Texas consumers will soon be paying more for electricity. But this isn’t because of deregulation and greedy electricity companies, as is so often claimed. Instead, it is the result of some decisions soon to be made by Texas’ Public Utility Commission.

Energy efficiency and renewable energy are all the rage these days as protection from dirty air and global warming. And believe it or not, Texas is at the forefront of these fads.

Texas is the leading producer of electricity from wind, having passed enviro-friendly California a few years back. Our energy-efficiency program has been in place for years.

Yet Texas’ progressive green energy agenda comes at a cost to every Texan.

The cost of the energy efficiency program was about $105 million in 2009. Meanwhile, direct wind-energy costs will run about $41 million this year, but unallocated system costs could be twice as high. Within a few years, after the construction of hundreds of miles of transmission lines to west Texas is completed, wind energy could cost Texas consumers over $1 billion per year.

In 2009 the Texas Legislature took a look at these green power programs. Many bills were proposed, but none passed. The costs of these programs to consumers were the main reason the bills failed. Now, however, the PUC is picking up where the Legislature left off, apparently not sharing the cost concerns of our lawmakers.

The PUC is considering rule changes that would greatly expand the state’s energy efficiency program, at a cost to consumers of about $345 million in 2014, and as much as $681 million in 2016. A similar expansion of subsidies for solar and biomass generation could cost over $100 million a year. This means residential electricity bills could increase by as much as $5 a month.

Why is the PUC doing this?

One reason put forward is that energy efficiency makes electricity cheaper. The problem is that while energy efficiency does make electricity less expensive, the state’s program does not.

The claim of savings rests on flawed estimates. For instance, the PUC says that if the program offers a $50 rebate on a refrigerator that saves $10 a year on electricity, it claims that the program saves money beginning in year six. Yet refrigerators can costs $400 or more. So a $10 a year savings on a $400 investment is a 40 year payout, much longer than the life of a refrigerator.

The payout on an investment in solar is similarly long. PUC Chairman Barry Smitherman has estimated he’ll break even on the solar panels installed on his home after 42 years.

When faced with these facts, the PUC falls back on the claim that although individuals may pay more money, “the public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing the amendment will be … a decrease in overall energy consumption.”

If you are confused by this government-speak, let me translate: the PUC says we will all benefit because we will pay more money for less electricity.

Perhaps that didn’t help. The benefits of this proposal may need more explanation.

What’s driving the green energy agenda is a desperate need to save the environment. If we don’t reduce pollution and global warming, we’re told, we are headed for a major eco-disaster. Therefore, if this costs us a little more money now, it is worth it once we take into account these environmental costs.

Too bad the facts don’t match up with this scenario.

Over the last decade, the Texas job and population growth has far outpaced the rest of the country. Not surprisingly, we have significantly increased our energy use. Yet at the same time, we have made dramatic progress in reducing air pollution. In fact, our air is so clean today that the EPA is left to propose limits on emissions that often are below the natural background levels.

On the global warming front, we have all heard of Climategate. It turns out the science isn’t so settled on the claims of man-made global warming. But it doesn’t really matter because Texas is also leading the way in reducing CO2 emissions. Only New York reduced emissions more from 2004 to 2007.

The green energy programs at the PUC will do nothing to help our environment. The free market, in concert with existing environmental regulation, is handling all of the discussed environmental problems — real or imagined. This dearth of environmental and societal benefits leaves us with a bunch of green energy programs that are simply expensive and will drive up the electricity bills of Texas consumers.

Why the PUC wants to increase the programs is unclear. Much easier to discern is the reason that a lot of big businesses want the programs. As we have seen, renewable energy and energy efficiency is expensive. With few people wanting to use these programs, businesses who have invested millions of dollars in them stand lose big money without more help from the government. So they are busy lobbying for it.

These programs bring praise to policymakers for being forward-thinking on the environment, provide guaranteed returns for investors in renewable energy, and reduce the costs of doing business for large companies. Everybody wins — except taxpayers and consumers.

Michael Quinn Sullivan is president of Texans for Fiscal Responsibility (www.EmpowerTexans.com) a non-profit organization based in Austin.

