August 21, 2009
August 11, 2009
Much ado has been made of the tenuous “compromise” between President Barack Obama and “Blue Dog” Democrats in Washington on the issue of government-run health care. Sadly, the reality is that the latest version of “Obamacare” is still a poison pill for America’s small businesses and the millions of workers they employ.
Most small businesses spend between 60 and 80 cents of every dollar they earn on payroll, which is precisely where Obama’s plan would hit them. Not content with simply bleeding “the rich” to pay for the massive up-front costs of his $1.5 trillion socialized medicine proposal, Obama also wants to impose a massive new tax increase on American small businesses – one that will directly impede their ability to create jobs and stimulate economic activity.
In other words, Obama wants to choke off America’s number one job-creating engine in the depths of a recession that has already cost millions of jobs – all so he can create a government health care monopoly that will not only increase costs but also reduce the quality of care.
July 28, 2009
By Francisco Alcuaz Jr.
July 27 (Bloomberg) — Philippine President Gloria Arroyo dismissed accusations she will attempt to cling to power when her term expires next year by changing the constitution.
“I never expressed the desire to extend myself beyond my term,” Arroyo said in her annual policy statement. “Many of those who accuse me of it tried to cling” to office themselves, she said, without elaborating….
President Barack Obama says that his health care program will cut costs and give Americans better coverage and more choices. Obviously, these are concepts which should sell extremely well in a country where we place a premium on savings and selection. Of course, the actual substance of Obama’s $1.5 trillion socialized medicine plan stands in stark contrast to the capitalist-sounding, fiscally-responsible rhetoric that’s being used to promote it – which is probably why Obama is encountering such serious resistance in selling even members of his own party on the plan.
Far from expanding individual choices, Obama’s proposal is designed specifically to eliminate competition and put one provider in charge of health care – the government. And instead of cutting costs, Obama’s plan would force millions of Americans to use the same low-quality government health care options that have spawned the unsustainable growth rates that we’re now supposed to be “reducing.”
In other words, if “Obamacare” passes, costs would go up, choice would be eliminated and coverage would diminish – which is ironically the opposite of everything Obama claims his plan would accomplish….
July 23, 2009
AKE CITY — Lake City will soon be the home to a new charter school.
Dr. Deloris W.B. Brown, director of education for the new Lake City College Preparatory Academy Inc., said in a phone interview July 10 that the school received approval the previous week.
To receive approval for a charter school, she said, you have to establish a planning group of parents, educators and community members. The planning group is comprised of Queen Wallace, Shirley Kennedy, the Rev. Dr. Frank Maddox, the Rev. Ray McAllister, Gloria Tisdale, John Williams, Judy Toney, Vera Elliott, Ruby Jackson and Luvenia Richardson.
July 22, 2009
July 21, 2009
July 20, 2009
From the Wall Street Journal
On present trends, most of Europe will soon have lower income tax rates than most of America. And now the European Union is stealing another competitive march on Washington, this time on a free trade deal with the world’s 13th largest economy, fast-growing South Korea.
Last week Brussels and Seoul finished the outline of a new trade agreement, and the two sides will now write up the technical language to codify it. As for the pending U.S.-Korea trade agreement, Congress has done . . . nothing.
South Korea has made negotiating trade deals a centerpiece of its foreign and economic policy. The U.S. FTA, signed in 2007 but still not ratified, is one example. Negotiations are planned or under way with a long list of countries, including India, Canada and Australia. On the EU side, the Commission is vigorously defending the pact against domestic critics, including the European auto industry. EU approval isn’t a sure thing, but Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt is aiming to finish it by December.
Compare that to the U.S., where the FTA with Korea is bogged down in Big Labor politics. Bashing the deal became de rigueur in the Democratic Party primary before last year’s Presidential election. Candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both claimed the deal wouldn’t open Korea’s auto market to U.S. imports, all evidence to the contrary. Now, with Democrats running both the White House and Congress, prospects are bleak for any trade deal. Colombia has also been left hanging, even though its goods already enter the U.S. duty free under the Andean preferences program.
Don’t count on progress any time soon. President Obama’s trade representative, Ron Kirk, rose from his slumbers last week to give his first big speech but he failed to mention either South Korea or Colombia. Instead, he focused on “trade enforcement,” by which he seems to mean picking fights with U.S. trading partners. This will include, Mr. Kirk said, investigating “labor violations” inside other countries. “And if they don’t fix their labor problems, we will exercise our legal options,” he said. Just what our friends want to see when global trade is contracting: Another U.S. excuse for protectionism.
