How to Help New Orleans: Country must ask hard questions first

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

"With New Orleans flat on its back, and the small, relatively poor state of Louisiana fiscally not far from it, it is clear that New Orleans will not be reborn without massive and sustained federal help. The one thing everybody agrees that the city has to have if it is to survive in any meaningful sense is a strong and reliable levee system. Louisiana officials have called for one that can withstand a Category 5 hurricane. Trouble is, even if the engineering skill existed to create such a barrier – something New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin publicly doubts – estimates of the cost run more than $32 billion. Uncle Sam could find the money – but should he? Is New Orleans worth rebuilding?"

DMN is right. The public debate needs to happen. So, begin it already, DMN. What are you waiting for?

It's hard to come to this conclusion, but most of New Orleans should not be rebuilt. No one knows if it's even technically feasible; no one knows what the total cost might be if it is; no one knows how long it would take; no one knows how long America's attention will last and how soon commitment will wane. Promising to rebuild, holding out possibly false hope for tens of thousands of former residents, putting them in harm's way again in a geography doomed to repeated attacks by nature, none of this would be doing New Orleans justice.

Those parts of New Orleans on relatively high ground, where the original city was founded, should be given whatever assistance is needed to restore New Orleans to a viable, if smaller, city. But much of New Orleans, built below sea level as population growth expanded the city limits out from its historic footprint, should be given back to nature. Instead, government, business, and charities should focus on helping the displaced residents of New Orleans start life anew on higher ground, outside New Orleans, in neighboring cities and states or wherever residents choose. This itself will be a huge and expensive task. The purpose is not to avoid the cost of rebuilding. It's to focus the investment on an achievable end rather than waste it on a quixotic mission to restore what can never be restored.

Finally, the US should build a monument in New Orleans, dedicated to the dead and displaced, marking the first great city of the world to be lost to global warming. Increased ocean temperatures, more intense hurricanes, rising sea levels, and lost marshes and coastal buffers all forecast that New Orleans won't be the last city to be threatened with this fate. Perhaps New Orleans' legacy will be to inspire us to take action now to prevent this calamity from ever being repeated.

New Level of Disgrace: Cunningham scandal shows need for reform

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

"Pork-barrel projects benefiting a select few or retired lawmakers-turned-extremely well-compensated lobbyists are bad enough. But Mr. Cunningham takes influence peddling to an even more nefarious level. He's a perfect poster child for the need to erect a firewall between members of Congress, contractors and the appropriations process."

Congressman "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) was just indicted for bribery and tax evasion. A half dozen more Congressman are under investigation for bribery and other offenses in the investigation into Jack Abramoff's lobbying efforts. Congressman Tom Delay (R-TX) was forced to step down from his Republican leadership position after being indicted for campaign finance violations in Texas. The House Ethics Committee has not opened investigations into these matters. There's no movement in the House to enforce existing ethics rules, to say nothing of tightening the rules themselves.

What can voters do? First, "throw the bums out." Refuse to vote for any incumbent who has not taken a clear public stand in favor of tough ethics standards and enforcement, regardless of party affiliation. If enough incumbents are sent home, the rest will get the message that voters care about clean government.

Second, join and support one of the many public organizations devoted to clean government. Just a few examples are Common Cause, The Campaign Finance Institute, and the Project on Government Oversight. Find one that advocates reforms that best fit your own concept of good government. If citizen groups from both left and right send a message, politicians of both parties will have to listen.

In Need of Resuscitation: Renovation only one way for Parkland to go

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

"For many years, county commissioners were reluctant to approve tax increases for [Parkland] hospital or to approve construction of a new public hospital, a project that could carry a $1 billion price tag. They now realize the gravity of Parkland's situation and seem committed to reinvesting in the hospital. That's a good thing. A significant medical bill has come due that the region can't afford to let go unpaid. This is about the future of health care as much as it's about dollars and cents."

Dallas plans to spend $1.5 billion to tunnel under LBJ Freeway for a few additional traffic lanes, with $420 million coming from state taxpayers, DART, and the city. Arlington plans to spend $700 million on a playground for professional football, with about half coming from city taxpayers. If area officeholders believe those projects are money well spent, then spending $1 billion for a new hospital should be a no-brainer. Even the costs for basic repairs to Parkland Hospital are estimated to run $139 million. It's time to quit patching and build anew.

Let the Sun Shine: Jackson could warm House to recorded votes

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

"Requiring legislators to put their names next to their votes would make the whole process more accountable to the voter, Mr. Jackson said, 'and that's hardly a bad thing.'"

Kudos to DMN for supporting the requirement of recorded votes by legislators. First-term state Rep. Jim Jackson's support is also welcomed, even though what we learn of this legislator hints at bigger problems in the legislature than just voting procedures.

Mr Jackson has 30 years experience in local government but was surprised to learn that the "cattle auction" procedures of the state legislature result in measures often passing by voice vote without lawmakers knowing precisely what's in them. Mr Jackson also opposed recording votes, not on the merits of the proposal, but simply because the DMN favored it.

