I am, at my core, something of a doubter. It’s not that I don’t believe, or that I won’t believe, it’s just that I tend to need, at the very least, some kind of plausible reason for why things are the way they are. “Just because” isn’t a statement of fact, it’s a statement of ignorance. “Tradition” isn’t a reason, it’s an excuse.

In a short, I don’t believe in things I can’t explain. In an odd sort of way, this persistent doubt has lead me to find a faith of sorts.

I refuse to believe the world is filled with stupid people. Some people are completely beyond help – a fact that explains a great many things – but there had to be enough sharp, motivated, and collected individuals out there to get us this far. Society, and especially modern society, just wouldn’t be possible without thoughtful people to carry on.

The world is not filled with evil people. Yeah, there are a few bad apples, but if the world was out to get us we would be genuinely screwed. Anarchy would reign, you couldn’t walk down the street without getting mugged, murderers would be hiding at every turn, everyone would make minimum wage (Who am I kidding? We’d be slaves.), and Lady Gaga would be the only thing played on the radio. Ever.

We’ve obviously not descended into hell and we aren’t exactly paragons of truth and justice either. People slip up from time to time. No one’s perfect. The world is, in fact, filled mostly with people just minding their own business trying to get from day to day and live their lives in some semblance of peace and normalcy.

Can you call that faith in mankind? I guess, just like society, it is what it is.

We’ll just have to muddle through somehow.

I’m sitting down at a game of hold ‘em, one on one with another player.  On the table are three spades, giving the other player an obvious flush draw.  I’ve got two pair and he just slid a modest stack of chips into the pot.  Any bet I make will be a semi-bluff.  At this point, there’s the very real (and very likely) possibility that I’m in over my head.  Of course, in the other player’s mind, the odds I have the better hand are just as likely.  Even if he hit a flush draw, he doesn’t know if I have a better high card.

Do I fold, call, or raise?

At this point, personalities mean a great deal.  Is he aggressive?  Does he play tight?  Does he fold easy?  Will he call anything, just to keep me honest?  Is he rash enough to go all in, just because?  Am I willing to risk it?

Often times, politics is a lot like a card game; two men staring across the world’s stage waiting to see who will blink first.

What kind of player you are matters a great deal.  The other players will adjust their strategies based on their observations about you.  You have to adjust your strategy when dealing with different players.  Knowledge is useful, experience is key, and instincts are everything.  You have to have a feel for it.

Richard Nixon carefully cultivated his international image.  He called it the “Madman Strategy.”  It changed the equation.  It sent a simple message.  He will call you.  He will always call you.  Don’t raise.  Don’t ever raise.  He’s always all in.  He’s insane.  He’ll do it.  He’ll totally do it.

He wanted the Russians to know he was insane.  He wanted them to know he was a madman.  He wanted them to know that if push came to shove, he’d ride the bomb all the way down.  He ordered diplomats in the service to “leak” stories about just how crazy he really was.  The Russians didn’t dick around with Richard Nixon.

Knowing your opponent is just as important.  What kind of cards is he holding?  Is he aggressive?  Tight?  Does he bluff often?  When called, does he fold?  Are you really going to have to play the hand all the way out?

You are who you are.  Certain people play a certain way and make certain decisions.  We all know this.  I’m going to do what I’m going to do and there isn’t a whole lot else that goes into it for me.  The trick is to cultivate an image that lets you get away with it.  Some people play conservatively and are considered nervous or skittish.  Another person can play the exact same way and be called tight or prudent or cautious.  Some people are big bluffers you always call.  Some people are aggressive bullies you have to watch out for.  Same play style, different image.  Sometimes it’s not even about what you say, but how you say it.

President Obama seems to have missed this lesson in life somehow.  He is perceived as weak.  He is always talking, rarely doing, and when he does it’s always seen as backing down.  Even when he announced he was sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, the narrative was not “strong leader announces troop surge.”  The narrative was, “weak president surrenders to demands for more troops.”  He isn’t reconciliatory.  He’s an appeaser.  He isn’t bowing to show respect – he’s just making a sign of submission.  He isn’t seen as owning up to the mistakes of the past and taking responsibility for them.  He’s seen backpedaling on the previous administration and distancing himself from his predecessor.

