Newspaper Clippings: People who live off Evans Road complaining about suburban sprawl causing shitty traffic.

Threats of a federal lawsuit did not delay Gordon Hartman's development on Evans Road, so neighbors are going to Bexar County Commissioners Court with one of San Antonio's universal concerns: traffic.

Today, county commissioners are expected to vote on two more plats of Hartman's 527-acre Century Oaks development, near the TPC Parkway.

The site, where 1,493 homes and two schools are proposed, has drawn the scorn of neighbors and environmental groups because it is denser than now would be allowed by city ordinance over the recharge zone of the Edwards Aquifer.

Because Hartman's subdivision takes advantage of grandfathered development rights from 1995, before the city started limiting development over its main water source, the city is allowing him to proceed.

Traffic studies, submitted to the county by Hartman, show that by 2019, Evans Road will have to support 15,059 vehicle trips a day coming from Century Oaks.

“When you are coming from Bulverde (Road), if you are turning left into the subdivision where these 15,000 extra cars per day will be entering and exiting, you can easily be rear-ended because of the curve in the road,” said Barbara Bailey, a member of Cibolo Creek Conservation Society. The group is made up of the neighbors to Century Oaks and all live on lots that are at least 10 acres.

In Hartman's development, the average lot size will be 0.3 acres.

After a successful career as a full-time developer, Hartman founded the San Antonio Scorpions pro soccer team and Morgan's Wonderland, an amusement park for special- needs children. He still focuses on those projects and does housing development on the side.

In November, CCCS announced its intention to sue Hartman, the city, the San Antonio Water System and the Judson Independent School District in federal court for not doing their part to protect endangered species and the aquifer. By federal law, the suit can't be filed until January. It is supported by the Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance and the Aquifer Guardians of Urban Areas.

County Commissioner Kevin Wolff sympathizes with his constituents, but said there is not much he can do.

“This is one of those lovely no-win situations,” he said.

Bexar County development services engineer Robert Brach said Evans Road can handle the additional traffic. He also said the dense development was made possible years ago when the city decided to expand its sewer system.

“Based on the current traffic volumes, (Evans Road) should have that capacity,” he said. “The thing is, once the sewer line came there, you lose your rural developments.”

Brach said Hartman has agreed to pay for expanding Evans to add a turn lane and a traffic signal. He said the county would ask for those to be included when Hartman makes his request for approval of the next set of plats.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/article/Neighbors-cite-traffic-concerns-4124848.php#ixzz2FXyJpyxY

So What Is Everybody Doing for the Solstice?

To the Executive Director of the Brackenridge Park Conservancy

Dear Ms. Powell,

I believe there are much better uses for the south end of Brackenridge Park than a golf course. As I'm sure you appreciate, Brackenridge Park occupies a unique location in the city. It's a shame that over one-third of the park is limited to use by golfers. (113 of the park's 343 total acres are occupied by the golf course per the City's website. I don't know how many acres the driving range takes up, but from looking at Google maps I'd say that's another 20 acres or so limited to golfers.) There is enormous potential for transforming the golf course into space to be enjoyed by many more people. Particularly with the revitalization of the downtown area and the Broadway corridor, it's time to reimagine the Brackenridge golf course.

I should admit I'm not much of a golfer and I've never played the Brackenridge course. I understand the course may have historical value to some folks as it's been around since 1916. I also understand the course was renovated at the cost of about $6 million in 2008 and it's managed by ACGT, which I believe is a private company the City contracted with. I appreciate there may be obstacles to making the most of Brackenridge Park, and it may not be possible to get started tomorrow. But there are plenty of golf courses, both public and private, in and around San Antonio. There's only one Brackenridge Park with the potential to truly transform San Antonio 's urban culture and landscape.

There are all manner of possibilties for the 113 acres of park now occupied by the golf course. Jogging and bike paths that connect to the paths north of the golf course. Fields for soccer games, tossing a football or throwing a frisbee. Maybe some indoor/outdoor cafes. A lake. A stage for outdoor concerts and plays. Playgrounds for kids. The Conservancy's website cites Hyde Park, Central Park and Golden Gate Park as examples of great city parks. Of those, only Golden Gate Park has a golf course - and it's a par 3 9-hole course. I'd suggest if Brackenridge absolutely must have a golf course, that's a more appropriate scale than a 6,815 yard 18 hole course. I believe Brackenridge Park has the potential to be a great urban park. The zoo and Japanese Garden are tremendous assets for our city. The rest of the park has so much unrealized potential, and the key to unlocking that potential includes rethinking the golf course. It's easy to envision a Brackenridge Park that's much more vibrant and utilized by many more people. There's a world of potential that is wasted on a sprawling golf course and driving range.

Last week I sent an email to the Mayor's office about the Brackenridge Park golf course. Mr. Xavier Urrutia (Director of COSA Parks & Rec Dept) responded yesterday, and in his response suggested I join the Brackenridge Park Conservancy. This lead me to contact you. What is the Brackenridge Park Conservancy's position on keeping the golf course and driving range?

Regards,

luridtransom

Lamar Smith to America: F*ck You!

You'll recall our inquiry to Congressman Lamar Smith asking whether he supports several planks of the 2012 Texas GOP platform.  Well, it turns out Mr. Smith refuses to tell us whether he supports or opposes those planks.  Why?  Because he doesn't give a crap about you, America.  Here's the e-mail chain to prove it, which we've painstakingly arranged in a top-to-bottom format for your reading convenience.  We aim to please.

