Comparison Of Texas Democratic and Republican Party Platforms

Both the Democratic and Republican parties have now crafted tangible statements of their governing priorities at their respective state conventions. State Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, released a comparison Tuesday between the Democratic and Republican party platforms drafted at each party's convention.

EDUCATION
Texas Democratic Party Platform	Republican Party of Texas Platform
Solve the Dropout Crisis: “Proper funding of all our schools to meet the needs of students who are most at risk of dropping out is essential. Specific solutions include: school-community collaboration that brings educational and social services together under one roof to help at-risk students and their families; expanded access to early childhood education, targeting at-risk students; dual-credit and early-college programs that draw at-risk students into college and career paths while still in high school; equitable distribution of highly qualified teachers, to change current practices that too often match the most at-risk students with the least experienced and least prepared teachers; enforce daytime curfew laws to reduce truancy; and providing access to affordable programs for adults who have dropped out of the education process.”	Ignore the Dropout Crisis : [Nothing]
Maintain Class Size Limits: “To make public education our highest priority, we believe the state should…enforce and extend class size limits to allow every student to receive necessary individualized attention.”	Eliminate Effective Class-Size Limits: “Create flexibility for school districts under the class size limit mandate.”
SBOE: Put Experts in Charge of Curriculum: “Any substantive changes to curriculum must be reviewed by non-partisan experts, and that review must be made public prior to any changes in curriculum by the State Board.”	SBOE: Put Ideologues in Charge of Curriculum: “The SBOE must have sole authority over all curricula content and state adoption of educational materials and ancillaries, (regardless of methods of delivery, including but not limited to textbooks, laptops and electronic delivery systems.”
Support Pre-K & Early Childhood Development: “To make public education our highest priority, we believe the state should provide universal access to pre-kindergarten and kindergarten.” “Proper funding of all our schools to meet the needs of students who are most at risk of dropping out is essential. Specific solutions include…expanded access to early childhood education, targeting at-risk students.”	Oppose Pre-K & Early Childhood Development: “We believe that parents are best suited to train their children in their early development and oppose mandatory pre-school and Kindergarten. We urge Congress to repeal government sponsored programs that deal with early childhood development.”
Provide Necessary Public Education Funding: Texas Democrats believe: the state should establish a 100% equitable school finance system with sufficient state revenue to allow every district to offer an exemplary program; the state should equitably reduce reliance on "Robin Hood" recapture; state funding formulas should fully reflect all student and district cost differences and the impact of inflation and state mandates.	Provisions that Restrict Education Funding: “We urge the Legislature to abolish property taxes for the purpose of funding schools.” “The Party calls upon the Texas Legislature to repeal the revised franchise tax.”
Oppose School Vouchers: “We believe the state should oppose private school vouchers.”	Support Tax Dollars for Private Schools: “We encourage the Governor and the Texas Legislature to enact child-centered school funding options – which fund the student, not schools or districts – to allow maximum freedom of choice in public, private or parochial education for all children.”
HEALTH CARE
Texas Democratic Party Platform	Republican Party of Texas Platform
Oppose Republican Attempts to Repeal Rights of Health Care Reform: “Texas Democrats: oppose Republican attempts to repeal the ban on preexisting conditions; oppose Republican attempts to repeal sweeping small business tax credits; oppose Republican attempts to repeal the ban on rescissions, where insurance companies shove individuals off their health insurance coverage if they develop a catastrophic illness; oppose Republican attempts to repeal tax breaks for Americans to aid in the purchase of health insurance; oppose Republican attempts to repeal the closure of the Medicare prescription drug donut hole that forced seniors to pay exorbitant prices under the Republican Medicare Part D plan; oppose Republican attempts to repeal the expansion of health insurance to uninsured Americans, including 4 million Texans; oppose Republican attempts to repeal the ability of parents to insure their children up to age 26; oppose Republican attempts to repeal the creation of health insurance marketplaces where consumers can shop for and compare affordable, quality health insurance plans; and oppose Republican attempts to repeal a healthcare system based on prevention and wellness.	Repeal Rights of Health Care Reform: “We urge the Congress to defund, repeal, andreject the national healthcare takeover, also known as “ObamaCare” or any similar legislation.”
