This Land is My Land, This Land’s Not Your Land

Federally proposed border fence conflicts with local interests

Early last summer The University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southmost College (UTB/TSC) received word that the federal government had made plans to build a US-Mexican border fence through the school’s campus. The positioning of the fence left a campus building, a national historical site and the school’s golf course on the Mexican side.

By October 2007 a letter arrived for UTB/TSC President Dr. Juliet V. Garcia requesting right of entry on university property so Department of Homeland Security officials could begin preparations for construction. The letter demanded 18 months of unrestricted access to campus grounds and declared that, upon completion of the initial survey, the University would be awarded just compensation for any property found fit to condemn. The letter also said the federal government would not be liable for any damages caused by DHS employees (the nincompoops who accidentally bought $68,000 worth of dog socks). Sounds trusty enough, right?

Hell no, says Dr. Garcia. She refused to grant the Department’s requests. The federal government filed a civil lawsuit against the University to secure legal authority to go ahead with its plans.

On March 19th, Federal Judge Andrew Hanen dismissed the case when the parties came to an agreement that the DHS would only stay for six months, be held liable for damages, and work alongside the University to explore alternatives to a physical barrier (seeing as the current “18 feet of steel and concrete” plan looks about as good as lining up a bunch of soldiers holding up their middle fingers).

South Texans value their relationships with sister cities across the border. They share commerce, history, culture and in some cases, blood with their friends across the river. The fence stands to obstruct friendly relations, cut off water supplies, end a prosperous ecotourism industry, interrupt wildlife migration and oh yeah…completely screw hundreds of thousands of perfectly legal Americans.

The justice system in the Rio Grande Valley area works day and night with cases brought up against the citizens by DHS attorneys and vice-versa. The government is suing for access to private property; the people are suing because big government boots keep stomping over their property rights.

Under the premise of eminent domain, the federal government retains the right to seize and condemn any private property for use by the government itself or a third party, without the owner’s consent.  The government is, however, required to engage in negotiations before ripping property out of your hands.  In many Rio Grande Valley cases, the “negotiations” consist of nothing (hence all the lawsuits) or a fat $100 bill for their troubles. Of course, after shopping around on your land and digging a big honkin’ hole or two, the federal government will offer just compensation for the property they decide to seize.

Peter Schey, from the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, refuses to let this fence be built illegally. Most property owners approached by DHS handed over their land freely, not knowing they have the right to negotiate before signing waivers that allow government access to their property. Schey’s attempts to revoke the waivers of people who he says “have been hoodwinked” seem pretty futile against the law-immune Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff. According to the Real ID Act of 2005, the DHS Secretary retains the ability to waive any laws necessary to secure the construction of border barriers. Secretary Chertoff has already broken environmental protection laws, clean air provisions and a dozen other laws to get his precious fence down. I don’t give a hoot about the endangered cactus ferrunginous pygmy-owl (pun NOT intended) but it irritates me that this guy gets to act above the law while honest citizens are being ripped off.

Chertoff isn’t the only one sneaking around laws. Ray L. Hunt, Texas oil billionaire, owns a luxury housing community along the border. While Hunt’s neighbors to the west forfeit land for the sake of national security, the fence conveniently stops at the edge of his gated community. There may be a perfectly legitimate explanation for this but the fact that Mr. Hunt donated $35 million dollars to President Bush’s presidential library at Southern Methodist University makes the whole thing look a little fishy.

Ridiculous lawmaking, hypocritical law breaking, suspicious oil money… just your everyday Republican hijinks, yeah? Not really. The Secure Fence Act passed thanks to about 95 percent of Republicans but they weren’t all voting for the fence per se. Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul voted “yes” because the act provides increased border security via manpower and technology, opposes amnesty and encourages sensible immigration reform. In an interview with John Stossel (read a libertarian’s wet dream), Paul says he finds the fence itself “rather offensive.”  Republicans Governor Rick Perry and Brownsville Mayor Pat Ahumada also oppose the physical border because they recognize the importance of maintaining a workable relationship with Mexico and understand that the fence would not prevent illegal immigration.

In case you’re having trouble keeping up, let me give you a quick rundown of the people who do NOT want this fence to be built: the students at UTB/TSC, the President of UTB/TSC, Rio Grande Valley property owners, the mayor of Brownsville, the Texas Governor, a Texas Congressman and the pissed off girl furtively typing all this on her laptop at the FAC. How has this fence come to be when the people nearest to and most affected by its presence resist it so fiercely?

The federal government is too powerful. By way of the Fifth Amendment, eminent domain is legal but just because some dude from Washington has the power to start putting up walls willy-nilly, doesn’t mean he should. We need people in office who understand the value of property rights and trust local communities and individual states to solve their own problems. The people of the Rio Grande Valley and the students at UTB/TSC have plenty of ideas to enhance border security (hint: making the golf team use passports to get to the course isn’t one of them).

-Rachel Wright

We’re Smart and Motivated. So Why Don’t We Care?