From: luridtransom
To: Lamar Smith’s DC Office
Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2012 6:20 PM
Subject: 2012 GOP platform.

Dear [Staffer for Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Texas)],

Thanks for returning my call earlier today.  I'd like to know Congressman Smith's position on several planks from the 2012 Texas GOP platform.  I have copied and pasted nine planks verbatim from the platform document. Please let me know whether Congressman Smith supports each of the planks listed. Feel free to explain his support or opposition to the planks - in fact, explanations are welcomed. But be clear as to each plank whether the Congressman supports or opposes it.

I've selected planks I believe are relevant to national issues and the U.S. Congress, as opposed to state or local issues.  Below are the planks, and thanks in advance for your help.

Term Limits - We urge Congress, the Legislature, and the Republican Party to institute Term Limits.

U.S. Department of Education – Since education is not an enumerated power of the federal government, we believe the Department of Education (DOE) should be abolished.

Education Spending – Since data is clear that additional money does not translate into educational achievement, and higher education costs are out of control, we support reducing taxpayer funding to all levels of education institutions.

Capital Gains Tax – We favor abolishing the capital gains tax.

Ethanol – We support the repeal of legislation mandating ethanol as fuel additives and/or primary fuel.

Sound Money – Our founding fathers warned us of the dangers of allowing central bankers to control our currency because inflation equals taxation without representation. We support the return to the time tested precious metal standard for the U.S. dollar.

United Nations – We support the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations and the removal of U.N. headquarters from U.S. soil.

Foreign Aid – We oppose foreign aid except in cases of national defense or catastrophic disasters, with Congressional approval.

International Organizations – We support U.S. withdrawal from the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization and the World Bank.

If this should be directed at his campaign, please let me know where I should send it.

My blog is luridtransom.  Here's a link:  http://luridtransom.blogspot.com/  I hope you enjoy reading it.

Regards,
luridtransom

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: luridtransom
To: Texans for Lamar Smith
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 10:00 AM
Subject: 2012 Texas GOP platform inquiry.

Dear Sir or Madam:

Last month I sent the inquiry below to [a staffer] in Congressman Smith's office.  I haven't heard back from her despite a couple of follow ups.  Perhaps she is on vacation, I'm not sure.  In any event, she mentioned that she'd look at my questions, which might be more appropriate for the campaign.  So I'm directing my inquiry to the campaign in order to get a substantive response.

Thanks in advance for your response!

Regards,

luridtransom

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: luridtransom
To: Texans for Lamar Smith
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 11:49 AM
Subject: Fw: 2012 Texas GOP platform inquiry.

Lamar Smith Campaign:

Please either respond substantively to my media inquiry or let me know that you REFUSE to respond to my media inquiry.  Thank you.

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: luridtransom
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 11:04 AM
To: Lamar Smith’s DC Office
Subject: Fw: 2012 Texas GOP platform inquiry.

Dear [Staffer for Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Texas)],

I am STILL trying to get a response to my inquiry below, which I sent you back in August.  Can you kindly answer my request, or forward it to someone that can?  Perhaps Congressman Smith himself would respond.  Thanks for your help.

Regards,

luridtransom

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Staffer for Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Texas)
To: luridtransom
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 11:01 AM
Subject: RE: 2012 Texas GOP platform inquiry.

luridtransom,

We do not participate in every interview request that we receive.  Please accept our decision to decline the interview and use the information already provided to you or available on our website.

Thanks,

[Staffer for Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Texas)]

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: luridtransom
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 12:00 PM
To: Staffer for Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Texas)
Subject: Re: 2012 Texas GOP platform inquiry.

Dear [Staffer for Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Texas)],

I've simply asked for the Congressman's position on some planks from the Texas GOP platform.  I mean, he either supports those planks or he doesn't, right?  Why does Congressman Smith refuse to answer my questions?  Thanks.

luridtransom

 ----- Forwarded Message -----

From: Staffer for Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Texas)
To: luridtransom
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 10:54 AM
Subject: RE: 2012 Texas GOP platform inquiry.

Our office declines to participate in your story.  You can either use the information that was provided to you in a written letter earlier this year, or we have information about Congressman Smith’s views on various issues on our website.

http://lamarsmith.house.gov/congressionalresources/ontheissues.htm

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: luridtransom
To: Staffer for Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Texas)
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: 2012 Texas GOP platform inquiry.

Dear [Staffer for Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Texas)],

I am very disappointed.  We both know you have previously provided zero answers to my questions.  Your website provides zero answers.  I believe America has the right to know Congressman Smith's position on, for example, term limits and withdrawing from the UN.  It's not that Congressman Smith is declining to participate in an interview request.  That's not what my inquiry really is.  Essentially Congressman Smith is saying, "Hey, America.  I have so little respect for you that I won't even tell you my position on a few planks of my own party's platform.  I hold you in contempt, lowly taxpayers and veterans and hard-working American families.  As a successful politician, I have no time for honesty and candor, or even telling you where I stand beyond hollow talking points written by someone else."

I appreciate you letting me know Mr. Smith refuses to address my questions.

Regards,

luridtransom

Listen up, Mr. Bigshot Mayor.