Other people see this.  It has not escaped their notice.

When you stare across the table at a weak player, there is only one play: raise.  Every time.  Every play.  Raise.  Even if you don’t have anything, you have to raise.  He’ll blink every time until he’s sure he has a full house, and then you just lay down the hand, coming out well ahead in the chip count.

I think that by and large, most actors on the world’s stage are rational people with a relatively level head and a healthy sense of self-interest, but even the most rational of people will jump at the chance to score a few points when they see an opportunity.

In Obama, they see opportunities.  Lots of them.  And they’re calling.

Where is the line between want and need? I ask because it seems to be a critical question when we discuss tax rates and taxation in general.

I was having a conversation with someone the other day and she took a very moderate position when it comes to taxation. “We shouldn’t be taxing people who genuinely need every dime they earn, but I don’t have a problem taxing people who have more money than they need.” Honestly, I find it hard to argue with that logic. It seems pretty reasonable to me. I vaguely agree, in theory.

But here’s where the conversation broke down: Where do we draw the line between need and want?

To survive, we really only need food, water, and protection from the elements. Pretty much everything after that is just a want. That said, we both agreed that that wasn’t enough. Neither of us were willing to believe that anyone who was better off than a homeless person living under a bridge who couldn’t afford more than KFC for lunch was taxable. You had to have, at the very least, an apartment, and a car, and air conditioning, heating, a computer, some kind of education, and maybe the ability to send your kid to daycare so you can hold down a steady job. We even agreed that a night out, even if it’s just dinner with friends, was something everyone really needs to be able to have now and then.

But no one really needs any of that. So where IS the line?

Value question: If everyone should make enough money to have a car, what kind of car is “needed” and what kind of car is just a luxury expense? You can’t tell me that a brand new Mercedes is needed. You can’t tell me that a 10 year old Ford is a luxury item. Now let’s say we’re talking about a 2 year old Honda Civic. Hardly a luxury, but also probably more than you need to survive. Are we taxing people who make enough to buy that particular vehicle?

Okay, now let’s flip the question a bit. Let’s say you can’t afford a car because your housing costs are too high. Or let’s say you can’t afford rent because your car payment is too high. Should we be taxing you because you make enough to afford your basic needs (I mean, it’s YOUR fault you made bad decisions) or should we take pity on you because you can’t pay your bills (I mean, if you get taxed to death, you’re going to get evicted or repossessed, or both!). Or worse yet, let’s say you live in an area with a higher cost of living – in the middle of a crowded city, for instance. You have to pay more than other people for your apartment and your car has to jump through more hoops to stay legal. Do you pay the same amount as someone who lives in the country where property is worth ten grand an acre and who can pass inspection with a pickup from the 1980s?

Can we safely rule out entertainment from people? I’m sure I’m not the only one who gets stressed out at work. If I didn’t head out with my friends or get a date with my girlfriend on a regular basis, I’d blow my brains out. Is that a want or a need? Should I be taxed more?

Now let’s say I go out to a decent restaurant instead of going for pizza. Am I in the tax bracket now? How about a nice restaurant? How about a 5 star sushi bar that serves Kobe beef and cocktails frozen in liquid nitrogen?

I deserve the right to drive out of town to see my family on Christmas. Do I need that or do I want that? How about Thanksgiving? Easter? Grandmother’s birthday? How about going out of town to see a friend? Going out of town to go to a concert with a friend? Going on a road trip? Flying out to New York? Flying out to New York for a week? Aspen? Flying out to New York to take a cruise to England and then pall around in Europe for a while?

Where do we draw the line? At what point do we say, “You don’t NEED that. You just want it.”
Assuming you can even come up with an answer to that question, assign a dollar amount to that lifestyle. Now do it for everyone in the country, regardless of where they live or what their family life is like or what their needs happen to be.