Sadly, the easy answer – that those la­bels are accurate – goes unchallenged. The common wisdom would have us believe that this generation, so self-involved, so easily distracted, just doesn’t care about the issues of the world. Through our si­lence, our generation concedes this con­trivance.

Quite to the contrary, ours is a gen­eration of higher education, of social en­trepreneurs, of record volunteerism. We are Teach for America, we are Orphans Against Aids, we are Americorps. We hold more diplomas and degrees than any gen­eration before us. Never has a generation stood at the brink and been more prepared to face what lies ahead than ours today. Only one obstacle impedes us.

Our generation is not apathetic, nor is it lazy or materialistic, but it is quiet – that is our great fault. No politician need trouble themselves with our concerns; no leader need govern with us in the back of their mind, so long as ignoring us carries no electoral penalty. We volunteer and study and work and worry, but we don’t vote, and thereby we exclude ourselves from democracy.
Frederic Douglass called the right to vote “the right by which all others are secured.” UT is a vibrant campus in the heart of the Texas capital, and yet student neighborhoods have the lowest voter turn­out in Austin. When we ignore this critical democratic tool, lawmakers go on without us and we silence the voice of our entire generation. This problem, unless and until our generation steps up and embraces de­mocracy, will only get worse.

Many students who don’t vote say they feel intimidated by and lost in the bureau­cracy of democracy. As the pressures of college and career begin to close in on them, many simply tune politics out. Na­tional politics seem inaccessible, or sim­ply corrupt, and a single voice can seem tiny in that enormous system.

But a single voice is exactly what we need. 100,000 students (half of them at UT) live in this city of 800,000. We as students are a political force that would be ashamed to be described as merely formidable. Imagine the impact we could have if we spoke up together. One-eighth of the city could overhaul city council; it could elect a mayor by a landslide; it could dramatically alter Austin’s political landscape.

In March, we could even have a na­tional impact, with the Texas primary set to make or break at least one presidential nominee, and the youth vote expected to be a deciding factor. We felt tremors of stu­dents’ tremendous potential a few weeks ago, when thousands swarmed tables in the West Mall, Jester and on the Drag to register for the primaries. In a couple of weeks, many of those students will help settle a presidential nominee.

If there was ever a time for our genera­tion to break this spell of political apathy, it is now. If you’re registered to vote, vote in the March 4 primaries and help decide a party’s future. If you’re not, register now and change the shape of city government on May 10. In November, make sure the new president has heard your voice.

Born in an age of ambition, surrounded by brilliance, but hindered by our silence, we look forward and must ask, “What kind of world will ours be?” Be a part of the answer.

-Justin Hubbard and Avi Selk

Demolition Man Review

Epiphanies are wonderful things. Thanks to their power, in one instant a confusing mass of information can be transformed into a clear and concise resource. Much of the mystique surrounding the epiphanies is created because they come to you from the most unlikely of sources.

Honestly, did Joel Silver really think he was going to create an immaculate description of welfare statism when he began producing a movie titled Demolition Man?

No. In fact, fuck no.

The thing is, in just three little words, lunatic killer Simon Phoenix manages to sum up the nanny state perfectly. Right before Phoenix kills Dr. Cocteau, benevolent commissar of the repressive city of San Angeles, he labels him an “evil Mr. Rogers.”

Isn’t that perfect? I don’t think it’s possible to put it any better. People quickly tire when libertarians bemoan the welfare state as an immoral attack on the inalienable rights of life, liberty and property, but the notion of an evil Mr. Rogers is much easier to digest.

For libertarians, especially those who love to watch movies where things go boom, Demolition Man has a lot to offer. As you would expect from the title, nuance isn’t a major tool for director Marco Brambilla, but the film is actually quite dense and offers a lot that can be analyzed.

The protagonist John Spartan, played by Sylvester Stallone, does not require much analysis. He’s a cop; he’s got a moral compass and he gets the job done, regardless of the consequences. He loves beer, meat and sex. He is not, however, a libertarian hero. He has no regard for private property. To Spartan, property is a minor inconvenience that prevents him from enforcing his law. While it is commendable that Spartan follows his own moral compass, not the inane dictates of the government, this fact simply cannot be excused.

Simon Phoenix, played perfectly by Wesley Snipes, is a bat-shit crazy evil genius. He wants nothing but power, for no reason other than to have power, and will kill and destroy in order to get it. He is a perfect libertarian enemy. I know that it’s chic for libertarians to discuss the evils of the nanny state, but one should never forget that evil can manifest itself in individuals as well.

Dr. Cocteau, the man behind San Angeles, is a futuristic Ellsworth Toohey. He has consolidated power behind a veil of providing safety. The following things are banned in San Angeles due to Cocteau: kissing, sex, meat, violence, contact sports, cigarettes, art, swearing (thanks to a Verbal Morality law), dressing scandalously, touching, collecting non-sanctioned anythings and “abortion. But so is having a baby unless you have a permit.”

