Americans are becoming increasingly concerned about the federal budget deficit. Now it appears that government overspending may not only be making the debt worse but also will result in inflation and high interest rates.

In the words of the Congressional Budget Office the federal budget is on an “unsustainable path” because the national debt will proceed to abound more explosively than even an economic recovery can abide. This same conclusion has been drawn by many economists and think tanks from both left and right of the political spectrum including the Brookings Institute, Heritage Foundation, and CATO Institute.

Despite these warnings President Obama and the liberal Democrats in Congress have persisted in wanting to affix new debts to the erstwhile mountainous deficit by creating a very expensive government health care program and the largest bureaucracy ever contemplated to monitor then tax carbon emissions. The Congressional Budget Office initially calculated that over 10 years the deficit will balloon up to $9.1 trillion under the most favorable scenario. This Democratic artifice includes a complete cessation of all Bush era tax cuts, not modifying the alternative minimum tax ( an automatic tax raise to middle class due to inflation and the increasing cost of living), moderate economic growth, and presumes new taxes to pay for the new health care program.

There was one consideration not taken into account which is currently developing. Increasing evidence is surfacing that rising interest rates and inflation may be coming sooner rather than later. The prominent Harvard economist, Martin Feldstein, wrote an opinion piece in the Financial Times warning of the potential of higher interest rates. Many who watch the financial world are now predicting inflation to occur as the economy recovers due to the large sums of money the government dumped into economy as a stimulus.

As a defense against inflation, the Federal Reserve has been buying back long-term Treasury bonds to keep the bond rate down. A recent decreased demand for Treasury bonds has forced the offering of higher interest rates to buyers and thus increase the amount of interest the government will have to pay on the national debt. The creeping unwillingness of foreign nations to buy these securities, China is the biggest customer, and the persistent lack of growth in the American economy are combining to drive these interest rates even higher still.

As if that is not bad enough, today the Congressional Budget Office released a report on what will happen if indeed as many fear inflation and high interest set in over the next ten years. If the interest rate goes to 6.4% the deficit will grow an additional $1.3 trillion more in just nine years but if the interest rate rises to a level similar to that seen during the Jimmy Carter Presidency of 10.5% then the deficit would be $5.6 trillion higher.

Unfortunately the risk of higher interest rates, inflation and the deficit are all interdependent upon one another. Increasing taxes to reduce the deficit would not help says Feldstein because it will weaken demand in the economy, thus in the long term we have no option but to cut government spending or face certain inflation and the consequences of out of control irresponsible spending.

Click here for copyright permissions!
Copyright 2009 Dr. Tony Magana

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

A late night Friday vote before a Senate recess on the controversial Climate Change Energy Tax bill is beginning to see political backlash and political spin as public opinion against the legislation is surfacing.

The Democratic cap and trade legislation which was heavily backed by the President and the progressives passed the House by a vote of 219-212 late Friday. Since the Congressional tally there has already begun some political backlash for what assuredly was an unpopular move.

Although most Americans are concerned about the environment and conservation there have been many skeptics in the scientific world about whether even with an extreme sacrifice that would cripple the economy of the United States any real benefit would be gained. In March, a Gallup poll disclosed that a majority of Americans, 51% vs. 42%, said “economic growth should be given priority over the environment if the environment suffers to some extent”. At the same time, Americans were about evenly split, 47% vs. 46% on whether they should “favor protection of the environment at the risk of limiting energy supplies.”

Things have not been going well for the Obama administration as regards the economy. Albeit the rate of job loss has decreased and the stock market has reached over the 50% mark of recovery from the severe downturn, the economic outlook for the next few years remains somewhat pessimistic. Most proponents of Cap and Trade legislation have framed the discussion of the measures called for as being necessary sacrifices for the future.

Over the weekend following the Congressional vote an online poll has been carried out by MSNBC/Newsvine. Those familiar with the social media website recognize that Newsvine like its parent MSNBC is overwhelmingly imbued with progressive advocates.

However the results of the survey show a severe disapproval of the Congressional action. As of today over 14,000 responders to the survey had voted their sentiments. They were asked the question: Should Congress pass the climate and energy bill before it?

• 1.4% No, the bill has been weakened to the point where it does too little

• 17% Yes, its urgent that we curb warming emissions by moving towards cleaner energy

• 81.6% No, the bill is a huge energy tax and it would cost millions of jobs.

Though a 82% disapproval rating of the recent Congressional bill seems astounding, clearly the trends of disappointment if not outright disgusts are undeniably building. The most recent Gallup poll shows that only 33% of the public thinks Congress is doing a good job. Real Clear Politics reports that a majority of Americans now openly disapprove of not only the job Congress is performing but also state the country is going “the wrong direction”

President Obama was quick to acclaim the Congress for passage of the cap and trade bill which was conveniently done on a late Friday evening allowing the media to passively avoid the story. However, by Sunday morning he was already trying to do damage control by remarking that the anti-free trade measures put in place to force the government to tariff against countries which do not meet American standards for global warning might have been the wrong approach. He admitted to reporters that the bills in the current form approved the by the House could do severe damage to American manufacturers by starting reciprocal tariffs against them by foreign countries targeted by the new climate change regulations.

Mr. Obama’s quote in the New York Times “At a time when the economy worldwide is still deep in recession and we’ve seen a significant drop in global trade … I think we have to be very careful about sending any signals out there” paradoxically makes the very point against the bill.

Once again, the President is trying to position himself as a centrist between the extreme left and the radical right but this time as before it will not work. Since the election his poll numbers have been consistently dropping from 80% to now just over 50% in a way that reminds one of the history of the Jimmy Carter debacle.

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

Despite economic and scientific evidence mounting that a tremendous fiscal sacrifice requiring a maximal effort may in the end offer minimal reward the climate change juggernaut folly is advancing.

The Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill which has been beclouded multiple times, having gone from just over 900 pages to at least 1,200, now appears likely to pass the House of Representatives by a partisan vote. The articulated goal of the bill is to reduce carbon dioxide gas emissions by 17 percent over the next ten years by the government establishing a monitoring system for literally millions of businesses and then placing a tax on excess emissions.

Originally President Obama had prescribed there would be no free allotments and that all enterprises would have to pay for their emissions. Initial reports by the independent analysts as well as government entities like the Congressional Budget Office confirmed the measure in effect would be a large tax on not not solely the energy industry but inclusive to all businesses leading to the costs ultimately passing down to the consumer. In order to gain the favor of moderate Democrats from the “Rust Belt” many backdoor barters of free allotments for votes have been struck with rural electrical producers, mass transit authorities, some but not all biomass fuel manufacturers and others that lobbied intensely for special treatment.

The act assumes that there is technology ready to go which can step in to replace the 85% of energy produced by the fossil fuels in the United States. Howbeit President Obama and the Congress have allocated funds for further development of battery technology, smart grids, solar and wind technology the truth is that although these might result in less carbon dioxide emissions they will be much more expensive than fossil fuels. One need examine Europe where gasoline often costs three times as much or more than in the United States and there have been cap and trade laws in place yet essentially no one drives electric or hybrid cars. Electric cars or hybrid cars are not capable of beating conventional small internal combustion engine vehicles in cost or convenience. Although some areas of Europe rely on significant wind and solar power these are not the predominant forms of energy production.

Although the very liberal Center for American Progress claims the Democrats initiatives may, for an investment of $150 billion create 1.7 million jobs and lower household energy bills these claims are not shared by other more established and credentialed experts. In actuality there are real problems in conjecturing not just what will be the effects if any of the legislation as well as the real costs. Most of the scientists confirm even with a maximum effort should the emissions goals be fully achieved which is improbable and the global warming trend models are correct that only a 1 degree temperature difference will be achieved by 2050.

Experts at the moderate Brookings Institute forecast very negative effects on employment extending into the first five years of the program coupled with a severe rise in inflation at the same time while the economy has a whole is not likely to show recovery. During this period payments on the federal deficit as measured by the percentage of gross domestic product will actually increase over and above those historic levels that were present at the end of World War II.

The conservative Heritage Foundation’s Senior Policy Analyst for Energy and Environment, Ben Lieberman testified before Congress saying the 2035 electrical energy costs will go up by 90% with the agricultural and domestic manufacturing sectors being especially hard hit. Other experts at Heritage point out the recent report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) looking at the effects of the cap and trade legislation admitted “the resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap”. The CBO assumed that economic losses would be dealt with by a perfect redistribution of taxes from the government to areas or sectors severely hit which is beyond any realistic expectation. Never has any government program every returned dollar for dollar the money collected.

Even though Europe has had cap and trade rules in place, their rate of carbon dioxide emission growth is now actually faster then the United States. Reviews of Spain and other European countries reveals the good intentions of the program become transformed into systems of cronyism, political patronage, and power wielding. No positive economic achievement as has been imagined by the Center for American Progress has occurred in the European economy as a whole.

Finally this week two startling revelations have emerged about hidden agendas in the cap and trade legislation. The environmental lobbying groups want the United States to pay unrestricted billions to foreign countries who trade with the United States such as Brazil to convince their compliance with global warming even at time when the American deficit will reach historic highs. The new cap and trade initiative also provides an opportunity for liberals to put in place protectionist policies which mandate tariffs against nations which do not meet arbitrary American standards creating an inflammable world trade situation likely to spark trade wars and retaliation against American exports.

The United States already has less emissions than Europe, however, mutating our major industries from a capitalist driven market approach to an essentially socialist centrally controlled economy where the government has the power to decide winners and losers will have the same negative consequences as been in seen in Europe. Let us hope that the older and wiser body of the Senate will stop the folly if the measure passes the House.