I’m not an unreasonable person. I do happen to think that we need taxes and that, yeah, some people are in a better position to sacrifice than others. I don’t think it’s fair to ask people who have nothing to give more to the government. But I don’t necessarily think that there is a right answer in all of this. It’s subjective and everyone’s going to come up with a different answer.

I tend to err on the side of caution. As someone that runs a conservative blog, I honestly believe we should tax as few people as little money to accomplish the most good without stealing from people and wasting public funds. Translating that desire and that agreement in principle into an actual system isn’t so easy.

Part of the reason tax increases are so burdensome is the choices the government has to make to get them to work. When you increase taxes, you have to pick a person, or a group, or a thing. Those taxes are going to hurt them. They’re going to affect the lives of others. Can they handle it? Are they burdened enough already? Is this going to be the proverbial straw?

We’re beginning to see a pattern here. Although the actual tax rate has not increased, many of of us will be paying more in taxes next year. Earlier this week, with the passage of the health care bill from the House, the Democrats managed to cram through another tax-hike-that-isn’t-a-tax-hike that directly targets middle- and lower-class Americans. How you ask? If the bill passes, the tax bracket you belong to will no longer adjust for inflation.

What’s that mean? If you make the same amount of money from one year to the next, your buying power actually slightly decreases due to inflation. Because of the way the economy works, goods gradually increase in price (actually, with our current monetary policy, there won’t be anything gradual about it, but I digress). If your pay does not increase to match the inflation rate, you are actually taking a 2-5% pay cut every year, because the same money buys less goods and services than it did the previous year.

To solve this problem, we get cost of living increases – again, usually in 2-5% increments. Tax brackets, to be fair, scale in a similar fashion. If you’re not as wealthy as you were last year, you shouldn’t be taxed as much.

House Democrats have, in their proposed health care bill, decided to stop adjusting tax brackets for inflation. This means that if you make the same amount of money this year as you did last year adjusted for inflation, you will eventually go up to the next tax bracket – which will increase your tax rate.

The kicker in all of this is that the wealthy can’t go up another tax bracket, but if you’re a lower- or middle-class guy, you have two options: pay a higher tax rate or slowly lag behind in earning power until you simply can’t pay your bills any more. There are 6 different tax brackets in the current tax code. People making $200,000 a year are already in the highest tax bracket – they can’t be pushed into a higher bracket by inflation.

You know who can be? Us little people.

If you’re single and you make 30k a year, you’re taxed at 15% before social security and medicare/aid and deductions. Five years from now, if you don’t accept a cost of living increase, you’ll be making the equivalent of about 27k a year a year. If you accept the cost of living increase, you will be in the next tax bracket, being charged 25% before medicare/aid and deductions.

If you’re counting (and like anyone who runs a good conservative blog, you know I am) Democrats have proposed or already passed bills that will increase your taxes by:
· Capping charitable donation deductions to 28%, reducing the amount of aid that can be distributed to low-income and jobless Americans.
· Taxing carbon, which is created mainly through vehicle emissions, industrial production, and energy creation, which will mainly tax people who have to commute to work, destroy low-skill jobs, and increase the cost of heating, air conditioning, and consumer electronics which punishes lower- and middle-class Americans.
· Giving us the option of either buying overpriced health insurance (whose price will skyrocket even further with this bill) or charging employers an 8% payroll tax and then force employees to either purchase said insurance or charge them a 2.5% surtax; a cost that will be passed on to employees and result in lower wages, more layoffs and – let’s face it – is a thinly disguised tax on every American making more than 20k a year.
· And now, by ratcheting up the tax rate for all Americans as inflation slowly drives them into new and higher tax brackets.

But, to be fair, taxes aren’t going up.

… seriously, how do you say that with a straight face?

Exactly one week from today, on November 3, 2009, there will be an election held across Texas. On the ballot are several Texas constitutional amendment votes and many cities across the state, including my hometown of Houston, will be holding local elections.

