Republican Candidates Debate in the Texas 23rd

Tuesday night, the Young Republicans of Bexar County hosted a great debate for Republican primary run-off candidates. I live in the Texas 23rd and was eager to hear the exchange between our two candidates William Hurd and Francisco "Quico" Canseco. I did support Canseco in the primary, but came to this event with an open mind.

They begin by making opening statements. Hurd touts his 9 yrs in the CIA and willingness to serve his country. Canseco talks about his values: personal responsibility and integrity as well as his experience running a small business that he feels is badly needed in Washington.

The first questions was on Mexican drug violence spilling across the border. Canseco talks about his experience doing business in Mexico as an asset in understanding the culture and the interactions that are important in developing strategies to address such violence and drug activity. He reminds the crowd that he is from Laredo, a border town that has experienced spillover violence for years. Canseco advocates for treating cartels like insurgents. If they cross the border into our country we should pursue them into Mexico and apprehend or kill them. He says we must take a harder line with Mexico because they have far more resources at their disposal than they are currently using to curtail the violence.


Hurd agrees and echoes Canseco's insurgent sentiment. He adds that he has experience in the area, having chased Al Qaeda for a decade in Afghanistan. Hurd goes on to pledge to start border caucus in House. Curiously (and admittedly, I did not know this at the time) the House of Representatives already has a border caucus that was introduced in 2006. I don't know if he misspoke or did not know this as well.

The next question was on which piece of legislation would the candidate first introduce if elected. Canseco says first piece of legislation he'd introduce would be a repeal of the health care bill, in what I would call a pretty predictable populist statement. Next however, he says he would focus on reducing the size of government at the federal level. Finally, he would introduce legislation to make the Bush tax cuts permanent and eliminate the "death tax."

On his first piece of legislation Hurd briefly echoes the desire to repeal the health care bill, but seems to be more interested in introducing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, similar to the one that is law in the state of Texas. He gets a little more broad and vague in saying next that he would cut spending. He says, "you can't spend more than you make."

A great follow-up question from the moderator Chris Marrou: What spending exactly would you cut? Canseco answers that his first focus would be The Department of Education as he says in his opinion it is too intrusive and ineffective in its mandate. Next, he speaks of pork projects in the President's 2009 budget that he would strip out. Finally, in broad terms, he advocates for "trimming" the money spent by The Department of Energy. No specifics on what areas he would "trim" however.

Hurd answers this question very vaguely, perhaps betraying a lack of knowledge on the subject. In fact, he doesn't really answer the question at all. Hurd says to follow the GE model: cut 20% across the board, missing the point of the question to speak to specific cuts. I think this was an important turning point in the debate, at least for me. I supported Canseco in the primary and continue to. But I did like what I had heard from Will Hurd. But cutting spending is a popular and easy thing to say until you actually have to do it. It often involves making tough choices and always leaves some constituency unhappy. Hurd either doesn't know what he would cut or is unwilling to take a side during the election. In either case, he began losing my support at this juncture. Hurd continued by talking about his experience with cutting CIA budgets in the face of opposition from bureaucracies. He also advocates for abiding by strict debt limits which again, may betray a naivete regarding Congressional process: as the setters of the debt limits and the spenders at the same time, Congress can never be relied on the abide by debt limits. If they want to spend more, they will never hesitate to raise the debt limit to avoid paralyzing the federal government.

The next question is regarding something that has been the main topic of this primary: how important is it to be Hispanic if you want to win the Texas 23rd? Hurd says being Hispanic is not important in the 23rd. He criticizes the thought that Hispanics are homogenous and would only vote for a Hispanic. Hurd thinks likability and engagement is more important to the Hispanic community. He is mixed race for what its worth.

Canseco handles the question gracefully. He states that he has lived in south Texas his whole life. He knows and understands the "culture." He says that it is important to remember that the GOP Primary is very different from the general election. He indicates his belief that fewer Hispanics vote in the primary than in the general election. He clearly thinks his heritage will be an asset to the party. I tend to agree, as the history of the 23rd shows us. In a humorous moment, Canseco finishes his answer in Spanish, leading Hurd to respond with a soliloquy in Spanish as well, just to prove that he could speak the language as well.


