Reform Party of Harris County
The Centrist Choice!

Political Cartoons

Editorials

Farenheit 911:  Documentary or Propaganda?

Two parties?

A reason to get rid of the two-party system is from a flaw of its own.

Because it pits one half of most politically active people against the other, it begs the mercy of one or more strong third-party candidates. They claim to believe in the two-party system, yet every four years the true presidential winner may be affected by the third-party and independent candidates.

Instant runoff voting is better than the present winner-take-all system, for it gives the voter the ability to rate the candidates in their order of preference. Proportional representation allocates legislature seats in correlation to the parties' share of the votes (given a minimum percentile).

Public financing of elections frees the candidates to speak on the issues important to their region or country. Wishful thinking, but does it not take a third party to forward neglected issues such as these?

David Weller Abilene

(Originally submitted to the Abilene Reporter News by Taylor County Reform Party Chairman David Weller)

How Can a Vote be Wasted?

(Written in response to a critic who stated that a Third Party vote was a wasted vote, and might even get Bush re-elected.)

So..You believe everything you see and hear about voting in this country? Or should I say, you'll believe anything?

'Wasted vote' theories are Republican propaganda. They always were and always will be baseless claptrap. Just because the Democrats have borrowed this garbage for a while lately doesn't make any of it more nearly truthful. Look; get your thinking cap on for a moment and consider these facts:

*Half the electorate stays home during our quadrennial election cycles.

*No two electorates who do vote (Nationwide aggregate) remain the same from one quadrennial to the next.

*The votes of the electorate are the personal property of those who cast them; they are NOT the property of the two so-called major parties and, in turn, on-loan to the voting public.

With these factors firmly in mind, also please recognize that if the 'wasted/stolen vote' sniveling were to be anything but irrational, certain other elemental ingredients would also have to be in place. Namely:

One - that there would have to be a verifiable 100% turnout for any election in question 

Two - it would also have to be verifiable that voting choices within said turnout would have been steadfast and predictable, absent a late entry by a third or even fourth choice in that given race.

Three - there would also have to be a certainty that a three-way race would find ALL the supporters of the third candidate migrating to the other two parties or one of the two remaining parties in the event that the third candidate dropped out. This is the MOST unlikely of all sub-scenarios.

The electorate in this country is anything but predictable, but one thing is for certain: Neither of the two so-called major parties want any competition. Period. End of Story. The Elites that control the 'two-party' snake-oil show are quite comfortable with things the way they are. It might complicate things for them to have any other dynamic than the "politics of fear" at work in our Presidential races. You must know what I mean by that. You're caught up in it. "Vote for this guy or else the other guy will win!!!", or, "Vote for our candidate! He doesn't suck as bad as the other candidate!"

When all is said and done, the lesser of two evils is still evil. I'm not going to play that game anymore. A choice between Senator Fogbound or the Fortunate Son is no choice at all, and personally I'll be skipping the Presidential race and going down ballot to do my voting. Except for Perot, there hasn't been a single decent, serious candidate for President in my entire adult lifetime, in my humble opinion. I'm 53 years old, by the way.

So relax. And the next time some talking head says that a candidate is "stealing votes" from another candidate, do yourself a favor and turn the toob OFF. Read a good book instead. I suggest The Corruption of American Politics; What Went Wrong and Why by Elizabeth Drew.

I wish you well.

Charles Foster
RPTX Chairman

State Budget Crisis, Duty of a Balanced Budget

The upcoming Texas legislative session will feature a budget crisis-- our state has forgotten that we must be able to afford programs before we buy them. In addition to our present debt problems, last year's statewide candidates promised new programs including free college tuition and a water desalination model. What the Texas legislature should do is simplify our state tax structure, then determine how much we are able to pay for all of our government services (if they are most cost-effective at the state level.) Even though our public sector can work with private business to finance developments such as the Trans Texas Corridor, that does not relieve our duty to respect our state balanced-budget law.

