying in excess of $6 billion dollars in damages of taxpayer money to Mexican truckers.

Many are wondering why the handling of Canadian truckers has been so different compared to Mexican truckers. Concerns about creating appropriate insurance allowing Canadian trucks to drive on American highways was handled expeditiously by the Obama administration with an announcement this week that all problems had been solved.

The additional financial costs, fuel costs, and time delays of unloading semi-tractor trailors on the Mexican borders results in $8.4 billion of price increases that American consumers and industrial buyers have to pay for Mexican imports. The result has been the American government has added almost another $20 billion dollars to the national debt for the sake of a few politically placed labor unions.

If the the warnings of Congressman Cuellar are ignored, low income Americans can expect to pay higher prices for food, clothing, and housing. The ill conceived no trade policy advocated by Congressman Michaud will irrevocably damage the future of the United States as a meaningful trading partner with the emerging democracies of Latin America and Asia. As the true intention of the liberal left to create new era of protectionism is recognized by other nations a flood of counter protectionist reactions will occur. Just as it did in the 1930s, this reaction will only damage the economy by reducing the number of exports, raising the prices of imports, and inevitably drastically lower employment.

The dream of many American small business innovators and their descendants to become major contributors in world commerce will be shattered by the misguided principles of protectionism and labor cronyism.

If Obama is really committed to developing trade then he must stop the delay and push for the acceptance of free trade agreements with Panama, South Korea, and Columbia as recommended by his fellow Democrat, Congressman Cuellar. Some have called Congressman Cuellar, the most educated man in the Congress because of his multiple graduate degrees in International Business and Law, it is time for the President to listen to voice of intelligent reason offered by Cuellar and clearly disavow Congressman Michaud and his anti-trade agenda.

Tax Changes Targeting Small Business Owners Will Hit South Texas Hard

Tony Magana — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:46:51 +0000

By Dr. Tony Magana

The Obama administration and the leadership in Congress sees taxing small business owners as the solution to the nation’s financial woes but in doing so will they not only be breaking a promise but also create more job loss?

On March 16, 2009 Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and President Obama addressed the nation about small business. The Secretary called small business “ the anchor of the economy which will lead us to recovery”. At the time the administration promised to give middle America a tax cut and direct the government in such a manner as to maximize the potential for small business growth.

Across the nation as a whole at least 50 percent of employees for private concerns work for a small business with less than 500 workers. The U.S. Department of Commerce estimates that as much as 80 percent of all new jobs created in America over the last ten years originated in these firms.

The State of Texas has over 2.1 million small businesses and counting. Almost 99 percent of the state’s employers are small business owners who provide jobs for half of the Texas workforce.

The greater McAllen area in the Rio Grande Valley has been a leader in economic progress over the past few years. Unlike most of the United States, the city has been able to maintain a positive percentage of economic growth and job development but has not totally escaped the national economic tide.

The proportional average age of the population under age 25 at 45 percent is higher than just about any other place in the nation and unfortunately there remains high numbers of Hispanics who make up 90% of the population that never finish high school. Despite this situation a strong cultural work ethic and a tradition of pro-business civic government have combined to create an economic juggernaut. The community had hoped to invest the rewards of economic success into better educational programs but now the future may be less bright.

Like the rest of Texas the business profile of the region shows the greatest number of jobs are in the retail industry. The health care industry and service industries have remained somewhat strong while manufacturing has decreased. Although trade with Mexico remains strong there have been significant decreases in trans-national commerce creating pressure on the Valley to intensify economic diversification. What the administration said about small business being key remains true for McAllen and the Rio Grande Valley.

Recently several initiatives being put forward by the President and influential Democratic members in Congress are threatening the vitality of small business and consequently the economic recovery of not just McAllen but of the nation.

To help pay for the massive government spending and new government health care reforms, the Democrats have proposed placing a surtax on the income tax of joint filers who make over $350,000 and single filers at $280. The surtax progressively increases beginning at 1 percent and extending to 5.4 percent for an adjusted gross income over $1 million. In an unprecedented move, the Congress would also surrender the power to set tax rates to the President’s Office of Management and Budget including a proviso to double the surcharge if they deem it necessary.

A new government mandate demanding additional taxes in support of national health care plan be paid by employers not just for their employees but to help fund others will require employers with a base income of $250,000 to come up with an additional 8 percent of the salary of each employee for the government’s benefit.

