Rep. Neugebauer(TX) on Farm Bill, Obamacare, and Veterans

Open Email to Rep. Neugebauer:

Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
    I have read your newsletter.

FARM BILL    Your first item involved required action by your Committee to resolve differences in the House and Senate versions of the US Farm Bill. You said, "Above anything else, our producers [farmers] want certainty. They can’t predict the weather, they can’t make it rain, and they can’t prevent a drought, but they should be able to know what they can expect from our farm programs."    Everybody would like certainty, but certainty is not realistic. There are only degrees of uncertainty, also considered as degrees of risk. True that farmers can't predict the weather or make it rain, but neither can you or any other segment of government. You can only throw taxpayer money to farmers who you believe have been unjustly treated by nature. That's ridiculous!.
    Farming is a business like anything else. It may have more risks, which would then deserve a higher profit than a less risky business. In addition as you well know, crop insurance is readily available to all farmers and the cost can be included in production costs of doing business. Government needs to have no part in such an operation. In fact, the further government stands away from farmers, the more productive they are likely to be.
    I'm sure that neither House members nor Senators are so dense that they have not realized the truth of what I have said. The only reason we continue with farm programs is for local Representatives such as yourself to obtain votes from farmers for your continuity in office with continued handouts. The Soviets had a five-year program, which was bad because it was based on improper ideology, but at least it had a semblance of logic with the objective being to increase production. Congress does not even have that fallback to defend its position of meddling in the farming business.
    I even hesitate to mention the ridiculousness of including a nutrition program, which is food stamps, in a Farm Bill. This is so far out in logic that it is almost unbelievable, but for some reason Congress has embraced this stupid idea. Is the objective to obtain votes? Will all low information voters suddenly vote for the local Representative and Senator who has given them another handout? Likely not. They will vote for Democrats only based upon the fact that Democrats in power have regularly given them handouts. Any Republican who doesn't see this is obviously blinded or is a Communist in disguise.

OBAMACARE    You next spent four paragraphs discussing the deficiencies involving the Obamacare webpage. For some unknown reason, you have fallen into the trap of agreeing with TV political news that this is really important. It is not. It only detracts from the main problem.
    Obamacare is an entitlement program of massive proportions. It will be the many straws that broke the camels back. The US has been moving toward Socialism since World War II, and we are almost there. Obamacare takes money from people who have properly decided to buy medical insurance for themselves and now gives it by government edict to the so-called underprivileged, or shall I say mostly under-attempted achievers, as another entitlement.
    You were part of Congress who voted for Obamacare. Are you now raising a racket against the Obama website in order to distract attention from your fundamental error?
    Let's remember that in two years the Obamacare website will be fully functional and all problems related to its establishment will be forgotten. However, we will not be able to forget Obamacare itself as a drag on the economy and a forced inequality in expenses versus revenues, which will bring the country to oblivion. With you proudly say that you were part of the government that voted for it?

VETERAN HOMELESSNESS
     Here I think we might be on the same page. You said you are attempting to help over 62,000 homeless veterans find homes. Congratulations! You are right on target for reasons I will try to explain.
    The nature of military life is somewhat like slavery. It differs in that an individual is offering himself up for a controlled operation, rather than being physically captured and forced into servitude. From there on, we have gross similarity. For each individual, the military supplies housing, food, clothing, recreation, medical care, and anything else necessary for life. In return, the soldier must obey the orders of its master, which is the military establishment and representatives thereof. He can be forced to perform dangerous assignments, such as exposing himself to life-threatening enemy action, or perform boring or other undesirable actions, such as cleaning latrines. In effect, he is equivalent to what blacks were previously exposed to as slaves on a plantation. However, it is not my objective to castigate the military. Their procedures are necessary, and as I said previously, "soldiers" are mostly there by free choice. Only during war and the so-called "draft" do they fully qualify as slaves.
    "Soldiers" generally volunteer at a young age; 18 years old or so. They have had no experience in earning a living, finding a place to live, buying their own food, handling their own medical problems, etc.. These items have usually been provided by parents. On entering the military, the "soldier" continues his lack of accumulating experience in the standard aspects of living, which most of us become educated to handle. We learn how to write checks, buy food at the supermarket, arrange for financing on an automobile, or house, etc. For the "soldier", the military establishment takes over those responsibilities from the parents, which continues the naivety of the "soldier".
    When a "soldier" retires from the military at the present mandatory age of 62, he is suddenly faced with living requirements with which most of us are completely familiar but with which he has no concept. It is for this reason that many retired veterans are unable to cope and we have 62,000 homeless.
    We could easily say that is their problem and that they will have to learn to cope. However, they have given their best years in the service of our country and for us, and we have a responsibility to see that they are not destitute. Our military system has helped make them what they are, and since the military system is ours, we have the responsibility to be involved, not necessarily as individuals, but as a government function.
    We have a Veterans Administration, but I am not familiar with all of the details of that operation. I know that certain medical benefits are available, but I have some doubt that some of the fundamental conditions for living are supplied by the VA. We should at least have "soldiers homes", where retired veterans can live in a manner consistent with their experience in the military, where they are supplied with reasonably comfortable housing and appropriate food, medical attention and recreation. We apparently do that for prisoners in our state and federal penitentiaries. Should we be doing less for our veterans?