Share on Facebook

Legislative liberals are howling like scorned lovers over the appointment of Republican State Rep. Larry Taylor to the Sunset Commission. The Democratic Caucus is indignant, saying House Speaker Joe Straus isn’t providing the “inclusiveness” and “parity” they say he promised when they delivered him the speakership in 2009. Mr. Straus is finding that those who brought him to the dance are playing music to which it’s difficult to two-step.

The opening on the commission comes as State Rep. Carl Isett (R-Lubbock) formally resigns the House seat from which he last year announced he was retiring. (He didn’t seek re-election and will in all likelihood be replaced in January by John Frullo.) The Sunset Commission considers the continuation of state agencies, making recommendations to the legislature on overall reform, consolidation or elimination.

The Houston Chronicle’s blog “Texas Politics” on Saturday noted:

House Democrats are not as enthused with House Speaker Joe Straus today as they were when they essentially made him speaker nearly 18 months ago when the San Antonio Republican emerged to take on incumbent Tom Craddick, R-Midland.

If anything, Taylor’s appointment to the Sunset seat held by the conservative Carl Isett preserves the status quo, a hallmark of Mr. Straus’ speakership.

After all, just two weeks ago Mr. Straus was raising money for the Democrat’s fair-haired state rep., Patrick Rose of Dripping Springs — helping the already well-monied other-party incumbent over a GOP challenger.

Preserving the status quo doesn’t have many friends. Mr. Straus’ fellow Republicans want to expand their fragile 77-73 majority. The Democrats, meanwhile, make no bones about wanting to recapture the majority they lost in 2002.

Playing in the mythical middle isn’t turning out to so well for the gentlemanly Mr. Straus; one rarely finds true or lasting allies there. The Republicans see opportunities to beat incumbent Democrats, and would like to have Mr. Straus’ help in that operation — he could be the House leader that brought them back from the brink of destruction. Democrats suspect there are opportunities to defeat Republicans, and desperately want Mr. Straus’ name and party affiliation to give them an air of respectability in the otherwise GOP-dominated state.

If Mr. Straus wants to keep the title of “Speaker,” he would do well to either get out of the way altogether, or pick a side and play for keeps. The former isn’t an option. Of the latter, there are two choices: cast his lot with the Democrats as their false-flag, and hope against hope they don’t toss him under the bus. Or he could stick with the party his mother, Joci Straus, helped found in Texas.

Share on Facebook

Last night’s unprecedented assault on our most basic constitutional rights must be addressed quickly by voters and elected officials alike. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has been preparing to file suit against the Obama Administration, while State Rep. Bryan Hughes announced legislation “that protects Texans from the federal health care bill passed by the United States Congress.”

If you’re like me, the Sunday actions of Congress — this assault on our most basic constitutional rights and principles — was nothing short of sickening behold.

But we must not despair! There is a strong medicine available.

The very nature of ObamaCare degrades our quality of life by limiting the ways in which men and women can seek to pursue their happiness. By almost completely socializing medicine, individuals no longer have to bear the burden for their unhealthy lifestyle choices.

Anyone who thinks health care will not be rationed or severely degraded is living a fantasy. For decades, the United States has been the medical destination of choice for world leaders and the wealthy from every socialized nation under the sun. That they came here explains everything necessary about why we should not have adopted what they lived under.

A government that controls health care soon establishes itself as the regulator of every aspect of life. How soon until we are required to support the “Pelosi Salt-Control Act” because treatment of hypertension is putting too tight a strain on the government medical system?

The very essence of liberty is eroded by this unnatural severing of the relationship between individual liberty and personal responsibility.

As this new governmental python wraps itself around our economy, it will necessarily squeezes the life out of American ingenuity and vitality.

The concept of a centralized government making complex decisions about each individual’s life fits nicely with cultures accustomed to living under kings and tyrants. In much of Europe, rights are still perceived as emanating from the generosity of government, to be added or subtracted by the whim of rulers.

Such is not the case in the American experience, where rights are understood to flow from God to the individual, with minimal meddling by government. In the American equation, we flipped the denominators; the people are in charge, law is king, and government is our servant.