JOBS & ECONOMY
Texas Democratic Party Platform	Republican Party of Texas Platform
Raise the Minimum Wage: “To improve wages and working conditions, we believe the minimum wage must be raised, enforced, and applied across-the-board meaningfully to restore lost purchasing power of all workers. It must be indexed to keep it from eroding again. Employees should be paid a living wage with provisions for decent health care and retirement benefits.”	Repeal the Minimum Wage: “We believe the Minimum Wage Law should be repealed.”
Oppose Sales Tax Extension and Increases: “Enact a constitutional amendment to prevent extending the sales tax to food and medicine and oppose efforts to impose a national sales tax.”	Increase & Expand Sales Tax: “We recommend a national sales tax.” “We urge the Legislature to abolish property taxes for the purpose of funding schools and to shift the tax burden to a consumption-based tax while maintaining or reducing the overall tax burden.”
SOCIAL SECURITY
Texas Democratic Party Platform	Republican Party of Texas Platform
Protect and Preserve Social Security: “We oppose privatization of the Social Security program as fiscally irresponsible, and consider the use of our tax dollars as capital to invest in the stock market as a threat to the income security of working Americans.”	Privatize Social Security: “We support an immediate and orderly transition to a system of private pensions based on the concept of individual retirement accounts, and gradually phasing out the Social Security tax.”
INSURANCE
Texas Democratic Party Platform	Republican Party of Texas Platform
Reform Insurance Regulation; Roll back Rates: “Texas Democrats support the strict enforcement of policies requiring insurance companies to roll back their rates to provide Texas homeowners, renters and drivers fair and affordable insurance.” “We support providing the Insurance Commissioner the authority to deny or approve rates.” “Democrats support measures to reduce and eliminate unfair underwriting and rate setting practices, such as the use of credit scoring, redlining and other discriminatory practices. We support the enforcement of penalties when such practices are used. Texans must have access to affordable insurance to protect our homes and businesses from flood and windstorm damage. We also support more thorough oversight and regulation of homeowner’s insurance through greater consumer representation in the form of an official advisory committee or requirements that the Insurance Commission include consumer representatives.”	No Regulation of Insurance Rates, Companies: “Free Market for Utilities and Insurance – We encourage free market solutions for providing utilities whenever possible. We support that all property insurance rates should be set through free-market forces alone. We support efforts to shrink the Texas Insurance Association to reduce the liabilities it imposes on state taxpayers.”
UTILITIES
Texas Democratic Party Platform	Republican Party of Texas Platform
Responsible Regulation of Utilities: “Texas Democrats support responsible regulation of utilities to provide a level playing field for regulated industry, through reasonable policy to prevent predatory pricing. Texans should not be expected to become experts on all the factors that determine energy costs in order to pay lower, reasonable prices for utility services.”	No Regulation of Utility Rates, Companies: “Free Market for Utilities and Insurance – We encourage free market solutions for providing utilities whenever possible. We support that all property insurance rates should be set through free-market forces alone. We support efforts to shrink the Texas Insurance Association to reduce the liabilities it imposes on state taxpayers.”
IMMIGRATION
Texas Democratic Party Platform	Republican Party of Texas Platform
Oppose State Law That Could Deny the Rights or Endanger the Safety of Citizens: “Texas will not become Arizona, and we strongly oppose…any law that would… • through its enforcement, result in discrimination; intimidation or victimization of citizens based on their race, ethnicity or appearance; • force law enforcement agencies to divert limited resources and manpower from their primary duty to protect citizens and prevent crime.”	Create a New State Offense for “Illegal Aliens:” “Create a state offense (Class A misdemeanor) for an illegal alien to intentionally or knowingly be within the State of Texas.” “We support…empowering state and local law enforcement agencies with authority and resources to detain illegal immigrants.”
VOTING RIGHTS
Texas Democratic Party Platform	Republican Party of Texas Platform
Protect Voting Rights for All Texans: “We support redistricting standards and practices that demand compliance with the Voting Rights Act, discourage savaging regions and communities for partisan gain, and preserve the constituent-representative relationship to the extent possible to give voters the right to elect their representatives instead of letting representatives pick their voters.”	Eliminate Minority Voting Districts: “We oppose any identification of citizens by race, origin, or creed and oppose use of any such identification for purposes of creating voting districts.”

