The Republican Club of Sun City NEWSLETTER

November 2011 Everett Schmidt, Editor Sun City Texas

WIDELY PUBLISHED WRITER TO ADDRESS CLUB

Mario Loyola, whose news articles and op-ed pieces have appeared and continue to appear in major conservative publications, will address the club during its dinner meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 17 in the ballroom of the Social Center in Sun City. Included among the publications which have featured his writings are The Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard, National Review and others. (A review of one his op- ed pieces is presented below)

Having attained a bachelor’s degree with a major in European history and a law degree, having been a consultant in the Pentagon, and having served in various media outlets, Loyola is an effective communicator for conservative causes. He currently serves as director of the Center for Tenth Amendment Studies at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

His comments are expected to center on the extent to which federal law and EPA regulations have unconstitutionally been intruded into the prerogatives of the state in regard to a variety of issues, including protection of endangered species (as those in Williamson County), and control of pollution. He will also explain how the Tenth Amendment, which states that powers not granted to the U. S. by the Constitution are reserved to the states or “to the people,” can be used to thwart that intrusion.

The Social Hour, Dinner and Program. A social period will begin at 6:00 PM. The dinner will begin at 6:30 PM and will be followed by the program. The dinner will be catered by Cafe on the Green which will serve roast spiral ham, potatoes au gratin, green beans almondine, pumpkin pie and accoutrements.

Cost. Cost is $16 per person. Checks made out to The Republican Club of Sun City should be mailed to The Republican Club of Sun City, 1530 Sun City Blvd., Suite 120, Box 227, Georgetown, TX 78633 by no later than Saturday, November 12. (NOTE: There is no mail service on Nov. 11) Treasurer Bernie Miller has also set up a special collection box on his front porch at 265 Trail of the Flowers for individuals wishing to hand deliver payments, provided delivery is made by Sunday, November 13. For information about reservations, contact Bernie at 868-9125 or bimiller1@verizon.net. VISITORS ARE WELCOME!

CLUB WILL NOT MEET IN DECEMBER

Following a practice of long standing, the club will not meet during the month of December. The next meeting of the club (after the November meeting) is scheduled for Thursday, January 19. A calendar of meetings scheduled for 2012 will be provided in the January newsletter.

OTHER CLUB NEWS

Nomination of Officers. Nominating Committee chairman Julian Bucher announced during the October meeting that the slate of officers recommended by that committee for 2012 are:

President
First Vice President Second Vice President Treasurer
Secretary

Harlow Fisher Robert Fears Brenda Leisey Dorothy Carlisle Barbara Wood

Voting will take place during the club’s November 17 dinner meeting followed by a brief installation ceremony. Nominations from the floor are allowed, provided the advanced consent of the prospective nominee has been attained, and provided written information about the prospective nominee is furnished to the president

prior to that meeting. (See Article VIII, Section 2 of the bylaws for details)

Dues Increase. The Executive Committee, faced with news that the rental charge for the use of the ballroom in 2012 will increase (by 76%), has determined that club membership dues, effective 2012, will increase from $10 to $15 per person. The percentage increase in membership dues is less than the percentage increase in the charge for rental of the ballroom. It should be noted that membership dues also are used to defray costs of table cloths, cleanup after meetings, and the Yearbook.

Payment of Membership Dues. According to the club bylaws, membership dues for renewal are payable from January 1 through February 28. To be attached to the January 2012 newsletter, which will be transmitted to membership during the first week of January, will be an Application for Membership for the year 2012. That form, when completed, should be submitted along with the $15 per person to the club Second Vice President.

NEWS OF THE COUNTY PARTY

Redistricting. County party chairman Bill Fairbrother reports that while there are legal challenges of various districts which have been redistricted, the revised districts proposed for Williamson County have not been challenged. He also reports that the number of voting precincts in the county have been reduced from 102 to 88, and that the 4 voting precincts in Sun City will not be changed.