There is never any discussion of how these laws are actually enforced, but one must assume it involves heavy use of extremely potent police “glow sticks.” He is a sanctimonious prick, and he is another perfect libertarian enemy.

So where is our hero? That role falls on the relatively minor character Edgar Friendly, played by Denis Leary. I’ll let Friendly speak for himself.

“You see, according to Cocteau’s plan I’m the enemy, ’cause I like to think; I like to read. I’m into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I’m the kind of guy likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, ‘Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?’ I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal?”

Hell, just reading that makes me tingle with happiness. While his belief in freedom seems to have been derived from his libertine desires and not from a love of private property, Friendly has still ended up with the right positions. So, he’s not completely intellectually satisfying, but he still packs quite a visceral punch.

In the end, Spartan manages to kill the bad guy and get the girl, and our hero Friendly returns to a society no longer ruled by Cocteau. Oh yeah, and lots of shit blows up. Punctuated with a lot of humor and pop culture references, this movie is an excellent for any fan of action flicks, and it has just enough of a libertarian message to satiate my appetite for freedom. Therefore, 4.5 stars out of 5 on a movie scale, and 3.5 stars out of 5 on a liberty scale.

Sic simper tyrannus, my friends, and remember, if you don’t agree with me, you’re a communist.

-Chase Armbrust

Meet the Candidate

Student Government elections are just around the corner and it is our duty and pleasure to provide readers with the scoop on presidential candidates. I know. I just have one thing to say first: Tickets suck.

Researching the candidates, as a voter and for writing this article, has been pretty disappointing. Every year, a single ticket covers a vast majority of the available positions. In 2004 the ticket du jour, Focus, took all 43 available positions. Ten students campaigned for the presidential seat and a record-breaking 23 percent of the student body came out to vote. The trend of mass driven groups dominating the electorate has since continued, minus the variety of presidential candidates and voter turnout. The Connect ticket took 31 of 40 seats in 2005. Impact secured 34 of 39 available positions in 2006. Both elections featured largely uncontested ballots and much lower rates of voter participation. Last year, Advance claimed all but one position. Andrew Solomon was awarded the presidency with no contest. I’m too disgusted to even quip about that.

Almost every seat in the assembly will be filled by this year’s juggernaut ticket, Empower, if they get their way. Probabilistically, they will. Empower’s campaign distribution reads like the bottom line of an eye exam chart, but I can’t blame them. They would have to hand out banners to get all of their candidates and initiatives on in a readable font.

Empower’s presidential candidate is Keshav Rajagopalan, a third-year Plan II and Political Communications major. For the sake of time and space, I asked Rajagopalan what three initiatives he would be most intent on accomplishing as SG president. He responded that his main goals will be (1) to cooperate with the City of Austin on projects regarding safety and urban development in student-rich, off-campus areas, (2) to initiate student involvement on campus within the first few days of a freshman’s life as a Longhorn and (3) to work with the State Legislature on maintaining affordability at UT. Rajagopalan agrees that tuition should remain reasonable, but does not want affordability to interfere with quality. With more state funding, the University could secure the same level of excellence without putting too much strain on students.

Honestly, good for him. Out with the Riverside robberies and in with the student activities. I just hope he has enough time to get to those items when Empower’s ticket lists motions ranging from student endowments to “wayfinding signage” to religiously sensitive food options.

On the other hand there is Matt Li, third-year petroleum engineering major, who is vying for the presidential position as an Independent. When I say ‘other hand,’ I mean another hand that is very, very far from the first hand. When asked about his platform, Li replied that he does not have one and will very unlikely be “pulling one out of [his posterior-end] within the next two weeks.” His idea of an academic initiative is to increase the number of albino squirrels on campus so students will have more luck on test days. Well, I guess that is one alternative to Empower’s agenda to increase operational hours for campus study areas.

This is what I mean. Student tickets have steamrolled over the competition so much that people run fake campaigns just so the presidential seat won’t go uncontested. A variety of members should compose SG in a way that represents the mosaic student body. But here’s how it is, folks – the big topics up for debate amongst the presidential candidates: albino squirrels. Leave them alone or breed them?

I hope Empower enjoys their reign next year. I also hope they take their responsibilities seriously and don’t go stamp crazy every time one of their buddies puts a movement through. I would like to see affordable tuition, tax-free textbooks, etc. Those things generally require work, commitment, disagreements, and compromises. Let’s see if a government consisting of members on a single platform can supply the voice for a student population over 50,000 strong.

Elections will be held online through the Student Government website (http://www.utsg.org). Polls are open from 8AM to 9PM on Wednesday, February 27, and from 8AM to 5PM on Thursday, February 28. You must have a UTEID to sign into the election site.

-Rachel Wright

Objectivity: A Troubled Past

I have a favor to ask – get up off your lazy butt, sit down and turn on the television to your favorite news channel. At any give point you’ll be inundated with flashy computer graphics swooping in from the corner of your screen to show you the importance of unbiased and objective reporting, conveniently administered through repetitive motions, simple words and colors.

