Over the past two months members of the Katy Tea Party have attended KISD Board meetings, Board/Senior Cabinet retreats, and attended all three meetings held by the Board and KISD staff to explain the Bond Election.

Katy Tea is a strong supporter of education, however during the process of gathering additional information there are a number of items that the voter will need to take into account before they cast their vote. The following items were made clear during the above meetings: 

1. The Bond Referendum is an authorization for the Board to sell almost a half of a billion dollars of bonds. They are under no legal obligation to do any of the items they have recommended in their bond package. In 2006 the bond package contained items that were never done and additional items not listed in the bond package were funded. The Trustees  were asked to pass a resolution to commit them to additional public discussion if they decide to revise the bond recomendations. Their lawyers said they do not have to do this.
2. The Board of Trustees maintains that they are different from other members elected to political subdivisions of the state and do NOT represent the Taxpayer but rather have oversight responsibilities for the fiscal and academic operations of Katy ISD.
3. The future operational funding of KISD and all the school districts is very unclear at this point in time due to the $20 Billion shortfall in state funds. It has been stated by members of the legislature that this deficit will be addressed through budget cuts and the state sales tax will not be raised. The board has been informed by their fiscal officer that the Commissioner of Education has the authority to raise the decompression cap that was put in place to lower property taxes for the operations and maintenance portion of the budget.
4. The bond committee did not receive a complete list of the operating costs of all the new construction planned. This was addressed in some fashion project by project. The district did not produce a comprehensive operational cost document for the projects in this bond call. Ongoing operational costs include electricity, maintenance, and teacher salaries.
5. Katy does need additional classroom space and needs to retain and attract quality teachers.
6. If the Bond Election does not pass it could be reworked and brought to the voters again in 2011 during the May Trustee elections.
7. If this bond election passes it will bring the total debt of the district to approximately $1.5 Billion. The property taxes to the taxpayer will increase from millage to repay these bonds will increase from the current 40 cents per $100 of property valuation to 44 cents per $100 of property valuation over time. This is well within the state cap of 50 cents per $100 of property valuation and at its peak amounts to a ten percent increase in taxes. 

This is a very complex issue and it requires all voters to make informed decisions before casting their vote on the down the ballot Katy School District Bond Referendum. Be informed and vote.

It appears that a new virus has infected politicians. It was first identified as the DC THA2 virus (Congressional Town Hall Avoidance). That is the strain of virus that members of Congress contracted after the first series of town halls in the spring of this year. It is recognized by the unwillingness of our elected national representatives to meet with their constituents at town hall meetings. It has persisted ever since the spring. I fear it is possible that it has spread to locally elected officials who propose one of the largest bonds; about one half a billion dollars in Katy’s history. This would increase the taxpayer debt of Katy residents to almost one billion dollars. Our preliminary diagnosis is that Katy ISD is exhibiting all of the symptoms of this fatal virus. 

Citizens of the district have asked the school board members to have a dialogue and provide additional information about this bond election. Information provides people with the truth as our Superintendent so eloquently stated in his Convocation for ISD personnel this year. 

The Katy Tea Party Patriots have issued an invitation to every board member to attend a public dialogue session on October 16^th. We realize that some of the school board members have professional and personal obligations that will not allow them to attend. Surely not every school board member has personal obligations that afternoon. 

The school board seemed to have a memory lapse that the citizen’s in the community would also be giving up family time and other engagements so that they could participate in the dialogue. You see Katy Tea Party selected a Saturday afternoon. This was so that they forum could have the maximum exposure to the public.

The Katy Tea Party Patriots will not take a position on this bond election but will provide the taxpayers with all the information that they are able to obtain about the items listed in the call. As an educational organization, Katy Tea is a strong supporter of education and recognizes the need for additional facilities in the district. 

We do not want to see teachers laid off, programs cut, or children in metal buildings. However, considering that one in every ten homes in the nation is in foreclosure and the unemployment rate is close to ten percent, the most prudent course of action would be for the board to prioritize the needs in the bond call and only ask for those items that are essential to begin working on this year. 

