Voter Photo ID Bill Up For House Committe Vote

Update - House Committee on Elections did indeed vote the voter photo ID bill (SB 362) out of committee in a 5-4 vote on Monday May11th. Even though the committee is divided 5 Republicans to 4 Democrats, one Democrat voted for the measure and one Republican voted against. Elections Committee Democratic State Rep. Joe Heflin (D-Crosbytown) voted with four committee Republicans on Monday to help the measure get to the House floor. Republican State Rep Dennis Bonnen (R-Angleton) first took a pass on the committee voice vote, allowing Democrat Heflin to vote aye, before then changed his "pass" vote to no. The entire House can now debate and vote on the bill before it adjourns.

The Austin American-Statesman reports Chairman Smith as saying, "I believe to the bottom of my heart, if I was putting on my partisan Republican hat, the best thing that could possibly happen would be for this legislation to be narrowly defeated, so Republican candidates could go into these marginal (could go either way) districts and blame Democrats for elections being less secure than they could be."

The deadline for Senate-originating bills to be taken up on the House floor is midnight May 26th. It could very likely be scheduled for floor debate next week, but it depends on the House Calendars Committee. The Calendars Committee is made up of 8 Republicans and 5 Democrats with Republican Brian McCall in the chairman's seat and Democratic Eddie Luio III in the Vice-Chair seat. No doubt this Republican heavy committee will vote the voter ID bill to the House floor by May 26. (Track progress in the legislature -- Check House Calendar)

-------------------------------

Rep. Todd Smith, the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Elections, has scheduled a committee vote on the Senate's voter photo ID bill (SB 362) as originally passed by the Texas Senate on Mar 17, 2009 in a party line vote. The Senate's bill requires voters to present a photo ID such as a driver’s license or two documents indicating their identity at the polls.

Smith rewrote the voter ID bill three times during April and Early May to add less restrictive compromise language to the legislation in an attempt to pull in a few votes from House Democrats.

After Smith's Republican colleagues blocked those compromise attempts Smith told the Austin American-Statesman last Friday that he is halting his attempts to rewrite the bill and will simply attempt to pass out SB 362 out the elections committee in time for the full house to vote on the bill this session. Assuming the bill does pass out of committee in the expected five to four Republican vs. Democratic party line vote, a clean version of the Senate bill will ultimately be taken up on the House floor.

There is a chance the bill will not pass in a House floor vote given Republicans hold only a slim 76-74 majority in the House and two of those Republicans, Reps. Tommy Merritt of Longview and Delwin Jones of Lubbock, sided with Democrats against a similar bill in the 2007 legislative session. Neither Republican has announced a change in position this year.

It is notable that only 71 of the 76 House Republicans recently signed a "statement of principles" letter calling for the restrictive photo ID measure. To date, most of the 74 House Democrats oppose a restrictive voter photo ID requirement, but Rep. Joe Heflin, a Democrat who sits on the elections committee has reportedly said he is leaning toward supporting a photo ID law.

Big Government Conservatives and the Supreme Court

By Glenn Melancon 2008 Democratic candidate U.S. House of Representatives, TX 4th Congressional District

Washington politicians and lobbyists are already lining up for a Supreme Court confirmation fight. The buzz words are flying fast. Their jargon is meant to rally activists for or against any nominee. As citizens, however, we need to take a step back and look at the issues more closely. Who is pushing for “big government"? Who wants less?

Conservatives will make the abortion debate at the center of the confirmation process. How much control should politicians have over a pregnant woman? The 1973 Supreme Court Case Roe v. Wade limited state and federal control. Ever since then, conservatives have been fighting to reinstitute a larger role for government.

According to Roe v. Wade, legislators had to take into account two separate interests when regulating abortions—the right of a woman to make medical decisions and the potential for human life. The court reached a compromise. In the early days of pregnancy the government has to leave the woman alone. In the later stages of pregnancy the government can outlaw abortion to protect the unborn as long as a woman is free to defend her life and health.

The debate centers on the right to privacy. Do Americans have the right to make medical, moral and personal decisions free from government interference? Or, do the federal and state governments have the authority to make medical, moral and personal decisions for us? “Strict constructionists” say there is no right to privacy. “Activist judges” say there is.

Strict constructionists rightly point out that the word “privacy” does not appear in the constitution. The founding fathers didn’t list—nor enumerate—it in the Bill of Rights. Activist judges, however, point to the Ninth Amendment. It states that the people retain rights even if the Constitution doesn’t enumerate them. Our founders knew some future politician would try to expand the power of government over the people and wrote the Ninth Amend to protect us.

The right to privacy extends beyond surgical abortions. In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), the Supreme Court ruled that the states cannot outlaw birth control pills. The Court declared that women had an expectation of privacy in their doctors’ office and the state needed to stay out unless it had a compelling reason.

Conservatives argue that there is a compelling reason—the preservation of life. If life begins at conception, then the state can, and should, outlaw the pill. Not only does it impede ovulation, but the pill also hampers a fertilized egg from implanting on the wall of the uterus.

Should states and the federal government have the power to outlaw the pill? Is this a matter of individual conscience or a matter for the police? Conservatives want to surrender this power to the government; liberals do not.

The right to privacy also keeps the government out of our bedrooms. Most of us never really think about this issue very much. It just seems so unreasonable that the government could control what happens behind closed doors. In fact, however, the government had the authority to regulate all forms of sexual relations until Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).

The state of Texas had made it “a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct.” The US Supreme Court, dominated by Republican jurists, decided that Texas overstepped its authority and couldn’t punish two consenting adults for behavior in the privacy of their own home.

Roe, Griswold and Lawrence are the prime examples of “judicial activism.” In each case, the Court limited the authority of the government and held that individuals have the right to exercise their own moral judgment. In the coming Supreme Court debate, big government conservatives are sure to fight against allowing people to make their own moral decisions.

