« September 2005 | Main | November 2005 »

October 31, 2005

Wanna vote for Prop 2?

kkk.jpg
Our elected officials, many unable to keep their own marriages together, should have focused their time on understanding and solving the problem of marriages breaking up, including their own. Instead of denying the use of the floor of our Texas House of Representatives for the second (or third?) marriage of State Representative Mary Denny (R-Aubrey), they are denying rights to a singled out set of people. Maybe the amendment should have just simple-mindedly banned divorce and enforced the "till death do we part" pledge.

If you are inclined to "protect traditional marriage" by voting in favor of Proposition 2, at the very least know what you are not voting for and who is firmly behind your decision. Proposition 2 will modify the Texas Constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, as well as other things, but it will not provide the protections our elected officials have been claiming.

During a period of a divorce rate over 50%, high gasoline prices, soaring education costs, sky rocketing insurance rates, high property taxes, and our under funded public education system, our elected officials spent considerable time drafting a poorly worded amendment to the Constitution. Not only will this amendment define the word "marriage", but will also to deny rights to many in Texas by banning civil unions, or any other legal union between two individuals.

Realize what this amendment will not do. It does not address the 50% divorce rate, with Texas having one of the highest rates in the nation. Our elected officials, many unable to keep their own marriages together, should have focused their time on understanding and solving the problem of marriages breaking up, including their own. Instead of denying the use of the floor of our Texas House of Representatives for the second (or third?) marriage of State Representative Mary Denny (R-Aubrey), they are denying rights to a singled out set of people. Maybe the amendment should have just simple-mindedly banned divorce and enforced the "till death do we part"
pledge.

Same sex marriage is not recognized in Texas and will never be. This amendment does nothing more than spew hatred and deny rights to those who have secured legal unions between two individuals. If you are inclined to vote for this amendment at the very least know who will be standing firmly behind you, the Ku Klux Klan with a history of hatred, and the Catholic Church with a history of sexual scandals. Neither of these organizations should decide who should be allowed to marry or judge others that do.

And also at the end of the day when this amendment passes, you will still be paying $3.00 for a gallon of gas, your insurance bill be still be the highest in the nation, our schools will still be under funded and State Legislators can still get divorced multiple times and get married on the floor of the Texas House of Representatives.

God help us all.

Posted by John Cobarruvias at 09:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

TDP Statement on Alito Nomination

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Ruben Hernandez
(512) 478-9800
October 31, 2005

The Alito Nomination: A Treat for Extremists
Failed leadership from A Divider, Not a Uniter

Texas Democratic Party Chairman Charles Soechting issued the following statement following the nomination of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court:

“For the extreme and divisive elements in the Republican Party, Halloween, 2005, is both trick and treat. Within days of pulling off the trick of scuttling the President’s nomination of his friend and adviser, Harriet Miers, the President rewarded them with a treat: the nomination of Samuel Alito.”

“By caving in to pressure from the extreme right, the President has opened the door to a divisive nomination fight battle and the scary specter of right wing judicial activism at a time when the country desperately needs leadership that brings Americans together.”

“The Miers-Alito fiasco reveals once again that George W. Bush is a divider, not a uniter.”

Posted by Lyn Wall at 08:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Right wingnut dreams CAN come true

From Think Progress:

ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980’s. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito’s view, voting to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. (Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991)

ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by “immuniz(ing) an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer’s belief that it had selected the ‘best’ candidate was the result of conscious racial bias.” (Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997)

ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito’s dissent was so restrictive that “few if any...cases would survive summary judgment.” (Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 1991)

ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) “guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one.” The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA (Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003) essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law. (Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 2000)

ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. (Doe v. Groody, 2004)

ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS: In two cases involving the deportation of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito’s disregard of settled law. In Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alito’s dissent “guts the statutory standard” and “ignores our precedent.” In Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, the majority stated Alito’s opinion contradicted “well-recognized rules of statutory construction.” (Dia v. Ashcroft, 2003; Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, 2004)

Posted by Perry Dorrell at 01:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Public Health: Cheaper, Longer Life and Fewer Dead Kids

One of the right’s primary arguments against a single-payer national health system is it will be more expensive than private insurance. They argue against another federal program. What they have not recognized is all other countries that have public health plans are actually cheaper than the US as expressed in expenditures per GDP and per capita. In addition, public health systems in some cases provide better overall health service as measured through an increased life expectancy.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development tracks member state’s health systems. They issue an annual study on the cost of health care and the overall effectiveness of the various systems. In their latest report on the US, they note of member countries, only the US, Mexico and Korea rely primarily on private health insurance to provide medical care. The median amount of GDP spent on health care of 29 countries has fluctuated between 7.9 and 8.4 for 2000-2003. For 2000-2003, US health expense as a percentage of GDP was 13.1%, 13.8%, 14.6% and 15% respectively – by far the highest total of all countries. Germany was the next most expensive country and their totals for the same years (2000-2003) were 10.6%, 10.8%, 10.9%, 11.1%, respectively. So, as a percentage of GDP basis, the US spends between 34% and 75% more as a percentage of GDP than countries that rely primarily on public funds to provide health service.

The OECD also breaks health expenses down into amount spent per capita. For the last four years (2000-2003), the median per capital expense for 29 OECD countries ranged from $2010 to 2248. Over the same years, the US once again spent more than any other OECD country, with figures for 2000-2003 of $4539, $4888, $5287 and $5635. Over the same time, Switzerland ranked second in per capita expenditures and Germany third. It’s important to notice that the US’s private health care system routinely spends at least twice as much per person than other countries with public health systems.

So, the US spends the most on health care. Our system must provide some incredible benefits! Actually, the US benefits are below median for all OECD countries. In 1990, the median life expectancy of males and females for all OECD countries 75.5 years, while the US’ number was 75.3. In 2000, the OECD median life expectancy was 78 and the US’s was 76.8. In 2003, the OECD’s number was 78.5 and the US’ was n77.2. For the years 2000-2003, the OECD’s infant mortality rate as expressed as number of deaths per 1000 decreased from 5.1 in 2000 to 4.3 in 2003. In contrast, the US’ numbers increased from 6.9 in 2000 to 7 in 2003. So, in OECD countries, people are living longer and fewer kids are dying.