David Weller
Taylor Co. Chair, Reform Party

An Open Invitation

Most of us realize the importance of having a stable government to secure the unalienable Rights of it's Citizens, however when a government ceases to function as the Guarantor of the People's Rights, and becomes the Grantor of the People's Rights, it is time for the People to awaken and make the much needed and overdue adjustments.

This government did not become so intrusive, so overbearing, and so demanding overnight. We, the People have been asleep for a long time. All too many Citizens, the reasons are irrelevant, have failed in their obligation to themselves, their countrymen, and most importantly to their innocent posterity by not getting involved in the political process - voting, learning the issues, checking out the candidate's positions, and demanding a lawful government that operates within the confines of the Constitution. The public schools have done a great disservice to the Nation by failing to teach the concepts of Liberty, the Constitution, and the duties of Citizenship. It is imperative these Citizens not only gain the knowledge of the proper and legitimate functions of Government, but they must begin to fulfill their obligations and exercise their powers as Citizens. It is only by the participation of a knowledgeable and active Citizenry can a free Nation survive.

A different problem exists for a large block of other Citizens. So many people blindly follow the "party line" and never examine what their legislators are voting on. Of course, most citizens are busy working and have limited spare time to read legislation. They trust their party, or their representative, or their senator will " do the right thing ", and if any bad legislation is enacted the other party, the other representative, the other senator is responsible. Each political party is a master at finger pointing and directing blame at the other. It becomes a "We vs Them" contest with each side attempting to cast aspersions and fixing blame on the other, and all the while both team's cheerleaders cheer, the spin masters spin, and the talking heads talk as our Liberties, our unalienable Rights, and our money disappear.

Both the Democrats and the Republicans could just as easily be known as " the Magicians " as both are accomplished illusionists and masters in sleight of hand. For as the People couldn't watch and see each act of legislation, each chapter, each paragraph, and each line there were lobbyists and special interest groups that did have the time, that did have the interest to see, that did have the money to influence, AND THEY DID!

Like an aphrodisiac, money and power seduced both the willing and the unwilling politician over many years to bend, stretch, and eventually break the chains the Founders of this Nation had placed on our Government with the Constitution. Oh, it wasn't a lot at first. The politicians could justify a little usurpation in the Constitution here, a little there. "After all," they would say, " it was really for the public good. Re-write the tax law here and there to help a friend that helped us. One hand always washes the other. The public can afford it. This is America and we're a rich nation. Liberties?? Like Bill Clinton and Louis Freeh said - 'The people have too many now'. " "Besides, the Democrat and Republican politicians say, "if we don't seize some of their Liberties, how can we create a safe society? Self-reliance?? Hogwash! They need to depend on us. That way, we'll stay in office. We know what they need better than they do. High taxes? Not high enough! In order to count on Paul's support, we have to rob Peter and give the money to Paul.

And since the name of the game is to stay elected, make certain to kiss up to the multi-nationals. That's where the big bucks for the campaign coffers come from, plus as long as we do their biding we're guaranteed to have a cushy, fat, lucrative job waiting for us if the constituents ever wise up." And on, and on, and on. And it has never stopped!! And it never will, until we wake up and realize there has only been two groups responsible for running this government for the last 140 years. Only two groups. If We, the People, vote them both out, simultaneously, and restore the Rule of Law - the Constitution, and those basic ideas and concepts that made this the greatest Nation on earth, we can take back America. We can remove this burden from our daily lives, enjoy freedom like we have never known, and provide more economic opportunity than anyone living ever thought possible to all of our Citizens.

Most importantly, we can deliver to our Posterity that most wonderful gift - Liberty, to be as you want to be, and live without an intruding government. Join us. The cause is just. The sacrifices in blood and life our forefathers made demand and cry out for it. Our children deserve it. The rewards are enormous! The question is not, "Can we do it?" Together, as the People, not only can we do it - we must do it. The question is, "What is the alternative for our People, our Nation, our Posterity?"

Jim Welch
Chairman, Reform Party of Wharton County

Seeking a "More Civilized Election"

On November 6, new campaign finance laws took effect for all future elective federal candidates.

