Sunday, 6 November 2011 by Marcus Aquinas.

Since this is an odd-numbered year, the November election date usually passes unremarked in Texas as most local offices are elected in May and state-wide offices are elected in even-numbered years. This year, however, we have 10 proposed amendments to the state constitution which require voter ratification. Texas is either #1 or #2 as far as number of times its state constitution has been amended (when you’re second-best, you try harder, I guess).

Generally speaking, amendments fall into one of three categories. First, because many county offices are mandated by the constitution, counties that want to eliminate, consolidate or otherwise reorganize must seek constitutional approval to do so. Second, thanks to Reconstruction, our state legislature is extremely limited in what it can and cannot do. Providing authority to do some things requires a constitutional amendment. Third, there are some people out there who think that a constitutional amendment is better than a law, so they propose amendments when lobbying their state officials might accomplish the same end.

With those prefacing remarks, here’s my take on the latest batch.

Proposition 1: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a 100 percent or totally disabled veteran.”

Sounds nice on paper. We all want to honor our vets, especially those who have been disabled in service to our country, but this isn’t for the vets. They already have the exemption and the state wants to transfer that exemption to their surviving spouse. I find no compelling reason to believe that a surviving spouse cannot get a job and pay those taxes. If it’s an issue of the spouse being hit with taxes owed due to the loss of the exemption, then I’m all for a method of working that out. But the amendment isn’t trying to do that. It’s just passing on the exemption from a disabled person to a non-disabled person. “Nay.”

Proposition 2: “The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of additional general obligation bonds by the Texas Water Development Board in an amount not to exceed $6 billion at any time outstanding.”

General obligation bonds are typically issued for capital improvements, not for general operational expenses. All this does is raise the debt ceiling and I don’t see a problem with it. It will mean higher taxes, but that’s kind of how it is with capital improvements and Texas’ population isn’t getting any smaller. Water availability is critical. Short answer? “Yea”.

Proposition 3: “The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of general obligation bonds of the State of Texas to finance educational loans to students.”

Here’s the short version: Texas wants to borrow money in order to loan money. Not only “no”, but “hell no.” If the state wants to loan money to students in order to finance higher education, lets do it through the general state revenues rather than putting it on the credit card. A resounding “Nay!”

Proposition 4: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit a county to issue bonds or notes to finance the development or redevelopment of an unproductive, underdeveloped or, or blighted area and to pledge for repayment of the bonds or notes increases in ad valorem taxes imposed by the county on property in the area. The amendment does not provide authority for increasing ad valorem tax rates.”

This is apparently another of those things the legislature cannot presently do. This is not obligating the state to borrow or repay. It is strictly for the counties. Since the county commissioners are answerable to their constituencies, I don’t see a problem with letting them do that, but I’d rather see them do it directly through taxes rather than “borrow now, worry about repayment after I’m out of office”. On the whole, I think “Yea,” but grudgingly so and only because county governments are ultimately answerable to their constituencies.

Proposition 5: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to allow cities or counties to enter into interlocal contracts with other cities or counties without the imposition of a tax or the provision of a sinking fund.”

Hmmm. We’re going to let you make agreements which might cost money, but we’re not going to require that you provide any method of repayment if it does. Can we all make like horses? “Neigh!”

Proposition 6: “The constitutional amendment clarifying references to the Permanent School Fund, allowing the General Land Office to distribute revenue from Permanent School Fund land or other properties to the available school fun to provide additional funding for public education, and providing for an increase in the market value of the Permanent School Fund for the purpose of allowing increased distributions from the available school fund.”

A really wordy way of saying it. Because Texas was never a territory of the United States, the public lands in Texas belong to Texas. The Republic of Texas, under Mirabeau Lamar, set aside public lands to help finance public education back around 1840. With some (OK, “many”) modifications, the system survives today. Some revenues from public lands go toward public education and the amendment seems to want to authorize the General Land Office to be able to increase its contributions to the Available School Fund, especially those that come from land use revenues (oil and gas revenues, grazing fees, and that sort of thing). While I do see a downside to it down the road, the current state of Texas finances would make it prudent in the short-term and it does not appear to encumber the principal of the Permanent School Fund. I give it a grudging “yea”.

Proposition 7: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit conservation and reclamation districts in El Paso County to issue bonds supported by ad valorem taxes to fund the development and maintenance of parks and recreational facilities.”

Since I live in El Paso County and vote, and as long as the country commissioners are willing to feel my boot if they abuse the notion, I don’t have a problem with it. Increasing property taxes is a good way to get that boot moving in their direction, but since I won’t be suffering alone in that regard, I’m good with it. Note that it does not authorize a parks system, but merely permits the creation of one if the voters in El Paso County choose to do so. That’s a topic for us and all we’re doing is asking permission to discuss it and implement it if that’s the general consensus in this neck of the woods. To steal a line from 1776, "I’ve never seen, heard, nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn’t be talked about.” An unqualified “Yea.”