Countries with public health insurance spend less per GDP and per capita on health expenses, they live longer, and fewer infants die. That sounds damn good to me, but then again I like facts instead of faith.

OECD Link

Posted by Hale Stewart at 11:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 30, 2005

Sunday Funnies

Posted by Perry Dorrell at 09:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

The US Savings Crisis

My father is a saver. He had a lucrative career as a corporate lawyer. But, he didn’t spend like it. Although I never wanted for anything, we were certainly not awash in things. My mom and dad have had the same washing machine for 20 years. It works fine, so there is no need to replace it or upgrade to the newest model. My parents conspicuously saved for their retirement. And now, they are fine. I often joke with my dad that he should get the crowbar out, open his wallet and spend some money on himself. The point is my dad is a saver. And I am damn proud of his actions.

My dad is also in the distinct minority of Americans. Collectively, we don’t save anymore. We spend everything we make. And it is a problem that is now an epidemic.

Why is savings important? There are two very important reasons. First, at the macro-economic level savings is the engine of future growth. Individuals deposit their savings into the financial intermediaries such as banks, stock brokers, life insurance etc…. The intermediaries in turn lend the money in larger amounts to businesses that in turn invest in assets to increase their profits. The more money available, the lower the interest rates charged for loans. A key concept to remember is savings flow-through the economy from households to financial intermediaries to business. Secondly, and more practically, savings is vital in case of an economic downturn. If a person loses his job and has enough savings to still pay his bills for an extended length of time, that person has the ability to manage his affairs more prudently.

At the national level, the US savings levels are pathetic.

The only organizations actually putting aside money are corporations. The amount of money they put aside was 174.9 billion in 2000, which increased to 397.3 billion in 2004.

The Republicans are in charge at the federal level. This means borrow and spend is in full force. The federal budget deficit has ballooned under the fiscally conservative party again.

At the household level, the numbers are poor. First, economists define “savings” as disposable income (personal income – taxes) minus consumption expenditures. A non-ecogeek way to say this is savings is what is left over after you pay your taxes, bills and general expenses. Essentially, we are trying to isolate money households don’t spend today that they can readily access tomorrow with no financial strings attached (such as interest) should they need it.

In 2000, savings was 2% of personal income and 1.7% of GDP. In 2004, the numbers were 1.5% of personal income and 1.26% of GDP. The latest personal income numbers indicate that number is nearing 0%. In words, at the macro level, people are spending more and more of their income every month and putting less and less away for future consumption.

Over the same period that people were not putting money away, they were increasing their debt levels. Total household borrowing was 5.5 trillion in 2000 and a little over 10 trillion in 2004. Explosive growth in mortgages is the primary reason. Total mortgage debt increased from 3.36 trillion in 2000 to 8.78 trillion in 2004. People aren’t saving from their paychecks. Instead, they are borrowing against future earnings and anticipated asset appreciation.

The above examples illustrate a fundamental US economic problem: we are too dependant on consumer spending for economic growth. We are slowing moving away from the concept of making things to the concept of consuming things. A primary argument used by this administration in trade talks is other countries have insufficient demand. What they fail to recognize is the US has too much demand and is too dependant on demand for economic growth.

More importantly, savings allows the US consumer to weather financial storms and enjoy retirement. The less we save as a country, the more vulnerable we are to economic downturns. A lack of savings is essentially a huge problem that is waiting to cause serious damage.

Link

Posted by Hale Stewart at 08:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 28, 2005

Why Perjury? It's An Easier Case

The latest RWNM line is there is nothing in the indictment about the underlying crime -- revealing a covert operatives name in violation of the statute. What no one on the RWNM is mentioning is the Special Prosecutor has wide discretion to bring whatever charges he wants. It is obvious Fitzgerald is going after a simpler case because it is far easier to win.

A case is essentially a story. The simpler the narrative, the easier it is to get a conviction.

Let's look at both cases.

Perjury: essentially someone knowingly lied. To prove this case, the prosecutor must get the statement into evidence which is pretty easy. Then, he must prove he knew the statement was false. The prosecutor can do this through circumstantial evidence. However, he does not need to parade a large number of people in front of the jury. In addition, lying is a very easy concept for the jury to grasp.

Revealing a Covert Agents Identity: This is far more complicated. First, the prosecutor must prove the person was a covert agent. This immediately runs into issues of national security. Fitzgerald would have to get CIA documents into evidence. Then he would have to prove no one knew Plame was undercover. All Libby would have to produce is 1 credible person who claims they knew Plame was undercover and the case is gone.

In summation, Fitzgerald is using his discretion as a prosecutor to get the case e he knows he can win. This is entirely within his discretion. It also shows Fitzgerald is a bright guy. Why make it more complicated than it has to be?

Posted by Hale Stewart at 08:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Scooter Libby Indicted and Out of a Job

The press conference is on television right now.

The official indictments and statements by the Patrick Fitgerald are available here.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 01:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

David Van Os - No More Corporate Government

Guest posted by David Van Os, candidate for Texas Attorney General. He will be a great advocate for all of us. Please support his campaign!

Government by lies, secrecy, and cronyism is not what the American Revolutionaries intended when they proclaimed government by the consent of the governed. The Bushite machine is crumbling by the minute. It will be up to us, the grassroots American people, to pick up the pieces and rebuild self-governing democracy the way it should be: every citizen a 100% equal part owner of the government, and government serving the people.

Let's do it right this time, and dismantle the whole corrupted political culture that led us down the path to Bushite government. Let's restore democracy to its owners, the people. No more of installing into public office lying hustlers who only want to use government to enrich themselves and their cronies. No more of government by pollsters or marketing consultants. No more corporate government.

David Van Os
Democratic Candidate
For Texas Attorney General 2006

Cross posted at Daily Kos.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 01:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 27, 2005

Cockroach infestation about to be bombed

In 'three'...

42 percent of the Texas 22nd Congressional District think Tom DeLay should resign (including 27 percent of Republicans). Of course, DeLay isn't going to do that anytime soon, so the voters can forcefully resign him in November 2006. DeLay is at 45/51 approve/disapprove. The partisan breakdown of this SUSA poll is 51 Rep, 20 Dem, and 27 Ind.