We now have the opportunity to do what hasn't been done since the mid-1970's-- allow federal campaigns the luxury of interacting with the voters; candidates can now devote their energies formulating their issues with only their constituents in mind.

Prospective candidates can consider running in a more civilized election season in 2004, if the Federal Election Commission does its job enforcing the laws.

David Weller
Taylor County Chair, Reform Party

Articles

Texas Fair Trade Coalition Update!

Dear advocates,

Three items of special interest from newspapers around the state:

1. WATCH THIS! Off-shoring news and the Texas connection ‹ Fort Worth Star Telegram

2. CAFTA¹s health costs, San Antonio Express-News

3. With Americas agreement likely to bring foreign beef, U.S. ranchers worry their livelihoods could be at risk, Houston Chronicle

****************************************

The Fort Worth Star Telegram has a special interactive report on Off-shoring. You can access the report at:

http://www.star-telegram..com/mld/interactivemedia/offshore.html

Be sure to watch the two videos (click on the pictures to start them), and check out the ³Story² section and other links at the bottom right of the screen. Note that Texas companies ACS and EDS are featured.

Particularly significant for our fight to remove Texas from the government procurement chapter of CAFTA, ACS (Affiliated Computer Systems, a Fortune 500 company) handles several state contracts, including a $28 million contract for supporting CHIP and Medicaid. They also have a contract with the South Texas Workforce Development Center (ironic, no?). If CAFTA passes with Texas still included in the schedule of commitments for procurement, anti-offshoring rules like those included in the HB2292 (which reorganized Health and Human Services agencies, and provided for the privatization of Medicaid call centers) would be illegal under the agreement. ACS could send those CHIP and Medicaid jobs to call centers in Central America, where workers earn just $30 a week.

**********************************

CAFTA's health costs

San Antonio Express-News 6-23 

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/letters/stories/MYSA20onlineletters0623.2c0e197a.html

The June 6 editorial supporting ratification of the Central American Free Trade Agreement completely disregards the agreement's health and environmental costs ("Free trade agreement in U.S. best interests").

CAFTA would significantly reduce the resources Central American countries have for environmental protection by diminishing their tariff revenue. It has no independent environmental cooperation institution such as the one created under the NAFTA side agreement.

On the other hand, foreign investors would be permitted to challenge and demand monetary compensation for the implementation of environmental protections. The mere threat of such challenges could prevent Central American countries from adopting environmental standards.

Thus CAFTA's regulatory scheme will only hinder meaningful improvement of Central American environmental protection.

What harms Central America's environment can harm us as well. One need only recall the smoky haze that blanketed San Antonio in May 1998. Smoke from fires raging in Mexico and Central America drifted into Texas, causing serious public health risks.

Better environmental enforcement in Mexico and Central America can benefit San Antonio directly. Unfortunately, CAFTA works against our interests in this respect.

Congress should support fair trade measures that promote a sustainable environment, not so-called "free" trade that endangers the health of Central American and U.S. residents.

Enrique Valdivia

***********************************

With Americas agreement likely to bring foreign beef, U.S. ranchers worry their livelihoods could be at risk

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/2642345

By JENALIA MORENO

Cattle ranchers like Chuck Kiker long ago traded in their cowboy hats and horses for baseball caps and pickup trucks. But they still consider themselves traditional cowboys, and they don't want the government to trade away their way of life.

That's what many cattlemen fear will happen if U.S. officials sign trade agreements with beef powerhouses like Australia, Argentina and Brazil.

"Beef is a generic product in the United States," said Kiker, who wore a cap stamped with the slogan, "Beef, it's what's for dinner," as he stood at the Oak Knoll Farm in Fannett, the headquarters of his 300-head cattle operation that he has run for more than 20 years. "The U.S.. consumer would prefer U.S. beef."

Negotiations for the 34-nation Free Trade Area of the Americas agreement continue to sputter along as Brazilian officials lead other nations in calling for an end to U.S. subsidies on many agricultural products.

