Now that summer is over we are all grateful for the lower electric bills in our mail box. You may not be aware of this, but next summer you bill will likely be a lot lower. Why? Well because Texas will have to shut down two major power plants because they use coal mined in Texas. This will result in wide spreads blackouts. And so the whole time the power is off to you home’s AC (and the rest of your house) you won’t be billed. Yes, the temperature will likely reach 110 in your house and all the ice cream in the freezer will melt, but you won’t be paying for the higher demand of power that we need here in Texas because the EPA says we don’t need to be using Texas coal to produce power.

You see the all knowing and all seeing OZ… er, I mean the EPA, has said that using that kind of coal is bad. They don’t have any data to support this claim but the EPA has never let that stop them from making up new rules, just ask the Inspector Generals (IG) Office. This month the IG of the EPA cited that the EPA’s conclusions about Global Warming were not based on good science. Pay no attention to the IG behind the curtain.

But the fun and games don’t stop there because you see that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) wants to stop the oil and gas industry from extracting hydrocarbons form the ground here in Texas. Why? Well of course to save lizards. That’s right lizards. You see there is this poorly researched scientific assumption that because two species of lizards has been disappearing that it must be the fault of the oil and gas industry. They came to this conclusion because of a recent study that cited feral hogs and fire ants as the main cause of a decline in the numbers of these two lizards which, by the way, have no economic value. Well of course you don’t understand how those dots are connected you are not a federal bureaucrat. So the only conclusion to come to is that we have to shut down the oil and gas industry in the Permian Basin and the Eagle Ford Shale, two of the most productive areas in Texas. In fact these two areas employ more than 50,000 workers in support of the extraction of clean burning hydrocarbons.

And now you know why the most fearful phrase in the English language is “I’m here from Washington and I’m here to help.”

*****

While other states have come to their senses about subsidizing Hollywood, Texas’ lawmakers continue pumping taxpayer cash into a scheme of dubious value to Texans and our economy.

The Wall Street Journal reports today that states are halting the subsidies as they find footing the bill for films isn’t as glamorous as the latte-liberals in the film industry would have us all believe.

Though in all fairness, increasingly the programs are providing more work for lawyers as revelations of fraud are uncovered.

For example, the WSJ reports that in Iowa a film company was asking the taxpayers to foot the bill for the $900 rental of two six-foot ladders, $1,350 for the use of six orange traffic cones, and another $900 for an eight-foot ladder. Taxpayers also paid out because film producers needed a brand new Mercedes [to] tour around in.

In New Jersey, Republican Gov. Chris Christie has threatened to put a halt to the nearly half-million in film subsidies the Garden State is paying to the producers of “Jersey Shore.”  The program is part of the so-called “reality TV” genre following the lives of what one Newark newspaper calls “a bunch of 20-something nitwits.”

Yet the Newark paper doesn’t want Christie to can the subsidies, saying it amounts to censorship. Talk about nitwits…

It’s not censorship; it is commonsense. It’d be censorship if the state prohibited the sale or distribution of the work. Choosing not to confiscate taxes from hard working citizens and redistribute the money to Hollywood producers? That’s called wise stewardship.

It is simply not the role of government to be in the movie-making business. Doing so, almost by default, puts the state in the position of selecting “artistic” winners and losers. And selecting them with other people’s money, no less.

If an industry cannot survive without forcibly confiscated revenues, that’s a pretty good sign the marketplace isn’t interested in whatever is being sold. If the producers of a film or TV show cannot attract willing investors from the marketplace, clearly the investment isn’t worth what they claim.

Texas had a chance to end our state’s film subsidy program this year when lawmakers confronted a $15 billion budget shortfall. State Rep. David Simpson (R-Longview) offered amendments to eliminate funding for the subsidies during the budget debate.

But rather than risk losing the chance at getting campaign-ready photo-ops with Hollywood starlets, legislators kept the program afloat while cutting elsewhere. There was so little support for abandoning them, Mr. Simpson withdrew the amendments before even getting a vote.

Proponents often make the economically dubious claim of local job creation resulting from the subsidies. Such propositions carry no intellectual or practical weight. Whatever jobs are “created” are fraction of the jobs lost/never created by the confiscation of taxes used to fund the programs themselves.

Propping up industries because of their political connections with tax dollars might create the illusion of success, but it is little more than an animated illusion.

The creation of a healthy business climate — whether for film, manufacturing, energy or retail — comes only through low taxes, sensible regulations and a predictable tort environment.