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

A curious and growing schism is developing between the values of the American public measured in polls and the perception of their desires as propagated by Democratic leaders.

Watch the evening news or read the local newspaper in most communities of the United States and one garners the impression that the most important notion the people want is for the government to pass quickly legislation influencing just about every circumstance of American life with a devil may care attitude about who pays the bill.

The election that brought the Democratic party to power is often called a triumph of progressive European style contemporary certitudes of government over the old outmoded and worn traditional American values. The Bush administration and the Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, were vigorously refuted in the election of Barack Obama not because the ideals they were presumed to represent had lost their luster but on account of government having lost its way.

This month, Texas Lyceum, a nonpartisan leadership group in Texas, performed a poll on opinions held about policy issues influencing the residents of Texas and the nation as a whole. The query revealed that the number one issue for Texas was the economy, 62% of Texans labeled this and unemployment over the next highest issue, health care reform, which alighted at only 12%. Even though only a quarter of Texans identified themselves as Republican and 28% as Democrat , almost half of Texans (46%) categorize themselves as conservative in political philosophy contrasted with only 19% liberal.

Texas has not suffered as much economic distress as numerous regions of the country but there has still been a significant downturn. Although many politicians have remarked the worst is over most Texans do not agree. They have concerns not only about the current economic condition albeit what the future will bring. The country is worse off now then a year ago declare 58% and 53% expect the situation to deteriorate further.

Liberals could adroitly attempt to excuse the poll as representing only biased voters however the poll comprised demographic groups by ethnic identification and income proportional to the state including 32% of the responders being Hispanic. The very liberal Dallas Morning News amazingly reported the poll embodied that “Texas is not as steep on some spending and social issues as many believe”and focused on the pronouncement that 57% of Texans favor gay unions or marriage and 48% stem cell research while ignoring the more obvious conclusions. The media are confusing libertarian social values which are held are by many economic conservatives and not usually coincident with the ideas of progressive government spending.

Texas nevertheless is not an outlier in the fashion current political views are evolving in the population across the United States. A CBS News/New York Times poll this week disclosed that 52% of Americans want the federal government to focus on the reducing the deficits while only 41% considered spending tax dollars was appropriate to stimulate the economy.

After the election the country was about evenly split as to the timeliness of temporarily increasing government spending to stimulate the failing economy. Initially President Obama had the approval ratings approaching 80% but since April national polling by Gallup, Rassmussen, and others has confirmed that the sentiments being expressed in Texas reflect national trends not just the conservative South. President Obama’s overall approval rating has continued a steady decline since April although it is still over 50%. Rasmussen polls report that over the past few months Republicans have been regaining status as being the lead party for ideas relating to taxes, national security, and the economy. The percentage of Americans who see the economy degenerating has remained about 60% for the past several months according to Gallup.

Despite these findings and feelings of the American people, the liberal establishment including the media and the progressives in government are venturing to muddle through undeterred to get their agendas passed. The tactic of hastily writing legislation for massive new government spending schemes which began with corporate bailouts by the stimulus plan is now being adopted as the norm for the way to get things done. At the time Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that the urgency of the moment required a one time only skirting of the long honored Congressional processes of deliberation. Secret partisan committee meetings, limited Congressional hearings, and virtual stoppage of the customary amendment proceedings for bills under consideration are now hallmarks rather then oddities of the Democratic Congress. The two biggest Democratic initiatives, health care reform with a government health plan and the cap and trade energy tax legislation, are following the same path of secrecy and haste.

In desperation today, MSNBC “Hardball” host, Chris Matthews, even went so far to say succinctly what his other progressive Democratic allies have been afraid to vocalize outright that these schemes should be actuated now without regard for how to pay for it because somehow down the road we will [magically?] find a way. Now that the evidence that Pay-go is a “no go” and that all the predictions of saving money with alternative energy and government healthcare have been proven indisputably arrant confabulations it is time to commence doing something in the right direction, the direction in which the American people really want to go.

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

In response to the recent Iranian protests and their relation to the prevalent access of Iranians to the Internet, some are saying in America including a few conservatives that we need to promote President Obama further on government sponsored media like the Voice of America. But is creating a government bureaucracy bolstering and cultivating a stronger government controlled official media the right message to send? I rarely conflict with the Heritage Foundation, nevertheless, this time I disagree with at least a part of Helle C. Dale’s recommendation to strengthen American government broadcasts.

It’s too early to state what will be the ultimate outcome of the public uprising in Iran- a major regime change or much less, however, like other upheavals before it, communication among participants made organizing protests feasible in the face of an oppressive and vigilant tyranny.

Observers have even identified the recent incidences in Iran the “Twitter Revolution” because many allege that dissidents in Iran have been communicating with one another and conveying their message through the outside world via the internet social website tools, Twitter, Facebook, You Tube, MySpace, and the Asian website Orkut.

Media pundits are remarking that the inspiration for the revolt was at least in part if not markedly due to the recent speech by President Barack Obama made in Cairo calling for increased understanding between America and the Islamic world.  The Internet savvy Obama administration used sophisticated internet technology to get the message out to Arabs and other Muslims throughout the world via text-messaging, podcasts, live webcasts, and social media websites in their native languages including Farsi, the language of most of Iran.

The societal conflict in Iran has much to do about internal broken promises in a failing economy and a perception of election misdeeds and little to do in reality with a sudden shift towards pro-American views.  The use of this technology in a time of crisis gave the Persians an experience at democracy in action which no speech ever could.

The United State continues to broadcast information in Arabic and Farsi through Radio Free Europe and video via the Internet on Voice of America.  Portions of funding for these particular programs was cut during the Bush administration, and now is finding new advocates, including conservatives, asking for reinstatement or even expansion.

If we compare the countries of Iran and North Korea we can clearly identify a difference in exposure to world news and opinion. Many young people and the middle class in Iran live in cities with access to the Internet and computers. Unfortunately in North Korea, the average resident is lucky to get a few hours of electricity per day to watch to their black and white television featuring only North Korea news. They unlike the Iranians, have no real ties to the outside world. Access to outside world very likely does embolden populations to want better lives with more democracy.

The real question to be asked then was Obama’s speech that which inspired the uprising or was it the fact that a technology had been made available to the average citizen of Iran that made the difference? No disrespect to President Obama but I think the technology and its availability might have made the difference when the Iranian’s became upset over the election even if the President had not made his speech.  You see the very existence of such technology and that it is not a part of any official government is the real revolution that likely sparks the Iranian people. This technology says that someone other then a government official can give an opinion and disseminate it freely.

Our government should absolutely continue to foster a free press and the development of more communication tools that allow the free exchange of ideas between individuals and groups anywhere in the world.  Rather then creating our own version of “official propaganda” we just need to let the world have access to the same types of unfiltered vigorous and sometimes very contentious discussions that make up American life.  The visualization of free open debate without punishment for expressions of view that conflict with authority is the American message we most want to transmit.

Establishing official government networks which give the official American credence on Voice of America or Radio Free Europe is too Orwellian for my tastes. If we do not let government control what the content will be for substantive broadcasts in our own country than why should we let the government choose what gets broadcast in our name abroad.  Government should expand the world’s access to free speech, a free press, and not ever use the new technology to allow government to supplant the function of the press or to potentially gain the control of the message. This time the media was the message.

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

A government report purporting to examine the policies to prevent gun smuggling from the United States to Mexico comes to political conclusions urging stricter gun control in the face of incomplete and contradictory evidence about border security.

This week the Government Accounting Office(GAO) released the results of their investigation on U.S. efforts to combat arms trafficking to Mexico. They claim that 87 % of firearms seized by Mexican authorities and traced in the last five years originated in the United States. Many of these weapons are obtained they estimate by a mechanism called “straw purchase” where a American citizen without a criminal background, who can clear a background check, goes to a gun show or gun shop to purchase weapons and then illegal transfers the weapons to a Mexican drug trafficking organizations(DTO) who take them across the border to Mexico. Once a firearm has been purchased and transferred illegally into the hands of the DTO the report says that firearms are normally transported across the border by personal or commercial vehicle.

A key issue raised in the GAO report was the lack of coordination between both national and international law enforcement and border security agencies. Although the United States has established the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) to facilitate inter-agency cooperation the GAO found a lack of cooperation between the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in developing strategies to confront gun smuggling.

As has been previously chronicled when Homeland Secretary Napolitano asserted that legal gun sales in the U.S. were the major instruments used to supply the Mexican DTOs there are statements in the new GAO release that are self-contradictory. The report specifically states on page 44 “that the ATF was unable to provide data on the number of arms trafficked to Mexico involving “straw purchasers” or unlicensed sellers ( by this I assume to denote legal gun sales between state residents) because the agency does not systemically track this information.”

After surrogates of the Obama administration all but took imputation for the U.S. supplying weapons to the Mexican DTOs earlier this year, a program called the Outbound Inspection Program (OIP) was commenced at border crossing spanning the U.S.-Mexican border. Secretary Napolitano reported initially at the Border Trade Alliance International Conference on April 21, 2009 that the program was confiscating “unbelievable” quantities of weapons. The program cost $95 million and involved shifting many Border Patrol officers and other law enforcement assets and personnel for other areas and duties to the Mexican border. Mexican officials said that 2000 weapons would suspected of being illegally smuggled across border crossings per day so expectations were high at the beginning.

However, a comprehensive examination of the “success” of the OIP between March 12 and April 30 from all the border crossings between the U.S. and Mexico which experiences over 27 million vehicles crossing just the Texas border contradicted Secretary Napolitano’s remarks. Only 51 pieces in total consisting of ammunition, weapons parts, and guns were confiscated.

