Sen. Cornyn's (TX) Newsletter

Open email to Sen. Cornyn (TX):

Dear Sen. Cornyn,
    I read your latest newsletter. You are exactly on target with the three points considered.
    They were:
        1. Voted against assault weapon ban. We cannot further infringe Second Amendment gun rights. In fact, state and local laws currently infringing rights should be repealed, including Texas.        2. Cosponsored Sen. Cruz's bill to defund Obamacare.        3. Promoting more government transparency.    Thank you for these actions. They are a service to Texans and US citizens in general.

Public Access to Government Research

    In the February 25 issue of C&E News, Britt Erickson reports on combined House and Senate actions to make the results of taxpayer funded government research freely available to the public. Congratulations to Reps. Doyle (PA), Lofgren (CA), and Yoder (KS), and to Senators Wyden (OR) and Cornyn (TX)!
    Since taxpayers are paying for the research, it seems fair that they should have an opportunity to review and use the results, if any. I suspect that this information release will have no significant effect on eventual public use, because of the general unproductiveness of government research. In other words, this will really be an exercise in futility, because it is unlikely that there is anything there of real value.
    However, the main reason I support the program is that what it will show the impracticality of government research, and perhaps convince Congress to be significantly cutting back on such expenditures, as they should have done a long time ago. The article says that publishes are calling it "unnecessary and a waste of federal resources". That statement apparently comes from the fact that such public release will negatively influence the bottom line profit of publishers. No mention is made, but it is also likely that government agencies and University recipients of government grants will likewise oppose this position, because it will shed light on the ineffectiveness of the present agency research programs.

Government Science Research

    Andrea Widener reports in the March 4 issue of C&E News that a caucus of four House Representatives are promoting government research. They are Hultgren (IL), Patta (PA), Lujan (NM), and Nunnelee (MS). While the caucus has not yet set an agenda, one of its first efforts will be to promote increased Federal government science funding. Members of the caucus are said to be big believers in the importance of science, as am I. Hultgren says backing basic science and research is one of the roles of government.
    I also believe that backing basic science and research is one of the roles of government, but the question is what does "backing" mean?. It is clear that the caucus's intention is to throw more taxpayer money at research programs, which are already in considerable excess at the various government agencies, including the National Science Foundation.
    This sort of caucus within the House is a dangerous operation. In these times of budget deficits and extreme national debt, is our objective to be cutting government expense rather than increasing it. The caucus is obviously planning the reverse. In other words, we have gotten into this financial government mess through many years of excessive spending as approved by Congress, and this caucus only exacerbates a continuation of the same program.
    I have yet to see any significant positive results from previous government research programs, as they spent billions of dollars of taxpayer money. It is past time to call it quits. Basic research should be done at universities and private companies or corporations, and not by government. Any "backing" by government should be in the form of encouragement, without funding. The maximum I will go is to agree that research by taxpaying organizations should receive a deduction in their federal tax calculation.
    I do not support the caucus program. I believe it is detrimental to the financial health of the US, and I further believe that we should cut basic present agency research to the bone, except for national defense. 

Representative Neugebauer's (TX) Newsletter

Randy,
    I read your latest newsletter.

Federal Government Funding for 2013    You voted for a Continuing Resolution to fund the Federal government for the remainder of 2013. You did so because the continued resolution contains real spending cuts. As I understand it, it also replaces the Sequester. The Sequester also has real spending cuts. How do the cuts on the Continuing Resolution compare with those of the Sequester? When we talk money, numbers are very important, and I don't think that point should have been neglected.
    A Continuing Resolution by the House is meaningless without agreement of the Senate and the President. You make no comment on the probability of obtaining such agreement, which seems to me also as another key point.

Federal Budget    You also say that Congress will be working on a new budget. You imply that preparation of such a budget is the key issue, with further implication that it's passage is a foregone conclusion. Obviously, nothing is further from the truth. In the last few days, Ryan has proposed a Republican budget, and the Democrats have today proposed a Democratic budget.
    The Ryan budget includes a repeal of Obamacare. There is no way that the President will ever approve such a bill, and with a strong Democratic Senate, there seems no way to override a Presidential veto with a two thirds majority. In effect, the Ryan budget appears futile.
    As I understand it, the Democratic budget does not include repeal of Obamacare and includes many so-called "investment" expenses, or in effect, continues to travel on the same course of budget deficit and accumulation of national debt.
    The House controls the Federal government purse strings. If the House does not approve, the Democratic budget will have no chance. Hopefully, the Republicans will be strong enough to resist its passage, even to the extent of shutting down the Federal government. In case you were worried about this, the Italian Federal government has been shut down several times and the country of Italy still exists. A US Federal government shutdown would not be as catastrophic as is generally implied.

Fuel Efficiency    Congratulations on your bill to allow farmers to increase the amount of fuel they can transport. This is a relatively small but yet very important aspect of eliminating unnecessary restrictive rules on any business. Please keep up the good work.

UN Arms Treaty    Congratulations also on your opposition to the United Nations Arms Treaty, which by international law would then make it illegal for US citizens to bear arms. This would be contrary to our Constitution and should be fought with all fervor, even to the extent of withdrawing from the United Nations if necessary..

Alamo and States Writes

    Open email to Sen. Cornyn of Texas:

Dear Sen.,
    I read your newsletter about the Alamo. It is interesting to remember the history of the great state of Texas.
    As I recall, Texans bore the primary burden of the war against Mexico to establish Texan freedoms. Texas subsequently volunteered to join the United States under the then existing terms of the U.S. Constitution.
    Since that time, the US government has continued to wrest power from all the states, including Texas, contrary to terms of the Constitution.
    Do you plan to do anything to return Constitutional rights Texas, or are you satisfied with the status quo?

Secretary of State - Global Warming

   In a recent speech, new Secretary of State Kerry gave strong emphasis to a need for controlling global warming. I don't believe he specified how he intends to do this, but the party line has been to control carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.
    I would like to know from Secretary Kerry what justification he has to relate carbon dioxide to global warming. If we have global warming, and there is some conjecture about that, what does carbon dioxide emissions have to do with it? Granted, carbon dioxide emissions are up. So is inflation, the national debt, Chicago murders, etc. Are any of these responsible for global warming?

Endangered Species

Open email to House Representative Neugebauer of Texas:
Randy,
I read your latest newsletter.
If the Lesser Prairie-Chicken is even being considered as an endangered species, let's stop the talk and go into action. Solicit some minor funding from environmental groups or, if absolutely necessary, use public funds to capture several and put them into an animal/bird reservation on federal land, of which you are ready have plenty. Any talk about depriving individuals of their personal land rights because of an endangered species is absolutely ridiculous. If the law is now established, such as individuals are required to give up their land for endangered species, change it.
Congratulations for receiving the Defender of Economic Freedom Award from the Club for Growth. Keep up the good work, so that you receive it again next year.
I look forward to hearing what you say in testifying before the House Budget Committee. Hopefully, it will be something specific such as reducing the size of the federal government, reestablishing states rights, reducing federal taxes and reducing federal regulations on business.
Art
Dr. Arthur C. Sucsy
4203 96th Street
Lubbock, TX 79423
806-794-1381
asucsy@suddenlink.net