“Fair and balanced.” “The place for politics.” “America’s news leader.”

These are the mantras under which our media conglomerates operate. However, when investigating something as mangled and lopsided as government affairs, is corporate news’ branded lubricant of objectivity what we really need to digest newsworthy events?

It’s no mystery that journalism has played a crucial part in America’s history. The journalist easily excels at fulfilling the first component of his duties – reporting news to the public. But even with the high value we place on objectivity, those words come with an influential twist.

For example, more than 50% of news coverage in 2003 on CBS, NBC, and FOX News painted the Iraq War as positive, according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs. In the late 1880s, yellow journalist William Randolph Hearst rallied the public to support a US war against Spain. Even as early as 1787, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Lt. Colonel Carrington of the Continental Army, “…were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

Regardless, a recently overlooked position of journalism has been that of government watchdog – cautiously skeptical and consistently questioning. In a September 2003 USA Today interview, former ABC World News anchor Peter Jennings remarked on such a duty: “This role [journalism] is designed to question the behavior of government officials on behalf of the public.”

So, what stands in the journalist’s way from fulfilling the guardian role? The answer lies in our current definition of objectivity.

In a recent interview, Robert Jensen, an associate professor at the University’s School of Journalism, explained that there is a lot of confusion associated with objectivity. Armed with a Ph.D. in media ethics and law, Jensen said that objectivity includes a commitment to not fabricating information, approaching the world with an open mind and honestly presenting that information.

“However, that’s not what we have,” said Jensen.

Today’s objectivity, according to the Jensen, is “a cover for a set of practices tending to privilege the views of official sources that represent powerful institutions…rooted in economics – a cheap, easy and safe way to report.”

If journalists are committed to truth and accuracy in what they print and broadcast, they must also embrace the dwindling part of watchdog so they can fulfill their duties to, and on behalf of, the public. Instead, topical demand for an adulterated form of objectivity restricts the journalist, leading to reporter complacency, which finally results in our current situation of partisan hackery – political correctness for journalists.

Diane Farsetta, a senior researcher at the Center for Media and Democracy, an organization that investigates propaganda and promotes media literacy, explained that reporter complacency is due to security. It’s safer for a journalist to simply present both sides and leave it at that.

“People are frustrated with media and feel that news reporting isn’t filling its role in society,” said Farsetta.

The disadvantage of representing both sides is that we lose the larger context in which events occur, a duty that falls within journalist’s role, according to Jensen, and a key requirement in holding those in power accountable.

“It’s the journalist’s responsibility to look at the big picture,” remarked Jensen. “Otherwise, you’re a stenographer, which is of no value.”

On a local level, when print media reported on the mandated tuition increases towards the end of the semester, journalists covered that event ‘objectively’ – who, what, when, where and why – allowing them to fulfill half of their responsibilities.

However, the university students dug deeper and looked to late June 2003, when tuition deregulation was passed under the guise of making higher education in Texas affordable to everyone, which is a false statement when presented with the fact that tuition has increased 93% over the past four years.

Which news organization held accountable those who were responsible for tuition deregulation? It was well within the scope of the journalist’s duty to ask university administrators why they were raising prices when tuition deregulation was supposed to keep costs down. And if it wasn’t keeping costs down, then why was it implemented?

On a national level, it means that when the US Congress votes to implement a federal identification system for every American under the Real ID Act, the journalist is well within his scope of authority to ask the members of Congress why they decided to infringe on privacy – a topic that may butt heads with the current administration but cannot be painted as a liberal or conservative bias. When the US Congress votes to deny habeas corpus under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, not in a time of rebellion or invasion, as stated in the Constitution, the journalist has a duty to ask why members of Congress suspended a constitutional right – again, neither a liberal nor a conservative topic.

When asked why he thought it was hard for politicians to answer a straight, simple question, Daily Show host Jon Stewart replied, during an October 2004 appearance on CNN’s Crossfire, “I don’t think it’s hard; I just think that nobody holds their feet to the fire to do it, so they don’t have to.”

The attempts at what is considered objectivity are nothing more than avoiding controversy and the equivalent of giving Republicans and Democrats equal airtime. While the false objectivity of covering, praising, and disparaging the two political parties equally barely fulfills the duty of news reporting, it distracts from the second duty of the journalist – holding public policymakers and politicians accountable.

But who am I to argue with both “the most trusted name in news” and “the most powerful name in news?”

Gun Battles

When it comes to gun control, Washington, D.C. takes the prize for the most restrictive laws in the United States. Handguns are essentially banned, and residents can only possess shotguns and rifles in their homes if they keep them unloaded and either disassembled or trigger locked. The end result is that homeowners are, for all intents and purposes, unable to keep functional firearms in their house for self-defense. Given the scope of the ban, one would think that the ban’s intended purpose – to reduce gun violence – would have succeeded. Right?