Dear Mayor Castro,

Have you ever thought of Brackenridge golf course as something besides a golf course? I should admit up front I'm not much of a golfer and I've never played golf there. The Brackenridge course occupies a unique location in the city. It's a shame that it's only used by golfers. There's so much potential for turning the golf course into a space to be enjoyed by many more people. Particularly with the downtown area and the Broadway corridor undergoing a revitalization, it's time to reimagine the Brackenridge golf course.

 

There are all manner of possibilties. Jogging and bike paths that connect to the paths in the park north of the golf course. Fields for soccer games, tossing a football or throwing a frisbee. Not league fields or intramural style fields, but I'm thinking of the pick up soccer games you see in parks in cities around the world. Maybe some indoor/outdoor cafes. A lake. A stage for outdoor concerts and plays. I'm just brainstorming ideas here. But the vision I'm trying to communicate is a Brackenridge park that's much more vibrant and utilized by many more people. There's a world of potential that is wasted on a golf course. There are plenty of golf courses, both public and private, in our city. But there's only one Brackenridge Park with the potential to truly transform San Antonio's urban culture and landscape.

I hope you'll give my suggestion serious consideration.

Regards,

luridtransom

Wall Street Journal: Counter Op-Ed

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323894704578113033115035920.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

President Obama can now proudly claim the four largest deficits in modern history. As a share of GDP, the deficit fell to 7% last year, which was still above any single year of the Reagan Presidency, or any other year since Truman worked in the Oval Office.

McCain would have had the four largest deficits too.  Unless you think he'd have responded to the recession by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire and cutting spending.

Mr. Obama won't want you to know this, but this revenue increase is occurring under the Bush tax rates that he so desperately wants to raise in the name of getting what he says is merely "a little more in taxes."

Why wouldn’t he want you to know this?  Gross revenues are increasing because GDP is growing.  That would be happening this year even if the Bush tax cuts were twice as large.  Do you think I don’t understand basic math, WSJ?  Show me the revenues as percentage of GDP.  That’s where to focus, and compare that to outlays as percent of GDP.  The idea is to narrow that gap, and you need increased revenue to get there.  And not just increased as in last year tax revenue was $100, this year it’s $101.  Increased revenue as percentage of GDP.

Imagine the gusher of revenue the feds could get if government got out of the way and let the economy grow faster.

Ah, yes, just imagine the gusher.  This means nothing.  If you have a proposal, tell me what it is.  But talking about imaginary revenue gushers if only the government would “get out of the way” (whatever that means) is a waste of my time.  Hey, OU sucks.

Now let's look at outlays, which declined a bit in 2012. That small miracle was achieved thanks to a 4% fall in defense spending, a 24% fall in jobless benefits, and an 8.9% decline in Medicaid spending.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.  Outlays declined?  How can that be?  Socialist Obama is a spend-a-holic, right?  So you’re telling me that as the economy improves, the government pays out less in welfare payments like jobless benefits and Medicaid?  (And as we end the Iraqi Adventure military costs drop?)  Wait, so did spending on those welfare programs rise because of the recession, like automatically?  But I thought welfare spending rose because Obama is a socialist and just wants to give handouts to the 47%.  So why is Washington paying out less in food stamps?  Is the Food Stamp President napping on the job and needs to be docked a day's pay?

One way to think about this is that most of the $830 billion stimulus of 2009 has now become part of the federal budget baseline. The "emergency" spending of the stimulus has now become permanent, as we predicted it would.

Yeah, that is one way to think of it, except that it’s not at all accurate.  The stimulus hasn’t become part of the budget baseline.  Luckily, most people don’t look at budgeting baselines or understand what that means.  Go look at the line items from the stimulus and see if they’re being repeated in each successive year, and projected to increase for inflation & demographic trends.  Oh, they’re not?  That’s because the stimulus isn’t part of the federal baseline budget.  You can think about it however you want, though.  It's a free country.

When Beltway politicians claim they want a "balanced" approach to reducing the deficit, what they really mean is raising taxes to finance this new higher spending level.

I don’t know which Beltway politicians you’re talking about, but generally a "balanced" approach refers to a mixture of increased revenue (tax hikes) and spending cuts to stabilize the deficit.  But it has zero to do with the stimulus in the way you’re suggesting.

The reality is that the fastest way to raise revenue is with faster economic growth. To the extent that raising tax rates will reduce the rate of growth, it will slow the flow of tax revenue and increase the deficit.

I see what you’re doing here.  The “to the extent” clause is sneaky, but you’re disingenuously suggesting that a tax increase will actually result in less revenue, which is simply false.  It's like the tax-cuts-pay-for-themselves fantasy, but in reverse.

Even if Mr. Obama were to bludgeon Republicans into giving him all of the tax-rate increases he wants, the Joint Tax Committee estimates this would yield only $82 billion a year in extra revenue.  But if growth is slower as a result of the higher tax rates, then the revenue will be lower too.

Same as above.

So after Mr. Obama has humiliated House Republicans and punished the affluent for the sheer joy of it, he would still have a deficit of $1 trillion.

Because allowing the top bracket to revert back to 39.6% can only be motivated by a desire for public humiliation, malice and class hatred.  Attributing evil motives to the other side is a great way to reinforce a sense of your side's moral superiority, but it is counter-productive to grown-up discourse of fiscal policy.

Most of our readers know all this, but we thought you'd like some new evidence to rebut the kids who voted for your taxes to go up when they return from college for Thanksgiving. Maybe they'll figure it out when they have a job, if they can find one.