The restricted club that is the Texas Senate will be invaded by noisy conservative voters and activists next year if senators have to choose a new leader from their own ranks.

If Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst wins a United States Senate seat or moves into the governor’s office after the 2012 elections, state senators will elect one of their own to take his place. If Gov. Rick Perry wins the presidency, his job would go to either Dewhurst or to the state senator who has taken Dewhurst’s place.

Either way, it sets up another round of the Republican vs. Republican battle that marked this year’s race for Speaker of the Texas House. Will the 19 Republicans in the 31-member Senate elect one of their own for lieutenant governor, or will that fall to some coalition of Republicans and the 12 Democrats in the Senate, which is what happened when state Rep. Joe Straus of San Antonio unseated Speaker Tom Craddick of Midland in 2009.

Straus then kept the position in 2011 over the noisy objections of some of the Republican Party’s loudest conservatives. Conservatives inside the House, many of them elected and then protected by Craddick, were peeved, but they had nothing on conservatives outside the House, who adopted the line that any Republican speaker elected with significant Democratic support was no Republican at all. They labeled Straus a RINO — Republican In Name Only — and swore revenge.

After the 2010 elections, what had been a narrow 76-74 Republican majority in the House was suddenly a 101-49 supermajority. The coalition that elected Straus over Craddick was gone. The war drums started immediately. Rival Republicans declared their interest in Straus’ job. Conservative groups, including various Tea Party factions, began email and automated phone campaigns to urge activists to call new and incumbent House members to urge them to vote for someone more conservative to replace Straus as speaker.

Among other things, the insurgents pushed for a Republican-only vote for speaker.  Instead of electing a speaker with support from a majority of the entire House—a majority that could include, possibly, some Democrats—they pushed for a binding vote from the Republican Caucus.  They wanted the Republican members to elect a speaker and then vote as a bloc when the matter came up, as it had to, before the full House.  Their idea was that a House with 101 Republicans ought to be able to elect a leader whether the Democrats liked it or not.

Straus was relative new to all of this — he’s been a legislator only since 2005 — but he turned out to be more adept at House politics than expected. He won re-election in spite of the opposition. In spite of the political threats made against anyone who voted for him. Several interest groups had promised to make the speaker vote a strongly weighted measure of conservatism in their legislative rankings. The idea: Vote for Straus and face the consequences. That ardor faded a bit as Straus presided over one of the most conservative sessions of the Texas House in recent memory, but it was a big deal at the time.

Fast forward to today.

Those groups haven’t given up on the House, but the prospect of a new lieutenant governor elected by senators has their attention. If redistricting maps hold up in court, state Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, could be replaced by a Republican. Nearby, an incumbent Republican, Chris Harris of Arlington, is being challenged by a freshman state representative, Rodney Anderson, who’s more in tune with the outside activists. More Republicans, especially conservatives, would give the activists a better shot at getting their kind of lieutenant governor.

They’ve even got something to fight over — the two-thirds rule, a Senate convention that requires at least two thirds of senators to approve anything before it can come up for a vote. Partisans hate it, because it allows a minority of 11 senators to block votes on any issue. It’s a burden, for example, when Republicans want to pass something sought by their own voters but opposed by Democrats. (It also often works in a nonpartisan way when a bipartisan group of 11 senators forms in opposition to something.)

Conservatives outside the Legislature — some of the same people and groups who wanted Straus’ scalp earlier this year — don’t think it’s fair that 12 Democrats can block 19 Republicans in a place where the Republicans clearly have the upper hand. With the rules as they are, they can’t put together the votes to kill the rule.

Unless, that is, they can elect a lieutenant governor and, as part of the deal, get the Republican Caucus in the Senate to agree that a simple majority is enough to rule the Senate.

Representatives of the San Antonio Tea Party recently met with the Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives, Joe Straus, to discuss current issues affecting Texas citizens.  Also attending the meeting were Representative Lyle Larson (R-District 122), Steve Baysinger of the Tenth Amendment Center (Texas), and the members of the representatives’ staffs.

Representatives Straus and Larson spoke of several major successes of the recently completed 82nd Legislature.  These include the Voter Identification Bill, Eminent Domain Bill, Loser Pays Tort Reform, and the Sonogram Bill.