Sun City Precincts. Two of the four voting precincts in Sun City have precinct chairmen, but two do not, as is revealed by the following chart:

Precinct

381
394
396
399

Precinct Chairman

Barbara Mabray [vacant]
Everett Schmidt [vacant]

Republicans who reside in a precinct
chairmanship should contact chairman Fairbrother for information.

having no chairman, and who are interested in applying for a

New Office Hours. In response to the ever-increasing amount of political activity, the office hours of the county party headquarters at 716 S. Rock Street in Georgetown have been expanded as indicated below:

Tuesdays Thursdays Fridays Saturdays

10:00 AM to 2:00 PM 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM

The party headquarters telephone number is 512-863-8481. The county party web site is WilliamsonCountyGOP.org.

A TALE OF TWO CITIES: HOUSTON AND DETROIT

Following is a report on an op-ed piece titled “Houston, We Have a Solution,” appearing in the September issue of National Review written by the speaker at the club’s November 17 dinner meeting, Mario Loyola. The report goes into unusual detail for several reasons: (1) it illustrates the special analytical skills of our speaker, (2) it includes information about a Texas city (Houston) with which many club members have direct or indirect knowledge and interest, and (3) it provides some ammunition in the form of a comparison of the policies of Houston and Detroit which might be helpful in persuading others that socialism is a failure.

Mr. Loyola’s completed op-ed is available online.

Background Information. Loyola points out some similarities between the two cities. Each has had to deal with ugly race riots which impacted their development: Houston during World War I, and Detroit in 1943. Each has had to deal with harsh realities stemming from the vicissitudes of the marketplace: in the case of Detroit, it was the adverse effect of imported autos from Japan and Germany on Detroit’s economic engine, the auto industry; in the case of Houston, it was the adverse effect of collapsed oil prices on Houston’s economic engine, the oil industry.

Each of the cities experienced boom growth around the same period of time. In Detroit, the boom began in 1903 with the establishment of the Ford Motor Company. In Houston, the boom began two years earlier after a

drilling rig called Spindletop struck oil north of Houston, sending a gusher of black gold hundreds of feet into the air. Loyola describes that scene: “Nobody had ever seen anything like it, and it quickly became by far the most productive oil well in the world. Discoveries soon spread throughout Texas, and Houston’s position as a port city on the Gulf of Mexico ensured its emergence as the world’s energy capital by the late 1930s, fueling a general boom of heavy industry.”

But while at one time the two cities were of similar size and experienced similar “ups” and “downs,” their differences, more recently, have become stark. In the 1950s, Detroit had 2 million residents, Houston only about 700,000. Today, Houston has far more than 2 million residents. Detroit just over 700,000.

Shown below in italics are Loyola’s explanations for the stark differences.

Two Visions of Governance. Houston had suffered race riots, too, during World War I, but fortune

th

would smile on it for most of the 20
into a depression, it bounced back as if suspended from a bungee cord – even though the oil bust lasted nearly two decades. What Houston did for itself is not merely a model for any city facing the danger of sudden economic decline: The policies that Houston and Texas have followed are proof of concept for the conservative vision of government, which is, essentially, to keep the government off the people’s backs and let a free society find its own way to prosperity.

Detroit, conversely, is proof of concept for the liberal vision of government, which seeks to solve every

century. And when oil prices collapsed in the mid-1980s, sending the city

problem through government, to shape economic development through government, and, finally, to insinuate th

government into every aspect of our lives. The problems Detroit faced in the latter half of the 20 century would have been enormously challenging no matter what policies it embraced. But it embraced the worst ones and so plunged recklessly down the slope of decline.

Each city has offered a nearly pure exposition of a particular philosophy of government and a vivid demonstration of the results. In the degree of collusion between business and government, in the power of labor unions, in the method of economic development, in the burden of taxation and regulation, in the tolerance for diversity – in all these ways and more, the two cities stand as diametric opposites in the choices a society can make.

Mayor Coleman Young’s Administration. In 1973, Detroit elected its first black mayor,Coleman Young, an unabashed grievance-driven liberal who thrived on stoking the very tensions of race, class, and politics that were pulling Detroit apart.