Marrou comes back with an intriguing question: he asks why the GOP has any fiscal credibility after its actions during the Bush years. Canseco says to remember that the fiscal conservatism during Clinton's term began in 1996 and that the budget did get get balanced until Republicans won back the House. He goes on to talk about the benefits of a divided government, a President from one party and a Congress of another for cutting spending. Hurd clearly didn't have an answer. He simply states that Republicans must continue to fight for their principles and he is ready and willing to continue that fight.

In the final question of the debate, Marrou asks how to get our economy back on track. Hurd says the most important thing is to let people keep more of their own money to grow economy out of recession. Canseco answers that the Great Depression showed us that government spending does not work in the long run. He says government does not create jobs, small businesses create jobs. When the economy is in recession, Canseco says it is important to cut back on government programs, maintain balanced finances and cut taxes to put more money in the hands of consumers and stimulate private sector job growth.

Finally, the closing statements. Canseco begins by telling the crowd that he has lived in south Texas his whole life. He says that he has created jobs here, supported the economy, and given by by working for the community. He says his experience running a small business-balancing a budget, making payroll, and weathering an economy-is what we need in Washington. He also pledges to abide by term limitations. He said 5 years, but I am not sure if perhaps he meant 5 (2 year) terms.

Hurd is more brief. He says we need folks in Washington that can make tough decisions, not politicians. He reiterates his experience in the CIA, saying it proves that he has made tough decisions. He says after the CIA, he had many lucrative opportunities but that it was more important for him to return to Texas and continue to serve his country.

In closing, I want to say that I genuinely like Hurd. I think he is a good and eloquent man with a good future in politics. I think he might even make a good Congressman one day. I don't think that time is now, however. I wish him well, but I believe Francisco Canseco is the best choice to defeat Ciro Rodriguez in November.

Fellow Conservatives: Get in the Game on Health Care

"Republicans want you to die quickly." A stunning claim by Congressman Alan Grayson but a theme that is all too familiar: Conservatives hate Americans and don't care if half of America dies to defeat health care reform. They are mean and greedy, more concerned with lining the pockets of big insurance firms. The truth of the matter, for those interested in truth, is that conservatives care about improving access to health care while lowering costs, but oppose any larger role of the federal government in accomplishing this laudable goal. So how did this argument begin and how has it been successful? Conservatives have failed at articulating a cohesive and understandable alternative for reforming health care and thus allowed their opponents to take the offensive in framing the issue. This has the consequence of not only costing conservatives the debate on a crucial issue to all Americans, but leaving voters with a false and damaging impression of what conservative politicians stand for.

Conservatives alternatives for health care reform are numerous and promising. Bobby Jindal wrote an excellent Op-ed for the Wall Street Journal laying out his principles; The Cato Institute has a library of ideas from expanding the role of Health Savings Accounts to leveling the tax deductibility of individual health insurance plans with that of employer based health insurance plans. Many in Congress as well as conservative economists and health care experts such as Congressman Blunt, Paul Ryan from Wisconsin, former Congressman Joe Scarborough, and Larry Kudlow of CNBC have advocated for the elimination of state barriers to allow insurance companies to sell across state lines, opening up markets and increasing the risk pools. Each of these ideas have real promise and strong evidence in support of their probability of success.

Despite this, few Americans are aware of, or understand what conservative alternatives exist and how they can work together. The debate has been framed by Democrats who have told voters that if you are not for their plan, if you are against the public option, you are against health care reform and you don't care about average Americans. The truth is quite different. The choice is really about the role of government. Do you want more or less? Do you want the federal government to take a larger role or would you like to have the free market reform health care?

The term "public option" has given progressives an easily understandable and seemingly simple idea to rally support around. But the polling tells a very different story. Progressives often cite majority support of the public option as a reason why Congress should adopt this policy. True, some polls have reported support as high as 85%. When asked if they know what exactly the public option means however, the findings are startling. In a recent poll, only 37% of respondents could correctly identify a public option as "creating a government funded insurance company that competes with private insurers to offer health insurance at market rates." In a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, 4 out of 5 surveyed think the current reforms being contemplated in Congress would reduce quality of care, increase personal health care costs, and limit choice. Why would Americans be in favor of a system that they believe will leave them worse off? Because they are in favor of reform and this is the only plan that has been articulated to them.

