ALEC appoints Dr. Thomas Lindsay Vice Chairman of the Education Task Force Higher Education Subcommittee

AUSTIN – The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has announced the appointment of Dr. Thomas Lindsay as the Vice Chairman of the Education Task Force Higher Education Subcommittee. “His leadership in advancing testing of student learning through the Collegiate Learning Assessment has become a model for legislators around the country,” said Lindsay Russell, Education Task Force Director of the American Legislative Exchange Council. “For years, polls have shown that Americans are fed up with higher education’s skyrocketing tuition, crushing student-loan debt, and poor learning standards. I’m honored to join ALEC in its battle to defend college students, their parents, and taxpayers,” said Dr. Lindsay. ALEC’s Education Task Force mission is to promote excellence in the nation’s educational system, to advance reforms through parental choice, to support efficiency, accountability, and transparency in all educational institutions, and to ensure America’s youth are given every opportunity to succeed.   

Press Release October 25, 2013

The Shutdown: Driving off the Bridge with ObamaCare

The title of this post might lead one to believe I am about to be critical of those who have tied the defunding or delaying of ObamaCare to the funding of government and the increase in the debt limit. Actually, though, I am heading in the opposite direction. Let’s get started with the following quote from Douglas Wilson: “Only about seventeen percent of the government has shut down—and the more innocent part. In the genius that marks Washington, whenever we get to the pushing and shoving part of our parliamentary procedures, they do things like shut down the Washington monument, and not the parts that are killing us. It is as though someone came up with a form of political chemo that would kill the healthy cells and leave the cancer alone.” This quote is part of a blog post that discusses the problem that “Respectable Figures” are having with the efforts of House Republicans (and others) who are “playing smashmouth” in the effort to defund or otherwise slowdown ObamaCare. Of course, conservatives are quite familiar with Respectable Figures and used to seeing them at work, both in the federal and Texas governments. The idea that defunding ObamaCare is an “unrealistic goal” has been the mantra of the Respectable Figures in this debate. But is it really unrealistic? There are two aspects of this question to cover here. First, is defunding ObamaCare an unrealistic goal in the context of the current budget impasse? Andrew McCarthy from National Review Online addresses this: Victor (Davis Hanson) aptly observes that “the politics are likely to change the longer this [shut-down] drags on, and at some point Obama will see the writing on the wall.” That was the point those of us who’ve supported the defunding effort, even to the point of shutdown, made all along. Bipartisan Beltway wisdom holds that all things are static: Obamacare is the president’s legacy and he will never give an inch on it (as if he hadn’t given plenty already), Republicans only control one-half of one-third of the government (as if it weren’t the one-half of one-third that Obama needs for the spending he wants), the press will fully insulate the president (as if it could), and therefore the president will never move off his obstinacy (as if Gitmo had been shuttered, KSM had been tried in civilian court, the Bush tax cuts had been repealed . . .). Is it likely that Obama and the Democrats will go for defunding ObamaCare? No, but neither was it likely that the Texas Public Policy Foundation would prevail against popular efforts (among the Austin Respectable Figures)   to impose a payroll tax on Texas employers (2006) and a gasoline tax on all Texans (2009). But we did. In another column, McCarthy puts it this way: The Republican establishment — the guys who told us that for a trillion dollars and several thousand American casualties, we could build “Islamic democracies” that would be reliable U.S. allies in the War on Terror — say it is Ted Cruz who is “delusional” and the effort to stave off Obamacare that is “unattainable. These self-appointed sages are, of course, the same guys who told us the way to “stabilize” and “democratize” Libya was to help jihadists topple and kill the resident dictator — who, at the time, was a U.S. ally, providing intelligence about the jihadists using his eastern badlands as a springboard for the anti-American terror insurgency in Iraq.  Whether or not ObamaCare is defunded or delayed or anything else during the current debate over funding government, McCarthy’s quote points us toward the second aspect of this question, which is even more important. It seems as if the Respectable Figures in many cases have forgotten that this is a long-term battle, that the fight to repeal ObamaCare will not be won overnight, and that if we don’t continually bring this fight to the American people, ObamaCare may not be repealed at all. In fact, one gets the sense that many of the Respectable Figures in this debate have already given in to the fact that ObamaCare is the “law of the land” and any effort to repeal it—now or in the future—is a wasted effort. Many people forget the need to continually bring this battle before the American people and remind them about just how bad ObamaCare is; and how unless the American people stand up and send a conservative majority to Congress, we’ll never be rid of it. Then again, many of the Respectable Figures don’t want to take on ObamaCare in order remain popular and remain in power, because, as we all know, having Respectable Figures in power is more important than sticking with conservative principles. Here’s Doug Wilson again on this point: What happened was this. The Republicans got into a saloon brawl with the Democrats, much to my delight, but now the polls have come in — the American public is disgusted with everybody, but especially with the Republicans. Their popularity is about as healthy as https://www.healthcare.gov/. And on Special Report last night, Charles Krauthammer said that this was a “catastrophe.” But why? Did anybody seriously think that we could be under this pile of debt, entitlements, quantitative dysentery, unfunded mandates, strangulatory regulation, wild promises, old school graft, hallucinogenic budgeting, and special interests — all in all, a magnificent specimen of a corruptocracy in full flower  — and somehow fix it while remaining popular? Are you joking me? President Obama understands this. He doesn’t care about being popular. He cares about winning, even though some of his policy wins may lead to electoral defeats—such as losing the majority in the House over ObamaCare. He can take this approach beacuse knows that once he gets these laws on the books that the Respectable Figures will do exactly what they are doing today—accepting the status quo in their quest to keep their Respectable Figure status intact. So while he may lose an election or two in the shortrun, in the longterm his policy goals will be achieved.  Here’s Wilson one last time: I have a parable. One time a bus driver was headed down the road with a bus full of idiot school children singing one of their favorite songs, something where the chorus ended with a shouted refrain — “if you don’t like, or even love, Janet Yellen . . . I’m tellin’!” The verses were all about the place where “handouts grow on bushes,” a place called the Big Rock Candy Entitlement Office. The children were warming to their work, but the bus driver kept worrying about the signs that said the bridge up ahead was out. If he stopped the bus, and the song, then what would happen to his popularity? Would the kids still like him? Of course, the kids never had liked him, and never would, but wouldn’t it be better to him to just shut up and help drive off the bridge? After all, if he didn’t keep driving the way they wanted, they might not even let him help drive off the bridge. They might even call him names on the way down to the river. That would be a catastrophe. Wilson makes a very good point above when he notes that undoing big government intervention in the market is often going to be quite difficult. That is a point we need to be reminded of daily so we can be ready to respond to the fall out. The costs of moving away from government intervention toward a free market may be significant. This may include becoming quite unpopular. But that doesn’t mean the efforts aren’t worth tackling. Since the alternative is driving the bus off the bridge.