Meanwhile the local economies of many cities on the Texas and California border with Mexico have suffered negative affects. One of the rare bright areas in the U.S. economy during the recent recession has been trade with Mexico. The OIP program caused waits, sometimes approaching two hours, never before seen on south bound traffic as well as more delay in the north bound traffic with little benefit. The only consequence was a significant decrease in international traffic which has negatively impacted the local economies and the robust growth of the prosperity of Texas.

The most significant issue raised by the report is whether Mexican authorities are substantially executing their responsibility. Very few cases referred to Mexican officials were prosecuted, just 22 out of 73 over the last year. Although the U.S. government has trained almost 400 Mexican law enforcement officials on the operation of eTrace to track weapons it is almost never applied. The assumptions about the actual numbers of firearms smuggled to Mexico and how they arrive there are conjectures based on a small sample of the weapons captured by Mexican authorities that are actually put through eTrace. In fact, the report specifically discusses the concern that there is corruption in the Mexican law enforcement process assigned to enforcing and prosecuting weapons smuggling.

This GAO report will be exploited by those that favor more gun control to to foster demand for revisions in federal and state law to require the tracking of all gun transfers of ownership and demand that all gun sales occur exclusively through licensed dealers.

Many of us familiar with the border have not been in favor of the one dimensional border security plan of the border fence that was passed by the Congress without much forethought to examining how to best spend the money for border security. So far the $70 billion dollar fence project remains mostly incomplete, over budget, and without funds. Over the past four years smugglers of drugs and weapons have built 69 tunnels under the fence and built hundreds of vehicles with movable ladders to scale over the top of the border structure. Enterprising thieves have stolen parts of the fence to sell for scrap metal. In one location, human traffickers even installed a “gate” to which only they had the key.

A recent review noted that the Southern Border Initiative project (SBInet) created by the Bush administration although initially plagued by difficulties with the integration of electronic surveillance systems are now showing promise. Over 4000 apprehensions have occurred recently as a result of the application of advanced technological detecting equipment. Sensors for radiation, facial recognition software, unmanned aerial systems, sophisticated high altitude manned surveillance sorties, and sophisticated financial investigations into Mexican DTO resources are important tools.

The optimum border security will involve the continued development of the SBInet, bolstering of the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) personnel, better coordination of the Federal agencies charged with protecting our border and law enforcement of laws already in place, developing better intelligence on Mexican DTOs, and demanding that Mexico not play the blame game but step up to the plate.

Mexico needs to use eTrace on every weapon they capture and establish more accountability in prosecuting weapons smugglers because only then will the facts be known. On the American side those that participate in illegal gun transfers should be vigorously prosecuted and given the maximum punishment under the law. Legislating new gun laws that would be unconstitutional infringements on the legal activities of citizens will not accomplish anything.

Currently McAllen, Texas is rated number one in the country for economic growth and job growth by the Brookings Institute which looked at all the major metropolitan areas of the country. A part of this achievement is due to the legitimate trade and commerce across the international bridges which benefit both Mexico and the United States. The abiding development of technology that scans or detects illegal smuggling activities in a manner that does not impede legal traffic flow is vital technology research that can be implemented at airports, ports, and border crossings. Ultimately our security will depend more on human intelligence and technology then medieval buttresses.

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

Liberal advocates for health care reform point to evidence based medicine as the panacea to a burgeoning dilemma. A true health care change should additionally be based on acquiescence to what contributes to patient satisfaction and how our impious culture negatively impacts this goal.

Medical care developed centuries before humanity began to understand even the basics of science on how the body works. Healers in primitive society often could do little to help the actual condition afflicting the sick, the injured, or the dying but they played an important ritualistic role as a representative of a society that valued that an individual who was suffering merited attention and special care when ill. Today as we talk about the importance of spending our limited health care dollars on quality medical care it’s important to remember that health care is not just a statistic.

Today the major focus of health care reform is to establish guidelines for the treatment of conditions based up well respected scientific studies that have followed strict requirements instead of relying on just traditional anecdotal experience. As a greater portion of individual income and national GDP each year has gone to health care expenditures this seemed a cogent objective way to approach the issue of justifying costs. The Institute of Medicine has further defined health care quality as having six goals: patient safety, patient-centeredness, effectiveness, efficiency, timeliness, and equity of application. Using this concept one can compare for example the costs, risks, and outcomes of two different treatments for the same disease. However, applying this measuring tool to health care systems as a whole is not so simple.

Although major advances in the science of understanding how the body works are well accepted by the general population, how do we explain why non-scientifically based methods of treatment often called “alternative care” still continue to enjoy strong popularity. Felicity Bishop, a post-doctoral research fellow in England found that 46% of the population there utilized alternative treatments during their lifetime. Her research and others have found patients seek like treatments because they are dissatisfied by conventional medicine’s technical nature or the interpersonal interaction between patient and therapist.

Practitioners of alternative treatment who are successful in drawing large numbers of satisfied patients exhibit common themes. Patient participation in the therapy process gives them a sense that they are controlling their own destiny versus just being passive receivers of conventional care. Deep seated beliefs in natural treatments having advantages over artificial chemicals or remedies are reinforced by alternative practitioners. Many people who consider themselves religiously spiritual or cause driven dislike the cold concept of the human body as solely being a machine and find the “mind-body” connection connoted by alternative therapies as rewarding.

Perhaps another way to look at health care is to ask the question what do patients really want from the health care system? Severe acute conditions threatening life or limb or causing horrendous pain makes for obvious conclusions but in reality make up but a small part of the millions of interactions among patients and the health care system. Today, just as in ancient times, many of our visits to the doctor really relate to wanting to be assured that we will continue to be in control of our destiny and have a clear vision of our future.

Scientific “outcome “ studies may denote to the doctor to whom we are complaining about a pain that cancer is a very unlikely diagnosis nevertheless that uncertainty makes us uncomfortable. Americans like to believe that we are immortally young and can be cured of any illness. Why should we consent to a guess when there may a test that we will not have to personally pay for that tells us with great certainty what is our condition and by inference what our future is? This is the crux of the dilemma facing health care reform today.

We have legal system that preaches if we are wronged we have a right to millions of dollars and we have a dominant political party that flagrantly spends trillions of dollars without concern for any thrift. These deeds contribute to the false belief of a significant portion of America that there is no limit to available health care dollars for health care.

There is a perceived difference in the standard of care given to prominent members of society versus the common folk. If a professional athlete injuries his knee he gets a MRI often within hours. The President of the United States gets “routine physicals” at government hospitals which consist of every possible diagnostic test and an evaluation by a team of physicians often lasting several hours instead of the 15 minute physical that Uncle Joe gets at his family doctor.

One great difference among the European countries who have adapted somewhat socialized medical schemes (they still have the private outs for the well to do) and America which must be contemplated in designing our medical system is the culture contrast on how we perceive aging. American society and movies often imagine everyone never gets older than 35 and will live forever. Aging makes us very disgruntled. We have very few mature female sex symbols and rarely see movies demonstrating significant value in the life of the elderly whereas in Europe there is a much greater acceptance of aging and mortality.

In Europe someone presenting to the hospital with chest pain thought to be a small heart attack or angina that could be signs of a possible heart attack is often sent home with aspirin if they are stable. Statistics say that for the vast majority of people treated in this manner, most will survive and only a few will die at home. This preserves significant amounts of health care dollars and reduces hospitalization significantly which can be applied to other uses. In the United States these patients are admitted to the hospital because studies have shown that should they get a complication such as a cardiac arrhythmia rapid treatment in hospital has a high chance of saving their life.

Both of these treatments can be justified by statistics. The mathematics of outcomes research cannot tell us which treatment is right or wrong. All societies must cope with the fact that there is a limit to the total expenses which can be put to health care. The hardest question is how to divide that spending?

The biggest fear that American’s have about health care reform is that they will have no choices in their personal health care. Even if “scientific studies” proclaim that only one treatment should be given the world wide experience suggests that almost half of the population will likely want alternative treatments regardless of whether they can be proven scientifically valid. Creating a rigid no choice system as proposed by liberals will be politically unpopular not only at the onset of its inception but increasingly over the time of its administration.

Another big issue is raised by the dilemma of heart disease mentioned above. How do we decide whether we will spend a lot of resources to save a few people? Do we apply the ratio of expenditure over dollars as our main priority?

Some non-conventional treatments which cannot be scientifically proven such as chiropractic treatment for chronic pain could still be much more cost effective in achieving patient satisfaction for some patients while others will reject it outright.

Recently McAllen, Texas received a lot of attention in the media for being the second most expensive place for Medicare expenditures in the country. The number of doctors both primary care and specialist there per capita is one of the lowest in the country. Visit a doctor’s office there and one will always find a packed waiting room with many anxious family members accompanying the patient. These physicians are most reimbursed for the number of patients seen not by the amount of time they spend with each patient and practice in area of country where juries routinely award millions of dollars and almost never find for the defendant. Contrast this to Europe where complaints about medical practices are screened by an impartial medical board that only pass on the case to the court system if a significant deviation from the national defined guideline is clearly determined to be evident.

Before America can move forward on real health reform, we must first have a government that clearly declares we are a society with limited resources. We must go beyond defining quality of health care as just a statistical entity and understand that the patient-health care system interaction is about more than just being a fix it shop.

An important part of our society that allows one to come to terms with the inevitable hearkening of aging and mortality, the spiritual peace brought by religion, should play a more prominent role in health care especially for those with untreatable conditions or in the last few months of life.