Proposition 8: “The constitutional amendment providing for the appraisal for ad valorem tax purposes of open-space land devoted to water-stewardship purposes on the basis of its productive capacity.”

Cacti, roadrunners, rattlesnakes and coyotes don’t pay much in the way of taxes. Consequently, this type of land generates next to nothing in the way of revenue unless its value lies in something other than simple real estate. The constitution already allows some lands to be taxed on their productive capacity rather than their real estate value. The proposition adds water resources to those few other uses. I don’t necessarily have to like it (give the government the power to tax something and they will do so), but I can see that it’s a practical solution to a perennial problem and there aren’t any others being proposed aside from “let’s keep doing things the way we have been”. How’s that workin’ for ya? “Yea.”

Proposition 9: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the governor to grant a pardon to a person who successfully completes a term of deferred adjudication community service.”

Considering that the governor’s options on the matter of pardons are pretty much limited to what the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles tells him he can do, I don’t see an issue. The problem is that those who are operating under deferred adjudication haven’t been convicted of anything and, thus, are ineligible for pardons. While deferred adjudication doesn’t appear on the criminal record as a conviction, it does appear as an arrest and as probation, so I can see where the granting of a pardon and the chance to expunge the record could be a good thing. And, again, the governor is very limited in this regard. I give it a “Yea.”

Proposition 10: “The constitutional amendment to change the length of the unexpired term that causes the automatic resignation of certain elected county or district officeholders if they become candidates for another office.”

Some county officials must resign their offices if they announce their candidacy for another office more than a year before their term expires (almost all terms expire on December 31). New filing deadlines have moved the candidacy filing date to December 2, so a County Clerk who wants to run for Sheriff, for example, would be forced to resign under the existing rule. This would necessitate a special election to fill the vacancy rather than letting them serve out their term and also deprive the county of a somewhat- or well-experienced County Clerk. The proposition would allow a prospective candidate to meet the current filing deadline and still serve their term. While I’m not fond of the idea of running for office while neglecting your current duties, it would nevertheless reduce the number (and expense) of special elections. A grudging “yea” for being the lesser of two evils.

Posted in Politics, Musings and Thoughts, Education | No Comments »

Saturday, 10 September 2011 by Marcus Aquinas.

With due apologies to the staff at “The Economist” for swiping their title.

Several things converged and set me to thinking. My daughter tweeted that she refused to watch television tomorrow as there was a vast difference between remembering the past and wallowing in it (brings a tear to my eye – my little girl done grown up). Two of my favorite magazines (“Foreign Affairs” and “The Economist”) and undoubtedly every other English language periodical dedicated substantial page space to the remembrance and analysis of September 11, 2001 and its effects, as did various  programs on PBS and NPR. But a surprisingly non-9-11 event kind of brought it all home. A fellow gaming enthusiast in the UK asked if he could use content from my Elder Scrolls guides in a wiki project. For the record, my response was, as I have always maintained, “of course – just be sure to attribute me”.

The significance of the latter event required an almost complete reread of my earlier work, mostly checking its accuracy, but with a surprise. I’m pleased to report that 15 years later, a few minor inaccuracies aside,  the work remains dead-on without access to the development teams. What caught my eye, though, was the vast difference in the “voice”, if you will, of the works. Pre-9-11 (my last review/revision was in 2000), my writing was very upbeat, light, conversational, and accessible. Post, though, is much darker, more cynical, much more snide and not nearly as enjoyable to read. I doubt very much that 9-11 had much to do with that change in voice. After all, what relation could a terrorist attack have on a fantasy RPG game guide? The short answer would have to be “not much”. Games is games and real life is real life “and ne’er the twain shall meet” as the saying goes.

So what could possibly have caused such a shift? Several things, and I believe they’re all tied back to the events of 9-11 either directly or indirectly. Probably the most obvious (to me, anyway) was the change in attitude of our government. While always a subject of various jibes and satires, the U.S. government has always been (or appeared to be) accessible to the people who elected them. Post-9-11, though, the U.S. government seems to live in fear of everyone. A couple pieces of anecdotal evidence should suffice, although I caution that anecdotal evidence does not prove existence; it merely points to the possibility of existence.

My wife is an immigrant. She has been a U.S. citizen for a while now, but in order to get to that point, we had substantial dealings with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (now U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, under the Homeland Security Administration). At one of our last visits to the nearest INS office, I noticed signs prominently posted around the waiting room to the effect of “no cameras or other electronic recording devices permitted”. One might immediately jump to the conclusion that something shady might be happening where no record should exist, but I suspect that the truth of the matter is that they did not want anyone to have the layout of the building. Why? Because they are afraid that the people coming through the door might want to harm them.