Press Release October 16, 2013

TPPF statement on Supreme Court’s decision to review EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gases

AUSTIN – Kathleen Hartnett White, Distinguished Senior Fellow-in-Residence and Director of the Armstrong Center for Energy and the Environment at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, issued this statement on the U.S. Supreme Court’s granting of review to a challenge of the Environmental Protection Agency’s restrictions on greenhouse gases from stationary sources: “The Supreme Court’s decision...

Press Release October 15, 2013

ICYMI: Karen Lugo writes op-ed for Washington Examiner

AUSTIN –Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Karen Lugo, Director of the Center for Tenth Amendment Action, shared her thoughts on state sovereignty in a Washington Examiner op-ed titled: Fighting the good fight for federalism and the 10th Amendment. “The 10th Amendment has not been nullified just because the federal government chooses to ignore it,” Lugo stated, “It’s a powerful right that recognizes the individuality of each state, and ensures our freedom to create our own records of success or failure. In Texas, we’re fighting for the right of businesses and families to write their own scripts. Every time the federal government extends an enticing offer of funding, the states should be wary. That money isn’t free—it comes with the price-tag of doing the Federal Government’s bidding.” “That’s the real work of policy centers like CTAA: to inform the public on the consequences of taking this federal money, and to fortify states that choose not to take the bait,” Lugo continued. “We’ve got to change the thinking here: the 10th Amendment means that power resides in the states if not strictly enumerated as a federal government power or if not explicitly delegated by a state to the federal government. We’ve got to stop thinking that every situation needs federal intervention, or that every problem has a federal-level solution. The article can be read in its entirety here: http://bit.ly/1agj5zR.

Press Release October 14, 2013

TPPF statement on the Tax Foundation’s 2014 State Business Tax Climate Index

AUSTIN – Earlier today, the Tax Foundation released its 2014 State Business Tax Climate Index, a nationally-renowned ranking of each state’s tax system. According to this year’s index, Texas’ tax system ranked as the 11th most competitive in the U.S., a slight decline from last year’s ranking.  “Texas’ tax system—while competitive—has plenty of room to improve,” said Talmadge Heflin, Director of the Center for Fiscal Policy. Heflin continued, “There are two major problem areas in the Texas Tax Code: the margin tax and the property tax. In spite of the Legislature’s attempts to improve the margin tax last session, the state’s primary business tax remains overly complicated, poorly designed, and disruptive to our small business community. Additionally, the state’s property tax system, ranked as the 14th most punitive in the nation, continues to punish homeowners and business investment. And the problem is only getting worse, as is evidenced by Texas’ slippage of three positions in the latest property tax index as local districts continue to hike property tax collections.” “Our research clearly indicates that substantive reforms in these two areas are needed in order to keep Texas’ economy thriving and competitive,” said Heflin.