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

Must Americans choose between the status quo of the public-private mix of health care or a new government controlled monopoly? There exists a third option which is market driven, renders competition in price and quality, and consistent with the Federalist concept of state sovereignty in exercise

Currently in Congress there are two major competing scenarios being put together by the Democrats. The Affordable Health Choices Act sponsored by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) is being contemplated in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) while the Baucus-Obama design is being perused by the Senate Finance Committee.

The Democratic party plans essentially call for the federalization of the health coverage system. The Federal government would institute guide lines on how doctors and hospitals would treat patients encompassing when technology or procedures would be allowed or not. President Obama has adjured that variance in reimbursement in different parts of the country must cease and that he aspires to establish one standard and one system nationwide.

Both Kennedy and the Baucus plans would comprise private insurance alternatives, Medicare, Medicaid and possibly a third tier of a government sponsored and run health care program for individuals and families not covered by employer based insurance or other government programs. Although President Obama and many Democrats have voiced that their approach would allow private insured Americans to keep their current plans, well respected economic studies and even the Congressional Budget office have revealed that would not be the case. Medicaid, Medicare, and the new government program would aptly underpay the cost of health care so that private insurers would have to make up the difference by paying more for care and thus having to charge more for premiums. Eventually the presence of the government program would drive private programs from the market.

Estimates by private economists, Washington think tanks, and the governments own budget experts have predicted that either Democratic scheme would add trillions to the national debt. The Congressional Budget Office has been generous to the President’s budget regarding health reform mostly because they say “the budget document does not specify the policies that would constitute such reform”. However, President Obama did inform them that he intends to get savings from health reform in three ways to make it “budget neutral”. An analysis shows his logic is faulted.

• Revenues generated by limiting the rate at which itemized deductions reduce tax liability and by taking steps to increase tax compliance

Conservative Analysis: This is a tax increase on employer based health care and itemized charitable deductions

• The estimated savings from several proposals to modify payment rates and other provisions of the Medicare and Medicaid programs

Conservative Analysis: This is cutting reimbursements to hospitals which will force them to charge private insurance more

• The savings from a proposal to establish a regulatory pathway for the Federal Drug Administration to approve the marketing of generic versions of biological pharmaceuticals.

Conservative Analysis:This will create a disincentive for the private development of new drugs. At best pharmaceutical companies will be forced to charge more for drugs initially before they are forced to sell it at “generic prices”

Congressional experts estimated that over $257 billion in new tax revenues would be necessary to pay the for Kennedy proposal at a cost of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars to give one uninsured a benefit worth about $6000.

There is a Republican sponsored ambition, The Patient’s Choice Act (S. 1099/H.R. 2520) which offers a significant different approach to health care reform and addresses the issue of government programs undercutting private insurance. The bill’s main sponsors, Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Devin Nunes (R-CA) have said that the government cannot create a public program “ where the government serves as both the referee and the player in the game” which would cause private insurers to dump millions of enrollees. They have labeled the choice of continuing the status quo or succumbing to a total government takeover of health care as a “false choice”. They affirm there is a third option which accomplishes the following goals “tackling the fundamental drivers of exploding costs; empowering patients and providers with greater choice and competition; and ensuring access to quality, affordable health coverage for all Americans.”

The core of the Republican plan involves creating state based health care exchanges to ease individual purchase of coverage and create a market to compete on price and quality. Premiums set by these voluntary exchanges would not be under government control but would be subject to transparency and recognized “risk adjustment mechanisms” including independent boards, health security pooling, and reinsurance options. Although anyone may opt out of the program there would be mechanisms to enroll automatically state residents who visit emergency rooms, have a driver license, or appear on state records as employed in the state. There will be no exclusions for pre-existing conditions and the setting of premiums will not allow “cherry-picking” of low risk clients to the exclusion of those who might be expected to have higher health care costs.

The exchanges working within state or multi-state groups will be enmeshed in more than just providing health care coverage including being involved in helping to determine quality of care measures and health care planning, reducing fraud and abuse, establishing wellness tactics, and looking at stemming the costs of lawsuits to health care.

The program does allow states to cooperate but does not force an one size fits all system across the United States. Premiums, coverage, and options will be determined by state or multi-state groups in a way that preserves the concept of the states as individual laboratories as conceived by the framers of the Constitution. This concept is further enhanced by provisions that allow for payments to be structured in alternative ways as determined by the state exchanges including new payment methods for preventive care, prospective payment for visits over time, capitation, and chronic disease management.

One biggest problem of the Democratic plan is that they would most likely penalize employer based health plans and not significantly help the tax deductibility of insurance purchased directly rather than through employment. The Republican plan would create a tax credit that could be applied to either an employer based or privately purchased insurance plan. Additionally people would have the option to buy high or low deductible plans which could be supplemented by a medical savings accounts. This may be very important in helping to control the cost of health care as a market driver.

Perhaps the most exciting aspect of the new proposal is that it would change Medicaid from a defined benefit to a defined contribution program. Funds for Medicaid patients would be placed in the pools with others in the state groups rather than having them function as a separate entity. Although the bill leaves Medicare alone one can only ponder the possibility with great encouragement that eventually perhaps this program could also evolve to include Medicare. There is the potential for this approach to be truly a revolutionary new way to deal with health care.

The Republican sponsored The Patient’s Choice Act offers a market based approach to health care reform which will allows the federalist concept of individual states to act as laboratories. No doubt, the greatest criticism of the monolithic Democratic approach is the naiveté that a competent comprehensive solution can be reached so easily. Contrarily, the concept of Congressman Ryan and colleagues creates a national workshop which maximizes the opportunity for innovation and testing of different forms of health care administration and delivery.

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

Health care reform which encourages the hidden tax on private insurance by cost shifting of government programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and the new Democratic proposal of the alternative public plan will not allow Americans to keep their current insurance plan.

This week President Obama began the callous bustle to garner his health reform package being passed before the end of the summer. The President’s health plan propounds to help improve the economic recovery of the nation by controlling health care costs. Key components of the plan encompasses creating a government sponsored health program that would compete against private insurance companies, establishing best practices quality of care standards that would pay only for care that followed approved guidelines, the digitalization of medical records, and stronger emphasis on preventive care rather than procedure based medicine which may compromise the restructuring of payments to providers for disease management rather than by individual events such as procedures and diagnostic tests.

One of the most controversial points of contention is whether formulating a government health plan, which would probably be similar to Medicare, competes for clients with private insurance and would increase the costs of private insurance or even drive it out of existence.

Currently in the United States just over half of all patients who go to hospitals are covered by the government program, Medicare. Because Medicare almost exclusively blankets the elderly and it is well established that the greatest medical costs in life befall within the last six months of life for most of the population, this government program is the payer for the most expensive part of American health care. That both Medicare and to an even lesser extent Medicaid have traditionally paid less than the true cost of care has been well documented by published studies. Since the conception of Medicare under President Johnson there has been a planned incongruity between what Medicare actually pays providers and the genuine cost of care received. Currently Medicare pays only 95% and Medicaid 89% of the honest expenses of hospitalization for enrollees.

Since the creation of Medicare two tactics have been in place to make up for the deficit created in hospital costs for treating government program enrolled patients. Medicare invents modifiers and incentives for hospitals to get additional payments or payment increases for a variety of factors. The overall severity of illness of patients admitted, presence in a geographically under served area, indigent patient burden, cost of labor, capital improvements including new technology or programs, and the sponsoring of graduate medical education programs are a few examples. The other tactic was to cost shift the care of Medicare patients to private insured patients who would pay more to the hospital relatively.

Analysis of private insurance hospitalization payments versus government program payments has demonstrated that private insurance often disburses more than the actual cost of hospitalization to the tune of 122% in the year 2003. The total expense of the this cost shift exceeds $88 billion per year and increases the cost of the typical family’s insurance premium by $1,512.

The Obama administration and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services have recently announced major cutbacks are looming in payments to hospitals for Medicare patients. The special modifiers and incentives mentioned above have, they claim, resulted in wide disparities in payments across the country. The future plan is to replace this compensation for new ones that will reward disease management outcomes and best use utilization of technology. Opponents of the new public health alternative say these changes could exacerbate cost shifting even further.

Critics of the creation of a new public health plan alternative cite that if its payments are too low to hospitals in the same way as Medicare there will be even more cost-shifting to private insurance. The “artificial” reduction of lower premiums compounded with lower payments to providers will amplify not only the premiums demanded by insurance companies for private programs but also will demand that hospitals increase their charges to those in private programs to make up the losses for public program patients.

Some proponents of the public health alternative say that discretion should be limited to those who do not already have employer coverage, the self-employed, and the uninsured to reduce the cost shift but not in Congress agree to these restrictions. Albeit Obama in his campaign said his plan would allow Americans to keep the coverage they have if they wished, well based estimates of the number of people who could loss their private coverage if the public plan option is unrestricted could reach 171.6 million people or 70% of those currently insured privately.

A possibly better alternative to the public plan has been alluded by a moderate Democrat, Senator Kent Conrad (ND) which would consist of a nonprofit cooperative program for individuals and very small businesses (<10 employees). To be advantageous co-ops would have to be able to enroll large numbers of individuals to draw competitive bids from insurance companies. This idea is too fresh to evaluate fully yet but is worth exploring more comprehensively.

The impetus to commence a stimulus package and bailout of many failed American banks and corporations has clearly proven the old adage “Haste makes waste”. I fear the same may ensue if Obama and the liberal Democrats are enfranchised to speed a poorly conceived health reform package through Congress. There is strong historic and economic evidence that a public health plan alternative to private insurance particularly if unrestricted in enrollment will ultimately lead to a single payer system because private insurance will not survive.