Texan or otherwise, I’d like to take this opportunity to encourage everyone with elections coming up to get out and vote. We can’t bring sanity back to our officials if we don’t know who we’re voting for or if we simply don’t care enough to participate. Voting is the first and best step to moving our country forward in a rational, responsible way. If you aren’t voting, you are accepting the government just the way it is, no questions asked. Complaining when you don’t bother to vote is as hypocritical as it is ineffectual.

Without further adieu, I’m pleased to present my endorsements for the 2009 Houston election.

Houston Mayoral Race

There are 7 names on the ballot for the Houston mayoral election. Only two of the candidates are conservative. Dan Cupp is not a serious candidate and Roy Morales is polling with less than 6% right now. Effectively, this means that there are no conservative candidates in the running with a real shot at winning. Despite this, however, there is a good pick in this election: Annise Parker. She may be a Democrat, but Annise Parker has two really good things going for her.

Firstly, she is the current Comptroller of Houston and has a solid track record of fiscal conservatism and financial responsibility. The Comptroller’s office is responsible for tracking where money is spent and auditing public accounts. In this capacity she’s spent the last 5 years tracking down waste, corruption and bureaucratic mismanagement. She knows the city’s budget. She knows where the money is coming from, where it’s going, and the actuarial side of government.

Secondly, she has a really good chance to win a runoff against the front-runner, Peter Brown. Brown is also a Democrat, but he’s far more liberal. While he’s been leading the race, he’s been spending millions of his own money to get that lead. The sheer number of candidates means that the race will almost certainly result in a runoff, and there’s no one better positioned to defeat him than Parker. Voting for her now ensures a fiscally responsible candidate a place in the runoff where she’ll be the strongest and most likely to defeat her liberal opponent.

All in all, I think Parker is a fairly good candidate in her own right, but when one takes into account the fact that there are no good conservative candidates, the fact that she’s the most conservative Democrat in the room, and the fact that she has a good shot at winning, I think she’s definitely the play to make.

Houston Comptroller Race

For the position of Houston City Comptroller, Pam Holm is my hands down favorite. There are two Republicans in the race, Holm and M. J. Khan. In all honestly, I don’t really know much about Holm, but here’s what I know about her opponents:

Khan, a Republican, and his wife have contributed thousands of dollars to the campaign of Sheila Jackson-Lee. For those of you unfamiliar with Texas politics (this is typically a political blog focusing on national issues, after all), the ultra-liberal Sheila Jackson-Lee is the ego-maniacal and blatantly racist Congresswoman from Houston who chats on her cell phone during town hall meetings instead of listening to constituents, constantly screams down her own aides, and gets chauffeured down the one block between her residence and office at tax payer expense. She’s suggested using more African-American sounding names for hurricanes because a hurricane is a strong, dangerous thing and the current names are too “lily white.” She’s proposed lifting a ban on exporting F-16 fighter jets to Venezuela, wants to use tax dollars to provide free health care to illegal immigrants, co-sponsored a program to use government money to distribute syringes to drug addicts (I’m not joking, it’s HR 179), consistently votes against opening up new sources of oil and gas production including allowing the construction of new refineries and offshore drilling, has a 100% rating from the AFL-CIO for her pro-labor vote (oh, and bonus: Houston isn’t even a union town), and has even been slammed by Nancy Pelosi for being completely insane.

Normally I’m not one to serve up guilt by association, but here’s the way I see it: Sheila Jackson-Lee is, in my book, easily one of the most loathsome members of Congress. She is the paragon of liberal psycho whrablgrabl. And the Khan family, theoretically conservative, is giving her thousands of dollars in campaign contributions. That means that, on some level, they support, approve, and seek to enable her. That means they somehow think that Sheila Jackson-Lee is their preferred representative. It, frankly, is a disgrace. I won’t vote for anyone who even remotely believes that hers is the style and direction of leadership this country needs.

As for Ronald Green, well, I’ll put it like this: He’s running to be the CFO for the city of Houston, but public federal tax lien documents filed earlier this year show he currently owes over $120k in back taxes and in 2000 a business he owned was shut down for not filing taxes. I suppose that sort of thing is becoming par for the course for Democrats in Washington, but I’m vaguely hoping that we Houstonians have more sense than that. Then again, with 56% of people undecided with less than a week to go before the vote, anything could happen.