...'two'...

Rep. Tom DeLay failed to comply with House requirements that he disclose all contributions to a defense fund that pays his legal bills, the Texas Republican acknowledged to House officials.

He wrote officials that $20,850 contributed in 2000 and 2001 was not reported anywhere. Another $17,300 was included in the defense fund's quarterly report but not in DeLay's 2000 annual financial disclosure report -- a separate requirement.

Other donations were understated as totaling $2,800, when the figure should have been $4,450.

...'one'...

ExxonMobil just posted record profits for the third quarter, some $9.92 billion, the largest quarterly profit of any corporation in U.S. history, according to the Associated Press.

DeLay owns at least $50,000 in ExxonMobil stock (pdf) and has taken $589,900 from oil and gas interests over his career. That's why he has passed legislative favors for them.

He's gotta be happy today.

How about you? Do you like paying close to $3 a gallon for gas just so ExxonMobil and its politician-stockholders can get record profits?

**KABOOM**

Posted by Perry Dorrell at 04:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 25, 2005

Sign John Conyers Letter to Bush Demanding No Plamegate Pardons

From :

TELL THE PRESIDENT: NO MORE PARDONS FOR TRAITOR-GATE CRIMINALS

Did you know that Elliot Abrahms, pardoned by the first President Bush for the Iran-Contra crimes he committed under the Reagan Administration, now works for the Bush White House? And has been implicated in the leak of Valerie Plame's covert identity? Fitzgerald may well successfully prosecute senior White House officials. Insist that anyone convicted in this case be ineligible for a presidential pardon. Demand that the President not pardon any criminals in his administration who compromise our national security!

Sign John Conyers letter to the president!

Posted by Lyn Wall at 11:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

2000 Heroes Lost

Guest posted by Houston Gold Star Mom Amy Branham:

There is pain in my soul this morning as I sit at this keyboard. It is an all-encompassing feeling that reverberates through my whole body. This is a pain that I cannot ignore and will not go away.

Sometime this week, maybe even today, the war in Iraq will claim the 2000th life of an American soldier killed in the line of duty. Let me repeat that last sentence in a more humanistic way: 2000 of America’s sons and daughters have died in Iraq in the war. 2000 warriors have died, have been brought home in flag-draped caskets that most of this country will never see. 2000 families have had their lives forever changed and their hearts forever broken. 2000 mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, husbands and wives either have or will bury their hearts when they bury their hero.

No matter what the politics are of each person in this country, whether we agree with George Bush, et al., or are a peacekeeper, we must recognize that these warriors gave their all for our country. Many believed they were fighting for freedom and democracy because that’s what their Commander in Chief told them. That is what their leaders told them. They gave their lives willingly for their country and we must honor their sacrifice.

In a day and a time when death and war is sanitized by the media and our government, we must press on and make them understand that death and war has a human face and a human cost. Our warriors, the sons and daughters of America, are not faceless numbers and statistics. Our heros are not expendable. Their lives have meaning, their memories are worth keeping alive. Their tragic deaths must be remembered.

Today I honor and I remember my only son, Sgt. Jeremy Russell Smith, who died at the age of 22 on February 13, 2004. Jeremy was a student at ITT when he was called to serve his country full time. By now he would have been finished with his education and would be working with his second love, computers. In my home I have two computers that Jeremy built himself from the ground up. Jeremy’s first love was the Army where he learned the meaning of the words Honor, Duty and Country. I will forever miss Jeremy’s goofy smile that he tried to hide. Never again will I hear Jeremy’s voice as he calls out “Hello, Mother!” as he walks into the room. Only in my dreams will I ever touch his face again. My son will never marry and he will never have children of his own for me to spoil rotten.

Cindy Sheehan tells me what she misses about her son, Casey, “I miss CASEY. I miss when he would call me from Ft. Hood and say “Hi, Mom”. I miss going to the movies with him. I miss his steady presence on the earth. I miss my big boy, my best friend.”

From Jane Bright whose son, Evan, died in this ugly war: “Evan was a future leader, a loving and giving son, husband, brother, nephew and grandson. He was one of the best and the brightest. He was a classical pianist, a gifted student, and one of the sweetest men I have ever known. I am blessed to have him as my son. He will always be wtih us, in our hearts, guiding us through difficult times as he did the soldiers who looked up to him. We don’t know why he had to die for Bush’s lies. As Cindy says, “for what noble cause did our children die?”

Please, do not let our heros become faceless, expendable statics in the history books. We must remember them, honor them, respect them. For those of us who loved them with every fiber of our being, do not let their sacrifice be for nothing. The citizens of our country owe them that. The leaders of our country who sent them to die in a foreign country, far away from those they loved, owe them that.

Amy Branham
Houston, TX
Mother of Sgt. Jeremy R. Smith
Nov. 1981 - Feb. 2004

Posted by Lyn Wall at 08:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

KKK supports Proposition 2

kkk.jpg

All we need now is a couple of people dressed like a pope with the same sign.

Posted by John Cobarruvias at 01:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

October 24, 2005

A Memorial to Those Fallen in the Iraqi Conflict

This Saturday, October 29, 2005, at 6:00 p.m., will begin a weeklong observance of the 2,000th U.S. Military Casualty and a memorial to all nationalities killed or wounded in the ongoing Iraq conflict. The location of the observance is on the Heights Boulevard esplanade between 10th and 11th Streets, next to the World War II Memorial. At 6:00 p.m., following the placing of some 2,000 American flags and some 180 Texas flags (to honor fallen Texans), there will be an ecumenical ceremony and the planting of the 2,000th flag. Each evening of the memorial period, there will be a ceremony at 6 p.m., marked by the placing of additional flags, as necessary. The closing ceremony will be held the following Saturday, November 5th, at 6:00 p.m. The public is welcome to attend the ceremonies and/or to visit the flags at any time during this coming week.