No one should vacillate that our health care system needs reform. The best system for America should be a market based system not a government mandated public scheme. Rather than fantasizing increasing government program enrollments more ideas looking at non-governmental models should be appraised for all Americans including Medicare and Medicaid recipients. Our current thinking about health care reform thirsts to be more “out of the box” to novel inspirations and not just restricted to conventional insurance vs. conventional government program.

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

The new Republican initiative, the American Energy Act, reflects the U.S. nuclear power lag and the need to catch up. A review of the history of nuclear power and what needs to be done.

Article originally posted in the American Daily Review - News, politics and conservative commentary without compromise.

While President Barack Obama welcomed the “peaceful development” of nuclear power plants in Iran and other countries which do not see themselves as friends of the United States, he and his liberal Democratic colleagues seem intent on killing off the remnants of the nuclear power industry in the United States.  Although candidate Obama said he would consider nuclear power use if a reasonable solution can be found to storing nuclear waste, President Obama has taken absolutely no action in developing civilian nuclear power. The comprehensive energy program of the Democratic Congress, the Waxman-Markey bill does not even mention nuclear power.

The state of nuclear power today in America is much different than 40 years ago when according to William Tucker, who has written about energy issues for the past 25 years, the United States was the home of the leading companies in nuclear reactor construction.  Three companies, General Electric, Westinghouse, and Babcock & Wilcox experienced a “nuclear boom” until the Three Mile Island event and subsequent activism essentially put a halt to new reactor construction. The activism was triggered not only by a fear of accidents but also of creating so much potential nuclear weapons material that would lead to nuclear weapons proliferation.  Yet world wide today,  nuclear power is more than a significant producer of electricity without carbon emissions or major accident at market prices competitive to other forms of generation.

Nuclear fuel rods still contain high amounts of potentially usable material after they are spent.  By the 1970s the reprocessing technology of spent nuclear fuel rods was capable of creating a substantial amount of weapons grade materials to a degree that the American President, Jimmy Carter, called for a suspension of the further development of this key process. Reprocessing of fuel allows the ore to be reused somewhat but does not prevent the need for storage of nuclear waste. Refinements in technology and procedure have allowed this process to reuse much of the nuclear material and also to make less weapons grade material as a by product.

Although many countries in Europe joined the United States initially in stopping the construction of nuclear power plants, Italy, Great Britain, Sweden, and France especially reversed course soon after.  Over 75% of France’s energy demand is met by nuclear power. The worlds leading builder of nuclear power plants is a French company, Areva.  Their European Pressurized Reactor is considered the leading contender for possible new American power plants. Japan Steel Works is the only company in the world now making necessary components, “exquisitely machined pressure vessels”, for the core of nuclear reactors.

Meanwhile in the United States, Tucker reported in February that many companies seeking to build nuclear reactors did not have confidence in General Electric the only U.S. company capable of building reactors.  Because of the low activity in America, very few nuclear engineers, technicians, and specialty construction workers are available to build plants.

Today the Republicans in Congress announced the American Energy Act will put nuclear power on a fast track.  U.S. Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN), Chairman of the American Energy Solutions Group announced the goal of the legislation is to license 100 new nuclear power plants of the next 20 years as well as assuring a safe  and secure storage for spent nuclear fuel.

The new energy plan would not be based upon subsidies but instead would require that nuclear energy is economically competitive in a market based system. To create a better permitting system which currently can take more than four years, the bill proposes creating for the first time a comprehensive regulatory body for nuclear energy called National Nuclear Energy Council. Rather than having various disjointed agencies oversee the process all aspects of nuclear power and reactors would be centrally regulated through this body.

Jack Spencer, the Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute  which is a part of the Heritage Foundation reported the following as being key in the American Energy Act as regards nuclear power.

Since no nuclear power plants have been built in the United States for the last 30 years, the bill would propose lifting of tariffs for a five year period to allow the importation of nuclear components not made in America. This is only a temporary lifting because the ultimate goal is to develop a viable and competitive American nuclear industry once again.

While Japan, France and many other countries reprocess nuclear fuel the current U.S. policy is not to recycle it.  The bill will start a program in the Department of Energy to award contracts to companies in the private sector to develop nuclear fuel reprocessing.

The Obama administration determined that nuclear waster storage at Yucca Mountain was not tenable before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission formally finished its review of the permit to build a repository there.  The new energy act would have the Nuclear Regulatory Commission complete the review and would also specify that the limits of the repository’s storage capacity be based upon science and engineering rather than Congressional mandate which may be considerably less.

The truth is that America cannot achieve economic independence without substantially increasing and improving nuclear power.  The lack of activity has almost killed our domestic capability to build nuclear power plants which should be seen as a strategically important industry.

While states like Texas and California can achieve significant percentages of renewable energy, many others will not be able to get over single digits. If fossil fuels, biomass, and bio-fuels are ruled out because of carbon emissions than either we build nuclear power plants or give up living with electricity. America cannot remain a strong economic and military power with a viable economy without nuclear power. If we do not reverse course we run the danger of falling to far behind to catch up.

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

Does McAllen, Texas deserve notoriety as the most expensive place for Medicare recipients or is it just a convenient focal point of diversion for politicians who want to avoid the real issues?

The city of McAllen Texas has been in the unwelcome spotlight this month because of an article in the New Yorker Magazine by Atul Gawande discussing the fast rising costs of health care in the area. Dr. Gawande recently visited doctors and hospitals in the area after a review published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed McAllen area hospitals to be among the highest Medicare spenders.

Both Dr. Gawande and Dr. Eliot Fisher , the author of the NEJM article, came to the conclusion that overuse of facilities and technology by doctors is wasting money and possibly puts patients at risk for complications from unnecessary procedures.

Traditionally medical practice was seen as art supported by science. Practitioners were trained to treat diseases by apprenticeship and experience. There has been a movement in medicine away from individual thinking and more to adopting best practices. Doctors within each field of medicine would come to a consensus on guidelines how best to treat conditions rather than relying upon their own particular experience.

For health care planning the use of guidelines becomes very necessary. Estimating the cost of health care for a population requires that first a reasonable estimate of the occurrence of illness that is going to occur over time be made and then followed by a reasonable estimate of the cost of treating those maladies. If every doctor is treating the same condition that same way then costs, benefits, and complications are much easier to track.

This approach to medicine means that most of the time the patient is going to receive the right care but does not really allow for individualization. Doctors who treat patients in a manner that varies from these norms run the risk that they will be criticized. The benefit of such a program is that it potentially brings economy and a standard of care nationwide but there is also a cost.

There is no doubt that at current spending levels the Medicare program which funds over 50% of all health care in America will go broke by 2017. Unfortunately health care expenditures do not increase directly the economic output of the nation but remain a cost. As science moves forward we will find more ways to help people live longer lives that is certain. However, technology and preventative care do not save money as advertised by some politicians. Our main defense against future higher health care costs must be and can only be a more productive economy with higher employment levels and truly higher wages by highly educated employees.

Cookbook medicine that follows strict guidelines may save money but is not without problems. Some researchers like Dr. Robert A. Berenson and Jack Hadley of the Urban Institute have shown sometimes places which have high costs for health care may be justified in doing so even if some basic outcomes measurements suggest otherwise.

Not allowing for variation in treatments runs the risk that health care will become stagnant. Also if the research done is only looking at costs or hospitalization or even complications it may miss important issues such as patient satisfaction. Some patients may be better served by straying from the norm by intangible factors.

The tone of Dr. Gawande article was critical of physicians in the Rio Grande Valley area for owning portions of hospitals or diagnostic facilities although it admitted that these situations alone would not account for the overall expenditures. It is possible that doctors who own portions of hospitals or diagnostic facilities can “overuse” them as alleged by Dr. Gawande. On the other hand there may other factors that play a role in the high cost of health care for Medicare patients in the McAllen area.

Drs. Gawande and Fischer have the luxury to practice medicine in sophisticated urban areas of high income and education in regions of the country where the majority of the population has never experienced difficulty with access to care.

The Valley population contains one of the most uneducated and poverty stricken regions in the United States which is 90% Hispanic. Medical researchers have documented that many times this ethnic group will seek treatment for conditions such as chest pain indicating heart disease much later then most Americans. Physicians who deal with patients and their families in this population must also deal with a history of mistrust of institutional medicine which just a few decades ago severely restricted access to this population.

Family members often accompany older non-English speaking elderly patients for medical visits. Telling them that abuelita(grandmother) may have a heart problem which may require future surgery or angioplasty but first can be treated with just medicine can easily be perceived as “rationing” care for the poor. Many of these patients are on both Medicaid and Medicare so they never experience any personal out of pocket costs. The good news is that this does not obstruct their access to care but the bad news is that potentially opens a flood gate for abuse.

The New York Times today reported that President Obama, himself, has specifically looked at the situation in McAllen, Texas as a problem area for overspending. The likely outcome is that there is going to be some cutbacks in payments for hospitals, medical specialists, and equipment but perhaps an increase in payments to primary care and preventative services nationwide.

Everyone agrees that the status quo cannot be continued. But putting McAllen’s doctors in the situation of having to explain to family members why abuelita cannot have the best technology, like they have in Houston, just to “save money” will not work. The politicians should take the responsibility to explain to the public the realities of health care spending and why there may have to be limits. Because in the long run, society will not get as angry at the doctors for doing too much for abuelita as they could against the politicians who they perceive wanted to to do too little.