We do not want the taxpayers to have to “pass the bond issue to see what is in it” but to have enough information to make an informed decision for themselves and the future of education in our district.

Not only can a person obtain the voter registration status of those eligible to vote in the county or residence, their vote by party can be obtained for how they vote in primary elections for as long as they have voted in primaries. It is not within the realm of an employer to infringe on this personal freedom. I believe that Superintendent Frailty owes the employees of the district an apology as well as all the residents of the district. We do not know if he has obtained information concerned with those eligible to vote but have not registered for all the residents of the Katy ISD service area. 

I do not know if any employee will file a harassment suit against the Superintendent or an ethics violation but I am sure that a highly educated person like Superintendent Frailey is guilty of extremely bad judgement in this instance.

How Many Members Of The U.S. Congress
Are Self-Declared Socialists?

Updated for the 111th Congress

The following FAQ will help clarify a few facts:

 Q: What is the Socialist International?

A:  It is the worldwide organization of socialist, social democratic and labor parties. It currently brings together 131 political parties and organizations from all continents. Its origins go back to the early international organizations of the labor movement of the last century.* It has existed in its present form since 1951, when it was re-established at the Frankfurt Congress. They are now headquartered in London, England.

* In 1864, representatives of English and French industrial workers founded the International Workingmen’s Association in London. Karl Marx, who was living in London at the time, became the First International’s dominant figure. Marx’s doctrines were revived in the 20th century by Russian revolutionary Vladimir Ilich Lenin, who developed and applied them – and we all know that what was started as a labor movement ended up as the biggest totalitarian/communist state, i.e., the USSR.

Q: What is the Democratic Socialists of America [DSA]?

A: It is the largest socialist organization in the United States, and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. Their website is http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html 

Q: What are seven principles behind what the DSA’s calls it’s “Progressive Challenge?”

Dignified Work
Environmental Justice
Economic Redistribution
Democratic Participation
Community Empowerment
Global Non-Violence
Social Justice.

Never mind their soothing-sounding leftist doublespeak like ‘Environmental Justice’ (whatever that is supposed to mean) or the soft & fuzzy ‘Global Non-Violence’ (a euphemism for unilateral disarmament) — the DSA’s self-declared principle of ‘Economic Redistribution’ clearly shows where these folks are coming from and exactly where they plan to take America.

Q: How many members of the U.S. Congress are also members of the DSA?

A: Seventy!

Q: How many of the DSA members sit on the Judiciary Committee?

A: Eleven: John Conyers [Chairman of the Judiciary Committee], Tammy Baldwin, Jerrold Nadler, Luis Gutierrez, Melvin Watt, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Steve Cohen, Barbara Lee, Robert Wexler, Linda Sanchez [there are 23 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee of which eleven, almost half, are now members of the DSA].

Q: Who are these members of Congress?

A: See the listing below

By inserting and amending the language that the Senate passed, (the  FAA Authorization & Education Jobs Stimulus Bill) Lloyd Doggett’s action will discriminate against Texas. This amendment singles out only the State of Texas.  I didn’t add anything about summarizing this paragraph as we discussed.  I just can’t make it work without seeing it. 

The following language was taken from a letter sent to Speaker Pelosi by the Texas Republican Delegation in Congress addressing the Doggett amendment:  

“It would force Texas to certify the maintenance of fiscal year 2011 funding levels for two additional fiscal years, above and beyond the one-year requirement imposed on all other 49 States. This provision would have Texas violate her own State Constitution.  

The Texas Legislature has sole authority to determine State appropriations.  Moreover, one Legislature cannot bind a future Legislature.  Requiring the State to assure that a future Texas Legislature would commit to spend funds in accordance with these provisions would violate the Texas Constitution. Texas is constitutionally prohibited from meeting these severe restrictions, and no other state in the nation is subject to these additional requirements. 