Conservatives are in favor of health care reform. Conservatives care about their fellow Americans. Conservatives want everyone to live a long, free, and fulfilling life. Conservatives are suspicious of an increased role of the federal government. These principles are not diametrically opposed. Conservatives (read Republicans) cannot be seen as the party of "no." They will not success and, whats more, it isn't true. It is our responsibility to see that this doesn't happen and it is time to stop blaming liberals and Democrats, stop whining, and get in the game. It is morally imperative that conservatives do a better job articulating their vision. When properly conveyed, Americans will choose us on the strength of our arguments. Americans will believe.

Texas Governor's Race Has Only One Candidate

As a Texas resident, I was looking forward to a real campaign for the Governor's office with Kay Bailey Hutchinson challenging a two-term incumbent Rick Perry in the Republican Primary. Hutchinson is a widely respected lawmaker, the senior US Senator from Texas, and looked to be a formidable opponent to Governor Perry. I can honestly say that I was undecided when I found out that Hutchinson would mount a challenge. Unfortunately, the negativity and lack of direction of Senator Hutchinson's campaign thus far has proven that she has nothing to offer Texans as our governor.

It seems clear that the Hutchinson campaign is based on one simple fact: the Senator does not like Rick Perry. Not his policies, not his administration; him. Her campaign website is filled with pettiness and petulance toward the Governor, unproductively snarking at any public statement or position in which they can paint him poorly. Where are the new ideas? Where are the policy initiatives? Where are the plans? In short, there are none. Just example after example of gossip and idle nonsense that bears very little on governance and is not helpful, constructive, or worthy of such a historic campaign.

As the challenger, it is her responsibility to show me why I should make a change; to present me with a plausible alternative. She has to make a pretty convincing case too, because it is hard to deny that the state of Texas has experienced relative prosperity during this economic recession, creating more jobs in 2008 than the other 49 states combined. Our unemployment rate is over 2 points lower than the national average. What exactly would Ms. Hutchinson change?

Does Texas have its problems? Of course it does. We have an education system that ranks in the bottom half nationally. We have too many uninsured adults as well as a heart-aching number of uninsured children; much more than the national average. This is deplorable and we must do more. Despite this however, Senator Hutchinson has presented no workable ideas, nothing to show which direction she would take us. Without this, I can see no compelling reason to change the leadership of the state of Texas at a time when so many things are going right.

As such, I will be supporting Governor Perry in this election. And I encourage all of my friends and family to as well. I will always support the candidate that offers the best alternative for the future of the state. Right now, I see only one.

Cash for Clunkers: A Failure of Big Government

As we are now hearing, the much anticipated "Cash for Clunkers" program is running out of money faster than ever expected. Many are touting this as evidence of the program's incredible success. The truth of the matter is, however, that this program will become an abject failure as it will fail to meet the goals of economic stimulation and demand creation.

To begin with, though President Obama has done his level best to desensitize us to large amounts of government spending, $1 billion is a substantial sum of tax dollars. However, in auto industry terms, it is merely a drop in the bucket and was never enough to stimulate the sector. This is not evidence that it was underfunded, this is evidence that it should never have been undertaken in the first place. The program included enough funding for approximately 250,000 transactions nationwide. Compared to June 2009 auto sales, which were historically low, this program would have increased sales less than 3%. For a billion dollars, that is an unacceptable return on investment.

Here's what the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says about Cash for Clunkers:

"Manufacturers' and dealers' employment levels are unlikely to be impacted by the Act. The impact of the Act will most likely not be large enough to increase production by manufacturers, and dealers on average will only be selling an additional 12 vehicles (250,000 estimated number of vehicles sold during the program divided by 19,700 dealers as of early 2009) during the course of the program."

The program was only available to individuals interested in purchasing a new car. The problem with that is most people who drive "clunkers" as their primary vehicle do it out of need. They do it because they cannot afford a new vehicle. These consumers buy used cars. By eliminating used car purchases from the program, Congress eliminated the only chance they had of actually stimulating demand.

The customers that are taking advantage of this program are customers who were planning to trade-in their vehicle anyway as well as customers who do not use the clunker as their primary vehicle. In fact, many customers surveyed have said that they have actually been postponing their purchase to wait for the government money. Many others surveyed have said that they would have traded the vehicle in within the next 1-2 years anyway. This is not a stimulation of the economy. This is transferring demand that already existed; essentially stealing business from future years to inflate, ever so slightly, current business. Taxpayers are subsidizing people who could afford, and were already planning, to purchase a vehicle.