Schedule of events:

Oct. 29 Sat. 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. Opening Ceremony
Oct. 30 Sun. 6 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Sunset Memorial hosted by North Houston Peace Group
Oct. 31 Mon. 6 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Sunset Memorial hosted by Progressive Populists Caucus
Nov. 1 Tues. 6 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Sunset Memorial hosted by Veterans for Peace
Nov. 2 Wed. 6 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Sunset Memorial hosted by the Progressive Action Alliance
Nov. 3 Thur. 6 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Sunset Memorial hosted by CodePink
Nov. 4 Fri. 6 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Sunset Memorial hosted by 1st Unitarian Church
Nov. 5 Sat. 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. Closing Ceremony

Lead Sponsor:
Oil Patch Democrats
This organization promotes a rational energy policy based on
American ingenuity and hard work -- not the threat of preemptive war.
For more information phone 281-414-1386 or go to:
www.oilpatchdemocrats.com

Cosponsoring organizations are:
CodePink
Democracy For Houston
1st Unitarian Universalists
Greater Heights Democrats
Harris County Young Democrats
Harris County Green Party
Kingwood Democrats
KPFT
Military Families Speak Out
North Houston Peace Group
Progressive Action Alliance (PAA)
Progressive Populist Caucus
ROADwomen (River Oaks Area Democrat Women)
San Jacinto Democratic Veterans Brigade
Veterans for Peace

Posted by Lyn Wall at 09:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

PROPOSITION 2 PUTS ALL MARRIAGE IN TEXAS AT RISK

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE             CONTACT: Communications Office 512-916-4114

Monday, October 24, 2005                                        Lauren Rose 512-775-7745 (cell)

                                                                                 Karen Kalergis 512-775-4534 (cell)

 

PROPOSITION 2 PUTS ALL MARRIAGE IN TEXAS AT RISK

“Save Texas Marriage” to Urge Voters to Protect Marriage and Defeat Prop 2

( Austin , TX ) – Flanked by couples whose marriages would be invalidated, a decorated veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan , Army Captain Trampes C. Crow, announced today that the flawed language in the Texas Marriage Amendment puts all marriage at risk.

“Legislators did such a poor job drafting the amendment that all marriages in the State of Texas are at risk of being invalidated,” said Captain Crow.  “In their zeal to use the broad brush of discrimination as a ruse to protect ‘traditional’ marriage, the Legislature threatened marriage as we know it.”

        

           The Texas Marriage Amendment lacks key words that legislatures in other states used in passing constitutional amendments to clarify that marriage as it is known today would remain intact. 

 

The language that would be written into Article I, Bill of Rights in the Texas Constitution if Proposition 2 were to pass reads:

 

Section 32. (a) MARRIAGE in this state SHALL CONSIST ONLY of the UNION OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.

 

(b) THIS STATE or a political subdivision of this state MAY NOT create or RECOGNIZE ANY LEGAL STATUS IDENTICAL or similar TO MARRIAGE.

                   

The language is clear, part ‘a’ defines marriage as between one man and one woman, and ‘b’ prohibits the recognition of ‘a’, which is marriage between one man and one woman.

 

“Proponents of this measure are saying that marriage between same-sex couples would some how threaten my marriage,” said Crow.  “After reading the language of the Amendment for myself, I see that Proposition 2 is the real threat to my marriage.

 

“I have spent nearly a third of my life defending my country and now I have to come home from fighting a war and defend my marriage from my state,” said Crow, who is married with two children.  “I am ready to fight for my marriage and every marriage in Texas.”

 

Martha Cotera, a long time Austin resident, stood with Crow and the other married couples and voiced her concerns.  She said that the flawed language that will be written into the Constitution is all a judge can consider if the amendment is challenged.

 “Just the fact that even one attorney thinks the language in the marriage amendment annuls all marriages, makes me say ‘don’t risk it,” said Cotera.  “An activist judge could use this questionable language to end marriage as we know it.” 

 

Crow said that Save Texas Marriage will educate voters about the implications of the flawed language that Proposition 2 would write into the Constitution.  


         “There are only two weeks left until this election is over,” said 
Crow.  “Save Texas Marriage has a very simple message, ‘If 
you really want to protect marriage in Texas, you must vote 
against Proposition 2. We cannot risk the consequences.”   

Save Texas Marriage is a Specific Purpose PAC created to educate Texas voters on the Flawed Language of Proposition 2. For more information, visit www.SaveTexasMarriage.com. 


 

-30- 

NOTE: Attached is wording of other constitutional marriage amendments that have passed in other states.  In these, key words are included to specify traditional marriage will not be affected. 

 

Wording of Constitutional Amendments

Arkansas

"Marriage consists only of the union of one man and one woman. Legal status

for unmarried persons which is identical or substantially similar to marital status shall not be valid or recognized in Arkansas, except that the legislature may recognize a common law marriage from another state between a man and a woman. The legislature has the power to determine the capacity of persons to marry, subject to this amendment, and the legal rights, obligations, privileges, and immunities of marriage."

Kentucky

"Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage

for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized."

Louisiana

"Marriage in the state of Louisiana shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. No official or court of the state of Louisiana shall construe this constitution or any state law to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any member of a union

other than the union of one man and one woman. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized. No official or court of the state of Louisiana shall recognize any marriage contracted in any other jurisdiction which is not the union of one man and one woman."

North Dakota

"Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No

other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent effect."

Ohio

"Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status

for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."

Oklahoma

"A. Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. Neither this Constitution nor any other provision of law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred

upon unmarried couples or groups.

B. A marriage between persons of the same gender performed in another state shall not be recognized as valid and binding in this state as of the date of the marriage.

C. Any person knowingly issuing a marriage license in violation of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

Utah

"(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. (2) No

other domestic status or union, however denominated, between persons is valid or recognized or may be authorized, sanctioned, or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect as a marriage."

Wisconsin (proposed)

"Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage

for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."

Texas (proposed)

Article I, Texas Constitution, (The Bill of Rights) is amended by adding Section 32 to read as follows: Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. (b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 09:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

RIP Rosa Parks

Rosa ParksFrom ClickOnDetroit.com:

Local 4: Civil Rights Pioneer Rosa Parks Dead

POSTED: 9:35 pm EDT October 24, 2005
UPDATED: 9:47 pm EDT October 24, 2005

Civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks has died, Local 4 has learned.