According to the Congressional Research Service, the State’s share of the $10 billion is estimated to be over $830 million.  By adding the additional two-year requirement, the House language only punishes Texas students and teachers.” 

Lloyd Doggett’s amendment will usurp the legal authority of the Office of the Governor of Texas and the Texas Legislature. Doggett should immediately face a recall or at a minimum be removed by the people of Texas from Congress in the November election. 

Lloyd Doggett is no longer a Texan. Although I have only lived in Texas since 2005 I am more of a Texan that Doggett. Being a Texan means:

• You take great pride in living in the Republic of Texas.
• You protect the sovereignty of Texas in accordance with the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
• You are not a Statist who wants to cede all power and authority to the Federal government.
• You are not a pawn in Obama’s Socialist Agenda designed to cripple the economy of Texas through Cap and Trade, and take over education through the “Race to the Top Initiative.” 

Since the Clinton administration initiated direct lending for higher education and other education reforms, this country has been on the road to implementing a Ministery of Education. The Bush administration’s “No Child Left Behind” was a further erosion of the right of the states in matters of education. 

During my career I was visited by members of the ministery of education from: Japan, Chile, Australia, and Sweden. All of these ministries controlled education in their countries from the central government. 

Lloyd Doggett is assisting the Obama Agenda of Statist and Socialism in our country. In order to fully implement this agenda Texas must become subservient to the Federal Government. 

It is my hope that all Texans recognize Doggett for what he is doing and stop the Obama agenda. 

Bill Proctor is a retired educator. He has over thirty years of experience at the local, state, and national level in education. He served in Florida as a Vice President of a Community College, Assistant Executive Director of the Florida Community College System, Executive Director of the Florida Postsecondary Education Planning Commission for fourteen years, and Executive Director of the Florida Council for Education Policy, Research and Improvement for five years. His work during the last nineteen years of his career can be viewed at: http://www.cepri.state.fl.us/.

However, there are two other areas that seem to be gaining momentum: 

1. De-fund the portions of the law requiring ANY funding, similar to the Hyde Amendment. The funding bills have to originate in the House, so until we regain control we will not be able to stop the funding there. However, we could filibuster the bill in the Senate (thank you Sen. Brown!) and kill it (or amend it) there. And no executive order can override legislation, at least not yet. 

2. A coalition of 34 states may petition Congress to call a Constitutional Convention [Fox News story 3-10-10] where an amendment to the Constitution could be formulated to address the issue directly, e.g. narrowly re-defining the meaning of the Commerce Clause. This would then require ratification by 38 states (either their Convention delegations or their state legislatures, determined by Congress). In my mind this has a much higher probability of success.

[comments invited]                                                                                   Milton Richards 

I had the opportunity last Friday to speak with South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster, who graciously made himself available to me to answer some questions about the legal challenges to the Obamacare bill. 

I have, in private, expressed skepticism about the legal merits of these challenges, for a couple of reasons: first, any challenge asserting that Congress has exceeded the scope of their authority under the Commerce Clause has not had a very good success rate in the past century, and second, I am skeptical of the arguments I have heard thus far for why the states in particular have standing to bring suit. 

Attorney General McMaster discussed with me the particulars of the legal challenge brought by Florida AG (and presumptive GOP gubernatorial nominee) Bill McCollum. This challenge was filed seven minutes after the bill was signed into law, and has been joined (for now) by 14 states, and it is anticipated that more will follow. A breakdown of my own analysis of this challenge is below the fold. 

In my mind, the first hurdle the states have to clear is the standing question. For the non-lawyers, a brief breakdown of this doctrine is here, but the one-sentence explanation is that not everyone can bring a suit in court challenging the constitutionality of a law; the party bringing the suit must be able to show that they either actually have been injured (or imminently will be injured), and that the Court is capable of redressing such injury. 