If approved, the regional trade agreement would give beef producers like Argentina and Brazil ‹ which together raise 240 million head of cattle, compared with more than 96 million in the United States ‹ greater access to the U.S. market. For now, an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Argentina and Brazil prevents them from sending many beef products and live cattle to the United States.

"They represent a very formidable threat once their disease state is cleared up," said Bill Bullard, chief executive officer of Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America.

Meanwhile, U.S. and Australian trade negotiators signed off on their pact last month. It's up to Congress to vote on the deal with Australia, where more than 27 million cattle grazed last year, according to Billings, Mont.-based R-CALF.

The agreement benefits American manufacturers because it slashes Australian tariffs on U.S. electronics. But cattle ranchers said the pact will harm them by driving down red meat prices after duties on U.S. beef imports begin to fall.

"We're the designated industry to be outsourced in the agreement," said Gilles Stockton, a rancher in Grass Range, Mont.

Supporters of the pact, like U.S. Rep. Kevin Brady, R-The Woodlands, said different industries win and lose with every trade negotiation. With this agreement, U.S. negotiators refused to loosen restrictions on sugar imports from Australia, losing leverage when it came to beef.

"In Australia, I think we made a mistake when we took sugar off the table," Brady said. "The beef portion of that is not as positive as I would like."

However, cattlemen won in another trade round with the Central American Free Trade Agreement, Brady said. Congress probably will not vote on that divisive agreement until after the presidential election, but Brady said if it's approved, Central American consumers will buy more American hamburgers and steaks.

Some economists downplay ranchers' concerns since the trade talks with Latin America progress slowly and Australian beef tariffs will take nine years to begin to be phased out until disappearing in 18 years.

"I don't think it's going to be a devastating impact on the U.S. market," said Parr Rosson, an economist with Texas A&M University's Center for North American Studies.

These new trading partners could increase exports to the United States, Rosson said, but he doesn't expect a flood of beef products or cows from Australia or Latin America.

Ranchers said they're not opposed to trade agreements as long as beef products are clearly labeled with their country of origin so consumers know if the beef they're eating comes from an animal that's born, raised and processed in the United States. Ranchers believe that such labels could help U.S. beef products compete with imported meat.

While Kiker is worried about the beef industry's future, he conceded that cattlemen are enjoying profitable times after last December's beef scare when a Canadian cow with mad cow disease was found in Washington state.

The U.S. government reacted by blocking most Canadian cattle and beef imports. No other cases of mad cow were detected in the United States, although the beef industry went through a period of uncertainty, and some companies and ranchers lost money.

Recently, beef prices have surged, helped by the popularity of low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets and the ban on imports of most Canadian cows and beef.

And Kiker is worried that those goods times may permanently disappear if Canada's herd of more than 13 million cattle regains access to the United States, possibly followed by imports of Australian and Latin American beef.

"This is the first good time I've seen in the cattle industry where you're actually making money," Kiker said.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lesley Nicole Ramsey
Director, Texas Fair Trade Coalition
1405 Montopolis Drive
Austin, TX 78741
tel: (512) 472-1915
fax: (512) 389-2899
email: Lesley@texasfairtrade.org
 

FEC: Nader Campaign Qualifies for Funds

Fri May 28, 4:36 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Ralph Nader (news - web sites)'s independent bid for the White House has qualified to receive matching government funds, the Federal Election Commission (news - web sites) announced Friday.

Campaign officials said Nader has raised more than $850,000 to date from 7,800 separate contributions. To receive matching funds, a candidate must raise at least $5,000 in 20 states in donations of $250 or less.

The average contribution to the Nader campaign is $100, with 89 percent being $100 or less, the campaign said. The FEC matches all contributions of $250 or less up to $18.7 million.

"The Nader Campaign is not dialing for corporate dollars, unlike the corporate political duopoly we are challenging," Nader said in a statement. "We are seeking a broad base of support among the people."

Ralph Nader: http://www.votenader.org