Ha!  Zing!  Except this column isn’t evidence of anything.

Op-ed Mania: Fisher v. The University of Texas

The op-ed below by UT President Bill Powers was in today's WSJ, per an email I got from the University.  luridtransom is onboard with the Liberal View that diversity in education is good and valuable and noble and whatnot. But we can't swallow the idea that a state university's policy of preferring applicants of one race over another can be squared with Equal Protection, even if the policy is narrowly tailored, whatever that may mean. And isn't strict scrutiny just a way to justify the outcome in the first place?
 

What luridtransom especially can't accept is the idea that you can include racial preference in an admissions standard without a de facto quota. Powers says: "Our policy doesn’t strive to achieve a quota or demographic target." Well, that's nonsense. Of course you start with the result you want (% minority enrollment) and work backwards from there in deciding how much weight you need to give race in your admissions policy. And that's a "quota or demographic target." How could you do it otherwise?
 

Perhaps the ends justify the means.  But if that's your argument, Liberal Scholars, just say it.  Quit lying about the means.
 

http://blogs.utexas.edu/towertalk/2012/10/10/ut-at-supreme-court-today/
 

Bill Powers: An Admissions Policy That Prizes Diversity
 

History repeats itself Wednesday in an eerie but ironic way, as the University of Texas goes before the ­Supreme Court to defend its consideration of race in admissions. UT last did so 62 years ago, when Heman Sweatt, an African-American postal worker from Houston, challenged the university’s consideration of race.
 

Sweatt, of course, had been denied admission because of his race. The university lost that case—but America won. UT became one of the first flagship universities in the former Confederacy to integrate, and Sweatt paved the way for the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision integrating all of public education and forever banishing the fiction of separate but equal.
 

This time, UT finds itself back in court superficially for the same reason—considering race in admissions—but with just the opposite motivation. While our 1950 policy aimed to keep certain people out, our 2012 policy is aimed at permitting more of their grandchildren to enter.
 

The crux of this week’s case, Fisher v. The University of Texas, isn’t whether diversity is good. The vast majority of Americans now understand that diversity isn’t only acceptable but desirable in all aspects of life, especially education. In my 38 years in the classroom, I often have seen how a diverse classroom enriches discussion, provides valuable insights and offers a deeper learning experience. After all, how can a homogenous environment prepare students to be effective citizens of a diverse world?
 

Rather, the question at the heart of this case is whether any consideration of race, no matter how slight, is constitutional. In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled in Grutter v. Bollinger that the educational benefits of a diverse student body are so compelling that race can be considered as one of many factors. In the opinion, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote that the constitution “does not prohibit the [University of Michigan] Law School’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” Surely nine short years have not obliterated this logic.
 

If the fiction dispelled by the Sweatt case was that education could be separate but equal, the fiction that will be dispelled by Fisher is that minority students are being admitted at the expense of more qualified white students. There are no unqualified students admitted to UT—to the contrary, admission is more competitive than ever.
 

About three-fourths of our students are automatically admitted by virtue of their high-school class rank. Even for those students we use a holistic review to determine whether they will be admitted to a particular college or school. For the rest, we employ an entirely holistic review in which race is one of many factors along with leadership, extracurricular activities, awards, work experience, family-income level and community service.
 

As a result, UT is fully compliant with Grutter and earlier decisions that acknowledge the importance of diversity and permit race to be one factor among many. Our policy doesn’t strive to achieve a quota or demographic target.
 

Diversity benefits all students, as the court rightly affirmed in Grutter, but that is only the beginning of its benefit to society. Preparing young people to lead in an increasingly global civilization also pays dividends for employers, organizations, governments, communities and everyone who is served by our graduates as they leave the academy to make a difference in the world.

Remember Grover's Pledge.

NOTE: Below inquiry directed to Congressman Smith's campaign:

Dear Sir or Madam:

Like Congressman Smith, I live in the Alamo Heights ISD. As you may know, the AHISD has proposed increasing the district's tax rate for maintenance and operations from $1.04 to $1.06 per $100 valuation and bumping the overall tax rate from $1.198 to $1.218 per $100 valuation. This proposed increase is subject to a Tax Ratification Election (TRE) to be held this Saturday, September 15 You can find more information on the tax hike and TRE at http://www.ahisd.net/about/tre.html.

Does Congressman Smith support or oppose this tax increase? I understand this is not a national issue. However, I do believe this is an important and relevant question for the Congressman. It bears on his views and positions with respect to both education and taxation. Thank you in advance for providing a substantive answer to this question.

Regards,

luridtransom

Obama Hates America (an excerpt)

THE PRESIDENT:  Now, one last thing -- one of the biggest differences is how we pay down our debt and our deficit. My opponent, Mr. Romney’s plan is he wants to cut taxes another $5 trillion on top of the Bush tax cuts.

AUDIENCE: Booo --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, like I said, the only way you can pay for that -- if you’re actually saying you’re bringing down the deficit -- is to cut transportation, cut education, cut basic research, voucherize Medicare, and you’re still going to end up having to raise taxes on middle-class families to pay for this $5 trillion tax cut. That’s not a deficit reduction plan. That’s a deficit expansion plan.

I’ve got a different idea. I do believe we can cut -- we’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently. (Applause.) Not every government program works the way it’s supposed to. And frankly, government can’t solve every problem. If somebody doesn’t want to be helped, government can’t always help them. Parents -- we can put more money into schools, but if your kids don’t want to learn it’s hard to teach them. (Applause.)