Wrong. Our nation’s capitol has the fourth highest murder rate in the country, more than twice as high as that of Houston and Dallas, and 10 times higher than here in Austin. Obviously, there are other factors at work, but it should be pretty clear that the ban isn’t keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. The law-abiding citizens of Washington are getting their day in court. Last March, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Heller v. D.C. that the city’s broad gun ban was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The case has been appealed to the Supreme Court, where arguments are scheduled for this March. If the decision is affirmed, D.C. residents can reclaim their right to self-defense. Instead of being sitting ducks for criminals, homeowners will be able to purchase and keep handguns in their own homes.

While it may seem like a D.C. handgun ban is irrelevant to Texans, that’s far from the truth. Currently, Texans enjoy some of the most permissive gun laws in the nation. For example, we can buy weapons without registration and carry a handgun in a private vehicle without any kind of permit. However, without strong judicial support for the Second Amendment, there is nothing to prevent, say, a Democratic Congress and President from passing harsh federal gun control laws to override Texas laws. The situation could be a similar one to the current enforcement of medical marijuana laws, in which the desire of states to allow medicinal use of marijuana is overruled by federal statutes prohibiting the practice. So, Keller, depending ruling, could either pave the way for increased gun control or lead to an expansion of the right to keep and bear arms.

There are decades of legal theory concerning the true meaning of the Second Amendment, but a detailed history is beyond the scope of this article. Essentially, the debate turns on whether the Second Amendment was intended to provide for a collective or individual right to own firearms. It seems blindingly obvious to me that the Framers intended the amendment to convey an individual right. James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, “[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

Thomas Jefferson expressed a similar sentiment saying, “The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

Alexander Hamilton wrote, “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
It takes a lawyer to spin the Second Amendment into a denial of the individual right to keep and bear firearms. Sadly, the Supreme Court has not been so clear. They haven’t yet made a clear-cut ruling on the individual versus collective rights question. This is why Heller, the first Second Amendment case heard by the Court in 70 years, is so important. Thankfully, two Texans are taking a leading role for the gun rights side. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson recently rounded up support from 250 Congress members, 55 Senators, and Vice President Dick Cheney in order to file a brief urging the Court to affirm the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision. Sen. Hutchinson brought her .357 Magnum to D.C., but had to take it apart and send it back to Texas. It’s not surprising that she has been a longtime opponent of the ban. Likewise, Texas General Solicitor Ted Cruz authored a brief on behalf of 31 states. It’s good to see our officials and elected representative take a stand for our rights.

Another Texan has not been as helpful to the case. The Bush Administration’s Department of Justice fears that an affirmation would abolish many federal gun regulations, and recommended in its brief that the case be remanded back to the lower Court. It’s a disappointing turnaround from a President who campaigned on strong gun rights. Then again, maybe it’s not a surprising decision, as our “native son” is actually from Connecticut.

-Robert Wilson

Banking on Texas Banking

Last week (Feb. 13), the Commissioner of Texas Banking came to campus and spoke with the Texas Economics Association about ostriches. And by ostriches I mean banking. Seeing as banking is a sector that goes up and down with the broader economy, and being rather pessimistic about the current economic situation, I had myself braced for the worst. Then Mr. Randall S. James said it – that there are going to be “tons of business opportunities over the next few years in this state” and that there are currently not enough bankers to satiate the demand.

Analysis in the most recent Texas Bank Report reveals that 10 institutions outside of Texas account for more than half of the decline of earnings as a result of bad debts, that “none of our state-chartered banks report any significant problems or concerns relating to direct holdings of mortgages or investments in mortgage related products,” that Texas’ large trust companies can say the same, as can most Texan money service businesses. The hardest hit places, on the coasts and Nevada, as well as the “Rust Belt,” home to GM and Ford, have had serious slowdowns, and Mr. James sees Texas as the bright spot to which everyone is going to turn.

Not just in relative terms, Dallas and Houston are booming in terms of new jobs and population. Nobody need mention the success that the natural gas and oil companies have enjoyed in recent years, and as far as alternative energy goes, Texas has its fair share; Texas not only has three of the top five largest wind farms in the nation, but it accounts for two-thirds of wind energy growth in the United States, as per the American Wind Energy Association.

Though any good story needs a plot twist, right? It can’t be all sunshine and daisies? Mr. James is highly optimistic, and seems to have warranted reasons for his position. We all lived happily ever after, The End…

Though even those optimistic about Texas’ future will acknowledge a shameful truth – in fact it was the Commissioner himself that made me aware of it: Texas is 51st in the nation in terms of credit scores. In our defense, that list includes the District of Columbia, a place famous for fiscal responsibility. Now that is what I call a plot thickener: Texas banks may have a relatively large amount of capital, but Texas residents are on average the worst people in the nation to lend it to, making the average Texan less likely to get his or her hands on any of that capital.

Mention this at parties alongside a Ft. Worth Star Telegram finding from late 2005 that shows that only nine states have lower ratios of people per savings accounts, and that one in five Texans have a net worth of zero, and you’ll really be the downer that everyone goes out of their way to avoid.