Korea’s progress with the EU shows how risky U.S. delays are. The European Commission says the EU-Korea deal will eliminate $2.2 billion in duties Korea currently imposes each year on European goods — and cut duties and eliminate nontariff barriers on imports of European cars. American companies could gain similar benefits if only Congress would approve the U.S.-Korea pact.
Across the globe, countries are moving ahead with similar bilateral trade deals, often giving their own national companies an edge over U.S. competitors. In a perfect world, all countries would be able to benefit from multilateral trade opening under the Doha Round. But for now bilateral deals are better than nothing, and America is leaving itself behind.
July 14, 2009
From theWashington Times
President Obama pretends to be a unifying figure while consistently denigrating his opponents. This lowers public discourse and makes it harder for the country to move forward as one.
The latest example of this disturbing pattern came in a column by Mr. Obama published in Sunday’s Washington Post. In the column, Mr. Obama tried to defend his failed economic “stimulus” plan, but he wasn’t content merely to argue for his own policies. Instead, he insisted on misrepresenting the motives of those who disagree with him.
“There are some who say we must wait to meet our greatest challenges,” he wrote. “They … believe that doing nothing is somehow an answer.” And later: “There will continue to be those who argue that we have to put off hard decisions.”
But who are these mysterious people who want to “do nothing” or actually “argue that we have to put off hard decisions?” This is absurd. It is similar to Mr. Obama’s repetitive use of the straw-man argument that George W. Bush administration lawyers tried to assert that we must choose “between our safety and our ideals.” Mr. Obama labeled that a “false choice,” but it was false only because nobody but Mr. Obama asserted it was a choice in the first place….
July 13, 2009
Fifty years ago this week, state lawmakers adopted legislation giving the public free access to all Texas beaches.
Property rights activists and beach-front property owners challenged the Open Beaches Act from the beginning, but until now, none of the cases made it as far as the Texas Supreme Court.
On Nov. 19, the state’s top justices will hear a claim by a Galveston property owner whose West End houses ended up in the public beach easement after Hurricane Rita.
Carol Severance asserts the state’s threat to have her houses demolished in 2006 violated her constitutional protection against unreasonable seizures.
The court’s ruling will either gut the Open Beaches Act, limiting access to the Gulf of Mexico to a few island parks, or uphold the state’s ability to maintain a public beach easement as the coastline moves steadily inland.
Until the late 1950s, Galveston beachgoers could drive off the western end of the seawall onto the beach and travel unheeded all the way to the San Luis Pass.
But by 1959, developers and homeowners were starting to put up fences between their houses and the Gulf of Mexico, carving out a private slice of sand and blocking traffic.
Bob Eckhardt, a state representative from Houston, was determined to keep the beaches open, dedicating himself to a legislative crusade that would eventually end in the passage of the Open Beaches Act on July 16, 1959.
Developers and real estate interests, the same people who oppose the act today, fought Eckhardt tooth and nail, said A.R. “Babe” Schwartz, the former state senator from Galveston who often is credited for the open beaches legislation.
“The self-interested people who don’t give a damn about public rights opposed it,” he said. “They still don’t give a damn about it.”
Eckhardt based his bill on Spanish and English common law, which had held for centuries that beaches were reserved for public use, said Schwartz, who will teach a course on coastal and ocean law at the University of Texas this fall.
A 1958 Texas Supreme Court case established the state’s ownership between the Gulf and the mean higher high-tide line. Eckhardt’s legislation created a public beach easement between state-owned land and the line of vegetation.
While Galveston’s beaches remained relatively stable, the public easement was easy to maintain.
But as storms and erosion ate away at the shoreline during the next 40 years, the publicly owned beach and the line of vegetation moved inland.
Beach-front houses eventually ended up between the line of vegetation and the Gulf. The Texas General Land Office began ordering property owners to have their houses moved or torn down.
In 2006, Severance, a California resident, was one of 116 coastal property owners who received a letter from the land office notifying her that her houses in Jamaica Beach and on Kennedy Drive were in the easement and could be removed.
Under a program designed by Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson to soften the blow, homeowners were offered $40,000 to move their houses.
But Severance refused the offer, and represented by California-based Pacific Legal Foundation, a property rights advocacy group, she sued in federal court, claiming attempts to take her property violated her constitutional rights.
In May 2007, U.S. District Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt dismissed Severance’s claim, but on appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case to the Texas Supreme Court for clarification of state law.