The Republican Party - So Far Right It's Wrong For America

Given the trillions of dollars in tax cuts President Bush and Republicans gave the nation over eight years the economy should be racing and we should be at near full employment, if tax cuts are the most stimulative approach to vibrant economy growth, as Republicans claim as they perpetually bash Obama's economic programs. Unfortunately, the reality we find around us in America today does not match Republican promises of yesterday.

As Center for American Progress Senior Fellows Christian Weller and John Halpin noted in 2006, the outcome of the 2001 tax cuts was "the weakest employment growth in decades." Republican tax cuts in 2004 didn't fare much better, with resulting job creation well below historical averages. When Bush's White House proposed more tax cuts in 2003, Republicans promised that it would add 5.5 million new jobs between June 2003 and the end of 2004. But "by the end of 2004, there were only 2.6 million more jobs than in June 2003." And, remember President Bush's February 2008 promise that his $168 billion tax cut/rebate economic stimulus plan would stave off economic recession and job losses? Wrong again! All these broken Republican promises stem from a broken understanding of how the world really works.

Martin Feldstein wrote in the Wall Street Journal that of course the tax cut stimulus didn't work:

Here are the facts. Tax rebates of $78 billion arrived in the second quarter of the year. The government's recent GDP figures show that the level of consumer outlays only rose by an extra $12 billion, or 15% of the lost revenue. The rest went into savings, including the pay down of debt. . .

. . .Although press stories emphasizing that the rebates induced additional consumer spending were technically correct, they missed the important point that the spending rise was very small in comparison to the size of the tax rebates. . .

The small rise in spending in response to these tax rebates is similar to what previous studies of one-time tax cuts found. It also corresponds to what both basic economic theory and common experience imply. Although someone who receives a permanent annual salary increase of $1,000 typically would increase his annual spending by an almost equally large amount, a $1,000 rise in wealth caused by a share price increase or a tax rebate would raise spending only gradually over a number of years.

As Paul Krugman has pointed out, the belief that Bush's tax cuts successfully stimulated the economy is a form of GOP mythology. CAP's Michael Ettlinger and John Irons wrote in September 2008, "Economic growth as measured by real U.S. gross domestic product was stronger following the tax increases of 1993 than in the two "supply-side eras" that followed Reagan's 1981 tax cuts and Bush's 2001 tax cuts. Indeed, employment growth was much stronger post-1993 under Pres. Clinton than post-2001 under Bush. The average annual employment growth was 2.5 percent after 1993 and just 0.6 percent after 2001.

Last week the Dept. of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics released the news that 13.7 million people are unemployed, pushing the "headline" unemployment rate to 8.9 percent. That "8.9% headline rate" substantially under reports the actual number of unemployed workers because it does not include the millions of discouraged American workers who want to work, but who have simply given up looking for work for any number of reasons. That uncounted number of discouraged American workers is currently up 70 percent, from the first quarter of 2008. The total number of Americans who are not working, but would be if a jobs were available, or are under-employed in low paying part-time jobs is actually about 22 million, or 15.8 percent, according to a full reading of the Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

And, BTW, that means 22 million workers, or 15.8 percent of the 154 million person total U.S. workforce potential, plus everyone in their family IS WITHOUT HEALTHCARE. A Families USA survey found that one out of three Americans under 65 were without health insurance at some point during 2007 and 2008. The study found 86.7 million Americans were without insured health at one point during the last two years. The Families USA survey's key findings include:

• Nearly three out of four uninsured Americans were without health insurance for at least six months.
• Almost two-thirds were uninsured for nine months or more.
• Four out of five of the uninsured were in working families.
• People without health insurance are less likely to have a usual doctor and often go without screenings or preventative care.

With unemployment at its highest levels since the Reagan Administration 15 years ago and more than 600,000 additional workers being thrown out of their jobs every month so far in 2009, with little let up in job losses expected throughout 2009, the number of unemployed worker families losing healthcare insurance will increase substantially.

Despite the reality we see around us today, Pres. Reagan's right-wing Republican "supply-side trickle down" economic mythology that "tax cuts along with full financial system deregulation" work best, continues to be hotly promoted by right-wing conservative Republicans today.

Right-wing conservative Republicans can not and will not recognize the fact that Reagan's "supply-side trickle down" economic model is out dated and doesn't work in today's reality. Neither can right-wing Republicans recognize the fact that their opposition to an optional single-payer healthcare insurance program for all Americans is equally out dated in today's reality.

Today's reality is clear -- The Republican Party is so far right it is wrong for America - wrong for Texas!

McCain: GOP needn't be moderate
Vice Pres.Cheney: In terms of being Republican — I’d go with Rush Limbaugh

Star Trek Movie

www.startrekmovie.com star-trek--trailer.blogspot.com

The latest "Star Trek" movie beamed to the top of the North American box office this weekend. The film grossed 76.5 million dollars on the weekend, including four million in Thursday preview screenings, easily surpassing the best opening weekend of any of the sci-fi franchise's 10 other "Trek" movies, box office, according to Exhibitor Relations.

HuffingtonPost.com: After a 19-year absence, Leonard Nimoy reprises his iconic role as Mr. Spock in director J.J. Abrams' new "Star Trek" prequel opposite Zachary Quinto, who stars as a younger version of the half-Vulcan, half-human science officer. "The character is much more relaxed about who he is and what his life should be about whereas (younger Spock) is just beginning to find himself," said Nimoy of the movie's mature Spock. "It works extremely well. The character I portray in this film is much more like who I am today, personally. I am as close as possible to the character as I could ever be."

star-trek--trailer.blogspot.com

(Click on a picture to enlarge it.)