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

The resolution opening a possibility for Cuba to reapply for membership to OAS should not be considered a significant change in policy.

In 1962 the Organization of American States voted to rescind membership of Cuba because of its adherence to Marxist-Leninist principals. Today the OAS voted to allow Cuba to reapply for membership if it can meet the democratic requirements for membership including elections and a free press.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was present for many hours during the negotiations in San Pedro Sula, Honduras by the the Ministerial Working Group of the OAS to hammer out a resolution. Apparently many of the new leftist governments in Latin America wanted Cuba to be readmitted unconditionally while the United States was working for establishing conditions.

Thomas A. Shannon, Jr. , assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere Affairs said this was an important step forward for the OAS and a reaffirming of the profound commitment to democracy and fundamental human rights. He added that this act strengthens the role of the OAS in the Americas.

For his part, Cuban leader Fidel Castro has been very critical of the OAS. In reports from official Cuban news media he has repeatedly denied seeking membership in the OAS. Castro has called the OAS a “Trojan horse” which allows the U.S. to “wreck havoc in Latin America”.

The Mexican newspaper, El Universal, reported an interview with the former Mexican Ambassador to Cuba, Ricardo Pascoe in which he said the resolution was a victory not only for all of Latin America but also the U.S. because it was a “consensual agreement”.The article noted that although Castro has called the OAS a “stinking corpse’ he has been sending discrete signals of wanting to return to membership.

Mexico was the only country to vote against the resolution in 1962 blocking membership of Cuba in the OAS but apparently this time according to El Universal specifically sought to play a low key role.

What will be the significance of the resolution? University of Miami Cuba expert, Andy Gomez was reported today in the Miami Herald to call the resolution “meaningless”.

The growing power of the Colombian and Mexican drug cartels and leftist movements in much of Latin America should continue to be a significant concern to the United States. The resolution passed by the OAS shows that the United States and other democracies in the Western Hemisphere still have significant sway. However, without careful attention this could change.

America’s best course is to avoid direct aggressive intervention, promote free trade and democracy in the region. Most importantly we must never compromise our moral high ground on the lack of democracy in Cuba or in other thug led regimes.

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

Sonia Sotomayor received a private education, best described as arete, from grammar school through law school which facilitated her rise from poverty to be a leading jurist. Her compelling story is not only about hard work and struggle but also should make America reflect on the value of private education versus the failure of public education. The focus of both liberals and conservatives should be why this superbness of education is not more available to all the poor in America.

The earliest immigrants to America left England because they wanted a chance at a better life. These immigrants found new opportunities to develop land, practice religion of their choice, educate their children and prepare a legacy for their descendants to an extent well beyond ever imagined in Europe. The acceptance of wealth and poverty concordance has been tolerated by the strength of the conviction of the poor that with hard work, determination, and education their children would be afforded social mobility and an equal chance at success.

Society as a whole benefits from equal opportunity because it allows talent to be drawn from the largest potential pool of contributors. Deeply rooted in American core values, as described in Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, is the concept that when these hard working and gifted individuals rise in society then there is secondary benefit for the whole country.

Certainly much of American history has revolved upon the the continuous evolution of equal opportunity The development of educational facilities, the elimination of slavery and subsequently racial discrimination were heavily motivated by not just a sense of moral righteousness but also a presumption that society would be stronger and more productive in the setting of equal opportunity.

At the same time throughout America history there has continued to be poor and rich. Coexistent with a shared trust in striving for equal opportunity there has also been a suspicion that those who achieved much often did so by luck or even unfair advantage obtained by unscrupulous means rather then by meritorious achievement. Sometimes this is only a slight spark but sometimes it becomes a raging fire.

The controversy over comments by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor that her gender and ethnic experience may be better than that of a white male to render judgment is not so much being driving by racism but by the perception of a significant portion of Americans that they remain left out of the American dream. Curiously both the left and the right have major misconceptions of what is the current state of equal opportunity in America. Even though she was poor, she was privileged in being able to attend excellent schools that many others did not. I suspect this insensitivity on her part was not intentional but still projects negatively towards others not so fortunate.

Judge Sotomayor does come from poverty and economic disadvantage but not in every way. Neither was her early life gifted by any formal sort of affirmative action. Where she received a significant opportunity early on was that she attended parochial schools instead of public schools. From grammar school, the Blessed Sacrament School of the Bronx, through high school, Cardinal Spellman High School, she attended excellent Catholic schools. This experience was the spring board from which she could achieve attending an Ivy league university, Princeton, and then Yale Law School. Had Judge Sotomayor attended public school would she have graduated from high school let alone become a nationally recognized jurist?

Access to high quality or even “elite” schools is an important factor in contributing to a true state of equal opportunity. Exposure to this environment keys in to families how to learn about success and networking that are rare in public facilities. Judge Sotomayor should humbly admit that the uniqueness of her access to such resources played a significant role in her success. This does not diminish her accomplishments.

To foster true economic opportunity and future for the poor in America we must make sure that poor children have the same chance to attend good private schools like those of Judge Sotomayor and not be trapped in the public school system. There is a tremendous hypocrisy in touting the well deserved achievements of Judge Sotomayor but not at the same time recognizing that such achievement would not have been possible if she had been forced to attend public inner city schools.

Conservatives should celebrate that diversity in the Supreme Court is being made possible not by a government run school system but instead by a total private education that was given to a person who lived in one of America’s poorest neighborhoods. They should demand that more voucher programs like the one at the school where President Obama’s daughters attend be given to religious schools throughout the country to give a real chance at upward mobility for America’s poor.

Threats to this perception of fairness whether it be “white supremacy” or “affirmative action” at first sound dissimilar but when you take the time to analyze them are really about groups feeling disenfranchised. Both concepts failed because they did not address the real issue of improving education for all.

Being poor does not require one to be of one particular race. While higher percentages of Hispanics and African-Americans are living below the poverty line the total numbers of whites in poverty are still more. There is a common thread in the experience of all poor in America regardless of race and that is that if they attend a poor performing public school the chances for upward mobility are near zero.

America needs to move beyond looking at racial discrimination as the major contributing factor to poverty and really examine the circumstances that trap generation after generation of people of any race into poverty. Going to powerful private schools early on in life remains a powerful predictor of positive life achievements while going to failing inner city schools correctly and often predicts quite the opposite.

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

President Barack Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States, Sonia Sotomayor, should be an easy layup for the President after several disasters in nominating people. Judge Sotomayor is both Hispanic and a woman, making it difficult for Republicans to give her a tough time without seeming racist or sexist.

In a recent article, I read about how she considers her judgment better than that of a white male judge. I think it is admirable that a Hispanic woman has come so far as to become a federal judge and Supreme Court nominee. I do not think that her personal background ought to be tauted as a plus. Even President Obama stated that, “what’s clear is that she was simply saying that her life experiences will give her information about the struggles and hardships that people are going through, that will make her a good judge.” While this may be a good thing for a Federal judge, it is not so good for the Supreme Court, which is more academic in their work.

The Supreme Court does not hear fresh new cases where an attorney can bring in mitigating circumstances to lessen the sentence of criminal, or reduce an award by a civil court. By the time cases arrive at the Supreme Court, they are argued on very narrow subjects. Supreme Court cases are the final word on matters that are gray rather than black or white. The Court’s job is to make those gray matters black or white.

A Supreme Court Judge’s experience only matters in their view of the constitution. A judge either views the constitution as silly putty or a rigid form that requires some effort to change. The uproar about Judge Sotomayor’s comment only distracts from the more important issue, which is her view of how the Constitution should be interpreted.

We cannot have Supreme Court decisions colored by personal experiences or an “understanding of the struggles” of the people before them. Courts of original jurisdiction have this freedom because they are taking existing law and applying it to a specific case for a specific person. In the Supreme Court, a specific person’s situation cannot be used to make law for all 300 million Americans. We tend to forget that in their decisions, the Supreme Court is making law. Though they do have that power, it is not granted to them for the sake of being an additional legislature; rather, they have that power to adjust legislation that oversteps the bounds of the Constitution.

Therefore, we should focus more on whether Judge Sotomayor’s view of the Constitution makes her likely to try to legislate from the bench or interpret the law. Personal experience influences legislators; law influences a judge. Is she a legislator, or a judge?

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

The Republican party self handicapped their ability to contest the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor.

The nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court by President Barack Obama comes as no surprise to the Hispanic community. Frankly if he had failed to nominate a Hispanic to this opening the moderate dissatisfaction that had been brewing in the Latino community following the paucity of Cabinet appointments would have grown significantly.

No one can argue that the Judge’s record of achievement is equal or exceeds that of any current sitting Supreme Court justice. Coming from a poor background in New York City she was able to graduate from Princeton with honors and then serve as editor for the Law Review at Yale. Her career as a tough New York City prosecutor and private practice attorney litigating intellectual property rights before she became a judge is not typical for a standard liberal.

She was initially appointed to the lower Federal bench by President George H. Bush, however her appointment to the Circuit Court of Appeals was made by President Clinton and was challenged by some Republicans.

Supreme Court appointments are always opportunities for the party out of power to rally and unify. This is a part of the American way of politics. However the Republican party is well advised to tread carefully in the examination of Judge Sotomayor.

The Republican party was significantly damaged in the last election cycle by the voluminous anti-Hispanic rhetoric coming from members like Congressmen Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter that resulted in major swing of Hispanic voters away from the Republican party to the Democratic party. The growing demographics of America indicate that the Hispanic vote will likely continue to be a potential deciding factor in future elections where the margins are only a few percentage points.