Parks, 92, reportedly died around 7 p.m. Monday, a city source said.

Parks' refusal to give up her bus seat to a white man in Montgomery, Ala., in 1955 landed her in jail and sparked a bus boycott that is considered the start of the modern civil rights movement.

Parks, was born on Feb. 4, 1913. She now lives in Detroit.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 08:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Kay Bailey Then and Now

From her statement on the Clinton impeachment:

...If only the President had followed the simple, high moral principle handed to us by our Nation's first leader as a child and had said early in this episode `I cannot tell a lie,' we would not be here today. We would not be sitting in judgment of a President. We would not be invoking those provisions of the Constitution that have only been applied once before in our Nation's history.

But we should all be thankful that our Constitution is there, and we should take pride in our right and duty to enforce it. A hundred years from now, when history looks back to this moment, we can hope for a conclusion that our Constitution has been applied fairly and survives, that we have come to principled judgments about matters of national importance, and that the rule of law in American has been sustained.

And from yesterday about Plamegate:

SEN. HUTCHISON: Tim, you know, I think we have to remember something here. An indictment of any kind is not a guilty verdict, and I do think we have in this country the right to go to court and have due process and be innocent until proven guilty. And secondly, I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. So they go to something that trips someone up because they said something in the first grand jury and then maybe they found new information or they forgot something and they tried to correct that in a second grand jury.

I think we should be very careful here, especially as we are dealing with something very public and people's lives in the public arena. I do not think we should prejudge. I think it is unfair to drag people through the newspapers week after week after week, and let's just see what the charges are. Let's tone down the rhetoric and let's make sure that if there are indictments that we don't prejudge.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 12:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack

Breaking News about Prop 2 today - Join the Rally this Afternoon!

Breaking News is coming out of Austin about Prop 2 next week!  We need your help to create a stir in Houston!
 
On Monday, October 24th, there will be breaking news out of Austin about the hateful marriage amendment (Prop 2).
 
We need everyone who is available on Monday afternoon to attend a rally in Houston to create a media stir to highlight this breaking news!
 
Please plan to attend a "Get out the Vote Rallly" next Monday October 24th at the Metropolitan Multiservice center 1475 West Gray (Early voting location).  We will gather across the street at Cafe Express at 3:30pm and then walk over to the service center with signs to build a crowd for the 4 and 5 pm news crews. 
 
The news from Austin will be pretty amazing (can't tell you now) so you won't want to miss this event! 
 
Since this is a tricky time of day, we need everyone who is not at work to show up so we can make a media splash.  Please bring home-made signs to say things like "Vote No on Prop 2".
 
Here are the details again:
 
Get out the vote rally
(with breaking news announcement shhhh!)
 
Monday October 24th
 
3:30pm (meet at Cafe Express 1422 West Gray)
then gather in front of the
Metropolitan Multi-Service Center  @ 1475 West Gray
 
Bring signs (Vote No on Prop 2 etc)

Posted by Lyn Wall at 09:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Trade Deficit: Still Here and Why It Matters

The trade deficit has lost power to grab headlines. Every month, the BEA announces the figure, the markets react to the number for a few days, then everybody goes back to their regularly scheduled program until next month. In addition, the primary mechanism that brings the trade deficit into the public spotlight – a deterioration of the dollar’s value – hasn’t happened since the first of the year. Starting in January, dollar has rallied versus other currencies because US interest rates are high relative to other countries.

So, everything must be OK, right? Wrong. The trade deficit will probably set another record this year with little sign of correction in the near future. It still endangers the US economy in a fundamental way, threatening our economic security.

Last week, NY Fed President Timothy F. Geithner spoke to the Asia Society’s CEO forum. He used the speech to discuss the trade deficit and why it is so important to deal with it now before it deals with us later. His comments outline the problem’s causes and implications for US policy.

What caused the problem?

In the United States, public savings and household savings fell, while investment spending stayed reasonably strong and housing investment very strong, even during the latest recession.

The second feature of this dynamic has been an increase in the willingness of the rest of the world to invest its savings in the United States.

An economy must have a savings base to expand. Savers place their excess funds into various financial intermediaries – banks, the stock market etc…. These financial intermediaries then lend the money to business who in turn use the money to invest in new productive capital to expand their respective businesses.

The problem is the US savings rate has declined for the last 20+ years, and now stands at 0. Yes, you read that correctly. We have a 0 savings rate. This doesn’t mean what you probably think it means. For economists, “savings” is what is left over after monthly consumption expenditures. So, for the last 20 years, Americans have slowly decreased the amount of money they set aside after they are paid wages, pay taxes and purchase items. At the macro level, Americans now set aside nothing. They immediately spend everything they make.

So, domestic funds for the national financial intermediaries has been decreasing. But, the US economy is still expanding. Where does the money come from?

Overseas. Foreign investors take their excess money and invest it in the US because they perceive the US as the best and safest place to invest. The Republicans have now framed this issue as a sign of American strength – we’re so great, people want to invest their excess cash in the US!!!! The US is strong!!! No need to worry about the trade deficit!!!!

Well, we need to worry about the deficit. Why? Well, according to the same speech, here are some of the reasons:

It matters because of the size of the U.S. imbalance. Our current account deficit is now running at a rate of above 6 percent of GDP, a level without precedent for a major economy.

Just to give you an idea, 5% is considered really bad by most economists. 6% is, well, really, really bad. Usually this would spell disaster for a currency. In fact, it did for the dollar last year when the dollar was ready to fall through important levels. However, the US also has the highest interest rates in the first world, which is currently bolstering the dollar in the forex markets. In fact, it’s pretty much the only thing holding the dollar up right now.

It matters because of the trajectory of the U.S. imbalance. On reasonable assumptions about its likely near term path, this deficit will produce a very large net deterioration in our net external liabilities relative to national income, with progressively larger net transfers of income to the rest of the world

Simply put, if the trade deficit continues on its current course, the US will have to pay more and more money to overseas investors. This money going overseas will continue to increase relative to US national income, meaning more and more of our GDP will go overseas instead of into domestic business.