Before the court could decide whether Severance’s Fourth Amendment protection from “unreasonable seizure” had been violated, it needed to know whether Texas recognizes a “rolling” public beach easement, whether the easement is derived from common law doctrines or the Open Beaches Act, and to what extent a property owner should be entitled to compensation when the easement migrates onto private land.
J. David Breemer, the Pacific Legal Foundation attorney representing Severance, said he was confident the court would rule in his client’s favor because the Open Beaches Act does not talk about a rolling beach easement.
When the act was adopted, its authors never envisioned the amount of erosion the island is experiencing today, so they never considered that the easement boundary would have to be redrawn constantly as the vegetation line moves, he said.
“Where does a rolling easement stop?” he asked. “It’s unworkable in practice when you have development. No one ever intended that the public would acquire areas that it never used before.”
Because the rolling easement is unworkable, the land office constantly comes up with ways to delay enforcement and to set arbitrary lines that allow property owners to keep houses that are on the public beach, Breemer said.
After Severance sued, Patterson abandoned threats to pursue houses in the easement and said instead he would focus on the houses seaward of the mean higher high tide line, on public property, or those completely blocking beach access.
Two years later, when Hurricane Ike gobbled up about 25 feet of beach and destroyed the line of vegetation, the land office set a temporary line of elevation at 4.5 feet to indicate where the edge of the public easement likely would be set at the storm’s anniversary in September.
Leaders of the West Galveston Island Property Owners Association estimated 114 houses would end up on the public beach if the 4.5-foot elevation line were adopted.
Patterson initially said he would give the natural vegetation line another year to come back, but this week he said the state might do something different to mark the edge of the public beach easement.
New surveys expected out at the end of July should provide a great deal more information, he said.
“I think folks are going to like it when we publish the information,” he said, hinting few houses actually would end up being subject to the removal action many owners feared.
Although he has tried to calm homeowners’ fears of losing their houses, Patterson said he did not buy Breemer’s argument the state is taking private property when the beach easement moves landward.
“The state is not taking property,” he said. “Mother nature is taking its course.”
When rivers that form international or state boundaries change course, those boundaries change as well, he said, echoing one of Eckhardt’s 50-year-old arguments.
If the Texas Supreme Court rules the public beach easement boundary does not change, it would eliminate the Open Beaches Act, Patterson said.
If the easement doesn’t move landward as the beach erodes and the public doesn’t have access to land that previously was private, the state will no longer have any public access, he said.
A Libertarian Crusade?
Patterson would not make any prediction about the Supreme Court’s decision, saying the justices had surprised him before.
But Schwartz said he was confident the court would rule in favor of Texas case law, all of which has upheld the Open Beaches Act.
The federal court, which now is questioning the state’s law, got involved in the case under false pretenses, Schwartz said, echoing the dissenting opinion of Fifth Circuit Judge Jacques L. Wiener Jr.
In voicing his opposition to his colleagues’ decision to send the case to the Supreme Court, Wiener described Severance’s plea as a “thinly veiled Libertarian crusade.”
“The real alignment between Severance and the Pacific Legal Foundation is not discernible from the record on appeal, but the real object of these Californians’ Cervantian tilting at Texas’s Open Beaches Act (‘OBA’) is clearly not to obtain reasonable compensation for a taking of properties either actually or nominally purchased by Severance, but is to eviscerate the OBA, precisely the kind of legislation that, by its own declaration, the Foundation targets,” he wrote.
‘You Were Deceived’
Severance, a lawyer who holds real estate broker licenses in both California and Texas, obviously knew what she was getting into when she bought her beach-front properties, Schwartz said.
“She can’t claim any ignorance of the law or that she’s not seeking to milk the public of Texas for money,” he said.
But it’s not fair to assume that lawyers are any more careful about reading a stack of real estate documents than the average buyer, Severance said.
She did read the notice all buyers must sign warning the properties could end up on the public beach and might have to be removed, but nothing she read said she could lose them without compensation, she said.
“I never thought they would be able to just come along and remove my house,” she said. “I never thought that would happen.”
Severance also denied accusations that she plotted with the Pacific Legal Foundation to buy the houses because she planned to challenge the Open Beaches Act.
She bought property in Galveston because she loved the city and wanted to have a place she could enjoy visiting, she said.
Severance thought state officials would have to buy her property if they wanted it, which is how other states handle the need to provide the public access to the beach, Breemer said.
“But in Texas, you were deceived into believing you could have it for free.”