Taxes, Tests, and Trumpisms

"We need to control the admission of new low-earning workers in order to... help schools and communities falling behind." - Source, Donald J. Trump's Presidential Campaign Website

As I was volunteering at the Collin County Democratic Party booth during this last weekend's Plano Balloon Festival, I was joined in conversation with a fair vendor and Scott Coleman, one of our Democratic candidates for Texas State Representative, District 67.

We discussed a myriad of topics, and at one point touched on public education. We briefly touched on the revolting amount of money ($13 billion) and time (45 days) spent each year on the STAAR test, even though studies have demonstrated its inadequacy as an instructional tool. After that, the vendor mentioned her belief that the failure of our schools is due to the significant number of migrants who do not pay taxes into the system.

Throughout my time as a public education advocate, this idea has been put forth on a normal basis as an "unassailable fact."

But is it really the truth?

To figure that out, it is necessary to understand a few simple facts about public school finance in Texas. First, every district's budget consists of three revenue streams; Federal (via income taxes), State (via sales taxes), and Local (via property taxes). The state and local portion of the budget are approximately 45% each, and the federal portion is 10% or less.

Some immigrants are undocumented and are not currently paying federal income taxes, but all of them pay property taxes (through rent) and sales taxes (on goods and services). Technically, that means they pay about 90% of the same tax as the rest of us.

But what about that other 10%?

As I have stated in prior posts, the STAAR test is an unfunded federal mandate, on which we have wasted upwards of $13 billion per year with no positive results. A simple solution is to eliminate the STAAR test entirely. Yes, the federal government might hold back their measly $6 billion in funding, but we can use the other $7 billion to decrease class sizes. Freeing up 45 days of the school year for actual instruction would sure go a long way to mitigating the effects of the growing poverty on educational attainment.

Without the test, we all pay the same taxes into our school system, eliminating the argument that immigrants are the reason for our schools' failure and refocusing public ire where it belongs, the Texas Legislature. We've allowed them to scapegoat citizens of Hispanic descent for far too long. The fear of migrants is an antiquated tool used most often by charlatans on the right, like Trump, to defund and privatize key social services. The only way to address this fear is through the liberal application of knowledge.

Please join me in calling our representatives in Austin (and any upcoming candidates) to eliminate standardized testing in Texas public schools.


Your friend (and ally),

Michael Messer
Friendly Neighborhood Democrats

JEB!: Bro President Bush Kept Us - Safe?

During the GOP's September presidential debate last week, Jeb Bush said his brother, President George W. Bush, kept us safe:

Jeb said: “You know what? As it relates to my brother, there is one thing I know for sure, he kept us safe.

I don’t know if you remember, Donald. You remember the rubble?

You remember the firefighter with his arms around it? He sent a clear signal that the United States would be strong and fight Islamic terrorism and he did keep us safe.”

News flash for Jeb: The worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor occurred on his brother's watch and he is responsible for the pile of rubble that had been the World Trade Towers.  He is also responsible for the rubble at the Pentagon and the deaths of the courageous passengers and crew of United Flight 93 on 9/11.

If Jeb Bush wants to continue using his brother as an example of why he should be president, the American people need to be reminded of exactly what happened during those years and the resulting consequences that we are continuing to deal with, including the fact that 9/11 happened under Bush’s watch, which is the exact opposite of keeping us safe.

Here are some more news flashes for Jeb:

• The worst Economic Recession Crash since the 1928 Great Depression Crash, stoked by Republican ideology of unregulated banking and financial markets, occurred on his brother's watch in 2008. 
• The worst flooding disaster of a great American city, New Orleans, occurred on his brother's watch in 2006.
• Bush-Cheney administration falsely represented intelligence related to Iraq's supposed WMD program and Saddam's alleged links to Al Qaeda as an excuse to start a 10 year long war in Iraq that claimed the lives of nearly 4,500 service men and women and sent home over 32,000 wounded soldiers - not counting PTSD wounds. 
• George Bush sped up climate change with an energy policy written in secret by VP Dick Cheney and representatives of the Oil industry. 

President George W. Bush kept us safe on 9/11?

What I Didn't Know About Bernie...