Hurricane Sandy Aftermath

Open Email to Congress:

Dear Representatives and Senators,
    According to the Washington Times, last year Congress rushed to send $60.4 billion in emergency money to aid Superstorm Sandy victims, saying people’s lives depended on getting the full amount out the door as fast as possible. The storm left more than 100 people dead and caused billions of dollars in damage along the Northeast coast, making landfall in New Jersey on Oct. 29, 2012, and did the worst of its damage to that state and neighboring New York.
    Officials initially pressed for $80 billion in federal aid, but Congress cut that by about a quarter and passed two bills in January to get the money flowing. But as of Aug. 31, the most recent financial report from the federal Sandy task force shows that only about one-fifth of the money has been obligated and little more than $5 billion, or 11 percent, has been paid out. On Monday, the administration released a fact sheet saying that in the ensuing two months, another $8.5 billion has been paid out, bringing the total to $13.5 billion.
    There are two important considerations on the scenario.
    The first is that hurricanes are a predictable event. We know they are coming. We just don't know where and when, nor the degree of intensity. We also know that hurricanes involve high wind, high ocean waves, and many times flooding on coastal areas from high tides.. We also know that hurricanes diminish in velocity as they continue farther inland. This means that private and public properties on coastal areas are particular susceptible to damage and destruction from wind and flooding. Fortunately, this information allows a choice. Owners of shoreline property are at high risk for damage, while owners of property farther inland are significantly at less risk. In addition, wind and flood insurance is also available. All of this requires a particular mindset, which is that the property owner must take responsibility for decision of where he owns property and whether he will carry insurance to cover any potential loss.
    In the case of Sandy, we don't know how many property owners insured themselves against financial loss from hurricane wind and flooding, but it is presumed to be small. Otherwise, Congress would not have rushed to spend $60.4 billion in restitution for people who had made bad judgments either on the location of their property or their lack of appropriate insurance. Another effect of the Congressional action is to encourage people to avoid personal responsibility, with the probability that government will bail them out whenever they have made poor decisions.
    The second consideration in the scenario is that while $60.4 billion was allocated by Congress, only $13.5 billion has been paid out in a year. I would like to say that the Administration has proven to be much wiser in its spending than is Congress, but I actually believe that while the Administration would love to spend all the money quickly, it has been incapable of doing so because of its incompetency. Here we have the unusual case where government incompetency has really led to a favorable effect.
    What I am advocating is that neither Congress nor the Administration should be encouraging US citizens to be irresponsible in the handling of their personal property, with the expectation that taxpayers through government will come to their aid on any mistakes they have made.

Apology to Rep. Neugebauer

Open Email to Rep. Neugebauer (TX):

Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
    Please accept my sincere APOLOGY. I previously accused you of voting "Yea" on the final version of H.R.2775, which granted Pres. Obama a blank check for spending and increased debt. In fact, you voted "Nay".
    The original bill was introduced as H.R.2775.IH by Diane Black. The bill title was "To condition the provision of premium and cost-sharing subsidies under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act upon a certification that a program to verify household income and other qualifications for such subsidies is operational, and for other purposes". You were a cosponsor on July 31.
    The bill went through three more versions and was finally issued as the "Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014" (H.R.2775.ENR). It was here that you voted "Nay" on October 16.