The program puts an undue burden on dealers nationwide. The application process is horrendously complicated and time consuming. It requires dealers to purchase document scanners. It forces them to front large sums of cash to participate as well.

If a customer purchases a car on Monday, that is when the dealership allots the credits (either $3,500 or $4,500) while the dealership gathers the necessary documentation (proof of insurance for the previous 12 months, proof of registration for the same period, a free and clear title, fuel economy comparison, certification of driveability, as well as others.) Once these documents are collected and the transaction is approved by the lender, the dealer must disable the trade-in before applying for the credits from the government. Once the documents have been scanned and submitted, and the online forms filled out (a process that can take over an hour assuming the site doesn't crash which it has every single day since the program began) the submission goes to a status of "under review." This process can take up to 4 days before you receive an answer.

Now and only now does a dealer find out if they will receive money they have already given a customer. If the application is denied, the dealer must figure out why by an electronic code that accompanies the decline message. At this point they may attempt to resubmit and the process begins again. If, however, in this time period, the program has run out of money, the dealer is left holding the bag on the $3,500 or $4,500 given to the customer and is left with a trade-in that has been disabled and cannot be sold. This is bad for small business and displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the burdens of car dealers.

This program has met none of its stated goals and may do more harm to the auto industry than good. It has cost too much money and now may cost more with little to show for it. This, once again, displays all the evidence you need to know that government should stay out of business.

The Washington Post Made the Right Call

There seems to be some discussion, mostly on the part of leftist bloggers, regarding the decision of the Washington Post to publish this Op-ed by soon to be former, but current, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. I'm no Palin apologist, in fact, I think the GOP's electoral prospects are inversely correlated to Sarah Palin's level of publicity, however this seems to be a classic case of "haters" beginning with the conclusion "Palin is wrong" and developing premises to reinforce this conclusion.

The over-analysis of Tommy Christopher, in this piece, is particularly penetrating. Now Tommy is a generally well-balanced blogger and remains a writer that I respect, however, I think in this particular case he sort of wildly misses on his analyis. Tommy makes some good point in this post in other areas, but I am specifically addressing his position on the decision of the Washington Post to publish the op-ed.

The premise of Christopher's piece seems to be that the Washington Post made an error in judgement when it decided to publish Sarah Palin's piece by failing to follow generally accepted rules of journalistic integrity as well as, more narrowly, the Washington Posts's own standards and practices. Christopher cites the Washington Post's guidelines for publishment of Op-eds which, in part, states rather subjectively,

"having an important title doesn’t mean we’ll publish your op-ed. In fact, because we realize that senators, business leaders, heads of state and the like have access to various platforms where they can express their views, we hold them to a particularly high standard when considering whether to publish them in The Post."

Christopher then makes what he seems to believe is a prima facie claim that "it’s tough to argue that Palin’s piece meets this bar." I call it prima facie because he provides no supporting facts or evidence of any kind to back up his rather bizarre position on what is clearly a subjective, not objective, standard. Without such, we are left to wonder why exactly a governor with undisputed credentials in energy policy and former candidate for national office does not meet this "particularly high standard."

Whether you agree with Palin or not, I would love to hear an argument for why she is not an important voice in this policy area. Regardless of what different individuals predict for her future in electoral politics, she is clearly not a current candidate for office, thus, this is not, nor could it be legitimately construed as, a campaign action. Additionally, from a purely business perspective, should the editor of any news or editorial periodical really turn down the opportunity to exclusively showcase the opinion of a well-known, controversial, and quasi-expert public figure? What a terrible business decision that would be. Christopher ponders if Palin's "clickability didn’t play a major part in the Post’s decision to carry it." Of course the "clickability" factor played a role in the decision. Why shouldn't it? That is not mutually exclusive from journalistic credibility. One can be an important, legitimate voice, meeting a "particularly high standard," and have "clickability." Its hard to deny that Sarah Palin showcases this duality of characteristics.