This isn’t just about gloom trivia, so I’ll ask: what is the broader story to be told here? One could say that it’s all thanks to places like Brownsville and McAllen taking away from the boom, but it’s not just the poor ol’ Rio Grande Valley pulling down the successful metropolises. Both Dallas and Houston have credit ratings roughly equal to the atrocious state average. Could we say that this is an issue that may be increasing the disparity between the rich and the poor in Texas? Maybe. Does this prove that all of the stuff about growth in Texas is baloney? Unlikely, but it’s possible. There are lots of stories that can possibly be told here, lots of things that can possibly happen to the Texas economy in the years ahead, and hopefully I got some of you thinking about it. But I want to tell a different kind of story.

If people can’t get their hands on loans then there is a slowdown in the economy. When people can get their hands on loans and don’t pay them back, there is a slowdown in the economy. The recent sub-prime mess is proof of that. Even rampant economic growth doesn’t help if people overestimate what they can afford because of their new raise. It’s not always just about the amount of money in the system – we can’t neglect that the most important part about money is what individuals do with it.

Bill Bernanke, George Bush, Rick Perry, and Congress may make it easier or harder for you to get your hands on money, but are not directly fixing the problems in doing so. Rather, they are giving us the potential to fix the problem, and are banking on probabilities that we’ll actually fix it. Keeping one’s own finances in order and committing oneself to fiscal responsibility makes the uncertain future of the economy one person clearer.

-Vamsi Bhadriraju

Dergulation Debacle

Some words are loaded with politically connotative attributes, as we well know. However, we often find that the terms are made purposefully mis representative of their true definitions in order to lend a sense of credibility and acceptance to an unpopular idea.

‘Tuition deregulation’ is one such evocative term. Deregulation, when taken alone, sounds beneficial to consumers of a hypothetically deregulated environment. Through the removal or reduction of harsh statutes, deregulation is meant to increase efficiency and decrease cost through escalated competition. Amazingly, tuition deregulation has led instead to the opposite!  How was this allowed to transpire?

In 2003, the 78th Texas Legislature passed House Bill 3015 (Tuition Deregulation) into law. This effectively placed gubernatorial political appointees (college system regents) in charge of approving tuition and fee rates at public universities. It marked a transfer of power from those accountable to the public into the hands of those unaccountable to anyone.

Instead of proposing a tax to cover the cost of higher education, Governor
Perry and Texas House Speaker Craddick, along with a majority of the Legislature, decided to deregulate tuition and thus alleviate themselves from a thorny situation.

Fast forward to 2007: The University of Texas at Austin, what many would call the foremost public university in Texas, is increasing tuition again as it has done every fiscal term since 2003 and the advent of deregulation. Students say tuition has increased about 93% from the average 2003 level, while the UT administration contends the percentage is closer to 72%, citing differences in “fees” and actual tuition.

Tuition policy forums were held on campus, though they were a mere formality. To make matters worse, those who owe their full allegiance to the student body have instead associated with the UT administration. The student representatives on the Tuition Policy Advisory Committee, Andrew Solomon (UT Student Body President), Stephen Myers (UT Senate Chairman), Yvette Garza (UT Presidential Undergrad Appointee) and Brian Gatten (UT Grad Student Rep.) joined in a unanimous vote to go forward with the tuition increase.

Additionally, the UT System Regents all happen to have been appointed by Governor Perry, and as evidenced in previous years by their willingness to sign off on tuition increases, they will very likely not break with this pattern.

Despite the seeming futility of protest, a student group made up of unlikely allies on the UT-Austin campus has formed the Tuition Accountability Coalition. Quickly mobilizing a student effort to protest the tuition hikes, the group declared that it would not cease the fight against tuition deregulation until prices were again affordable for all and accountability was restored to the Legislature. The Coalition, comprised of students from all ends of the political spectrum (and everything in between) have rallied to a common cause and vowed solidarity. Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, Libertarians and Socialists have united to face what none could alone – tuition deregulation supporters in high places.

This Coalition faces tough odds in their campaign to restore accessibility of higher education to Texans. One need only look to those who profit as opposed to those who are being disenfranchised to see the hard road back to fiscal responsibility. Who profits from deregulation? College administrators, politicians and preferred collegiate lenders all have a vested interest in keeping the system as is. Public universities want more money to increase their renown and resources; politicians don’t want to explain tax increases to constituents and lenders most clearly benefit by picking up the slack for students through college loans.

Unfortunately, these transferred costs fall most heavily on lower- and middle-income college students who are the most likely to borrow from lenders and work while in college. Some concessions are made for the lower-income strata, but the sticker price of tuition itself on its face can be a strong deterrent to these students. Taking a full course load while working a 40-hour job to pay for housing, food, clothing and textbooks coupled with the stress of taking out various supplemental loans for tuition, after all, sounds less than enticing.