Other issues discussed included:

-       Interstate compacts, a movement spearheaded by the Texas Public Policy Foundation for the purpose of shielding state regulatory autonomy from federal interference, e.g., counter to ObamaCare, EPA environmental meddling, etc.;

-       Border security and immigration (both legal and illegal);

-       Term limits for Texas legislators;

-       TX budget issues, including use of the “Rainy Day Fund” and the future impacts of ObamaCare; and

-       Water rights.

The exchange was open and candid, and the outcome was positive in hearing directly from these representatives how they see their roles, accomplishments, and future directions.  Both gentlemen spoke convincingly of the need to get conservative governments in place, and the importance of the Tea Party movement in achieving that outcome.  Both foresee a tough budget process in the future if the voters do not elect conservatives at all levels of government to repeal the ineffective policies of the current Washington administration.

The Tea Party representatives who attended the meeting appreciated the open exchange and believe this was a good foundation for future meetings.  Look forward to seeing and hearing from these legislators at future SATP events!

A Special Session of the 82nd Texas Legislature was convened on May 31, 2011.  For information on special sections, visit the Legislative Reference Library (LRL).

(The LRL performs research for Texas legislators, their staff, and legislative committees. Similar to the Library of Congress on the federal level, the library also assists the public and other state agencies with legislative research.)

This week, the Texas Public Policy Foundation begins its review of what happened in economic freedom and effective justice during the 82nd Texas Legislature. Providing their perspectives are Bill Peacock and Ryan Brannan of TPPF’s Center for Economic Freedom, and Marc Levin of the Foundation’s Center for Effective Justice.  For more information, visit TPPF’s website .

The San Antonio Tea Party celebrates with the students of Medina Valley High School in nearby Castroville in the recognition that they can legally, with court protection, exercise their God-given and Constitutionally-affirmed right to offer a prayer of thanks at their high school graduation.  Ironic  that our country has come to that, but it is true.

As most will know, because of a parent protest that religious references are offensive and therefore unconstitutional, a U.S. District Judge ruled that any reference to “Jesus Christ,” “prayer,” “invocation,” “benediction,” or even “amen” could not be uttered during the ceremony.  Fortunately, the students and community found powerful support in Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott , the Liberty Institute , and the Medina Valley Independent School District . Only hours before the event, their appeal to the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeal was victorious in allowing the ceremony to proceed with prayer as the students and community desired.

This is only the latest in a series of such successful protests dating from the 1960s.  Results are often the same: the sensitivities of those offended by free speech and religious exercise are given greater regard than the rights of the majority to speak or pray.  So why is this of concern to the Tea Party?  After all, isn’t a graduation prayer a far cry from protests of “taxed enough already?”  There are at least three good reasons we watch these proceedings, weigh in with our support, and celebrate this victory.

First is foundational.  While limited taxation and fiscal responsibility is our primary concern, those grow out of respect for and adherence to a Constitution.  Within that supreme law are contained rights and limits, guarantees and safeguards, which define our framework for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness our Founding Fathers referenced in declaring our independence.  These ideals lay the foundation on which we build our country and culture, and through which we can confidently demand limited taxation and fiscal responsibility from our government.  Key to that exercise are our personal freedoms, two of which are free speech and religious expression.  An assault on any part of the Constitution is an assault on the entire Constitution; a weakening of any freedom not only weakens the whole, but calls into question the entire system.

Second is our respect for individual liberty.  Minority opinions must be tolerated, respected, and even encouraged.  The marketplace of ideas must remain open and free, for a society becomes stronger when opposing viewpoints are given voice. Even within a community of majority rule, minority rights must be respected.  Yet, no society can stand under the tyranny of the minority.  To eliminate any idea if not unanimously accepted would be to eradicate not only all religious expression, but also expressions of nationalism, patriotism, and even culture itself.  Within a free society, reasonable citizens must understand and accept some ideas expressed may be different than their own, and in some cases even distasteful, but in all cases (unless direct harm can be proved) tolerated.

Third is the fact that America is a land built on a Judeo-Christian heritage.  That is a historical truth that predates the Constitution, was the worldview perspective of its Framers, and was the judicial thinking upon which it was written.  While those who argue the slippery slope that Judeo-Christian religious expression may open the door to all kinds of less popular religious expression, we would caution that fear of what could happen should never limit the rights spelled out clearly in the Constitution.

Congratulations to the students of Medina Valley High School, not only on the occasion of your graduation, but also for your lesson in advocacy of Constitutional rights even as you graduate.  Your—and ultimately our—victory is not only symbolic; it is the substance that allows us to advocate for our core beliefs concerning Constitutional government, that includes limited taxation and fiscal responsibility.