Though not for much longer. Under this Europeanized health care model, we will be forced to beg government for our very life.

President Obama and his allies have imposed upon us something incompatible with our history and the very fabric of our approach to government.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott announced today he will be participating in a lawsuit with several other states to use the courts in an effort to stop ObamaCare.

Meanwhile, State Rep. Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola) has announced he is preparing legislation to shield Texans from ObamaCare. He described the legislation passed by Congress as “a radical departure from the role of government our founders put in the constitution.”

Both are admirable and correct actions, but they are not sufficient. It is incumbent on voters and taxpayers to take responsibility for cleaning up the mess by clearing out those who have taken our country so far off course.

We have to be part of the solution.

Five things we must do:
1. Keep up the calls of opposition to the congressmen (all Democrats in Texas) who voted for it; remind them just how bad a decision they made.
2. Contribute to those congressmen’s political opponents, and to organizations that will likewise fight this politically and in the courts.
3. Thank the state’s Republican congressional delegation for standing up for our values and principles on this issue. Make sure our state lawmakers are supporting the legal and legislative remedies proposed by Mr. Abbott and Mr. Hughes.
4. Activate our friends and neighbors in what is now an even more important political season.
5. We must vote. From the top of the ballot to the bottom, we must cast our votes only for those who will diligently work to quickly unravel this anchor tied to the neck of our economy… and the very life of every American.

By taking a swift action today, and every day, we will make America healthy again.

Share on Facebook

Beginning today, Texans can exercise their vote in the Republican and Democratic primaries — voting early in person in advance of the March 2 election. While the headlines have been consumed by the important gubernatorial election, let us not neglect the equally important races further down our ballots.

In a great many cases, these positions will actually be determined in the primary elections, meaning your voice and vote has an even greater weight.

Too few of us pay careful enough attention to positions such as “Justice of the Peace,” “Sheriff” and “County Commissioner,” and those seeking such offices. That’s disturbing, given just how much practical power these position hold over our daily lives.

Further up the ballot are judicial races, where men and women are asking for the authority to literally sit in judgment over us. And, of course, the legislative races — the state house and senate — which are most often our organization’s focus. From the Railroad Commission (which handles energy policy) to the State Board of Education, there many are positions of great trust and importance, affecting our neighbors, communities and state, on which we are asked to select the most qualified individual.

As Samuel Adams correctly noted more than 200 years ago:

“Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual — or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.”

This year’s election season is book-ended by two important dates in our state’s history. Yesterday was the 134th anniversary of the ratification of our state constitution by the people of Texas. While the Primary Day, March 2, marks 174 years since Texans declared independence from Mexico.

In the intervening years, and especially this last decade, Texas has glowed as the brightest of the several stars in the magnificent field of Old Glory’s blue. We certainly have challenges ahead, but if we vote with the principles of liberty for those who will practically govern with the courage of our time-tested convictions, I am convinced the Lone Star State’s brightest days are ahead of us.

Share on Facebook

An interesting story line some have tried to create in Texas’ gubernatorial race has been that Debra Medina is the “tea party” candidate, while Governor Rick Perry and U.S. Sen. Kay Hutchison are not, or worse. Certainly many have wanted that line to be true, and shouted it loudly. Who gets to claim the banner of “tea party” candidate clearly must not rest with those who shout it the loudest.

Volume is what we too often respond to in politics: who shouts the loudest. The old saying about the squeaky wheel is how, too often, we judge political activity, and predict success.

The desire to grab labels, however, does not necessarily translate into support from the electorate.

In the recent Texas Credit Union League poll, Perry far outperforms Medina in support from people who identify themselves as agreeing with the tea party movement’s principles. And it isn’t close. Perry has 51 percent support of the people who say a candidate who identifies with “tea party” values is a positive thing they will consider. Interestingly, Medina barely out polls Hutchison among tea-party-goers, at 24 to 21.

The support for incumbent politicians in many races seems to show that the “tea party” is not anti-incumbent, but a reflection of a belief in core values. Perry has a very strong fiscal record, and the state’s electorate seems to recognize that. Likewise, it must not be forgotten that Scott Brown was a Massachusetts state senator with a clear record, good with bad, when he received the support of “tea party” voters.