Just recently the Republican party had a chance to begin to vindicate itself by giving former Florida Speaker of the House, Marco Rubio, a Miami born Cuban American, legitimate recognition to run in the Florida primary for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by retiring Senator Mel Martinez. The charismatic Reaganesque conservative is much more in line with the party base while at the same time in touch with the Hispanic community then the somewhat liberal governor Charlie Crist. The Republican leaders of the Senate decided to quickly endorse Charlie Crist without so much as a giving Rubio any respect.

If one were to compare the political views of Charlie Crist and Judge Sotomayor there would probably be little difference. Had the Republican party recognized and supported Marco Rubio then they would be on much stronger ground to possibly oppose the nomination of Judge Sotomayor. Now they have put themselves in a no win situation.

Presidents and political parties are not always correct at assuming how the future decisions of a judge will go. Clearly Judge Sotomayor has shown some strong law and order decisions, protection of religious freedom and expression, and a hint that government can limit at least the discussion of abortion. On the other hand she has made some controversial statements about the rule of judges in “setting policy” and also appears to not have an ethic neutral approach to the law.

The Senate will rightly need to inquiry into these two areas of concern, however, barring a unforeseen statement of belief beyond that normally accepted by the majority of contemporary jurists I suspect she will be confirmed appropriately.

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

The Texas House of Representatives has become chaotic and disorganized in the final legislative week on the calendar despite several important issues remaining unresolved.

The heart attack of a key Republican Texas House member, Rep. Edmund Kuempel (R-Seguin), and a new markedly less authoritarian Speaker of the Texas State House, Joe Straus (R-San Antonio) has seen the Texas legislature slowed to a crawl in the last week of the allotted legislative calendar.

The Texas Democrats who are only in the minority now by one vote have been using parliamentary maneuvers including “chubbing” which is the maximizing of discussion time on small non-controversial bills to oppose the passage of new Texas Voter ID legislation.

Although the new ID proffer is heavily favored in polls of Texas voters , Democrats contend the measure would discriminate against the elderly and the disadvantaged. Proponents point to the fact that the new requirement matches those set by the Supreme Court in a recent ruling about a similar rule in Indiana while opponents say the absence of real evidence of widespread voter fraud indicates there is no need for the law. See why we support it.

In the meantime important legislation dealing with reducing veteran’s taxes, controlling tuition costs for higher education, windstorm insurance reform, making changes to unemployment insurance that will qualify Texas for stimulus funds, and other things is being held up. Unless Governor Rick Perry calls for a special session when time run outs on June 1^st, there is a chance that many bills that would have otherwise received support will simply die.

Now of course members of both parties are pointing fingers to each other as to primary blame for the near halt in legislative activity. The leader of the House Democratic Caucus, Rep. Jim Dunnam (D-Waco) was quoted by Austin Statesman as saying “I don’t see it as any level of obstructing…. We are fighting for the rights of the people that live in our districts to vote.”. The new Speaker Republican Joe Straus rebuts in the same article “Local and Consent Calendars has been, until this moment, a matter of trust among members, and that trust has been abused here “

For three terms the Speaker of the House was Tom Craddick (R-Midland) who many accused of wielding too much power and influence. The new Speaker promised to bring a change of noninterference into the ”ways” of the House and to let the legislative process proceed naturally without interference. Some Republicans have been demuring that the new Speaker has not engaged enough in acting as intermediary between the conflicting sides and other Representatives complain he has allowed Democrats to to act as temporary Presiding Speaker during heated sessions. Some have also objected that he has not temporarily suspended the rules to change the order of bills to be considered in which so far he has refrained.

Those familiar with Texas politics can remember previous contentious fights of similar or even greater intensity then the current one. Politics is always about compromise because anytime you get 150 members together in the Texas House there can be expected to be some disagreement. What is important for both sides is to make clear first what their positions are and also relatively where that position falls with respect to priority. If those Democrats who feel that Voter ID is so important that they can forgo windstorm insurance or veteran’s benefits they should so state. Similarly such statements of clarity should be also made on the Republican side of the aisle. No side will be able to get everything they want passed.

The election of a clearly less powerful Speaker of the House and the near parity between the Democrats and Republicans has demonstrably changed how business is done at the State House. Texas Insider reports that in committee meetings this week conventional party leaders and chairmen seemed to have less influence on their colleagues and even has this quote anonymously from a Representative “Nobody knows what’s going on and nobody’s in charge.”

When this session is over the likely outcome will be that some very good legislation was never acted upon which could have benefited Texans. Texas voters will look at the record of the members of both parties and decide if they were really acting in the interests of their constituencies with the right priorities or rather were they just trying to play games of oneupmanship. Controversy and debate can make for good government but a great government uses this to forge compromises which will best serve the interests of all.

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

One of the changes coming to the health insurance system of the United States is likely to be a repeal in the unlimited tax deductibility of employer provided health insurance benefits. Both the Republicans and Democrats are proposing modifications to the status quo that has stood since World War II. How these changes are made will drastically effect what type of health care system evolves.

During the 2008 Presidential campaign, Republican candidate, John McCain put forth changing the classic tax deduction from one that allowed employers to deduct the cost of health care from their taxable earnings. His adduced that this keeps the cost of employer based insurance artificially low and that of individual based insurance artificially high. The goal of the McCain plan was to move away from an employer based system to an individual based system where each family could chose their own plan.

The new architecture under McCain would still deduct a portion of the employer coverage but what have provided tax credit’s to families of $5,000 or to individuals of $2,500. Those with high incomes and whose employers paid more than $15,000 in health costs would pay tax taxes on the benefit while those with lower incomes could receive tax credits which they could cash in to buy private insurance.

During his campaign, Barack Obama, opposed removing the tax deductibility of health care benefits granted by employers. Labor unions whose support helped elect President Obama protested any increased taxation on health care benefits which often are the focus of union negotiations with management. The New York Times reported that a split may be occurring more recently between the older manufacturing based union members who tend to have high benefits and the service workers who often have low benefits. In March the President signaled a reversal in his views even though he had ridiculed John McCain for the same thing during the campaign.

Curiously some in business have adopted a similar attitude to organized labor noting that health care benefits are an important means of recruiting and retaining high quality workers and management. The national Chamber of Commerce is officially against removing health cost deductibility.

The Democratic stratagem of creating a public program to compete with the private health insurance system and the Republican blueprint to expand private coverage by subsidizing low income families will both require billions of dollars to fund initially. Without massive increases in primary tax rates or deduction changes there is no way to adequately fund either proposal. The Congressional Budget Office has said the making health benefits fully taxable could raise $246 billion in revenue.

The apparently most influential Democrat in Congress on health care, Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D–MT) says he wants to keep an employer based system with some deductions but will accept limits on deductions rather than the current unlimited status.

Conservative proponents of change like Greg D’Angelo and Robert Moffit, Ph.D., of the Heritage Foundation say that the current system creates a sizable tax penalty for families or individuals who try to buy insurance that is not employer based. The tax deduction as it currently stands is regressive because no help is extended to lower income tax payers and conversely, may drive up the costs of health care benefits as a disincentive to cost controls.

Getting away from employer based plans and allowing families to choose which specific health plan they want instead of their employer would empower Americans with choice. Changing the tax deductibility will allow this be “leveling the playing field” between employer based and non-employer based plans.

This week the Wall Street Journal reported the Republican alternative called the Patients’ Choice Act would eliminate the tax break for employer based health benefits and replace it with a tax credit of $5,700 per family or $2,300 per individual. Lower income families could receive subsidies to help them buy private insurance.

The Democrats are still leaning to keeping some tax deductions at hand to keep employer based health care in place but will tax the benefit for high income earners or if the benefit is considered “particularly generous”.

At this point there is a high certainty that if any health care reform passes in Congress there will be at least some limits on the deductibility of health care benefits provided by employers. This change is compelling since no other source of available funding can be found to help supply coverage for Americans currently without insurance. William G. Gale, Vice President and Director, Economic Studies for the Brookings Institute has said that this adjustment will help cause the non-employer group insurance markets to function. He also notes that that having consumers being more involved in paying the costs of care will help control costs and lead to more “productive expenditures”.

Americans can only benefit if they are given a real choice in deciding which health insurance program in which to participate instead of being limited to a single employer based program or government run single payer system. There are legitimate concerns that if a coexistent public system like an expanded Medicare is set up to compete with the private system while at the same time penalizing the private system with a significant tax penalty this will ultimately exclusively allow the public system to survive.

There is an important distinction between the market-based proposals of conservatives who propose taxing employer based health benefits but make a tax deduction available to workers to purchase insurance either through their employment or separately and the that of the liberal Democrats in Congress says Michael Tanner of the CATO Institute. Under the conservative plan most workers would receive a net tax cut while under the Democratic plan what will result is a $1 trillion dollar tax increase on the middle class.

The old tax deductibility of employer based health care benefits should be changed but how it is changed may make the difference in whether America has a consumer driven program of choice or a government run public system.

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

Congressman Henry Cuellar (D-TX) was instrumental in the passage of legislation to create federal grants for upgrades and repairs to local school districts.

The 21^st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act (HR 2187) is legislation which will grant authority to the Secretary of Education to make grants to State educational agencies for the modernization, renovation, repair and other purposes.

According to Congressman Henry Cuellar (D-TX) the bill authorizes $6.4 million for school projects to make schools cleaner, more energy efficient, and better learning environments. He says that educational research supports better student achievement as well as improved teacher recruitment and retention with such programs.