This is a sticky question in this case. The states have a pretty good argument that they are injured by Obamacare because the act contains a number of unfunded mandates (particularly to Medicaid) that will have an adverse impact on the State’s budget. However, I’m not aware of a particularly plausible constitutional challenge to that aspect of the bill. To my mind, the only plausible challenges to the bill deal with the individual mandate section of the bill. The states, in and of themselves, are not harmed by virtue of the fact that individual persons within the state will be unconstitutionally required to purchase health insurance. Admittedly, I haven’t done any thorough or exhaustive research on this question, but this seems to be a difficult hurdle for the states to mount. 

Of course, recent Supreme Court decisions have indicated that as long as one party to the suit has standing, the states may join in the suit. Therefore, it seems that as long as the states can join an individual who is fined for refusing to purchase health care under the law, they have standing. However, there are two problems with this: first, looking at the complaint, they have not done so. There are no individual plaintiffs. That, however, is a fixable problem. Second, and somewhat less fixable (in the short-term) the individual plaintiffs will not be required to purchase health insurance until 2014. I am not sure if this counts as imminent harm. It might, and there might be case-law demonstrating that it passes muster, but I haven’t seen any in the legal materials provided to me by the states to evaluate that at all. It is also at least possible that the states may have parens patriae standing to sue here, but I am simply not well-versed enough in the doctrine to evaluate that. 

Additionally, even if the States can demonstrate standing here, the substantive problems with the challenge are not insignificant. There can be no doubt that the Federal Government currently undertakes a great amount of activity that was never contemplated by the founders under the auspices of the Commerce Clause. However, that very fact itself indicates that this activity has been undertaken with the constant and regular acquiescence of the Supreme Court. However, recent Supreme Court decisions such as United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison may signal the turning of the tide. 

Conceptually, if there is a law that demands that the Supreme Court reassert a reasonable interpretation of the Commerce Clause, this is it. Obamacare mandates that individual citizens purchase a product, on penalty of fines, that is not available in interstate commerce, all theoretically in the name of regulating interstate commerce? Just to speak the concept aloud is to be struck dumb by the breathtaking arrogance of Congress in passing this bill, and the disregard for the Constitutional limits on their power. Of course, States (being entities of general powers as opposed to enumerated powers) might certainly decide to do this, if that is their prerogative, but there is absolutely no justification to be found within the Constitution for the breadth and scope of this action. 

In the final analysis, we are treading in uncertain territory here. There is no reasonable argument that what Congress has done is actually within the scope of its powers under the Commerce Clause, as envisioned by the founders. However, until United States v. Lopez, suits brought challenging the constitutionality of Congressional actions on that ground were DOA. Given the new composition of the court, trying to analyze where Supreme Court will come down on this question is a frank guessing game. The most important challenge for the States at this point is to get their ducks in a row on the standing question and let the chips fall where they may.

Countless pundits and bloggers have chimed in with opinion and analysis, some attacking Medina as a lightweight and worse, others attacking Beck as a Republican (or even a Liberal) plant.

But I think most of them might be missing a larger point. It’s not about fumbling an answer to a question. It’s about how she handled the fumble. Instead of coming out and saying something like, “You know, I blew it bad when Glenn asked me about being a 9/11 Truther. This stuff about the Feds actively participating in some kind of conspiracy is a bunch of crap and I wouldn’t have anybody associated with my campaign who believes it.”

Instead, she comes out and spins her answer into having the right to “question the government.” …Please!

I want to support a candidate who is willing to admit they messed up and their behavior doesn’t then betray them.

This is about integrity. Debra Medina has based a large part of her candidacy on fighting corruption and lack of integrity among many of our elected officials. In her handling of this, Medina has taken a significant (possibly fatal) hit on her integrity.

Many of Medina’s supporters are (were) marginal at best and like rats jumping off a sinking ship they will be the first to abandon her.

It’s like having a tire blowout on the last lap of a race and no time for a pit stop!

Milton Richards