As we have reviewed the causes and effects, as well as the participants and their separate motives, we have but one final question to answer: What can be done to fix the system? The answer seems apparent. Students must use their voices and votes to persuade the Legislature to re-regulate tuition.  For the Legislature to act, they must fear the consequences of inaction more than those of the proposed action.

The State of Texas must again be held accountable for funding higher education. This will be no easy task as youth are viewed as apathetic and are not a consistently significant voting bloc. Though these trends may change as tuition continues its ascent with no clear end in sight. Perhaps when the students have reached point break, they will organize and lead the way for state funding to shoulder the burden of higher education in Texas.

-Ed Oden

Obamarama Hits Austin

Presidential candidate, Illinois senator and mainstream media darling Barack Obama entertained over 3,000 people at The Backyard in Austin on November 17. While turnout was nowhere near that of Senator Obama’s performance at Auditorium Shores last February, the crowd’s intensity and vigor remained.

Sen. Obama launched his speech into applause and cheers by reminding everyone that in next year’s presidential election, “the name ‘George W. Bush’ will not be on the ballot.”

He announced the end of Scooter Libby justice and Karl Rove politics, allowing for a revolutionary White House. By highlighting the negatives of wiretapping and Katrina inadequacies, Sen. Obama reaffirmed his distance from President Bush. He also differentiated himself from other candidates by committing to a new style of politics and campaign strategy.

“Telling people what we think they want to hear rather than what they need to hear just won’t do,” Obama challenged his Democratic contenders.

Unfortunately, as is the case with most politicians, no matter how new blood they are, Obama’s speech fell trap to resembling a political pep rally rather than talking about the very issues on which he claimed his rivals wouldn’t elaborate.

Key among debated domestic policies is health care.

“I’m tired of talking about the outrage of 47 million Americans without health care, and I want to start doing something about it,” Obama proclaimed. He continued by guaranteeing every American a health insurance plan comparable to those enjoyed by members of Congress. However, he failed to mention any specifics.

In a document titled Barack Obama’s Plan for a Healthy America (available for viewing on his Web site, BarackObama.com), Obama highlights his strategy for universal health care and claims that his plan will “save a typical American family up to $2,500 every year on medical expenditures.”

Obama’s plan includes subsidizing families who need health care through federal funds, requiring hospitals and providers to submit information to federal bureaucrats concerning their methods and practices and implementing a national health insurance exchange. Additionally, he would force insurers to charge premiums based on income level of customers rather than health needs and mandate employers who don’t cover their workers substantially to pay a portion of payroll to the national health program. Other intrusions include more federal control over public schools to decrease obesity and increase nutrition.

While the plan barely makes a dent in pockets of larger corporations, those most likely to suffer are the smaller business owners who cannot afford to provide a sizeable amount of health care to employees. Obama makes the argument that each business will be able to provide health insurance coverage because costs will decrease. However, Sen. Obama is relying on tax revenue and artificial subsidies to keep prices low.

While Obama continually states that Americans need to take responsibility for themselves, his plan contradicts his professing self-reliance by promoting an ‘Obama knows best’ mindset – or even worse, ‘government knows best.’ Such extensive federal oversight into privacy and market intervention goes well beyond the boundaries of government; of course, the current health care system isn’t exactly doing a great job of allowing the private sector to flex its capability either.

And, of course, as is the case with most politicians, Sen. Obama forgot to mention – both in his speech Saturday afternoon and in his health care plan – the cost of his universal health care. According to the campaign office, the Obama Plan ranges between $50-65 billion dollars per year. How will we pay for it? Sen. Obama says he will let the Bush tax cuts expire for those individuals earning $250,000 or more.

The presidential hopeful’s approach is similar to many other universal health care plans that involve taking money from American citizens through taxes and having the government manage these additional revenues to pay the salaries of its bureaucrats first and health care second.

After evaluating and criticizing current tenets of the Democratic Party, Sen. Obama benevolently vowed to pay teachers higher salaries during his first term but did not explain where the money would come from.

Obama shifted quickly from education to the foreign policy and war powers and immediately differentiated himself from other major Democratic rivals: “I’m tired of Democrats thinking that the only way to look tough on national security is to talk, act and vote like George Bush Republicans.”

Commendable within his speech was Obama’s desire to restore habeas corpus, which was essentially suspended by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 – a bill that passed both houses of Congress in September 2006 and a bill for which Sen. Obama voted against.

Sen. Obama hardly spent any time on the Iraq occupation. He mentioned only that he would bring the troops home within 16 months. He did not elaborate on the costs involved and what the result of his Iraq plan would be.

Unfortunately for Obama, his support might have increased greatly had he explained his plan for getting out of Iraq. His Web site provides a detailed document similar to his health care plan, titled Barack Obama: Turning the Page in Iraq, which describes the shortcomings of current strategies in Iraq, such as the recent troop surge.