It should concern us because of how the imbalance has been financed. A substantial portion of the capital inflows that finance our current account deficit has come from foreign central banks—which have been accumulating dollar reserves to preserve exchange rate arrangements that are unlikely to be sustainable and are already in the process of change. The impact of a reduction in the scale of official accumulation of dollar assets could be fully offset by increases in purchases by private investors. But even in the context of a continued high degree of confidence in the relative return on claims on the United States, it is hard to know with confidence how the preferences of private savers might respond to the process of gradual evolution in their nation’s exchange rate regimes now underway.

Right now, foreign central banks are the big purchasers of US debt. If that starts to drop off, foreign private investors could pick-up the slack. However, if foreign central banks are no longer investing in the US, why should their citizens? Wouldn’t a drop-off by foreign central banks mean the US was no longer a great place to invest? If their governments won’t invest, why should their citizens?

This pattern should concern us because it is not simply the result of the savings and investment decisions of the private sector. The fact that we are using a substantial part of the savings we are borrowing from the rest of the world to finance an unsustainable level of public borrowing leaves us more vulnerable than if those savings were being used for productive private investment. Large structural fiscal deficits limit the size of the sustainable external imbalance for any country, even the United States, and they necessarily increase concern about the terms on which we are likely to finance the present imbalance.

The federal deficit – (again) created by those fiscally responsible Republicans -- is soaking up foreign central banks investments in the US instead of going to US industry (like out deteriorating manufacturing and information technology sector). As a result, the US isn’t investing in productive assets that could help grow the US out of the trade imbalance. Looking at the trade figures, imports are still growing at a faster rate than exports.

And most importantly, perhaps, these imbalances matter because at some point they will have to reverse. Market forces will at some point induce an adjustment. And that inevitable process of adjustment will bring with it the risk of large movements in relative prices, greater volatility in asset prices and slower growth in the United States and in the rest of the world.


The magnitude of this risk is difficult to measure with any confidence. Past episodes of external adjustment offer some reassurance, but the present circumstances seem sufficiently different from historical precedent that history may not be a particularly useful guide.


This situation can’t last forever. And as market forces take over and start to correct the situation, the US could experience some serious pain:

The risks associated with this adjustment process may be magnified by changes in the household balance sheet in the United States. The average household in the United States today has a higher level of debt to income and is somewhat more exposed to interest rate risk than in the past. The sustained rise in housing prices and the scale of borrowing against housing assets raises the possibility that a rise in risk premia could have a greater impact on household spending that would have been true in the past

Paul Volcker puts it far more succinctly:

I don't know of any country that has managed to consume and invest 6 percent more than it produces for long. The United States is absorbing about 80 percent of the net flow of international capital. And at some point, both central banks and private institutions will have their fill of dollars.

Posted by Hale Stewart at 08:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 23, 2005

There's Still A Health Care Crisis

Health care – or the remarkable lack of it available to the US population – is one of my pet issues. Regrettably, it has flown under the radar for a long time. This is too bad, because no other issues has such a profound effect on the well being of the middle class. If people don’t have the opportunity to take care of their basic health, their entire standard of living comes into jeopardy.

The current US system is a joke. There are over 44 million people uninsured. If they get sick, they’re essentially SOL. Even if you have insurance, the health insurance company will do everything they can to tell you they don’t cover that particular problem. And now, higher co-payments and deductibles are increasing in popularity, leaving more and more insured with higher and higher bills.

Now, without further adieu, the American Health Care Crisis in all it’s glory gory.

Premiums and Deductibles

From 2001-2005, health insurance premiums increased 10.9%, 12.9%, 13.9%, 11.2 and 9.2%, respectively. Over the same time, the use of high co deductibles has come into vogue. For conventional health plans, the average national deductible has increased 141% from 1999 ($249) to 2005 ($602).

Let’s think about that for a minute. The average person is not only paying higher premiums, he is also footing a larger percentage of the bill in the form a high deductibles. In other words, there is a clear trend to shift the actual burden of the cost from the insurance company to the insured, making health insurance nothing more that a payment with no benefit.

Paying For Services

The Kaiser Foundation and USA Today worked together on a series of health care articles.

Sixty-two percent of those struggling to pay medical bills have health insurance, underscoring how increasing premiums, deductibles and gaps in coverage are affecting families.

The survey, a wide-ranging look at the impact of medical costs on the nation's families, found that 28% of adults were unable to pay for some form of medical care in the past year. That's nearly double the 15% who reported such a problem in 1976.

Medical costs are a growing burden for middle-income families with children, as well as for the working class, people with chronic illnesses, the disabled and the uninsured. Many who cannot pay skimp on health care, go without prescription drugs or simply ignore their bills, the survey showed

Medical Insurance is looking more and more like a mafia protection racket. You pay money for a service you never use.

A message to Republicans (the party in power): There are plenty of people out there acting responsibly who are getting screwed. Why don’t you care about them?

Getting Insurance

Most Americans get their health insurance through their employers. The problem here is fewer firms are offering health insurance. The overall percentage of firms offering health insurance has dropped from 68% in 2001 to 60% in 2005. And the smaller the company, the less chance they will offer insurance. Only 47% of companies that had 3-9 workers offered health insurance. 74% of firms with 10-24 employees offered health insurance, and 87% of firms with 24-49 workers had insurance. So, the entrepreneur – the people Bush is supposed to love – are having a hard time getting health insurance to get and keep good employees.

The main reason for the lack of insurance? COST. 73% of those surveyed responded cost was a very important reason for their not having coverage.

So, let’s review. It’s harder to get insurance that is increasingly covering less. Even if you have insurance, you have a 1 in 4 chance of struggling to pay for medical bills.

Wow – this is one of the most successful plans I have ever seen.


LINK (PDF)

Posted by Hale Stewart at 08:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

October 22, 2005

Next week could be the worst one yet

... for the Republican party. How could that be, you ask?

Let's count a few of the ways:

* possible indictments in the investigation by Patrick Fitzgerald into the leak of Valerie Plame's name.

* planned anti-war protests across the country when the US casualty rate reaches 2000.

* more developments, confusion and angst regarding the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

* daily updates on the scandals of Tom DeLay and Bill Frist.

* and the worst. poll numbers. ever.