But you know what, I’m not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy to give tax breaks to me or Mr. Romney or folks who don’t need them. So I’m going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way. We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more. (Applause.) And, by the way, we’ve tried that before -- a guy named Bill Clinton did it. We created 23 million new jobs, turned a deficit into a surplus, and rich people did just fine. We created a lot of millionaires.

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together. (Applause.)

So all these issues go back to that first campaign that I talked about, because everything has to do with how do we help middle-class families, working people, strivers, doers -- how do we help them succeed? How do we make sure that their hard work pays off? That’s what I've been thinking about the entire time I've been President.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia

Ezra Klein has this to say. Listen up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/13/the-white-houses-medicare-plan-isnt-that-hard-to-find/

The Republican ticket’s big Medicare myth

Posted by Ezra Klein on August 13, 2012 at 10:04 am

I’ve got a modest proposal: You’re not allowed to demand a “serious conversation” over Medicare unless you can answer these three questions:

1) Mitt Romney says that “unlike the current president who has cut Medicare funding by $700 billion. We will preserve and protect Medicare.” What happens to those cuts in the Ryan budget?

2) What is the growth rate of Medicare under the Ryan budget?

3) What is the growth rate of Medicare under the Obama budget?

The answers to these questions are, in order, “it keeps them,” “GDP+0.5%,” and “GDP+0.5%.”

Let’s be very clear on what that means: Ryan’s budget — which Romney has endorsed — keeps Obama’s cuts to Medicare, and both Ryan and Obama envision the same long-term spending path for Medicare. The difference between the two campaigns is not in how much they cut Medicare, but in how they cut Medicare.

This brings us to the big myth of this campaign, or at least of this particular conversation: That Republicans, but not Democrats, have a plan to cut Medicare costs. As Ryan pointedly put it in his first speech as Romney’s vice-presidential pick, “We won’t duck the tough issues. We will lead!”

Obama’s Medicare reform plan isn’t that hard to find. It’s largely in Title III of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The basic strategy has three components: First, figure out what “quality” in health care is. Second, figure out how to pay for quality rather than paying for volume. Third, make it easier for Medicare to quickly update itself to reflect both advances in knowledge about what quality is and how to pay for it.

And so, in Title III, you’ll find dozens of different efforts to achieve these goals. The most famous of them is Section 3403, which establishes the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). But there’s also Section 3021, which creates the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, and Section 3025, which cuts hospital reimbursements if too many of their patients are readmitted, and Section 3001, which establishes value-based purchasing for hospital services, and Section 3015, which collects data on quality, and Section 3502, which advances the medical home model.

Some of the efforts are outside Title III. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute is actually in Title VI of the law. And then there are the subsequent reforms the administration has proposed to save more money. Those can be found on pages 33-37 of the president’s 2013 budget proposal. They include expanding IPAB’s mandate such that it can change Medicare’s benefit package and setting a growth cap on Medicare of GDP+0.5 percentage points — which is, by the way, the same growth cap that Rep. Paul Ryan imposes in the latest iteration of his budget.

As for Romney’s plan? Well, it’s 902 words long, and basically sketches a less-detailed version of the plan Ryan released in his 2013 budget proposal (which is, for the record, much more moderate than the plan in his 2012 budget).

Romney would give Medicare beneficiaries a voucher permitting them to choose between traditional Medicare and private plans. Romney’s people tell me his plan will use competitive bidding, in which the value of the voucher is tied to the lowest-cost (or, in some versions, second-lowest cost) plan. If beneficiaries want a more expensive plan, they’ll have to pay the difference out of pocket. On his Web site, however, it just says that Romney “is exploring different options for ensuring that future seniors receive the premium support they need while also ensuring that competitive pressures encourage providers to improve quality and control cost.”

Which is fine. I actually think that on Medicare, unlike on other issues, Romney has provided an acceptable level of detail to evaluate where he’d like to take the system. But that’s not the same as saying it’s detailed.

These plans get at the basic disagreement between Democrats and Republicans on Medicare.

Democrats believe the best way to reform Medicare is to leave the program intact but vastly strengthen its ability to pay for quality. Republicans believe the best way to reform Medicare is to fracture the system between private plans and traditional Medicare and let competition do its work.

It’s worth saying there’s no particularly good evidence for either option. Competition hasn’t worked very well in the health-care system. Indeed, Medicare currently includes private options through the Medicare Advantage program. The idea was these private, managed-care alternatives would be cheaper than traditional Medicare. As it turned out, they ended up costing about 20 percent more.

As for the pay-for-quality revolution that the Obama administration envisions, that hasn’t been proven at Medicare’s scale, either.

Both Ryan and Obama — but not Romney — have proposed to back up their promises with an enforceable cap on the program’s future growth. Whether future Congresses would actually enforce such caps is, of course, an open question.

So there’s a conflict of policy visions. But it’s simply a conservative myth that the White House hasn’t put forward a Medicare reform plan. What that line really means is that White House hasn’t put forward some variant of Ryan’s plan, which in many Republican circles, has come to be seen as the only policy change that counts as “entitlement reform.”