Entire 2010 Texas Democratic Party Platform - PDF .

Celebrate July 4th in Plano

The Declaration Of Independence, Read Aloud

Start the Independence Day celebration at 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, July 3 with a parade. The parade route starts at Plano Senior High School (W Park Blvd.) and stretches north along Independence Parkway to Spring Creek Parkway, ending at St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Church.

Walk with the Texas Democratic Women of Collin County and other fellow Democrats in the Plano Independence Day Parade. Dress for the weather and expect a leisurely 2 mile walk up to Spring Creek Parkway. Wear red, white, and blue -- Especially blue! Click here for more information, if you are interested in walking in the parade with the Texas Democratic Women of Collin County.

The free Plano Community Band Patriotic Concert begins at 7 p.m. on July 3rd in Haggard Park at 901 E. 15th Street. Bring a blanket or chairs and enjoy the patriotic music.

On Sunday, July 4, enjoy another concert and close the evening with the annual All-American Fourth community fireworks display.

At 3 p.m. on July 4, join the Plano Symphony Orchestra and the Patriotic Pops Chorus for Patriotic Pops at the Eisemann Center. Ticket information is available at
www.planosymphony.org.

The All-American Fourth fireworks begin at 9:30 p.m. This colorful, professional fireworks display will light up Plano’s sky over Oak Point Park and Nature Preserve, east of U.S. 75 on Spring Creek Parkway. Bring a blanket and picnic basket, and enjoy the FREE show. Parking will be available at Plano Centre, Collin College and First United Methodist Church Plano. Listen to simulcast music for the fireworks display on KLAK 97.5 FM.

Conservatives: U.S. Constitution Does Not Explicitly Enumerate Rights of Privacy and Civil Equality

Updated June 28, 2010 @ 5:41 p.m.
Today's opening comments from conservative Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for Elena Kagan's Supreme Court confirmation hearings shaped up to be a trial in absentia of Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall, the court's iconic civil rights Justice of the twentieth century. GOP members of the committee invoked Marshall's name 35 times today.

Republicans, led by Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, sought to discredit Kagan by denouncing Marshall, for whom Kagan clerked, and Marshall's support of equal rights, as emblematic of reckless judicial activism. [Newsweek]

Marshall is revered for his role as the lead lawyer in the landmark "separate but equal" Brown v. Board of Education case, which desegregated the nation’s schools. Marshall expressed the “living constitution” theory of jurisprudence—and if there is an unassailable monument to that theory, it is the Brown decision. As Sen. Sessions put it, Marshall was one of those justices who “don’t deny activism."

Sen. Orin Hatch (R-Utah) commented to Salt Lake Tribune's Thomas Burr after the hearings that he wasn't sure he would have voted to confirm Marshall, the first African-American to ever serve on the Supreme Court. (Marshall was an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court from 1967 to 1991.)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) reminded Senate Republicans exactly who and what they were labeling as an example of judicial activism:

"The results which Justice Marshall dedicated his life to broke down barriers of racial discrimination that had haunted America for generations. . . . And I might also add that his most famous case, Brown v. Board of Education—if that is an activist mind at work, we should be grateful as a nation that he argued before the Supreme Court, based on discrimination in this society and changed America for the better."

Even as conservatives denounce activist judges, the Roberts Court, which has four of the five most conservative Supreme Court Justices of the last 50 years currently sitting at the bench, is considered a conservative activist court.