    Again, please accept my sincere apology for not having presented this correctly in the first place.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll550.xml

Rep. Neugebauer Voted for the Continuing Resolution

Open Email to Rep. Neugebauer (TX):

Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
    On October 21 you issued one of your newsletters, which commented on Congress passing a bill raising the federal debt ceiling and providing stopgap funding for the federal government. You said you could not vote to increase our debt limit without making genuine spending cuts.
    The following day I emailed you, with my compliments on your statement that you could not vote to increase the debt limit without spending cuts.
    Within the past few days, I had occasion to review the House voting record on HR 2775. This bill was essentially the same as the Senate bill PL 113-46, which was a continuing resolution bill without strings, and which President Obama had demanded all along. In effect, House Republicans caved on their resolve to not increase the debt limit without spending cuts. I have already written concerning my displeasure with the House Republicans' action.
    However, I decided to check the voting record on HR 2775, which gives Obama a free hand, and found that you had voted "Yeah", contrary to your previous claim that you had voted "Nay".
    I am extremely disappointed not only with the total position of the House voting on this matter, but more specifically on the fact that you apparently misled me and perhaps many others; should I say by lying?

Sen. Cornyn (TX) on Government Shutdown

Open Email to Sen. Cornyn (TX):

Dear Sen. Cornyn,
    I have read your latest newsletter.
    You said that during the recent government shutdown you worked to reinstate death benefits for families of fallen troops, and spent time with the Texas heroes who came to DC to visit their memorials.   
    During the shutdown, you voted against the Continuing Resolution to give Pres. Obama a blank check for unlimited spending. Congratulations for your position. While a government shutdown was objectionable, the final Senate decision to give Obama the blank check was far worse. Apparently,. You did the best you could under the circumstances, with the Senate being loaded with Communistic Democrats.

Texas Constitutional Amendments

        On November 5, Texas residents will be voting on nine propositions related to the Texas Constitution. The propositions are listed below, along with an indication of how I plan to vote.
Proposition 6    Legislation (Senate Joint Resolution 1) proposes to create the State Water Implementation Fund (SWIFT) and the State Water Implementation Revenue Fund as special funds outside the state’s general fund.
    Proposition 6 will be funded by a one-time, $2 billion appropriation from the economic stabilization fund – the Rainy Day Fund.
Supporters of the water plan say it is critical for Texas’ water needs for the next half-century. Opponents object to use of the Rainy Day Fund. Instead of funding new projects, opponents say the state should ease regulatory restrictions that would encourage the development of an adequate supply.
    Vote AGAINST. While water is important, I see no reason why it should be handled outside of the general funding for the state.
Proposition 1    While a number of disabled veterans and surviving spouses receive full or partial homestead exemptions, the surviving spouses of military personnel killed in action do not receive an exemption.
    Montgomery Central Appraisal District Chief Appraiser Mark Castleschouldt said there are 10 surviving spouses who would qualify for 100 percent property exemption. The total tax revenue on those properties is $37,500, he said.
    Proposition 1 permits the surviving spouse to transfer the exemption to another residence, as long as the surviving spouse has not remarried since the service member’s death.
    Vote FOR. Surviving spouses of killed military personnel should have the same benefits as spouses of disabled personnel.
Proposition 4    The amendment permits the Legislature to authorize a new exemption from property taxation if the house was donated to a disabled veteran by a charitable organization at no cost to the veteran.
    Vote FOR. The donation of the house is irrelevant compared to ongoing taxes. Tax exemption for disabled veteran should be afforded the same as Proposition 1.
Proposition 5    This amendment permits reverse mortgages to Texas homeowners at least 62 years old, who are house-rich but cash-poor. They would be able to sell one property and purchase another in one transaction, using the equity of one home to make a cash down payment on a less expensive home. That combined deal could save a homeowner several thousand dollars in closing fees.
    The proposed amendment also requires detailed disclosures at least 12 days before closing.
    Vote FOR. Sounds reasonable.
Proposition 9    This proposed amendment expands the range of sanctions that can be assessed against a judge or justice following a formal proceeding before the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.
    Currently, the SCJC can issue a public censure or recommend a judge’s removal or retirement. The additional disciplinary actions include public admonition, warning, reprimand or required to undergo more training or education.
    Vote AGAINST. We already have too much weasel wording in our regulations. The State Commission has enough choices with public censure, removal or retirement.
Proposition 7    Home-rule municipalities such as Conroe and Willis are required by state law to hold a special election to fill a vacant position on the city council, and if the term of office is more than two years but less than four years.
    Proposition 7 requires home-rule cities to provide in its charter the procedure to fill an unexpired term that is 12 months or less.
    This may not apply to Lubbock, but if it does, I would vote FOR.
Proposition 8    With its population exceeding 800,000, Hidalgo County in South Texas is the largest county in Texas without a hospital district. Proposition 8 repeals a section of the state constitution that restricts the property tax rate for a hospital district in Htdalgo County to 10 cents per $100 valuation.
The amendment would provide an ongoing source of revenue to help fund the creation and operation of a planned University of Texas medical school in the Rio Grande Valley. Any applicable property tax rate adopted by the district is subject to voter approval.
    This may not apply to Lubbock, but if it does, I would vote AGAINST. It seems reasonable that a county of 800,000 people should have a hospital.
However, the practice of medicine, including hospitals, is a business and should be established by private capital, including allowance of a profit incentive. Similar to the now rampant discussion on Obamacare, only Communists believe in taxpayer supported medical care.