Mrs. Medina did not help her candidacy with comments on the Glenn Beck program today. Rather than the planned appearance putting her over the top – or, at least, into a run-off — as supporters hoped, the wheels fell off with the first question and the interview ended. Beck asked her about allegations she is close to the “9/11 truthers” movement – people who believe President Bush and shadowy figures in the US government planned and carried out the infamous attack, that bombs were pre-set in the building, etc. Medina hemmed, hawed, said it was a federal issue, said she didn’t want to engage in “thought police” activities among her closest staff and advisors. It was the worst of non-answers.

If current poll numbers reflect that the electorate is driven by principles not by anti-incumbency fever, as we suspect, the fact that she wouldn’t (or couldn’t) disassociate herself clearly and articulately from what is clearly a fringe position will drive her support down, not up.

But we shall see.

We are adamant supporters of the “tea party” spirit, and business as usual in Austin or Washington is a non-starter. I suspect most Texans are like us, and want the quickest movement to transparency, accountability, and fiscal stewardship.

We expect as fellow activists, inspired by the tea party movement, we shall see voters move in a way that allows sound principles to take root and be implemented, with the state of our state vastly improved.

In doing so, the tea party activists will make a story for the ages.

We have all been energized by the fringe Leftist policies being advanced in the Federal government, and see our country at risk. The answer is not fringe for fringe, but a movement to the core principals our country was founded on. And those core principles are more than a label.

Share on Facebook

You know an election must be close when politicians start telling voters not to look at their records. Some incumbents hate it when voters get uppity and start getting educated and acting empowered. Earlier this week, the campaign consultant of choice for moderates and RINOs, called Empower Texans and Texans for Fiscal Responsibility “demonic” in an interview with the Fort Worth Star Telegram.

What was our sin?

Calling out his clients for raising taxes, killing voter ID and generally working against the state’s conservative majority.

The consultant is Bryan Eppstein, whose Fort Worth-based operation is cozy with all the big-taxers.

The Texas Watchdog recently wrote that Eppstein “helps elect politicians at every level in town, who turn right around and rubber-stamp his lucrative business deals.”

That’s angelic? Apparently Mr. Eppstein has found a way to use politics to buy his way through the big-taxers’ version of the pearly gates. Again, from Texas Watchdog:

For example, two years ago, he helped elect Jim Lane and Marty Leonard to the Tarrant Regional Water District Board. Soon after, the board turned around and gave Eppstein two no-bid contracts for crafting a public relations strategy for its half-billion dollar plan to redirect the Trinity River as it meanders through downtown Fort Worth.

After reading the story, you might wonder if lucrative no-bid government contracts are part of the payment plan he requires when helping get politicians elected.

I guess that’s why Eppstein’s cronies are so dead-set against the kind of government transparency Texans for Fiscal Responsibility advocates. They don’t want voters knowing just how cozy — and expensive — these no-bid relationships really are with their political hit-man.

So when someone like Bryan Eppstein calls you demonic, you really have no choice but to grab a pitchfork and light a little electoral fire!

You might want to check the expenditure records of your Republicans. If they are writing checks to the Eppstein Group, it might be a reason to question their conservative bona fides a little more closely.

Certainly not all of his clients are bad, but far too many end up playing for the other team, despite what color jersey they wear in the election season.

Share on Facebook

Looks like 2010 is shaping up to be a really bad year for Dallas State Rep. Terry Hodge, a rather typical Texas Democrat. Not the least of her problems is a March 8th trial on charges of bribery and corruption. Just six days earlier she faces a primary election. Oh, and the state’s humane society is really ticked that she derailed legislation strengthening laws against cock fighting. Oh, and she’s accused of falsifying documents when filing for office this month.

Hodge’s biggest legal woes are a result of the Democrats bigger problem of all-out corruption at Dallas City Hall. She faces 14 counts on charges that she accepted a free apartment and other goodies from a builder of “low-income housing” in exchange for her support of his projects.

Among others nabbed was the former Mayor pro Tem and a couple union leaders. Yes, all Democrats.

Dealing with ethically and legally challenged party and elected official must be second-nature to the state’s Democrats by now.