GOP members of the committee invoking Marshall's name Senator Franken's opening statement

Senator Al Franken (D-Minnesota) gave this opening statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan:

"...Last year, I used my time during the [Sotomayor confirmation] hearings to highlight what I think is one of the most serious threats to our Constitution and to the rights it guarantees the American people: the activism of the Roberts Court.

I noted that for years, conservatives running for the Senate have made it almost an article of faith that they won't vote for activist judges who make law from the bench. And when asked to name a model justice, they would often cite Justice Thomas, who I noted has voted to overturn more federal laws than Justices Stevens and Breyer combined. In recent cycles, they would name Chief Justice Roberts.

Well, I think we established very convincingly during the Sotomayor hearings that there is such a thing as judicial activism. There is such a thing as legislating from the bench. And it is practiced repeatedly by the Roberts Court, where it has cut in only one direction: in favor of powerful corporate interests, and against the rights of individual Americans. In the next few days, I want to continue this conversation. Because I think things have only gotten worse..."

Originally Posted May 11, 2010 @ 1:11 p.m.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele released a statement criticizing President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan for her support of Justice Thurgood Marshall's speech in which he said that the Constitution as originally conceived and drafted was "defective."

Had Mr. Steele taken the time to look into the context of Justice Marshall's statements he might have found that Marshall was referring to the Three-Fifths compromise in Article 1 Section 2, which counted slaves as three-fifths of a person. I don't know about Chairman Steele, but that seems to be a serious "defect" in the Constitution as originally conceived and drafted.

Justice Marshall also said the it took several constitutional amendments and a Civil War to right this wrong. Again, had Chairman Steele taken the time to look at the copy of the Constitution he carries in his pocket he could have read the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to find out Marshall was correct.

The RNC then doubled down on Chairman Steel's statement when Doug Heye posted this at gop.com:

"In the same law review article, Kagan endorses the view that the Court's primary role is to "show special solicitude" for people a judge has empathy for.

In the article about her former boss, Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kagan wrote:

For in Justice Marshall's view, constitutional interpretation demanded, above all else, one thing from the courts: it demanded that the courts show a special solicitude for the despised and disadvantaged. It was the role of the courts, in interpreting the Constitution, to protect the people who went unprotected by every other organ of government -- to safeguard the interests of people who had no other champion.

The majority of Americans want a justice who understands that the Founders intended the Court to serve as a neutral arbiter of disputes. The question for Kagan is whether she believes in a 'modern Constitution' shaped by activist judges pursuing personal political agendas or whether she believes in basing judicial decisions based on the Constitution and the rule of law."

The GOP is on the record as opposing the finding by Supreme Court judges that the language of the constitution defines principles that American citizens have a general right of civil equality and right of privacy to be left alone without government intrusion into their personal or family decisions and lifestyle. Conservatives label judges who find such rights in the constitution as "activist judges." Yet, the activist conservative judges on the Roberts Court have ruled that corporations have the same rights as "We The People" individuals even though the Constitution includes no specific language granting such rights to corporate entities.

Conservatives continue to press their so called strict constructionist constitutional argument, that Americans have no right that is not explicitly enumerated (written) in the Constitution. The right of privacy and right of equality are not explicitly enumerated (written) in the Constitution.

By arguing against the Supreme Court's right to privacy and right of equality findings, conservatives argue against the court's so called "activist" decisions on a broad range of rights that include child rearing, procreation, marriage, contraception, private and home schooling rights and civil rights of equality.

One of the most memorable moments from Judge Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee was the aggressive line of questioning from Sen. (R-S.C.) Lindsey Graham. The South Carolina Republican demanded to know if President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court had a "temperament problem" and even told Sotomayor that she had a reputation as a bully. At another point, the senator asked Sotomayor about her now infamous "wise Latina" comment and her tenure on the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, a legal arm for the Hispanic community, with the inference she is a Latina racist. It was all reflective of the line of questioning that Republicans on the Judiciary Committee pushed all day.