Additionally, Obama highlights that removing American troops is the best way to improve our national security and secure Iraqi independence, but he doesn’t stop there. In addition to halting US assistance to different sects, Obama outlines a constitutional convention headed by the UN, for Iraqi leaders “to develop a more sustainable balance between Baghdad’s central authority and provincial governments.”

And finally, Sen. Obama includes in his plan a troop surge to the long-forgotten Afghanistan, to correctly fight the Taliban and capture the man responsible for 9/11.

While his speech excited the crowd, Sen. Obama did not focus on the specifics concerning the two important topics of health care and the Iraq occupation. Instead, he told the audience what it wanted to hear – watered down political euphemisms with the gift of good intentions, leaving his revolutionary campaign strategy in the dust.

Hillary! Uncensored: Queen of the Pantsuit Comes Under Fire

Recently, the Young Conservatives of Texas screened Hillary! Uncensored, a documentary detailing Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s alleged campaign finance violations for the 2008 presidential race. The film gives exclusive home video footage as evidence and furnishes witnesses of Clinton’s actions. It also exposes the extensive media cover-up with what Ben Barrack, radio talk host and strong proponent of the documentary, calls “hard evidence from start to finish.”

Already this film has garnered a great deal of public attention. At time of publishing, the trailer has received almost two and a half million all-time views on Google Video, and over half a million views on YouTube.  Despite this, you may have never even heard of these allegations due to the incredible and suspicious lack of media coverage.

On August 12, 2000, one of the largest Hollywood tributes ever was produced featuring eight legendary artists, including Michael Bolton, Patti Labelle, Diana Ross, Toni Braxton and Cher. It was meant in part to honor former President Bill Clinton, but also raised over $1 million for Hillary’s 2000 US Senate campaign.  The event was produced by entrepreneur, lawyer, and co-creator of Stan Lee Media, Peter Paul.  Paul had two reasons to be interested in Hillary’s campaign.  For one thing, he wanted to charm her husband into serving on the board of Stan Lee Media after leaving the White House. Second, he was looking to negotiate a pardon for his criminal past.

The Hollywood gala went over beautifully, and the Clintons showed Paul and his wife ample warmth during the whole evening. In fact, the night ended with a group embrace between Bill, Paul, and Paul’s wife; Peter Paul thought their friendship and the deal were secured.

Two days after the event the Washington Post ran an article that uncovered Peter Paul’s felonious past – which involved selling nonexistent coffee to members of the Cuban government, distributing cocaine, and traveling through Canada under a false identity. Almost immediately after the article was published, Hillary Clinton issued a statement through her spokesman that she hardly knew Paul and that she would not take any contributions from him. She firmly stated that he did not pledge any money to the fundraiser; Paul claims he pledged $150,000.

Hillary denied having any idea of Paul’s previous misconduct but in the documentary, a White House campaign expert explains that there’s no way she couldn’t have known. When any person wants to organize a big event that involves the President or his family, Secret Service runs background checks on everyone involved. Not only that, but Peter Paul is a high profile character with a past that’s difficult to miss.

Unbelievably, despite completely renouncing Peter Paul to the media three days earlier, Hillary and President Clinton personally wrote thank you notes telling him what a lovely affair it was.  Hillary’s letter read as follows,

“Dear Peter:

Thank you so very much for hosting Saturday night’s tribute to the President and for everything you did to make it the great occasion that it was.  We will remember it always.

With gratitude for your friendship and warm regards, I remain

Sincerely yours,
Hillary”

Paul, incensed by the senator’s public duplicity wrote a demand letter to Clinton and sued her. The case has already been brought to court where Clinton was acquitted and has now been appealed.

Unfortunately, Clinton’s misdoings don’t end with lying to the American public.
Paul claims that the gala cost $1.9 million, while Federal Election Commission filing completed by Clinton’s campaign later indicated that the event only cost $500,000. She has since been fined $35,000 for the federal crime of misreporting this funding. The film also offers evidence implicating that Japanese businessman Tendo Oto donated $27,000 to the gala and to Hillary’s campaign – a federal offense. Candidates are not allowed to accept contributions from non-US citizens.

Additionally, another false FEC report was made claiming that Stan Lee had personally contributed $225,000, while Stan Lee claimed under oath that he has not contributed anything to Hillary’s campaign. The documentary’s explains that Clinton allegedly hiding funds given by Peter Paul and inappropriate sources under acceptable titles.

When questioned about the Peter Paul scandal, Clinton discredits everything he has ever said due to the nature of his past, and has passed off all the blame for any financial transgressions onto former finance director Edward Rosen and her campaign treasurer Andrew Grossman.

Does this documentary hold any credibility? Maybe. It was produced by Peter Paul, and it is clearly telling his side of the story. The only reason people are hesitant to believe him is because of his questionable past, which Hillary supporters have completely vilified, accusing Paul of being a conman and a corrupt individual. Hillary’s own personal record is definitely suspect (Whitewater scandal anyone?  How about the cattle futures controversy?). Still, the evidence seems to be there.

-Lauren King