There are certainly plenty of topics to discuss when it comes to Sarah Palin. More importantly, there is an incredibly important debate that should be had regarding this piece of cap and trade legislation. But, to answer this narrow question: was the Washington Post correct in its decision to accept an op-ed from Sarah Palin? Of course they were. To do anything different would have been inexplicable.

The Texas Economic Model

The Texas legislative session just ended (it convenes only once every 2 years) and the lists of accomplishments are being collected and compiled.

In 2008, Texas created more jobs than the other 49 states combined. In fact, over 50% of the jobs created in 2008 were created in the state of Texas. Texas boasts the most business friendly economy in the country, with low tax rates including absolutely no state income tax.

Texas boasts a completely balanced budget. Under the leadership of governor Rick Perry, who has vetoed more spending than any governor in the country, has just balanced yet another budget. Under Senate Bill 1, signed into law last Friday, Texas will spend 1.6 billion less in general revenue than the previous budget. Thats right, a DECREASE in government spending; the first one since World War II. in addition to this, in a recession, the governor, and Republican-controlled legislature, was able to cut taxes for 40,000 Texas businesses.

Policies like this are why 1000 people move to the state of Texas every single day, and states like California are seeing their businesses filling moving trucks bound for the Lone Star State. I hope our federal lawmakers are paying very close attention.

Iran is an American Security Imperative

The news from Tehran over the past week has become increasingly alarming. Journalists expelled; communications cut off; protesters shot seemingly at will. A botched attempt to rig a democratic presidential election has brought a vast amount of popular unrest to a country with a government infamous for popular suppression. Though it maybe be too early and overly optimistic to say, these events seem to be a catalyst for the people of Iran to reject a government that has, for a long time, rejected them. President Obama has been deafeningly silent on these historic events. His few public comments have been in an effort to, essentially, speak without saying anything. I think this is a huge mistake and may be viewed in the future as a giant missed opportunity for the security interests of the United States.

Essentially, two arguments against have been put forth by both the administration and liberal (as well as some conservative) bloggers. First, that the United States should not insert itself into the dialogue in Iran, further inflaming tension and creating more ill will toward the protesters. Second, that the United States should not enter into a conflict that is not in its interests. Effectively, lets not go to war with Iran.

To address the second argument first, I have seen no one advocate, nor do I here, for any sort of armed intervention in their internal struggle. I simply postulate that President Obama use his bully pulpit and his position as the leader of the free world to provide his vocal support. This is a straw man argument that can be easily disregarded, as no one credible is actually advocating military action.

As for the first argument, Obama's non-involvement policy has already received condemnation as "meddling" by the theocracy in Iran. Plus, since when do we let the Iranian government define our foreign policy OR our moral compass? If the United States government is already seen as meddling in the affairs of Iran, in what way would ACTUALLY MEDDLING alter the rhetoric of the Iranian "government." Building credibility with a government that already gives us none is not progress, it is treading water, and it is bad policy. Also, does anyone truly believe that, if the mullahs like us enough, they will suddenly abandon their nuclear program? Ahmadinejad as already said that the nuclear book is "closed."

Lets pause and think about the implications of the overthrow of the Islamic Republic government in Iran. Iranian funding for Hezbollah dries up, potentially putting an end to their reign of terror in Lebanon and the Middle East as well as their support for terror against the United States, Israel, and their collective interests. Is there any way this could be construed as not providing for a more secure United States, at home and abroad? The majority of the Iranian population is young, sympathetic to the west, educated, and not anti-American. Would popular sovereignty of a group thus described not lead to a truly democratically elected government that is not only not anti-American, but may have the potential to become a U.S. ally in the region? Would ratcheting down the anti-Israeli rhetoric somehow not add to the stability of the region, a region that controls the vast majority of the world's oil, an economic as well as a security concern for the people of the United States?

All of these things are incontrovertibly in the security interests of the United States. In fact, there is almost no downside whatsoever. This is an opportunity for the United States to achieve real change in a dangerous, American hating part of the world without firing a shot. It is a security imperative that we provide this protest our full-throated support, in the hopes that we achieve real, tangible security gains for America.

UPDATE: If you haven't already, listen to what Reza Pahlavi said today at the National Press Club. Pahlavi is the son of the Shah of Iran and is begging the international community to stand up for his Iranian brethren. Is there anyone who understands the situation better than he does?