Young’s administration bore more than a passing resemblance to Barack Obama’s in this sense: He used the machinery of government to attack the economic interests of his political opposition and extract benefits from his own supporters. As these policies drove his opponents’ political base out of the city, his own political base expanded proportionately. . .

The Impact of Unions. On top of the retiree benefits, the United Auto Workers of America extracted enormous wage concessions during the boom years and refused to give them up when the industry faced withering competition. Supplemental unemployment benefits of 95 percent of wages are only one example of how the UAW strangled Detroit’s economy, and it is not the only union doing the strangling. A few years ago, the Detroit public-school teachers’ union went on strike to prevent the city from accepting a private gift of $200 million to build 15 charter schools. The city now faces a shortfall of more than $300 million, and schools are closing by the dozen. [Texas, in contrast, is a right-to-work state]

Houston’s Setback. Houston would suffer its own bad luck. In 1985, the Saudis abandoned their position as “swing producer” in the OPEC and dramatically ramped up production, from 2 million barrels per day to 5 million barrels, in a matter of months. The price of a barrel of oil fell from an average of nearly $30 in 1985 to around $20 in January 1986 and then nosedived to under $10 by midyear.

As soon as oil prices fell, the independent oil producers cried out for protection, much as Detroit’s Big Three had done a few years before. But the largely Houston -based oil giants were international traders, so they fought against tariffs. Beset by those conflicting appeals from the oil sector, the government was paralyzed in its response – and, happily, did nothing. Unemployment rates in the city dropped quickly, reaching 5 percent in 1990.

Houston Weathers the Storm. Houston weathered the storm nicely, in large part through a rapid reallocation of human and material resources. Diversification was the key. Before the bust, the energy sector accounted for about 80 percent of Houston’s economy; now it’s barely 50 percent. Of the 51 Texas companies on the Fortune 500 list, there are computer makers, airlines, retailers, gas-and-electrical utilities, food-and- grocery companies, construction companies, and a telecommunications company. The Texas Medical Center in Houston is the world’s largest, employing nearly 100,000 people and receiving nearly 6 million patients yearly.

The Spirit of Texas. Texas has managed to preserve something very essential about America, namely the frontier mentality, what the great historian T. R. Fehrenbach described as the “cult of courage.” Or, in the words of Mr. Strake, “Give me wide open spaces. Let me enjoy the good times, and don’t feel sorry for me in bad times.”

WILL SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LEAD TO POLYGAMY? Sen. Feinstein Introduces Law to Abolish DOMA

The National Review notes that opponents of same-sex marriage have long argued that if same-sex marriages are ruled or legislated to be legal, it will be impossible, as a matter of principle, to resist demands for legal recognition of bigamous, even incestuous, unions.

Sure enough, a law suit, one involving Kody Brown, his 4 wives and 16 children, has been filed against Utah’s anti-polygamy laws. The law suit is using the legal arguments successfully used in many homosexual lawsuits; specifically: The Browns are being illegally denied the frights of freedom of association, due process and equal protection.

If the male-female aspect of marriage can be “dismissed,” says Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, “surely the distinction between a marriage of two persons and a marriage of three or more is all the more arbitrary and irrational.”

Actually, the Supreme Court considered two cases involving bigamy in the past: one in 1885; the other is 1889. In the latter case, Davis v. Brown, one involving the Morman religion, one argument used by the defendant who was sentenced to jail on bigamy and polygamy charges, was that his conviction violated the religion clause of the First Amendment on grounds that Idaho’s laws, under which he was convicted, interfered with Morman’s free exercise of religion.

In rejecting that argument, the court of 1889 stated some legal reasoning totally inconsistent with today’s jurisprudence which is bereft of religious belief. Note in this regard the reference to standards in “Christian” nations in the following excerpt from that 1889 case:

Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries . . Probably never before in the history of this country has it been seriously contended that the whole punitive power of government for acts recognized by the general consent of the Christian world. . . must be suspended in order that the tenets of a religious sect . . .may be carried out.

Today’s Supreme Court, if it hears a case on bigamy, will have to consider the precedent of the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case which involved a Texas law prohibiting sodomy. The court in that case didn’t rely on “privacy” or “religion” doctrines, as may have been expected. It relied on the “liberty interests” of the two homosexuals and thereby overthrew the Texas law. In doing so, it reversed itself on a significant previous holding (Bowers), a holding which can have momentous consequences.