Bexar County’s local Democratic Party found itself $20,000 short on cash after a party big-shot apparently engaged in some wealth redistribution. The former chairwoman has been chastised for not watching the books, and she has blamed the former treasurer. The response of the Democrats? According to the San Antonio Express-News: “lawmakers are looking into legislation to prevent an oversight like this from happening again.”

Maybe they just shouldn’t employee (or elect) hoodlums?

Speaking of which… Remember former State Rep. Borris Miles of Houston (who wants to be a state rep again)? He was the guy accused of waving his gun around at a party and acting like a brute. He was acquitted of “deadly conduct” charges last year, but his legislative record the one-term he served as a lawmaker was certainly thuggish.

Meanwhile, current state Rep. Hubert Vo was called a slumlord by the Houston Chronicle.

Back to Hodge. Republicans aren’t running a candidate against her, but a Democrat — Eric Johnson — will challenge Hodge for her seat.

The left-leaning Dallas Observer is running with a story from Mr. Johnson, in which he claims she submitted signatures for her petition-based filing that were actually gathered by a candidate for a different office. Allegedly, the forms she submitted used liquid paper to cover the other candidate’s name. Her campaign operatives claim the forms were incorrectly prepared, no one was mislead, and that it was an honest mistake.

Kind of like taking that free apartment?

Is there honor among thieves? The humane society says Hodge derailed legislation in 2009 that would have made life harder for cock-fighters.

Hodge has been serving in the Legislature for 16 years. Wonder what she’ll be serving later this year?

Share on Facebook

Later today the United States’ Senate will take the nation down a dangerous and ruinous path. At stake is nothing less than the very health of our Republic and the security of our economy. The question before us this Christmas Eve is not if, but how far down the path we will be taken… and just how difficult it will be to repair the damage they wrought. Before they do so, make sure every U.S. senator hears from you.

Spend this Christmas Eve burning up the phones in Washington, DC. I rarely suggest that people make calls, and even more rarely suggest calling people for whom you cannot vote. This is an exception.

If the senators are going to engage in this foolhardy exercise, then they need to do so knowing they are going against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Americans. Noted below is a list of every senator’s Capitol office phone number.

Please call as many as you can today, and respectfully give your name and tell them as a taxpayer you oppose the senate’s “health care reform” bill.

The fight is far from over! We must remember, and remind all politicians, who they work for. The laws of the land still empower the people. We must not go meekly into the night, but make our voices powerfully heard.

Akaka, Daniel K. – (D – HI)
141 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6361

————-
Alexander, Lamar – (R – TN)
455 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4944

————-
Barrasso, John – (R – WY)
307 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6441

————-
Baucus, Max – (D – MT)
511 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2651

————-
Bayh, Evan – (D – IN)
131 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5623

————-
Begich, Mark – (D – AK)
144 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3004

————-
Bennet, Michael F. – (D – CO)
702 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5852

————-
Bennett, Robert F. – (R – UT)
431 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5444

————-
Bingaman, Jeff – (D – NM)
703 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5521

————-
Bond, Christopher S. – (R – MO)
274 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5721

————-
Boxer, Barbara – (D – CA)
112 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3553

————-
Brown, Sherrod – (D – OH)
713 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2315

————-
Brownback, Sam – (R – KS)
303 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6521

————-
Bunning, Jim – (R – KY)
316 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4343

————-
Burr, Richard – (R – NC)
217 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3154

————-
Burris, Roland W. – (D – IL)
387 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2854

————-
Byrd, Robert C. – (D – WV)
311 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3954

————-
Cantwell, Maria – (D – WA)
511 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3441

————-
Cardin, Benjamin L. – (D – MD)
509 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4524

————-
Carper, Thomas R. – (D – DE)
513 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2441

————-
Casey, Robert P., Jr. – (D – PA)
393 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6324

————-
Chambliss, Saxby – (R – GA)
416 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3521

————-
Coburn, Tom – (R – OK)
172 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5754

————-
Cochran, Thad – (R – MS)
113 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5054

————-
Collins, Susan M. – (R – ME)
413 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2523