Proposition 3    Under current legislation, aircraft parts that qualify for a freeport exemption are exempt from ad valorem taxes as long as the aircraft parts are shipped out of the state within a 175-day period. Otherwise the parts do not qualify for the current exemption.
    Proposition 3 increases the exemption to 730 days (two years). Supporters of the amendment contend aircraft parts inventories do not turn over very quickly, thus putting Texas suppliers at a competitive disadvantage.    Vote AGAINST. I'm a believer in minimal taxes, but if taxes are necessary, they should not be loaded down with exceptions. There is no indication of how there is a "competitive disadvantage", in this case.. Stay with the current exemption or actually consider eliminating the tax altogether.
Proposition 2    The amendment eliminates the State Medical Education Board and a medical education fund. They were founded in 1952 to encourage medical students to establish their practices in rural areas, but the board has not received state appropriations or issued a new loan for more than 20 years, as the state Legislature has found more efficient ways to attract physicians to rural areas.
    Vote FOR. Anytime we get rid of a law or regulation, we should do it. I don't see that we need a State Medical Education Board or a Medical Education Fund. We probably never should have had them. I am concerned about the so-called "more efficient ways to attract physicians to rural areas", but that is not the consideration here.

Sen. Cornyn (TX) on the Farm Bill

Open Email to Sen. Cornyn (TX):

Sen. Cornyn,
    Thank you for your form letter on the Farm Bill.
    You said you did not vote for the Senate version, because it unnecessarily held support for farmers and ranchers hostage to the unchecked growth of food stamp entitlements and other non-farming programs, costing 60 percent more than the last authorization, in 2008.
    Congratulations for voting against it.
    You also said It failed to provide farmers a true safety net in difficult years, failed to fully target assistance to those most in need, and failed to prioritize farm aid over duplicative programs, subsidizing unrelated issues from green energy to housing.  It is shameful that Washington was unable to responsibly address the true needs of American farmers..
    It is at that point where we have a strong difference of opinion. Farming is a business, clear and simple. It is not up to the federal taxpayers to supply a safety net for farmers in difficult years and target assistance for those most in need. Economic difficulties in years of drought or other adverse weather conditions can be alleviated by insurance, which should be paid by farmers as a cost of doing business. Those most in need likely do not need assistance. The implication is that they are incompetent businessmen, and should leave the business to those more able to make it work. There obviously should be no duplicative programs, when we should not even have initial programs.        Any farm bill should be stripped down to its bare essentials, which involves essentially no taxpayer subsidization of any kind, but consideration made for public protection against famine. The inclusion of issues on green energy and housing is particularly ridiculous. It smacks of Congress at its worst, which is payola for subsequent votes to remain in office.