Prior to the Lawrence case, the court was, with respect to moral issues, able to concur with state laws on the basis that they were presumed to be correct (leaving the other side the burden of proving otherwise), and as long as there was a rational basis for them.

Those considerations, however, were rejected in the Lawrence case on grounds that a “liberty interest” should be controlling, and what constitutes a “liberty interest” should be left up to the individuals as is suggested by the following quote (referred to by Justice Scalia with derision as the “sweet-mystery-of-life” passage) written by Justice Kennedy for the court majority: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, or meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

Justice Scalia contends that the jurisprudence emanating from the Lawrence case virtually prohibits states from passing laws dealing with moral issues, including bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality and obscenity. Indeed, Scalia claims the count’s newly-found reasoning “effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation.”

But the concept of “liberty” being defined by the individual as suggested in the Lawrence case is, contends legal scholar Michael Joyce, “nothing more than ‘license’ – a sanction for the utmost latitude in human behavior.” That latitude, being standardless, appears to come into conflict with the concept of “ordered liberty” enunciated by George Washington and other founders, and with Natural Law as enunciated by philosopher Edmond Burke, and prominently mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. (Note the reference to “Laws of Nature”) Author John Attarian explains Natural Law:

This philosophy maintains, essentially, that God rules existence through an eternal, immutable, universal Natural Law, always binding on all people everywhere. Man-made laws are morally valid insofar as they conform to the Natural Law; otherwise they are not.

Sen. Feinstein (D.- Cal.), with the support of President Obama and 28 co-sponsors in the Senate and 120 co-sponsors in the House, is seeking passage of a bill ironically phrased “The Respect for Marriage Act.” The legislation would

• Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which defines marriage, for federal purposes, as the union of one man and one woman, and gives states the freedom not to recognize another states same-sex marriage.
• Requires additional tax dollars to fund expensive federal benefits for same-sex marriages
  The Obama Administration, contrary to its obligation, has already announced its refusal to defendDOMA.
  The Founder’s concept of liberty has been encapsulated in some lines from “America the Beautiful”:

  America! America!
  God mend thine every flaw, Confirm thy soul in self-control, Thy liberty in law!

  A growing segment of the population seems now to be oblivious to – if not to outright repudiate – the tenets of our founders. Already six states have recognized same-sex marriages with the possibility that bigamy may ensue.

  THE DEPLORABLE WAYS CONGRESS HANDLES TAXPAYER MONEY

  Following are ways Congress is wrongly handling the budget and dispensing taxpayer funds.

  The Absence of a Budget as Required by Law. In 1974, Congress enacted the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act which set specific deadlines and procedures for raising revenue, and which required that spending priorities be set and adjustment be made in the debt law. Those were among the requirements that Congress set for itself and for the President. While those requirements are clear and are law, the Senate has not to this day, since 2009, passed a budget! That situation has led to a lack of transparency – among other problems.

  That law also requires that the president submit a proposed budget “on or before” the first Monday in February; however, the president made only a perfunctory effort to meet the deadline as evidenced by the fact that what he submitted was rejected by the Senate by a vote of 97-0. Subsequently, the president submitted a new “plan” which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) could not “score” (provide estimates of expenditures and revenue) because it was too vague.

  The law also requires that by April 1 the House and Senate must either adopt the president’s budget or put forth an alternative. The House did pass a proposed budget, but, as was reported above, the Senate failed to do so.

  Is this not an indication of a dysfunctional government?

  The Social Security Law. Columnist Walter Williams points out several falsehoods perpetrated by the federal government. He notes a government pamphlet issued in 1936 stipulates what both employee and employer will be taxed in years 1940 and 1943, and then goes on to say, “And finally, beginning in 1949 . . you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 year . . .That is the most you will ever pay.”