But Obama’s plan is, without doubt, far more detailed than anything Romney has put forward, and Republicans are well aware of its existence. One Republican accused Obama of a “bureaucratic approach to controlling Medicare costs” which “empowers a board of 15 unelected officials — the

Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB — to hold the growth of Medicare spending.” He said the cuts would be so severe that they “would simply drive Medicare providers out of business, resulting in harsh disruptions and denied care for seniors.”

That Republican? Paul Ryan.

I still don't know what deductions we're eliminating.

Understanding TPC’s Analysis of Governor Romney’s Tax Plan

Donald Marron | Posted on August 8, 2012, 4:50 pm

The Tax Policy Center’s latest research report went viral last week, drawing attention in the presidential campaign and sparking a constructive discussion of the practical challenges of tax reform. Unfortunately, the response has also included some unwarranted inferences from one side and unwarranted vitriol from the other, distracting from the fundamental message of the study: tax reform is hard.

The paper, authored by Sam Brown, Bill Gale, and Adam Looney, examines the challenges policymakers face in designing a revenue-neutral income tax reform. The paper illustrates the importance of the tradeoffs among revenue, tax rates, and progressivity for the tax policies put forward by presidential candidate Mitt Romney. It found, subject to certain assumptions I discuss below, that any revenue-neutral plan along the lines Governor Romney has outlined would reduce taxes for high-income households, requiring higher taxes on middle- or low-income households. I doubt that’s his intent, but it is an implication of what we can tell about his plan so far. (We look forward to updating our analysis, of course, if and when Governor Romney provides more details.)
The paper is the latest in a series of TPC studies that have documented both the promise and the difficulty of base-broadening, rate-lowering tax reform. Last month, for example, Hang Nguyen, Jim Nunns, Eric Toder, and Roberton Williams documented just how hard it can be to cut tax preferences to pay for lower tax rates. An earlier paper by Dan Baneman and Eric Toder documented the distributional impacts of individual income tax preferences.

The new study applies those insights to Governor Romney’s tax proposal. To do so, the authors had to confront a fundamental challenge: Governor Romney has not offered a fully-specified plan. He has been explicit about the tax cuts he has in mind, including a one-fifth reduction in marginal tax rates from today’s level, which would drop the top rate from 35 percent to 28 percent and a cut in capital gains and dividend taxes for families with incomes below $200,000. He and his team have also said that reform should be revenue-neutral and not increase taxes on capital gains and dividends. But they have not provided any detail about what tax preferences they would cut to make up lost revenue.

As a political matter, such reticence is understandable. To sell yourself and your policy, it’s natural to emphasize the things that people like, such as tax cuts, while downplaying the specifics of who will bear the accompanying costs. Last February, President Obama did the same thing when he rolled out his business tax proposal. The president was very clear about lowering the corporate rate from 35 percent to 28 percent, but he provided few examples of the tax breaks he would cut to pay for it. Such is politics.

For those of us in the business of policy analysis, however, this poses a challenge. TPC’s goal is to inform the tax policy debate as best we can. While we strongly prefer to analyze complete plans, that sometimes isn’t possible. So we provide what information we can with the resources available. Earlier this year, for example, we analyzed the specified parts of Governor Romney’s proposal and documented how much revenue he would have to make up by unspecified base broadening (or, possibly, macroeconomic growth) and how the rate cuts would affect households at different income levels.

The latest study asked a different question: Could Romney’s plan maintain current progressivity given revenue neutrality and reasonable assumptions about what types of base broadening he’d propose? There are roughly $1.3 trillion in tax expenditures out there, but not all will be on Governor Romney’s list. He has said, for example, that raising capital gains and dividend taxes isn’t an option and has generally spoken about lowering taxes on saving and investment. Based on those statements, the authors considered what would happen if Romney kept all the tax breaks associated with saving and investment, including not only the lower rates on capital gains and dividends, but also the special treatment for municipal bonds, IRA and 401ks, and certain life-insurance plans, as well as the ability to avoid capital gains taxes at death (known as step-up basis). The authors also recognized that touching some tax breaks is beyond the realm of political possibility, such as taxing the implicit rent people get from owning their own home.

Given those factors, the study then examined the most progressive way of reducing the other tax breaks that remain on the table—i.e. it rolls them back first for high-income people. But there aren’t enough of those preferences to offset the benefits that high-income households get from the rate reductions. As a result, a revenue-neutral reform within these constraints would cut taxes at the high-end while raising them in the middle and perhaps bottom.

What should we infer from this result? Like Howard Gleckman, I don’t interpret this as evidence that Governor Romney wants to increase taxes on the middle class in order to cut taxes for the rich, as an Obama campaign ad claimed. Instead, I view it as showing that his plan can’t accomplish all his stated objectives. One can charitably view his plan as a combination of political signaling and the opening offer in what would, if he gets elected, become a negotiation.

To get a sense of where such negotiation might lead, keep in mind that Romney’s plan is not the first to propose a 28 percent top rate. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 did, as did the Bowles-Simpson proposal and the similar Domenici-Rivlin effort (on which I served). Unlike Governor Romney’s proposal, all three of those tax reforms reflect political compromise. And in all three cases, part of that compromise was eliminating some tax preferences for saving and investment, which tend to be especially important for high-income taxpayers. In particular, all three reforms resulted in capital gains and dividends being taxed at ordinary income tax rates.
TPC’s latest study highlights the realities that lead to such compromises.

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2012/08/08/understanding-tpcs-analysis-of-governor-romneys-tax-plan/

Kay Bailey's response to our GOP platform query.