When you see your GOP friends, neighbors and associates next week -- the ones who still identify themselves as such; they're the ones who haven't scraped the 'W' stickers off their SUV yet -- try not to burst out laughing in their faces.

It's hard work, I know.

Posted by Perry Dorrell at 11:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 21, 2005

Reminder - Houston City Council Candidates Forum - Voter Verifiable Paper Ballots - Oct. 25

Tuesday, Oct. 25 7:30 p.m.
Rice University

The Rice University Young Democrats and The Progressive Populist Caucus of the Texas Democratic Party invite all Houston City Council candidates to hear a brief presentation of the Election Reform Committee of the Harris County Democratic Party's position regarding the necessity for a voter verifiable paper trail with our Hart Intercivic ('e-Slate') electronic voting system.

We will then encourage questions and dialogue from city council candidates on this issue.

The City of Houston has the authority to build such items into its contracts for voting systems/services used in city elections provided by Harris County and therefore Council members can influence the direction of such a requirement.

Location: Rice University, Duncan Hall, McMurtry Auditorium located inside Entrance One at the intersection of Main and Sunset. When you the reach Founder's Court (the lawn in front of Lovett Hall that terminates the main drive), Duncan Hall is visible to the right. Visitor parking is available in the lots on either side of the Founder's Court. A credit card is required.

Contact Email Address for Event:
Houston at TexasPopulists dotcom

Event Fee:
Voluntary donations to the Rice University Young Democrats are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 01:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

More Signs of a Housing Slowdown

I know – there is no housing bubble; it’s all a liberal fantasy to scare people. At least, this is what people on the political right say. According to one pundit on Fox news, there are a few markets that are slightly overpriced but nothing to worry about. (The FDIC has contradicted this assessment.) Well, the reality is there is a housing bubble and it is very dangerous for many reasons.

Consumers – whose wages have been near stagnant after inflation for the last 5 years – have financed their spending with home equity loans.

Instead of playing the stock market, people are now entering the world of flipping real estate – buying and selling property quickly hoping to make a profit. This is great if it works. However, it is conceivable a buyer could be stuck with a home that he can’t afford long-term.

Almost 40% of the paltry few jobs created in this expansion are tied to housing, meaning a slowdown in the market could significantly lower job growth.

In short, the housing market is the engine of this expansion.

Now there are increased signs of it’s slowing.

In Orange County, sellers are lowering prices and inventory is increasing

The frustration experienced by sellers like Hong reflects a cooling in the market for higher-priced homes in Los Angeles and Orange counties, according to recent price and sales data. Faced with reduced buyer demand and rising inventories of unsold properties, many sellers of homes worth more than $750,000 are dropping asking prices.

Many also are taking weeks before landing buyers.

The slowdown in pricier homes is typical of the latter stages of a housing boom, analysts say, as expensive properties were the first to rise sharply at the beginning of the current cycle.

In some of the ritziest areas, such as the 90210 ZIP Code of Beverly Hills where the average home price is $3 million, sellers have cut asking prices by an average of at least 10%.

In the first half of 2004, by contrast, sellers of pricier homes typically got 5% to 10% above their asking prices.

Sales are slowing in New York:

Until recently, apartments in prime locations sold fast. Often bidding wars broke out, and the most aggressive buyer won by paying more than the asking price.

But now flats sit for an average of four-and-a-half months before a sale contract is signed. While that's well within the normal range for a healthy, balanced market - one in which supply and demand are in sync - that's a month longer than the process took last spring.

Mortgage rates are rising

Rates on 30-year mortgages rose this week to the highest level in 15 months while one-year adjustable rate mortgages climbed to the highest level in 4 1/2 years. Analysts expect rising mortgage rates to cool the booming housing market in coming months.

The mortgage company Freddie Mac reported Thursday that the nationwide average for 30-year, fixed-rate mortgages rose this week to 6.10 percent, the highest level since 30-year mortgages were at 6.21 percent in late July 2004.

Last week the 30-year mortgage had risen to 6.03 percent, marking the first time it had been above 6 percent since the last two weeks in March.

There is other fragmentary evidence:

The Federal Reserve's latest beige book contained 10 references to cooling markets, up from three in the prior beige book and zero before that.

The unsold inventory of existing homes rose to 4.7 months' supply in August, the highest since November 2003 and a marked gain from January's 3.8 months.

Condo inventories are climbing to even higher highs – to a 5 months' supply from a low of 3.1 months in July 2004.

The unsold inventory of new homes, after 2-plus million in housing starts for five months running, has jumped to a five-year high of 4.7 months' supply from 4.1 months in July.

New-home price appreciation has slowed to a 1 percent annualized rate from the peak of 18 percent in October 2004.

The National Association of Home Builders index fell for a third straight month in September to the lowest level since July 2003.

Homebuyer traffic is at its lowest level since February 2004
and has been flat to down for three months in a row.

This winter could be the rally killer. As energy prices escalate a projected 50-90%, consumers will find their thin budgets stretched further. The Federal Reserve has spoken with a unified voice regarding inflation, implying interest rate hikes will continue through 2005 and possibly into 2006. Consumer sentiment is low, implying fewer people will take the plunge into home ownership. In short, there are a lot of factors indicating the slowdown will continue.

Will housing pop or simply slow? I don’t know. The reality is it doesn’t really matter. While a slowdown would be preferable, it will still have strong negative ramifications for the economy.


Posted by Hale Stewart at 08:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 20, 2005

2006 Health Expense 3 Times Higher Than Pay Increase

Workers, however, will receive an average base salary increase of just 3.6 percent next year, according to Hewitt Associates' 29th annual survey of more than 1,000 organizations. That's the same that workers received nationwide this year.

Employees are expected to spend an average of $3,136 next year in premiums, deductibles and co-pays, a 12 percent increase from this year, according to Hewitt.

"So that means our entire raise — plus a little extra — is going to pay for those higher health care costs," said Ken Abosch, business leader in the talent consulting group for the Lincolnshire, Ill.-based firm. "Plus, we're paying more for energy."

Let’s review the above numbers. Employers are planning a national average wage increase of 3.6%. But, employees premiums, deductibles, and co-pays increased 12% -- or 3 times their pay increase. Thanks, boss.