  Williams then reports another falsehood on a pamphlet: “Beginning November 24, 1936, the U. S. government will set up a Social Security account for you . . The checks will come to you as a right.” But, in 1937, the Supreme Court held that Social Security is not an insurance program, saying, “The proceeds of both (employer and employee) taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal revenue taxes generally, and are not ear marked in any way.”

  Williams states that the SS card he received in 1950 stated in bold letters, “For Social Security Purposes – Not for Identification.” But, in 1972, under the pretense that “design changes” were being made on the card, that phrase was removed.

  Williams contends the Social Security system is indeed a Ponzi scheme and cites three Nobel laureate

economists who agree with him. Without the approval of government, the scheme would be illegal.
Baseline Budgeting. In 1974, with Nixon weakened as a result of Watergate, Congress overrode his veto and passed the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 which, among its provisions, was one which enabled the budget to be automatically increased. That provision has enabled members of Congress and others to tout there has been “no budget increase” when, in fact, there had actually been an increase but by an amount less that provided by the increase. Members of Congress and others, by not disclosing the automatic increase, have been

able to claim a “decrease” thereby deceiving the public.
The Debt Limit. Columnist Terry Jeffrey describes the way reports about the “statutory debt limit”

submitted by the Treasury Department have been manipulated – and with Congressional authorization. He notes the federal government’s debt is essentially divided into two parts: one concerns traditional notes and bonds and the like. But the other part is what the Treasury calls “intragovernmental debt” which is money taken and spent from Social Security and Medicare taxes and then deposited into so-called “trust funds.”

According to Jeffrey, Congress allows the Treasury to temporarily change the way it accounts for money the governments owes the “trust funds.” (A more complete explanation as to how debt reports can be manipulated is not possible here because of space limitations)

The Honest Budget Act. Republican Senators Olympia Snow (Maine) and Jeff Sessions (Alabama) have submitted a bill to reduce many of the “most blatant and dishonest gimmicks.” In particular, they cite the following: (1) emergency spending, (2) phoney rescissions (the practice of using budgeted but unspent money), (3) fake federal pay freezes, and (4) timing shifts (shifting expenditures or due dates from one period to another).

Committee of the Damned: the “Super Committee.” The “super committee” has, it would appear, an impossible task to complete. The public should therefore be aware that some of the deceptions reported above may again be utilized.

NOTES ON THE PASSING SCENE
(Some random observations on this crazy world in which we live)

Joe the Plumber to Seek Office. Samuel “Joe” Wurzelbacher, widely known as “Joe, the Plumber,” has announced his candidacy for a Congressional seat in Ohio. He rose out of obscurity in 2008 after questioning then-candidate Obama about his economic policies, and after Obama acknowledged the goal of those policies was to “share the wealth.”

The district he seeks to represent is reportedly heavily tiled toward the Democrats.

Does Public Want More Money Spent on School? The Wall Street Journal reports that a recent survey seems to indicate that a clear majority of the public, 65%, wants to spend more money on public schools. The remaining 35% think spending should either be cut or remain at current levels.

But those statistics may not reflect political reality because the public’s responses vary according to the phrasing of the questionnaire in the survey and the accompanying background information. Some examples:

• When the people surveyed were told how much is actually spent in our schools – $12,922 per student annually – then only 49% said they wanted to spend more money.
• When the question was phrased to bring out the fact that more spending means higher taxes, results were still different. When specifically asked, “Do you think that taxes to fund public schools around the nation should increase, decrease or stay about the same?”, only 35% supported an increase.Shariah Law as Applied in Iran. An Iranian woman blinded and disfigured by a man who, angered that she refused his marriage proposal, threw acid in her face stood above her attacker in a hospital room as a doctor was about to put several drops of acid in one of his eyes. The doctor was acting under orders of an Iranian court.

  The man waited on his knees and wept. The doctor asked the disfigured woman what he should do. “I forgave him, “ she said, asking the doctor at the last minute to spare him from the awful suffering she had undergone.

  It is a legal right for victims in Iran to ask for a strict enforcement of Islamic law under which an attempt is made to reach a settlement with victims or their families. If no agreement is reached, then “qisas,” or eye-for-an- eye retribution is enforced.