————-
Conrad, Kent – (D – ND)
530 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2043

————-
Corker, Bob – (R – TN)
185 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3344

————-
Cornyn, John – (R – TX)
517 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2934

————-
Crapo, Mike – (R – ID)
239 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6142

————-
DeMint, Jim – (R – SC)
340 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6121

————-
Dodd, Christopher J. – (D – CT)
448 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2823

————-
Dorgan, Byron L. – (D – ND)
322 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2551

————-
Durbin, Richard J. – (D – IL)
309 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2152

————-
Ensign, John – (R – NV)
119 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6244

————-
Enzi, Michael B. – (R – WY)
379A RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3424

————-
Feingold, Russell D. – (D – WI)
506 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5323

————-
Feinstein, Dianne – (D – CA)
331 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3841

————-
Franken, Al – (D – MN)
320 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5641

————-
Gillibrand, Kirsten E. – (D – NY)
478 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4451

————-
Graham, Lindsey – (R – SC)
290 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5972

————-
Grassley, Chuck – (R – IA)
135 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3744

————-
Gregg, Judd – (R – NH)
201 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3324

————-
Hagan, Kay R. – (D – NC)
521 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6342

————-
Harkin, Tom – (D – IA)
731 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3254

————-
Hatch, Orrin G. – (R – UT)
104 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5251

————-
Hutchison, Kay Bailey – (R – TX)
284 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5922

————-
Inhofe, James M. – (R – OK)
453 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4721

————-
Inouye, Daniel K. – (D – HI)
722 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3934

————-
Isakson, Johnny – (R – GA)
120 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3643

————-
Johanns, Mike – (R – NE)
404 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4224

————-
Johnson, Tim – (D – SD)
136 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5842

————-
Kaufman, Edward E. – (D – DE)
383 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5042

————-
Kerry, John F. – (D – MA)
218 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2742

————-
Kirk, Paul G., Jr. – (D – MA)
317 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4543

————-
Klobuchar, Amy – (D – MN)
302 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3244

————-
Kohl, Herb – (D – WI)
330 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5653

————-
Kyl, Jon – (R – AZ)
730 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4521

————-
Landrieu, Mary L. – (D – LA)
328 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5824

————-
Lautenberg, Frank R. – (D – NJ)
324 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3224

————-
Leahy, Patrick J. – (D – VT)
433 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4242

————-
LeMieux, George S. – (R – FL)
356 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3041

————-
Levin, Carl – (D – MI)
269 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6221

————-
Lieberman, Joseph I. – (ID – CT)
706 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4041

————-
Lincoln, Blanche L. – (D – AR)
355 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4843

————-
Lugar, Richard G. – (R – IN)
306 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4814

————-
McCain, John – (R – AZ)
241 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2235

————-
McCaskill, Claire – (D – MO)
717 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6154

————-
McConnell, Mitch – (R – KY)
361A RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2541

————-
Menendez, Robert – (D – NJ)
528 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4744

————-
Merkley, Jeff – (D – OR)
107 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3753

————-
Mikulski, Barbara A. – (D – MD)
503 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4654

————-
Murkowski, Lisa – (R – AK)
709 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6665

————-
Murray, Patty – (D – WA)
173 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2621

————-
Nelson, Ben – (D – NE)
720 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6551

————-
Nelson, Bill – (D – FL)
716 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5274

————-
Pryor, Mark L. – (D – AR)
255 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2353

————-
Reed, Jack – (D – RI)
728 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4642

————-
Reid, Harry – (D – NV)
522 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3542

————-
Risch, James E. – (R – ID)
483 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2752

————-
Roberts, Pat – (R – KS)
109 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4774

————-
Rockefeller, John D., IV – (D – WV)
531 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6472

————-
Sanders, Bernard – (I – VT)
332 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5141

————-
Schumer, Charles E. – (D – NY)
313 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6542

————-
Sessions, Jeff – (R – AL)
335 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4124

————-
Shaheen, Jeanne – (D – NH)
520 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2841

————-
Shelby, Richard C. – (R – AL)
304 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5744

————-
Snowe, Olympia J. – (R – ME)
154 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5344