But, it gets better. Let's look at this year. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average hourly wage of non-supervisory workers rose from $15.90 to $16.18 this year, and increase of 1.76%. At the same time, the inflation index increased from 190.7 to 198.8%, an a 4.24% increase – almost 2.5 times the increase in base salary.

So, the average wage increase is going to necessities like health insurance and oil increases, leaving the average person little room for personal expenditures.


The plight of the middle class continues.

Link


Posted by Hale Stewart at 09:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 19, 2005

A glorious Fitzmas week

just got a little sweeter:

Posted by Perry Dorrell at 11:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Some things speak for themselves

Tom Delay's arrest warrant is online.

Update 10/20: Thanks to Kris Graham for pointing out that the document has been pulled. Fortunately, there is a screenshot of it at AmericaBlog. The text is not as clear, but the heading is.

Update: The arrest warrant PDF is now available here: DelayArrest.pdf.

And here's the mugshot:Delay Mugshot

Posted by Lyn Wall at 08:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBack

FYI: College Tuition Crisis Continues

I know -- it's not Plamegate. No indictments, no intrigue. Just a basic threat to our national existence.

Those from families with the highest income and education levels finished college at more than double the rate of high-scoring students from the lowest socioeconomic grouping.

Sandy Baum, a College Board analyst, said the data showed that college completion increasingly was "not about academic preparation; it's about money."

Let’s stop and think about the above paragraphs. Family income – not academic potential – is just as important in completing college. For a middle class family that wants to better the lives of their children, this is simply wrong. It’s not about the time you study, the sacrifices you make to intellectually prepare yourself for a better life. It’s about whether your parents can afford the cost.

Not including room, board and books, the tuition and fees at four-year public colleges rose this year by a national average of about 7%, to $5,491.

Private four-year schools raised their tuition by an average of about 6%, to $21,235, the group reported.

Financial aid did not keep pace with tuition increases this year, continuing a trend, the reports said. The average net tuition and fees — the price paid after financial aid is awarded — was $11,600 for private college students, up from an inflation-adjusted $9,500 a decade ago. Public college net tuition and fees averaged $2,200, increasing from a real price of $1,900 a decade ago.

Here’s the short version of what has happened in the last few decades. States have continually decreased their funding for their own universities. Instead, they have passed the increase onto students who have to take out larger loans to pay for education. The result is more graduates are now leaving college either before graduation before they graduate because of the financial burden, or more people are graduating with a larger debt load, thus preventing them from moving up the socio-economic scale. Here’s the result of this policy:

Within the lowest socioeconomic sample, 75% of the high-scoring eighth-graders eventually enrolled in college, but 29% had earned college degrees eight years after high school graduation. Ninety-nine percent of high-scoring eighth-graders within the highest socioeconomic sample attended college, with 74% earning degrees. High scorers in the middle two socioeconomic groups entered college at a 91% rate, with 47% earning degrees.

If you’re rich, you have a better chance of graduating. The land of opportunity in action.

Link


Posted by Hale Stewart at 08:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 17, 2005

Caption this

I'll begin:

"Did you say, 'subpoena', George?"

Posted by Perry Dorrell at 10:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Serious Problems With Inflation Index Understate Inflation

I have serious problems with several popular government economic numbers. The first of these is the unemployment rate, which several studies have clearly demonstrated under-report the degree of US unemployment. The second of these is the inflation number. My own experience simply buying and selling goods over the last few years combined with evidence from the financial press adds up to suspicion. After doing some digging on the internet, I realize my concerns are well-founded. The core CPI number has serious flaws that understate inflation, largely because it does not include health insurance premiums and the appreciation of house prices.

Housing

Prior to 1982, the housing cost numbers were based upon what you actually spent for the house and the related mortgage. After 1982, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) began to use an imputed number. They now use what is known as "owners' equivalent rent of primary residence" for the housing portion of the CPI. This is based on an economic theory that says that homeowners are essentially leasing the houses from themselves and paying implied rent for that service.

In theory, they are trying to figure out what it would cost you to rent your home. There's actually a rational reason for doing this and we will talk about that in a minute, but first let's look at the numbers.

Why are these imputed rents so low? Dean Baker tells us, "The main factor holding down shelter costs is the overbuilding associated with the housing bubble. This has led to record nationwide rental vacancy rates, which is putting downward pressure on rental prices in many of the areas with the biggest bubbles in housing prices. For example, rents in the New York City area rose by just 1.9 percent over the last year. They rose by 1.8 percent in Tampa, Florida and by just 0.3 percent in both Boston and San Francisco. (This is the inflation rate for the owners' equivalent rent index, which strips out utility prices.)"

How much does using imputed rent affect the CPI? Bill King wrote a few months ago, "In the Q1 GDP data, the US government has housing prices up only 1.1%, yet industry data shows double digit gains. And this week the June existing home sales data shows a 14.7% increase in the median house price. The BLS has 'owners' equivalent rent of primary residence' up only 2.2%.

Since 1982, the housing component of CPI has not included the actual cost of houses. Simply eyeballing this chart from Prudent Bear indicates the average price of homes sold increased from $180,000 in January 2002 to just below $260,000 in mid-year 2005. That’s a hefty increase to not include in a price index.

Also of particular interest is the housing bubble’s effect on the CPI numbers. Because of overbuilding, rents are not escalating nearly as much as the actual price of the underlying property. In other words, the housing bubble is helping to understate CPI.

Health Insurance

According to the BLS’ website:

The CPI does not publish a health insurance index, although BLS is testing its feasibility with an experimental index. The weights in the CPI do not include employer-paid health insurance premiums or tax-funded health care such as Medicare Part A and Medicaid. Currently, the index employs an indirect method for measuring price changes for health insurance premiums. Under this indirect method, the medical care index will not be affected by changes in policy characteristics, such as modifications to policy benefits and utilization changes. The approach implicitly assumes that the level of service from individual carriers is strictly a function of benefits paid. While other components may affect the index, such as more convenient claims handling or a 24-hour nurse line, their effects are probably small. This indirect approach factors medical insurance premiums into two parts:

<