Unless Congress acts affirmatively to extend the Bush tax cuts, the combined effect of the new surtax and increased tax rates will be to place many small business owners into actual tax rates of over 50 percent. Rea Hederman of the Heritage Foundation has analyzed the data with the conclusion that the new tax plan would inflict arduous consequences to small business.

Just the discussion of escalating the tax burden for small business has discouraged investment in expansions, new equipment, and most importantly the generation of new jobs. The costs will be born eventually by small business employees in the form of lower wages, less jobs, and fewer hours of work. There will be very few exemptions for about 1/5 of small businesses that have less than nine employees and a payroll of less than $250,000.

It is not hard to imagine that the robust economic miracle of the McAllen area could be stopped dead in its tracks by the Democratic plan. With unemployment hovering near the 10 percent level and rumors of coming anti-NAFTA measures, the prospect of a rapidly escalating job loss in the Rio Grande Valley could move from conjecture to reality.

Cap and Trade Wrecks McAllen and the Rio Grande Valley

Tony Magana — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:14:40 +0000

By Dr. Tony Magana

The enactment of the proposed cap and trade legislation creating a new levy of taxes on energy for carbon emission undoubtedly begets a negative economic impact on South Texas of historical proportions.

The Texas A&M Real Estate Center reports the state economy is “sliding deeper into recession”. Over the past year the overall unemployment rate has increased from 4.7 percent to 7.1 percent. Although the McAllen-Mission Edinburg area still has a positive growth rate over the past year it is barely so at 1.8 percent.

McAllen has received national attention for a record achievement in job growth and business expansion in the past several years. The national recession has had a blunted local effect but not totally. Key to survival has been the function of McAllen as a gateway of trade to Mexico. The past several decades have seen the local economy gradually transform from being solely agri-business to become a more complex center of commerce and industry. Not only have financial services and health care soared but increasingly manufacturing interests are finding the area favorable.

A major tenant of cap and trade legislation will be the institution of punitive tariffs against countries which will not participate in the liberal Democrats vision of regulation. The announcements of China, India, and Mexico of their firm intention not to join the United States in carbon emission regulation as dictated by the Obama and the Democrats in Congress will have direct and dire consequences on the McAllen economy.

Many of Obama’s political supporters have long favored severing NAFTA in an ill advised protectionist measure to reward labor unions for their political contribution to the Democratic victory. Although publicly he has refuted protectionist measures, cap and trade now provides a backdoor for Obama to get out of NAFTA by using climate change as an excuse. Embargo or tariff against Mexican products will decimate the border economy of trade.

The very progressive Center for American Progress (CAP) predicted that cap and trade legislation “will generate major employment benefits for Texas”. They claimed that Texas would see a increase of $12.7 billion in investment revenues and 153,000 jobs . By enacting the Obama initiatives even with the severe penalties on the state’s petroleum industry they guessed that the unemployment will still drop to 3.6%. Not surprisingly they are alone in their assessment.

The Brooking Institute and other more highly regarded progressive or liberal think tanks have all admitted that cap and trade will be be expensive. They argue that sacrifice is necessary to prevent further harm from occurring. Critics of cap and trade point out that at best even with a major financial sacrifice only a one degree difference if any will be seen in a fifty year time period.

The Beacon Hill Institute in Boston performed a detailed analysis of the effects of cap and trade legislation on the state of Texas. They conclude the new laws would “inflict large negative impacts on the economy of Texas”. Instead of seeing positive effects on the economy, the carbon tax would increase energy costs significantly, reduce the total number of jobs in the state, reduce wages and actual disposable incomes of workers.

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas in May took a look at what would be the effect on electricity prices should cap and trade legislation become law. In their report they assumed the government would limit the cost per ton of carbon emitted to very low prices ($40-$60), the cost of natural gas would be stable, and there would no relative increase in electrical demand. With these assumptions an increased cost to the consumer of $27 per month was estimated. Unfortunately, this is quite flawed thinking because in reality, raising industrial costs of electricity to artificially keep residential costs low will drive business and manufacturing out of Texas. Additionally, although a significant portion of wind energy and solar energy could eventually come online the penalties to Texas fossil fuel generating plants especially if fuel prices go up will lead to energy prices skyrocketing.

Texas is the largest consumer of coal and electricity in the United States. Twenty-five percent all U.S. petroleum production and refinement occurs in the state. Although some advocate that replacing coal burning plants with natural gas burning plants can be accomplished easily and economically, electricity produced by natural gas is more expensive. Currently there is a glut of natural gas supplies worldwide but many experts are predicting the eventual rise in demand in gas will lead to significant price increases in the future. Instead of being a leader in attracting Fortune 500 companies who can export their products worldwide from Texas, there will be a transformation of the state into a pariah to business.