After directing the inquiry re. the Texas GOP platform to Senator Hutchison's press secretary, here's the response we got:

“There are a number of planks in the Texas Republican Party platform that Senator Hutchison strongly supports, but she is not running for re-election. These questions are better put to those who are seeking office.”

Hey, wait a minute!  That's just a refusal to answer the question.  I guess we'll never know whether she supports or opposes US withdrawal from the United Nations. Luridtransom is deeply disappointed in Senator Hutchison.  We look forward to working with Senator Ted Cruz. Thanks to Senator Hutchison's press secretary for being courteous and helpful, even though his boss hates American voters and thinks she's above answering questions.

Open Letter to Harry Reid.

Dear Harry Reid,

You are a liar and a hypocrite.  Don't blame me, blame yourself.  Luridtransom will retract these charges when you do the following:

(1) Identify the anonymous Bain investor that told you Mitt Romney has paid zero taxes over the last decade, or prove this allegation to be true; and

(2) Release your own tax returns.

You are the poster child for what's wrong with partisan politics.  Actually, one of many poster children if that makes you feel better.  Luridtransom has ZERO respect for you.  Do you hear that?!  ZERO.  We can only assume you loathe integrity and intellectual honesty, and your only concerns are polls, approval ratings, and sound bite politics.  ZERO respect.

Regards,
Luridtransom

Response from Kay Bailey Hutchison

Dear Friend:

     
Thank you for contacting me regarding national politics. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.

    
I believe I share with the majority of Texans a desire for limited but effective government, low taxes, a strong commitment to national defense, and government policies and programs that encourage, rather than hinder, the development of the values and virtues that make Texas and America great.

     
I appreciate hearing from you and hope you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue of concern to you.

Sincerely,

Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator

2012 Texas GOP Platform. Do you support or oppose these selected planks? (Also sent to Sen. Cornyn and Lamar Smith).

Dear Senator Hutchison,

Below I have listed a number of planks of the 2012 Texas Republican Party platform. Please let me know whether you support, or do not support each of the planks listed. Feel free to explain your support or opposition all you want - in fact, I encourage full explanations of all your answers. But be clear as to each plank whether you support or oppose it. Below are the planks, verbatim from the platform.

Term Limits - We urge Congress, the Legislature, and the Republican Party to institute Term Limits.

U.S. Department of Education – Since education is not an enumerated power of the federal government, we believe the Department of Education (DOE) should be abolished.

Education Spending – Since data is clear that additional money does not translate into educational achievement, and higher education costs are out of control, we support reducing taxpayer funding to all levels of education institutions.

Capital Gains Tax – We favor abolishing the capital gains tax.

Ethanol – We support the repeal of legislation mandating ethanol as fuel additives and/or primary fuel.

Sound Money – Our founding fathers warned us of the dangers of allowing central bankers to control our currency because inflation equals taxation without representation. We support the return to the time tested precious metal standard for the U.S. dollar.

United Nations – We support the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations and the removal of U.N. headquarters from U.S. soil.

Foreign Aid – We oppose foreign aid except in cases of national defense or catastrophic disasters, with Congressional approval.

International Organizations – We support U.S. withdrawal from the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization and the World Bank.

Thank you for your candid reponses.

Regards,
luridtransom

Dear Lamar.

Dear Lamar,

This is from your website. (Click on Issues, then On The Issues, then Budget.) Here's the link: http://www.lamarsmith.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=28988

When then Senator Obama was running for president, he pledged to cut the deficit in half, yet the national debt has more than doubled since he took office. On February 13, 2012, President Obama released his FY2013 budget request. His $3.8 trillion budget proposal for FY2013 marks the fourth straight year of a projected deficit over $1 trillion. It increases spending, taxes, and the deficit. On Wednesday, March 28, 2012, the House unanimously rejected President Obama's FY2013 budget proposal by a vote of 414-0.

Each year, Congress is responsible for setting the federal budget and appropriating funds for all government functions. It has been nearly three years since the Senate has passed a federal budget. The last time the Senate passed a budget was on April 29, 2009, when the total national debt was $11.15 trillion. Today, the total national debt is $15.2 trillion.

Debt of this level will stifle our economic growth. The solution for reviving our economy is straightforward: cut job-destroying government spending to allow employers to create jobs.

Let's look at the last paragraph of your Budget position. How does government spending destroy jobs? Doesn't government spending create jobs? Government spending has a stimulative effect on the economy, right? Take, for instance, military spending here in San Antonio. That creates lots of jobs. On the flip-side, I can't think of an example of "job-destroying government spending." Can you give me an example? I think you're trying to say you want to cut the defecit and pay down the national debt by cutting spending and not raising taxes. Is that what you're trying to say? Or did you actually mean what you said, and you think government spending destroys jobs?

Regards, luridtransom

The Dunes.

Tax Exempt Mennonites.

Here's an internet article with some facts about OBAMACARE.  In case you wanted to know anything more than it's SOCIALIST and UN-AMERICAN.