Finally, Senator Graham turned to another line of questioning by asking Judge Sotomayor, "Would you be considered a “strict constructionist” in your own mind?

... I'm asking ... Does the Constitution, as written, prohibit a legislative body at state or federal level from defining life or relating the rights of the unborn? ... Is there anything in the [Constitutional] document written about [a woman's right to choose] abortion?" Judge Sotomayor finally answered, "The word "abortion" is not used in the Constitution, but the Constitution does have a broad provision concerning a liberty provision under the due process..." Cutting Judge Sotomayor off mid-answer Sen. Graham observed, "That's my concern. ...a lot of us feel that the best way to change society is to go to the ballot box, elect someone, and if they are not doing it right, get rid of them through the electoral process. And a lot of us are concerned ... that unelected judges are very quick to change society in a way that's disturbing."

[The full exchange between Judge Sotomayor and Sen. Graham can be found in the transcript here.]

Senator Graham's "strict constructionist" line of questioning exemplifies the GOP's indefensible positions on American's right to privacy and civil right of equality regardless of race, sex or religion. Because the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision is based on the courts constitutional "right of privacy" finding in its Griswold v. Connecticut ruling, that overturned laws banning the purchase and use of contraceptives, conservatives always reference Roe to rally support to their "strict constructionist" constitutional argument that Americans have no right of privacy. This right of privacy issue is little more than a stalking horse that strict social conservatives use to attack the Supreme Court's so called liberal "activist" decisions on a broad range rights issues, including the right to purchase and use contraceptive products.

Conservatives argue that the framer's "original intent" can be found only in the exact words written in the constitution rather than an understanding and application of the principles that framers were attempting to define. Conservatives maintain that judges who make decisions based on "constitutional principles" carried in the words, rather than application of the exact words, written in the constitution are liberal activist judges who legislate from the bench.

Of course, the Constitution, as written, does not specifically prohibit a legislative body at the state or federal level from segregating schools as separate but equal "white only" and "black only" institutions, but the Supreme Court did find such laws unconstitutional in the court's 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision. In Brown the court found that the language of the constitution defines principles that segregation deprives segregated citizens of their equal protection under the "due process of law" as granted in the 14th Amendment.

Even the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who held "constructionist" views on constitutional interpretations, opposed Brown v. Board of Education as an unconstitutional decision when he was a Supreme Court clerk. Rehnquist also urged Barry Goldwater to argue that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional.

Nor does the Constitution, as written, specifically prohibit a legislative body at the state or federal level from segregating drinking fountains as "white only" and "black only," from restricting marriage between people of different races, from making the use of birth control pills and condoms a criminal offense, from requiring parents to send their children to public rather than private schools or even from restricting access to the ballot box on election day through poll taxes, literacy tests and other "Jim Crow" related laws.

These and other such rights are not enumerated by specific wording in the U.S. Constitution, but they are rights that most Americans today believe are specifically guaranteed by the Constitution. Even so, Americans were denied these rights by many state and federal laws, particularly among southern states like Texas, until the 1950's and 1960's.

Conservatives continue to maintain that it is wrong to appoint "activist" Supreme Court Judges who believe the constitution grants rights of privacy and civil equality not explicitly enumerated in word.

Conservatives, in fact, want conservative activist Supreme Court Judges who will overturn more than a hundred years of legal precedent to grant "corporations the rights of individual citizens" as the Roberts Court did this year when it greatly expanded the parameters of Citizens United v. FEC to make its pro-corporate ruling. The constitution does not explicitly enumerated that "corporations shall have rights identical to individual citizens," but Chief Justice Roberts and the other activist conservative Supreme Court Justices, none the less, ruled the constitution guarantees such rights to corporations over laws passed by congress.

Conservatives, in fact, want conservative activist Supreme Court Judges who will look for opportunities to turn the constitutional clock back to 1950; A time before Brown v. Board of Education and Griswold v. Connecticut.