Houston At Large City Council Positions

At Large 1 – Rick Rodriguez
At Large 2 – Michael “Griff” Griffin
At Large 4 – Curtis Garmon
At Large 5 – Jack Christie

There isn’t a whole lot to say about this list except for the At Large 1 position. I support Rick Rodriguez, a Democrat, because of his relatively conservative platform and his experience as a 24-year member of the Houston Police Department. For those of you who don’t know, Houston has an absolutely inept crime lab that consistently botches cases and HPD has an impossibly difficult time recruiting new officers. Anyone running for any office whatsoever campaigns in favor of increasing the number of officers on patrol. While that’s a good thing, it’s not like we just have to pass a few measures and, voila, we get new police officers. We’ve been short staffed for years and, despite their best efforts, City Council has been completely unable to do anything about it. There aren’t very many people who have ideas and experience actually dealing with these problems. I think he has something to offer City Council that the others running for that seat are missing.

Texas Constitutional Amendments

Proposition 1

The constitutional amendment authorizing the financing, including through tax increment financing, of the acquisition by municipalities and counties of buffer areas or open spaces adjacent to a military installation for the prevention of encroachment or for the construction of roadways, utilities, or other infrastructure to protect or promote the mission of the military installation.

Position: Against.
Reason: There’s no real need for counties to purchase buffer zones for federal military installations. One would think if there was some sort of compelling interest to expand a base or a security need to erect a buffer zone next to one, that decision would be made by defense officials and either the state legislature (in the case of National Guard facilities) or Congress (in the case of our national armed services) and not county politicians. In either case, there’s no real reason to increase property taxes to fund bonds to do it. Those bases aren’t simply county resources – they provide for the protection and well being of the entire state and expecting local counties to increase taxes for the benefit of wider population which would be an undue burden to the residents of those areas.

Proposition 2

The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for the ad valorem taxation of a residence homestead solely on the basis of the property’s value as a residence homestead.

Position: For.
Reason: Capping property taxes at actual value instead of some theoretical value is completely reasonable while the reverse is completely insane. It’s all well and good for a piece of land to be worth more as an office building than it would be as a home, but it’s not an office building. It’s a home. Taxing property as anything other than what it is actually worth is completely absurd.

Proposition 3

The constitutional amendment providing for uniform standards and procedures for the appraisal of property for ad valorem tax purposes.

Position: For.
Reason: Taxation should be fair and uniform. Allowing the state to tax at one rate for one area and another rate for another area while providing the same level services to both areas is absolutely unfair.

Proposition 4

The constitutional amendment establishing the national research university fund to enable emerging research universities in this state to achieve national prominence as major research universities and transferring the balance of the higher education fund to the national research university fund.

Position: Ambivalent, leaning towards for.
Reason: The legislature already has a program like this in place, but that program is not currently active due to a clause in the bill that established it. This amendment would scrap that program and transfer the money currently in it to another account and use the interest from that account to create a new research fund thereby keeping the whole thing budget neutral and shifting the money from the State Comptroller’s office (who could, in theory, decide to spend it however they wanted to as long as it promoted education) to top tier universities. I rather tend to think that money that the government doesn’t need should be returned to the people – but I also tend to think that there’s a snowball’s chance in hell of that ever happening. If it has to be spent, Prop 4 is a reasonable and responsible way to do it that gives something back to society.

Proposition 5

The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to authorize a single board of equalization for two or more adjoining appraisal entities that elect to provide for consolidated equalizations.

Position: For.
Reason: The economic reality is that smaller counties just don’t need a full time appraisal staff. Giving the state the ability to consolidate these boards makes logistical and fiscal sense.

Proposition 6

The constitutional amendment authorizing the Veterans’ Land Board to issue general obligation bonds in amounts equal to or less than amounts previously authorized.