Here are some of the new taxes you're going to have to pay to pay for Obamacare:

• A 3.8% surtax on "investment income" when your adjusted gross income is more than $200,000 ($250,000 for joint-filers). What is "investment income?" Dividends, interest, rent, capital gains, annuities, house sales, partnerships, etc. Taxes on dividends will rise from 15% to 18.8%--if Congress extends the Bush tax cuts. If Congress does not extend the Bush tax cuts, taxes on dividends will rise from 15% to a shocking 43.8%. (WSJ)

• A 0.9% surtax on Medicare taxes for those making $200,000 or more ($250,000 joint). You already pay Medicare tax of 1.45%, and your employer pays another 1.45% for you (unless you're self-employed, in which case you pay the whole 2.9% yourself). Next year, your Medicare bill will be 2.35%. (WSJ)

• Flexible Spending Account contributions will be capped at $2,500. Currently, there is no tax-related limit on how much you can set aside pre-tax to pay for medical expenses. Next year, there will be. If you have been socking away, say, $10,000 in your FSA to pay medical bills, you'll have to cut that to $2,500. (ATR.org)

• The itemized-deduction hurdle for medical expenses is going up to $10,000. Right now, any medical expenses over $7,500 per year are deductible. Next year, that hurdle will be $10,000. (ATR.org)

• The penalty on non-medical withdrawals from Healthcare Savings Accounts is now 20% instead of 10%. That's twice the penalty that applies to annuities, IRAs, and other tax-free vehicles. (ATR.org)

• A tax of 10% on indoor tanning services. This has been in place for two years, since the summer of 2010. (ATR.org)

• A 40% tax on "Cadillac Health Care Plans" starting in 2018.Those whose employers pay for all or most of comprehensive healthcare plans (costing $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for families) will have to pay a 40% tax on the amount their employer pays. The 2018 start date is said to have been a gift to unions, which often have comprehensive plans. (ATR.org)

• A"Medicine Cabinet Tax" that eliminates the ability to pay for over-the-counter medicines from a pre-tax Flexible Spending Account. This started in January 2011. (ATR.org)

• A "penalty" tax for those who don't buy health insurance. This will phase in from 2014-2016. It will range from $695 per person to about $4,700 per person, depending on your income. (More details here.)

• A tax on medical devices costing more than $100. Starting in 2013, medical device manufacturers will have to pay a 2.3% excise tax on medical equipment. This is expected to raise the cost of medical procedures. (Breitbart.com)

So those are some of the new taxes you'll be paying that will help pay for Obamacare.
Any big ones I've missed?

Note that these taxes are both "progressive" (aimed at rich people) and "regressive" (aimed at the middle class and poor people). The big ones--the 3.8% investment income hike and the Medicare tax increase--only hit you if you're making more than $200,000 a year. The rest hit you no matter how much you're making.

Here's How Much The Obamacare Penalty Tax Will Cost You

Many Americans are furious that Obamacare will require them to buy health insurance.

Most of these folks seem to hate the idea that Obama is forcing them to do something more than they hate the idea of shelling out money.

But for those who also care about the money, here are the details.

The good news is that, for most people, the "penalty tax" for those who choose not to buy health insurance will cost a lot less than health insurance.

As with everything tax-related, there's no simple answer to "How much is the Obamacare penalty tax?" But here are some key points, from FactCheck.org:

• The penalty/tax will be phased in from 2014 to 2016.
• The minimum penalty/tax in 2016 will be $695 per person and up to 3-times that per family. After 2016, these amounts will increase at the rate of inflation.
• The minimum penalty/tax per person will start at $95 in 2014 (and then increase through 2016)
• No family will ever pay more than 3X the per-person penalty, regardless of how many people are in the family.
• The $695 per-person penalty is only for those who make between $9,500 and ~$37,000 per year. If you make less than ~$9.500, you're exempt. If you make more than ~$37,000, your penalty is calculated by the following formula...
• The penalty is 2.5% of any household income above the level at which you are required to file a tax return. That level is currently $9,500 per person and $19,000 per couple. The penalty on any income above that is 2.5%. So the penalty can get expensive quickly if you make a lot of money.
• However, the penalty can never be more than the cost of a "Bronze" heath insurance plan purchased through one of the state "exchanges" that will be created as part of Obamacare. The CBO estimates that these policies will cost $4,500-$5,000 per person and $12,000-$12,500 per family in 2016, with the costs rising thereafter.

So, basically, you're looking at penalties of approximately the following at the following income levels:

• Less than $9,500 income = $0
• $9,500 - $37,000 income = $695
• $50,000 income = $1,000
• $75,000 income = $1,600
• $100,000 income = $2,250
• $125,000 income = $2,900
• $150,000 income = $3,500
• $175,000 income = $4,100
• $200,000 income = $4,700
• Over $200,000 = The cost of a "bronze" health-insurance plan

The IRS will collect the penalty-tax, a fact that will no doubt further enrage those who hate Obamacare.

But here's some more good news for those folks:

The IRS will not have the power to charge you criminally or seize your assets if you refuse to pay. The IRS will only have the ability to sue you. And the most the IRS can collect from you if it wins the suit is 2X the amount you owe. So if you want to thumb your nose at the penalty-tax, the IRS won't be able to do as much to you as they could if you refused to pay, say, income tax.

By the way, the following folks will be exempt from the penalty-tax:

• Those who make less than $9,500
• Employees whose employers only offer plans that cost more than 8% of the employee's income
• Those with "hardships"
• Members of Indian tribes
• Members of certain religions that don't pay Social Security tax, such as Amish, Hutterites or Mennonites

More from The Daily Ticker

Meet Mr. Sullivan.

http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/gop-chairs-file-ethics-complaint-against-prominent-conservative-2281621.html