While this may or may not be the case, the fact that government workers (or at least their bosses)apparently live in fear of their constituency gives serious pause for consideration of the ramifications of that sentiment. This is something that I would not have been surprised to see in the USSR, the PRC or especially the DPRK (North Korea) where the government really does see the people as something resembling an enemy or at least someone of which to be extremely wary. But in the USA? Something is seriously wrong.

And why “Homeland Security”? Why not something more accurately descriptive? How about “Central Search Authority” or perhaps the “Keeping an Eye on Suspicious Characters Administration”? KAESCA has a nice ring to it in a Kafka-esque kind of way, doesn’t it? Maybe “National Security Administration”? Wait, I think we already have that. Can’t have duplication. As soon as President Bush said it (yes, I watched the speech), shivers and ideas of “1984” hit me. The name had to have been chosen for public impact. I won’t swear to focus group testing, but it wouldn’t surprise me, and I doubt that the majority of adult Americans have even read “1984”, but “scary” came awfully close. Yes, I am suspicious of anyone who says, “I am from the government and I am here to help you.”

And let’s nor forget the added security at our airports, train stations, bus terminals, courthouses, city halls and the like. Since 9-11, I have used airlines for long-distance travel a couple of times because it was absolutely necessary. The rest of the time I drive because I detest the extremes to which airport security has gone. I’ve often wondered how many terrorists have been foiled because of these “security” measures. I put security in quotes because I’m not sure wither it’s security for us or security for them. I go to the courthouse only when summoned for jury duty or for some other business where I cannot avoid it because I horribly resent the “guilty until proven innocent” attitude.

While there are many conspiracy buffs out there who might attribute 9-11 to some massive government plot, I’m not among them. But I do see 9-11 as the justification for a grab for more power at the sacrifice of the people’s civil liberties. It is axiomatic in the IT world that security always comes at the cost of accessibility. As technologies have improved, accessibility becomes easier, but it’s still a trade-off; more of one will almost always mean less of the other. We Americans tend to view security a bit differently than the rest of the world. They whip it out for a while and then put it away; we tend to institutionalize it.

On a separate tack, there are innumerable examples of how domestic politics have changed. Some of it is attributable to 9-11, but I suspect that most of it is attributable to the heightened sense of power and authority which the federal government has assumed in the aftermath. Consider Reps. Paul Ryan, Ben Quayle, Chip Cravaack, and probably others that I overlooked who have decided that their constituents must pay to be able to ask them questions. Since when has this been the case in the USA? I have always been under the impression that elected representatives have been responsible to their constituencies, period. Not “responsive as long as you pay the cover charge.” This attitude should be the subject of an entirely separate rant, so I’ll cut it off quickly. And don’t even get me started on “No Child Left Behind,” one of the major post-9-11 domestic policies.

The past 10 years have seen a widening gulf between Democrats and Republicans. I DO NOT attribute this to 9-11 except insofar as each party seems to have competed to see who could wrap themselves in the flag more tightly than the other. I believe the Democrats came to their senses a bit earlier than the Republicans (some of whom still seem to be smothering themselves in it), but they’re both equally guilty.

For those who can remember Ken Burns’ remarkable documentary on the Civil War, the late Shelby Foote made what I think was a very astute observation in the first episode. I wish I could quote verbatim, but I can’t and will have to settle for the gist of it. We Americans see ourselves as being a very uncompromising people when, in fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. Our entire system of government and way of life is built on compromise. And in this, especially in the last ten to twenty years, we have failed miserably.

To perhaps overly simplify G.W.F. Hegel, two opposites clash, producing something which contains some of each, but is uniquely different than either (thesis + antithesis = synthesis). Our judicial system works on a similar system – each side presents its version of the truth while the actual truth lies somewhere in between and it is the job of the judge/jury to find that middle. Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of polarizing and failing to recognize that the vast majority of Americans are not with either of them. How much has this delusion cost us?

Time was, not so long past, that the rest of the world viewed Americans as the big children on the international playground. Naïve, boisterous, immature, optimistic, quick to anger, quicker to forgive and always surprised that everyone else didn’t see the world through the same rose-colored glasses that we did. 9-11 changed all of that. As a nation, I think we’re more jaded than we were 10 years ago. More cynical. More willing to accept “the end justifies the means” as an instrument of policy. I do not see this as a good thing and only see continued Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt as a result. My experience has shown that FUD never works as an effective instrument of policy, but works exceptionally well at gaining and maintaining power.

Perhaps I do not see as much as I think I do; perhaps I see too little. Only time will tell, but they’re my colored glasses, rose or otherwise. To steal a line from Joe Straczynski, “The past tempts us, the present confuses us, and the future frightens us. And our lives slip by, moment by moment, in that vast, terrible in-between.” While I am not overly fond of what we have become over the past 10 years, I am even more afraid of what we could become if we do not stop buying the bullshit.

Posted in Politics, Musings and Thoughts, Philosophy, Whatever | No Comments »