Press Release October 10, 2013

TPPF releases paper showing concerns about the disastrous intermingling of federal and state finances

  AUSTIN – The Texas Public Policy Foundation today released the report, Loosening the Federal Straightjacket: What the U.S. Supreme Court's NFIB Decision Means for Federal Funds in State Budgets. This report focuses on the disastrous intermingling of federal and state finances, particularly the onerous conditions that come attached to federal funds for the state...

Press Release October 8, 2013

MEDIA AVAILABILITY: TPPF experts available to discuss Texas’ competitive electricity market

AUSTIN – Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Vice President for Research and Director of the Center for Economic Freedom Bill Peacock and Center for Economic Freedom Policy Analyst Kathleen Hunker are available to discuss the debate over whether Texas has sufficient electricity generation on tap to power our growing economy. The future of Texas’ electricity market will be discussed tomorrow during the Public Utility Commission of Texas’s workshop on resource adequacy. Both Peacock and Hunker have recently released several research papers examining this issue.    Bill Peacock is Vice President of Research and Director of the Foundation’s Center for Economic Freedom. Peacock has extensive experience in Texas government and policy on issues, including economic and regulatory policy, energy, public finance, and public education. Media appearances include the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Roll Call. Kathleen Hunker is a Center for Economic Freedom Policy Analyst. Prior to joining the Foundation, Hunker worked as a legal associate at the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies. Hunker has written for Townhall.com, Ethika Politika, TheBelltowers.com, and the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.   To schedule interviews please contact Kristen Indriago at [email protected] or 512.472.2700.

Press Release October 8, 2013

A Letter From Brooke Rollins…

Dear friend of liberty,    Today marks a very important anniversary. On a grassy field not far from here, 178 years ago, the Texas Revolution began with a simple act of citizen defiance.    You may know the story of how the small town of Gonzales, increasingly restive under the growing tyranny of the Mexicans, was confronted by a Mexican army unit under the command of one Lieutenant Castañeda. The Lieutenant had arrived to disarm the town. The people of Gonzales had a single cannon to protect themselves from Indian attack and, as they became more and more insistent upon their liberties throughout the fateful year of 1835, it dawned upon the Mexicans who lent them the cannon that perhaps they ought to take it back. And so Lieutenant Castañeda conveyed his demand to the Texians: surrender your cannon.    But what he really meant was: surrender your freedom.    The men and women of Gonzales knew exactly what was at stake. They knew that if they gave up their cannon, a small and simple weapon though it was, that they were giving up their liberties. The decision on the face of it seemed like a simple one. The Mexicans had every advantage. The Mexicans had an army. The Mexicans had arms. The Mexicans had a government. The Mexicans had a treasury. And the Mexicans had a proven and ruthless determination to suppress all dissent.    The Texians, on the other hand, had just one tiny cannon and the indomitable determination to be free within their hearts. They searched their consciences and decided that this was enough.    The message from Gonzales went back out to Lieutenant Castañeda, and it was a message emblazoned upon the hearts and souls of every liberty-loving Texan in the 178 years since.     The defiance at Gonzales that started the Texas Revolution was rooted in the most ancient human impulses for liberty. They took their inspiration from what they knew to be their God-given nature as free people and from what they understood to be their heritage as the inheritors of the free peoples that went before them.    They fought because they loved liberty and because they understood history. And that is why we, 178 years later, must remember them. Partly it is because we must honor their achievements. But it is also because, in remembering and understanding the history of the fights for freedom that came before, we draw inspiration and resolve for the fights for freedom that lie ahead.    Today we recollect the spark that lit the flame of the Texas Revolution. That spark was kindled in the minds and souls of men and women who knew that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were worth fighting for. They did not stop to calculate the odds because they knew, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, that the destiny of man is more than material computation. A moral vision of freedom of prosperity, and of dignity is perhaps the most powerful thing in human history. It is the reason Texas became free.   Please join me in remembering the heroes of Gonzales who fought and died and won for us 178 years ago, today. In Liberty,   Brooke Rollins President & CEO

Press Release October 4, 2013
Load More