An analysis by the Heritage Foundation comes to a much different conclusion then the CAP. Combining the effects on the two Congressional districts which currently serve the greater McAllen area , that of Henry Cuellar and Rueben Hinojosa, the following would be seen starting in 2012. There will be a combined first year $737.42 million loss in economic production which will proceed to average $ 734.08 million in losses beyond 2012 extending to 2035. Personal income will drop cumulatively $925 million initially and average $ 268.01 million in losses annually through 2035. Non-farm jobs will see 7.404 losses initially and then average 2,712 job losses per year through 2035.

Cap and trade legislation will have a double negative impact on the economic livelihood of McAllen and the Rio Grande Valley. Residential consumers will see their own energy prices rise. South Texan’s prospects for higher wages and better employment will be diminished as industry will no longer be drawn to an area with unique geographical benefits and low costs. The long history of co-beneficial commercial development along the border of two great nations will be replaced by a political trade war being waged by the Washington DC establishment against the interests of Valley residents.

The Indictment of Kino Flores

Tony Magana — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:02:54 +0000

By Dr. Tony Magana

Is Kino Flores a political deviant or just a continuation of a political legacy of necessity?

The indictment of Texas State Representative Kino Flores this week by the Travis County grand jury for felony tampering with governmental records on multiple counts is just the latest in a growing swirl of controversy to surround the Rio Grande Valley politician in recent years.

Following his election in 1997, Flores consistently showed a keen political intuition and deftness in political affairs both at the state capital and in the Valley. His political education began however well before he was elected to the legislature. He served as an apprentice to the powerful Leo dynasty in La Joya whose influence ultimately helped connect him into a job with the state comptroller’s office in Austin where he worked for a time before returning to Hidalgo County.

Despite being from almost exclusively Democratic South Texas, Flores and some other fellow Democrats became key players in securing the election of Republican Tom Craddick to Speaker of the House. The resulting legislative sessions resulted in a powerful speaker who controlled the agenda and progress of bills very tightly. During this “glory” period for Flores and fellow allies of Craddick, the Rio Grande Valley saw significant funding increases for roads, highways, education, and more.

Albeit, last year Craddick was removed and replaced by a much less powerful but antagonistic Speaker, Joe Straus, without close ties to Flores. Unfortunately over the past two years Flores himself has been increasingly accused of accepting gifts, special favors, and not reporting income for various business and local governments as has been widely reported. Under Texas law, the lawmaker is required to file income sources, gifts received, property holdings, and real estate sales to the Texas Ethics Commission.

The indictments against Flores claim that over a five year period beginning in 2004 he failed to declare more than $115,000 every year. Some of those named as sources of the unreported income or benefits include the city of McAllen, D. Wilson Construction, Broaddus and Associates, Health Systems Resources, Inc., Rio Grande Steel, and Renegade Enterprises. His investigation was precipitated following an allegation that he received inappropriate plane rides from the La Mantia family in McAllen who have ties to the racehorse and gambling interests as well owning a Budweiser dealership. There is a accrued history of favorable consulting contracts, leases, land purchases, and other relationships between himself or his interests with those that could potentially seek illicit legislative favor.

Representative Flores was stripped of his chairmanship of the powerful committee that oversaw racing, liquor, and gambling in Texas with the downfall of Craddick. In addition, in December of 2008 the Texas Ethics Commission fined him $1,100 for improper accounting of campaign reports. This year in the legislature, he served essentially without seniority on the appropriations and border & intergovernmental affairs committee. He became a very outspoken advocate for Veterans during the legislative sessions often to the point of distractingly annoying his fellow lawmakers in meaningless ways that some say were more grandstanding than substance.

Supporters of Flores will note that the growth of the green economy of birding in the Valley, higher education especially at South Texas College, and many other things are better because we had a skillful and powerful advocate in the Texas legislature. All too often the Rio Grande Valley has historically had to struggle just to get a voice.

Unfortunately both his supporters and detractors have to admit that now that voice is muted. Already stripped of his seniority and influence added to having to face felony criminal charges which will likely take years to resolve even if he is ultimately acquitted, one must question what benefit will there be to him or his constituents to continue holding his seat in the legislature?