I'm going to start this post off with an admission of guilt. I was watching friends debate back and forth this morning about the possibility of a Republican win next November and the pros and cons of the two leading candidates on the Democratic side. Inevitably, the conversation devolved into ad hominem attacks and bold statements like "the Old Grumpy Guy" cannot possibly win. When one friend mentioned that Senator Sanders has been highly attractive to young voters, another friend asked the following:

"What has he accomplished while in the senate for our country? What bill of his has passed EVER? Why are you such a supporter with no data?"

Upon reading that, I realized that I had really never researched the long-term legislative efficacy of either Senator Clinton or Sanders. My face flushed red with guilt, and my head hung low in shame. He wasn't directing his ire my way, but his words had struck a chord. After a few moments of silent personal admonishment for ignoring this glaringly important piece of information in my candidate research, I decided now was the time.

It was time for me to find out the truth about Senator Sanders.

(Photo courtesy of Congress.gov)

One of the most common critiques of Senator Sanders as a presidential candidate is that his combative nature would severely hinder any hope of him actually passing any legislation based on his ideas. Supporters of Senator Clinton have often stated that while he was fighting with both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, she was busy passing legislation.

(Photo courtesy of Congress.gov)

So I did a little digging in the Congress.gov database to find out more, and what I found was nothing less than astonishing.

Throughout almost a decade in Congress, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton either sponsored or cosponsored over 2,160 bills in policy areas spanning from Health and International Affairs to Housing & Community Development. After a great deal of hard work, negotiation and compromise, 77 of those bills found their way to the president's desk and became law.

Then I looked up Bernie.

As a member of Congress from 1991 all the way through 2014 (over two decades!!!) he only sponsored or cosponsored a measly 5,292 bills. All of that fighting with Democrats and Republicans must have really hurt his efforts, because out of those, only 206 were signed into law.

Wait a second. That can't be right...

If we were to divide the number of bills they successfully turned into laws by the number of years they were in office...

(Mashes Keys on Calculator...)

Senator Clinton                          Senator Sanders

7.7 successful bills/year              8.5 successful bills/year

Well, gee whiz, Wally. Do you mean to tell me that the Independent Senator from Vermont with all of those crazy ideas about income inequality and social justice passed more legislation not only across his entire congressional career but also per year??? Next you'll be telling me that democratic socialism doesn't mean the end of capitalism and that the vast majority of programs that our parents relied on to earn their way into the middle class are quickly being defunded and privatized at the expense of future generations.

Yeah, Beav. That's what we're telling you.

Special thanks today to my friend, George, whose attempt to paint all supporters of Senator Sanders' candidacy as blind supporters led me to finally do the research I should have done so many months ago. I couldn't have done it without you, buddy.

Your friend,

Michael Messer
Friendly Neighborhood Democrats

Why Bernie's Lack of Superdelegates is a Good Thing

Recent articles have touted Secretary Clinton's endorsements from Super-delegates as another indicator of why she is guaranteed to win the Democratic Party nomination next year.

As stated by Jonathan Bernstein in his August 28th op-ed for BloombergView,

"Super-delegates were added in the 1980s for two reasons. One was practical: It was the only way to ensure that those party leaders could get to the convention, at least as delegates. The other was political: Democrats were concerned that their new system didn’t place enough weight on electability, and believed a larger voice for politicians and formal party leaders would tilt the nomination in that direction."

There is at least one reason why Senator Sanders has not received as many Super-delegate endorsements, which I would like to briefly elaborate upon here.

Super-delegates consist of United States Senators, Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives, Governors, and national Democratic Party leaders. When making the decision regarding their endorsement for president, their primary consideration is the amount of money a candidate can raise throughout the campaign. It's been noted as the deciding factor in 91% of Congressional elections, and Bernie Sanders has overtly made it his campaign's policy to reject campaign financing from corporations. Overall, for Super-delegates it's a safe bet.

That said, the reason most Super-delegates have endorsed Hillary is the same reason Bernie is gaining in the polls. It's not that Sanders supporters hate Clinton. In fact, the recent "Des Moines Register poll of Iowa Democrats revealed that 96% of Sen. Sanders’ supporters are not anti-Clinton. Only 2% of Sanders supporters are doing so because they are anti-Clinton." They just want to elect a president who actively calls for the end of unregulated campaign financing which has definitively biased the legislative and budgetary outputs of Congress and state legislatures.


Your Friend & Ally,

Michael Messer
Friendly Neighborhood Democrats