Position: Against.
Reason: While I support this nation’s veterans wholeheartedly, it’s not the state’s job to play mortgage company – it’s bad enough when the feds do it with Freddie and Fannie. I also happen to think that the legislature should be able to exercise the ultimate authority to authorize – or not authorize – funds for state agencies. In essence, this amendment creates a permanent bond program (interest on bonds is paid by the taxpayer – amounting to a new and permanent tax) that is unable to ever be stopped without another constitutional amendment. We simply cannot allow an agency to perpetuate a tax without legislative oversight to fund a program that shouldn’t be a government concern in the first place.

Proposition 7

The constitutional amendment to allow an officer or enlisted member of the Texas State Guard or other state militia or military force to hold other civil offices.

Position: Against.
Reason: The separation of powers is vitally important to the safety and stability of the government. The last thing I want to see is a mix of military and civilian hierarchies.

What happens when a county commissioner has to take orders from his commanding officer about the placement of sandbags and he happens to think that building is more important to his constituents? What happens when a mayor gets to order the national guards under his command to supplement his police force? What happens when the state comptroller gets sent to Iraq for a few months?

The military is a strict, no questions asked hierarchy. When your commander gives you an order, the next words out of your mouth are, “Yes, sir!” Civil servants run our government. They make decisions, implement policy, and have checks, balances, and clearly defined areas of responsibility. Both have to be in place during a crisis (you can’t have just one and expect things to work) and they have to be independent of one another. You can’t simply send one away and expect government to function. You can’t tear down those walls separating military from civilian.

I love our military. I don’t have a problem with retired members of the military who are still under contract serving the government in an official capacity – and I would support that amendment in a heartbeat – but having active and reserve military in bureaucratic or civilian leadership positions is a line I simply cannot cross.

Proposition 8

The constitutional amendment authorizing the state to contribute money, property, and other resources for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of veterans hospitals in this state.

Position: Irrelevant.
Reason: The state already has such authority. Actually, not only do they already have this authority, they have already set up at least one such hospital in the Rio Grande Valley. I don’t really see the rhyme or reason for this amendment except to make absolutely clear that which is already law.

Proposition 9

The constitutional amendment to protect the right of the public, individually and collectively, to access and use the public beaches bordering the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico.

Position: Irrelevant, but against it anyway.
Reason: This amendment is already state law. I also happen to thoroughly disagree with this law. Basically, the law of the land as it currently stands is a crime against private property owners everywhere. It strips land owners of property without recourse and legally protects the “rights” of squatters and trespassers. This amendment would turn an already abusive law into an abusive constitutional amendment.

Proposition 10

The constitutional amendment to provide that elected members of the governing boards of emergency services districts may serve terms not to exceed four years.

Position: For.
Reason: Currently, these are two year positions filled by appointments made by the county commissioners (except in Harris County, which is the only county where they are elected). This amendment changes their terms from two years to four years. Opponents to this amendment say that it makes the governing boards less responsive to the will of the people by insulating them from the democratic process. I say hooey. I doubt very many people could even name the chairman of their board of emergency services, let alone explain who they would vote for next year. I certainly couldn’t, and I’m a politics nut. The fact of the matter is that these obscure boards have very little to do with democracy. They are, in fact, patronage positions and what this amendment does is insulate them from having to suck up to keep their jobs. Frankly, the less schmoozing they have to do for their jobs, the better.

Proposition 11

The constitutional amendment to prohibit the taking, damaging, or destroying of private property for public use unless the action is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, a political subdivision of the State, the public at large, or entities granted the power of eminent domain under law or for the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property, but not for certain economic development or enhancement of tax revenue purposes, and to limit the legislature’s authority to grant the power of eminent domain to an entity.

Position: Irrelevant, but in favor anyway.
Reason: This amendment is already state law. This proposition simply strengthens the law of the land to make it more resistant to change. I happen to think eminent domain is one of those necessary evils that should only be evoked for the most pressing of needs. I also happen to think that eminent domain is too readily abused and that tight restrictions should be placed on its use. I’m supporting this amendment because I think those restrictions are important and the harder it is to repeal them, the better off we are.