The Texas Monthly labeling of Kino Flores as one of Texas’s worse legislators is truly disingenuous. By default it portrays that the other members of the legislature are contrarily different. Instead our part time legislature is full of back door deals and political swaps. Their minimal hearings on issues and lack of media attention due to the demise of the newspaper has given the whole Texas legislature carte blanche.

The reality is that at this point, Kino Flores needs to focus on his defense and the welfare of his family. His demotion and indictment have rendered him indisputably unable to represent South Texas District 36 effectively. His continued presence in the legislature will become a handicap for the region. This does not mean or imply that he is guilty of any wrongdoing.

Should we condemn Rep. Flores as a totally wayward deviant from proper legislative conduct or he is just a very visible symptom of a much deeper hidden cancer in the state government? There is still a regional discrimination against the Rio Grande Valley in state politics. Long ago political machinery was developed as a means to compensate for this bias and today it still serves as the principle route of political advancement. Was Flores just applying what had been passed down as political reality for the past 50 years?

The State of Texas has to change the way it deals with the Rio Grande Valley and hopefully then we can change the way we do politics so that in the future we will not need a Kino Flores to get done what needs to get done.

House Democrats Health Plan Analysis by CBO Confirms Worst Fears

Tony Magana — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 03:18:32 +0000

By Dr. Tony Magana

The Democratic House reform bill, The Affordable Health Choice Act, brings with it high income surtaxes, $10 trillion deficit, employee and employee mandates in the setting of a complex bureaucracy which will clearly handicap private insurance options as reported by a just released analysis of the Congressional Budget Office.

Currently there are three major working groups in the Congress formulating health care reform at the Committee level. The working draft of the version coming from the House of Representatives has begun to take shape this week. Key components include strong behests for employers to provide insurance and individuals to accept insurance with heavy penalties for failing to enroll.

Partial financing of the new health plan would be paid for by a progressive tax on wealthier Americans consisting of a surtax ranging from 1 percent to 5.4% which will raise the effective top tax rate to 45 percent if current rates remain. All employers except those with just a few employees not offering health care coverage will pay a penalty of 8% of the worker’s salary. To be exempt an employer would have to have an annual payroll of less than $250,000 per year. Employees who choose not to accept insurance from an employer will have to pay a sliding scale percentage of their gross income up to 2.5 percent to equal the cost of an average health care premium. Subsidies would be created for those between 133 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level beginning in 2013.

The surtax is not fixed or permanently capped. If savings goals are not reached by 2012 then the surtax will be doubled. The Heritage Foundation reports that President Obama intends to raise the top two marginal tax rates to 47% which could mean that by 2012 the average top tax rate could exceed 52 percent giving the United States a higher personal tax rate than all but three countries (Denmark is the highest at 60 percent).

Private insurance companies must proffer reasonable premiums to those with pre-existing conditions. No exceptions, denials, or exclusions of coverage will be allowed. The House version includes provisions for a government health plan which will compete with private insurance. Reimbursement to providers from the public plan will be set at Medicare plus five percent.

Even with the high taxes imposed the proposal being put forward by the House Democrats will still result in staggering deficits. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) performed an evaluation of the Affordable Health Choice Act which has just be released in a letter to Congressman Rangel.

The legislation as it is currently written will “increase the federal budget deficit by $1,042 billion over the 2010-2019 period”. Enacting the proposed reform could reduce the number of uninsured non-elderly from to about 16 million says the CBO. Those below the 133 percent of the federal poverty level would be enrolled in Medicaid for whom which the government would pay 100% of their medical expenses.

The CBO estimates the government’s public plan would be about “ten percent cheaper than a typical private plan” which will be offered in exchanges of private insurance companies. They noted there was “an usually high degree of uncertainty” as to how many people will actually be enrolled in the public plan. However, the CBO report confirms that the many more people will be enrolled in government run health care programs either Medicaid or the new public plan then are currently. A significant price difference in premiums of ten percent between private plans and the public plan will, as many critics have noted, create a great disincentive to join private plans.

The CBO analysis hints that since physicians will not be required to take the public health plan, even if they participate in Medicare, there might be some increased physician choice incentives with the private versus the public plan but, then again they estimate that perhaps up to one third of those receiving federal subsidies to buy insurance will likely chose the public option. From an economic perspective it seems more than probable that most physicians will not be able to opt out of a public plan that covers such a large percentage of the population.

In the state of current economic recession, employers themselves will have no incentive to seek anything other than the public health plan. Albeit there is a tax credit for small employers, the overall increase in tax rates, the likely taxation of private health care plans, and the certainty that the public plan will be cheaper essentially will herald the death of private insurance.