————-
Specter, Arlen – (D – PA)
711 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4254

————-
Stabenow, Debbie – (D – MI)
133 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4822

————-
Tester, Jon – (D – MT)
724 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2644

————-
Thune, John – (R – SD)
493 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2321

————-
Udall, Mark – (D – CO)
317 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5941

————-
Udall, Tom – (D – NM)
110 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6621

————-
Vitter, David – (R – LA)
516 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4623

————-
Voinovich, George V. – (R – OH)
524 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3353

————-
Warner, Mark R. – (D – VA)
459A RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2023

————-
Webb, Jim – (D – VA)
248 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4024

————-
Whitehouse, Sheldon – (D – RI)
502 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2921

————-
Wicker, Roger F. – (R – MS)
555 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6253

————-
Wyden, Ron – (D – OR)
223 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5244

Share on Facebook

Our friends over at the Texas Association of Business this week released their scorecard for the legislative session. It’s interesting to compare the best and the worst between their business-oriented list to TFR’s Fiscal Responsibility Index. It shouldn’t come as any surprise that those who are bad on economic policy tend to be really bad for business.

(Read the Texas Association of Business scorecard here.)

But the politics of it are most surprising. There are five freshmen Democrats who beat Republicans — or who won in what are considered “Republican” leaning seats — in the 2008 election. Many could well be considered accidental victories, riding a wave of Obama-mania coupled with a unique set of voter circumstances. One might expect them to have voted more carefully to reflect the entrepreneurial spirit of their districts.

They did not.

Three of six are in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex: Chris Turner (who beat out incumbent Bill Zedler in Fort Worth), Robert Miklos (who won an open seat in Mesquite) and Carol Kent (who won out over Dallas’ Tony Goolsby). Others included Kristi Thibaut, who was elected in a race against Houston’s Jim Murphy, and Diana Maldonado won in a Williamson County open seat race. The sixth is Joe Moody of El Paso, who squeaked out an open-seat win.

Add in the four sophomore Democrats (elected in 2006), and their average score is in the mid-30s with TAB ranking.

Those same nine legislators have an average rating on our Index of a 30.8. They failed all the ratings. But, worse, they failed Texas’ taxpayers.

Jobs and the economy will remain a potent issue through 2010, thanks in no small part to the economy-killing proposals pushed by the Obama Administration.

It’s readily apparent that while each of these lawmakers, to varying degrees, tried to campaign as moderates or even fiscal conservatives, they have legislated like nothing of the sort.

Texas voters need to turn them out, if we are to preserve Texas’ still relatively-strong economic standing. But electing more lawmakers like these will be a disaster for Texas’ families, taxpayers and business environment.

Share on Facebook

It was 174 years ago, on Oct. 2, 1835, that the first battle in Texas’ war of independence was fought in Gonzales, appropriately over the possession of a cannon.

The people had been given the cannon to protect themselves from Indian invasions, but the Mexican military commander of Texas didn’t like the people being armed in such a fashion. So he sent orders that it be surrendered to the government. The people correctly refused.

In a gesture of defiance, the citizens flew a flag depicting their cannon and emblazoned with the words “Come And Take It.” A brief skirmish on Oct. 2, 1835, was decided in the Texans’ favor, with the Mexican forces in retreat.

But let’s be honest, it wasn’t really about a cannon, it was about the ability of those Texans to provide for their future, free from the shackles of oppressive government.

I wonder if those men and women could have imagined all the fiscal shackles we’ve allowed ourselves to take on?

Things are far from perfect in Texas, but apparently a great many people still agree with former congressman and Alamo defender David Crockett, who said, “I must say as to what I have seen of Texas, it is the garden spot of the world, the best land and the best prospects for health I ever saw, and I do believe it is a fortune to any man to come here.”

People and businesses have bene flocking to Texas in this opening decade of the 21st Century, looking to make their mark in the world.

However, if we are to continue to be successful as a people, to be all we can, we have to fight hard to preserve what is good and work harder for those things still to be improved.

What we don’t need is more government solutions and protection; Texans are most empowered when we have more liberty. Whether good times or bad, that’s the one thing we must never allow anyone to take from us.

Share on Facebook