The legislation has been criticized by some Republican members including Rep. Howard McKeon because they see it as an attempt to nationalize and regulate school construction and thus “usurp” control from local authorities. They further complain the mandatory compliance with Davis-Bacon wage standards will increase labor costs by approximately 25% and that the bill will siphon funds out the federal pool of funds reserved for disabled students.

The bill was amended from the original form to include requirements for a bipartisan provision coauthored by Congressman Cuellar and Congressman Phil Roe of Tennessee, to allow study of the impact of the bill’s repair and modernization efforts on student performance which addressed a Republican concern.

Congressman Cuellar also coauthored with Congressman Bobby Bright of Alabama, insertion of a set aside 5% of the bill’s overall funding – about $320 million – for areas recovering from a natural disaster or suffering severe economic distress.

Text of the bill specifically states that the funds are a supplement and not meant to supplant the amount of funds available for a project so that the project will necessarily be locally based in initiation and planning.

On May 14, 2009 the measure based the House of Representatives with 149 Republicans joining Democrats in support. Congressman Cuellar says the bill will likely bring $569 million for Texas school improvements.

Many conservatives feel that good infrastructure projects may benefit the economy more than the corporate bailouts. The Congressional Budget Office report estimates that between 2010 and 2013 there would be $6.4 billion in awards and about $100 million for areas hit by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. A resultant increase in discretionary spending of $33 billion would also occur. The new grant program would be a huge endeavor.

Economic studies have shown that returns on investment are multiplied into increased revenue for states when their population becomes more educated. Texas has consistently had low levels of students reaching college by age 21 and unacceptably high rates of high school dropouts especially for minorities.. There may be some appropriate concern about how the government is going to interfere into local school planning which means this program will require transparency and accountability but overall I think Congressman Cuellar made the right call to support this bill.

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

A change proposed in the automatic admission of a student in the top ten percent of any Texas high school to public universities by state Sen. Florence Shapiro (R-Plano) is creating controversy

In almost every state as the economy has declined the number of students who might normally have considered attending a private university has dropped while the number applying to instate public university has dramatically increased. The difference in tuition costs between the two can vary as much as $40,000 or more per year. Top rated public universities across the country are now becoming much selective and increasing their admissions standards in response to the increased quality of the applicant pool.

Texas Senate Bill 175 (SB 175) was sponsored by the well known education reform advocate Sen. Florence Shapiro (R-Plano) at the request of the University of Texas which would change a rule about automatic admission to a Texas public university. Currently public colleges and universities in Texas are required to admit applicants who graduate in the top ten percent of the their graduating classes. This rule appertains to both public and private schools of all sizes and from any place in Texas as long as the school is accredited, the student has taken a recommended curriculum, and achieved a minimum college entrance test score.

SB 175 would change the rule to allow universities to cap the percentage of those admitted by this measure to 50%. The reason for this is that the University of Texas at Austin has become so full of applicants by the top ten percent rule that no other criteria can be considered. Last year they filled up 85% of the freshman class by the top ten rule.

Many traditional minority advocacy groups such as the NAACP, LULAC, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund say the measure unfairly would limit automatic admissions that were designed to increase diversity at higher education institutions and enhance opportunities for minority and low-income students, particularly at UT-Austin and Texas A&M. It also would penalize students who finished high school before the recommended curriculum was required.

In many areas of the state there are poorer mostly minority high schools such as in the small Hispanic majority towns of South Texas or the African American communities in the Houston area. Typically even the best students there may not score as well on college entrance exams like the SAT or ACT as more affluent students from better suburban public or private schools. The ten percent rule guaranteed that at least the top students from poor minority high schools would get a chance to attend a tier 1 public university. (Texas has only two tier 1 schools, UT-Austin and Texas A&M, and one private tier 1, Rice University.

I am forever grateful for the opportunity to have attended Texas A&M University in the 70’s coming from South Texas. If you visit the campus today the diversity of students is much different than when I was there. Now the proportion of Hispanics nearly reflects their representation in the population. Even more important, those Aggie values and Aggie networking rewards have now more than ever been adopted by the Hispanic community who are no longer outsiders. I do not believe the new law will endanger this but rather may strengthen it.

At the same time we must be cognizant that not all high schools are the same. Even in areas like the Rio Grande Valley there are are starting to be International Baccalaureate programs. McAllen ISD graduated their first 23 students just last year from the Lamar Academy. There are likely many high schools like these were the top 25% or even 50% of the class may be more qualified to attend college then the top 10% from another school. This new measure will put pressure on school districts to develop more programs of excellence.

Its long been acknowledged that judging a student by their grades alone or college entrance exam alone without consideration of other factors is a poor predictor of future achievement. President Obama was a B student in high school. Some time ago I was involved on the selection committee of a scholarship for disadvantaged students at Texas A&M where I observed that usually good students will have a triad of good test scores, good grades and community activities. Experienced educators at the college level need to have the ability to assess this three components for admission just as they do at my other school, Harvard.

Those school districts who were relying on the ten percent rule to obscure their deficiencies should take this as a wake up call to make changes. Sen. Shapiro’s new law does a great public service in helping to expose this inequity and forcing a change. If Hispanics or African-Americans are not matriculating to the major Tier 1’s under the new rule the most likely cause will be an inadequate public school system rather than discrimination by these great universities.

I also agree with the Dallas Morning News that with the large size of the state of Texas we need more public Tier 1 spots but also must opine that I have a strong feeling that Texas A&M’s prominence must be protected. Having too many Tier 1 schools could diminish the greatness of UT and TAMU who serve to a great extent to define what being a Texan means.

The new rule has passed the Senate and now has been recommended for a vote by the Texas House after being passed by the House committee on Higher Education.

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

A new report that barely any guns or cash was seized after 5 weeks of an intense program searching southbound vehicles from the U.S. to Mexico contradicts statements made by Sec.Napolitano last month of “unbelievable” quantities.President Obama and Homeland Sec. Napolitano accused Texans of facilitating the smuggling of 2000 guns per day into Mexico and severely punished our border communities trade economy with the Outbound Inspection Program (OIP).

The $95 million dollar joint OIP being done along the U.S.-Mexican border has completed the first month with little to show. Under pressure from Mexican President Felipe Calderon who claimed the majority of weapons used by the drug cartels (2000 per day said the Mexican government) and cash (up to $39 billion say U.S. drug enforcement officials) were crossing into the Mexico from the U.S., President Obama started the (OIP).

Hundreds of Border Patrol, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and Custom’s agents were transferred to the border crossings to begin random checks of vehicles crossing from the U.S. into Mexico. Prior to this program southbound vehicles had only been inspected on the Mexican not the American side. The Associated Press reports that very little in the way of weapons or cash has been seized. Only 51 guns or parts of guns and $12 million in cash has been obtained. The Houston Chronicle listed these details

According to CBP, between March 12 and April 30 officers seized:

Fifty-one pieces of ammunition, weapons parts and guns, a minuscule fraction of the 2,000 weapons the Mexican government estimates are smuggled south every day.

$12 million in cash, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the $17 billion to $39 billion the U.S. Justice Department estimates is illegally sent to Mexico from the U.S. annually, but more than the $10 million seized in outbound checks in 2008.

Sixty-one people on charges involving weapons or currency offenses and on outstanding warrants were arrested

From just Texas to Mexico more than 27 million vehicles cross the bridge each year. These crossings are vital to border cities like El Paso, Laredo, and McAllen ,Texas where millions of Mexican shoppers many from the prosperous city of Monterrey come to buy things in American retail stores. Millions of tonnage of commercial traffic vital to the economies of both countries also crosses these border checkpoints.

Local businesses in Texas have reported significant drops in sales for export and in retail from Mexican customers. No official reports are known about what has been seized on the Mexican side but AP observers reported their inspections were much less rare than those on the U.S. side.

This report of a lack of success seems to contraindicate the report given by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano who has officially released her comments at the Border Trade Alliance International Conference held just one month ago. At that time she was asked by a San Diego Chamber of Commerce official about the southbound inspections and had this to say about their effectiveness:

‘We’re looking for guns and bulk cash. We’ve already found in the two weeks that we’ve started this, I can’t tell you how much we have found. It’s unbelievable.”

The AP reports that they suspect smugglers may have lookouts ahead reporting if there is an inspection frenzy going on but this is a very subjective observation.

The lack of significant seizures suggests two possibilities. The announcement of the new program was a major deterrent which caused the cartels to immediately stop sending cash and weapons across the normal border crossings or that the amount of cash and guns actually smuggled directly into Mexico from the U.S. through border checkpoints was overly estimated. The statement made by Sec. Napolitano of an “unbelievable” quantity was clearly not the truth and at best a weak exaggeration. Why did she not give the truth?

This program has had major ramifications in that it has significantly damaged the local economies of the border cities by discouraging legal traffic between the nations. The Obama administration and the liberal media painted a false picture of South Texas as being an open gun supplier giving Mexican criminals 2000 guns a day. This was a misrepresentation that was clearly meant to scare the American public into accepting more stringent gun control. The accusations of the Mexican government that most of the weapons being used by gangs were being “legally” obtained in the U.S. must also now be questioned.

This unwarranted paranoia came close to shutting off the border which would have dealt more than a severe blow to one of the few areas of the country, South Texas, which has avoided severe economic hardships up to now. One wonders if in the rush to put personal , equipment, and financing on legal checkpoints, other potential routes of smuggling such as by sea, air, entry into Southern Mexico have been relatively ignored.

Our borders must be secure all agree on that but concurrently nothing is more important then that our government must always give honest information about which threats are real and which are imagined. The Obama administration owes an apology to Texas and Texans. Hence forth, the administration needs to act responsibly in protecting our border trade and 2^nd Amendment rights.

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