Let's hope that requiring recorded votes leads to Texans electing legislators who are less naive than Mr Jackson about the legislative process and who consider legislation on its merits, not just by who is for and against.

3 pluses of a U.S. sales tax

Dallas Morning News | Scott Burns:

"My personal belief, which is supported by a significant amount of research, is that working Americans would benefit more than 'rich' Americans – however they are defined – if our wretched tax system was buried and replaced with a national sales tax."

The dividends that Scott Burns believes a national sales tax will bring each has flaws:

1. He criticizes the current income tax for being crafted by special interests to the detriment of skilled workers. Who does he think is going to craft a national sales tax and why does he think the system will be any less corrupt?
2. He states that the rich don't benefit from the income that exceeds their immediate needs, at least until it is eventually spent on consumption. That might be so if they took their income and buried it in their backyards. But they don't. They buy things with it -- stocks and bonds and real estate. These purchases (the rich prefer the term investments) have a value. They directly benefit the owners in the form of dividends, interest, power, prestige. With a national sales tax, buy bread to fill your stomach and pay taxes. Buy the bakery to stoke your ego and escape the tax man. Something's wrong.
3. He criticizes the current system, with its income tax and employment tax, as fostering claims of inequity. Why does he think the claims of inequity will disappear with a national sales tax? His column was prompted by a reader complaining about the 'rich' escaping taxation under a national sales tax. So, complaints of inequity of a national sales tax are already being raised. Expect the chorus of complaints to grow only louder if a serious proposal emerges.

Alone Against the World

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

"While predictable, the nation's latest isolationist streak is a misguided overreaction to an Iraq intervention that hasn't gone as its architects had expected."

It could be that Americans are not unconditionally more isolationist. It could be that they just don't trust the current administration to competently conduct American foreign policy. This administration has alienated our allies. It has confused nation building with a war on terror. Threats posed by globalization, AIDS, bird flu, global warming, Islamic terrorism and many other issues have been neglected because of this administration's single-minded pursuit of war against Saddam Hussein. With a restoration of competent leadership in Washington, American public opinion might again warm to a foreign policy of constructive engagement with the world, working closely with our traditional allies, seeking common ground with rising powers, and isolating the radical elements instead of ourselves.

Palestinians pay price for their government's failure

Dallas Morning News | Michael Hopkovitz:

"Palestinians often complain about Israel's impact on their daily lives, encouraged by the Palestinian Authority, which uses schools, media and mosques to deflect criticism of its government and incites people daily with anti-Israel rhetoric. The PA, contrary to its words, continues to reject Israel's right to exist, blaming Israel for Palestinian hardships. However, the main cause for those hardships is the failure of the PA to act for the benefit of its own people.

The opening paragraph sets the tone for a one-sided rant against Palestinian politics. Palestinians "complain". They "deflect criticism". They "incite". They say one thing and do another. They "blame". No hint of any validity to the aspirations of a million Palestinians. No hint of any fault in any action by any Israeli government. Yada, yada, yada.

Like countless other partisan rants, by both sides of this age-old struggle, there's a clear inability to understand the other's position. Mr. Hopkovitz arrogantly suggests he understands better than Palestinians what is in their own self interest, who they should vote for, which political goals are worthy.

Peace will not be achieved by imposing one's political opinions on the other. Peace will come through mutual respect, accomodation and compromise. And that requires understanding. Until each side can write an essay in a way that readers can't tell the author's allegiance from the opening paragraph, that understanding will be lacking.

Mr. Hopkovitz is identified as being a co-chairman of a group called the Dallas Media Committee. A Google search failed to turn up any information on this group. The Dallas Morning News owes its readers a little more information about the background and credentials of its Viewpoints authors.

Thanksgiving not as relaxing for Bush this year

Dallas Morning News | Carl Leubsdorf:

"In recent weeks, Mr. Bush has received a lot of advice on how to turn things around. Some want him to stress immigration, a subject he plans to push on a border tour next week, or a tax simplification plan, based on proposals by his bipartisan study panel. ... All this advice avoids his real problem: Iraq. ... 'People in leadership make mistakes all the time,' Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, one of the GOP's sagest, most candid strategists replied to a question about the president's credibility. 'The people that admit it are a lot better off.'"

President Bush prides himself on holding firm to his beliefs, staying the course, not shifting positions based on focus groups or polls. Where others might see stubbornness, he sees determination, loyalty, faith.

He learned from his father's career that the conservative base will ruthlessly turn on a President who flip-flops on a core principle ("Read my lips. No new taxes.") This is what makes Iraq so hard to resolve. Even though what he's doing now isn't working, President Bush is unable to change course without violating that fundamental rule of conservative politics: don't be a flip-flopper.

So, what to do in a situation where admitting defeat and withdrawing would undercut his last remaining political support? The best we can hope for is that President Bush, sooner rather than later, applies some variant of the formula proposed by Senator George Aiken (R-VT) for resolving the Vietnam stalemate: Declare victory and get out.

'I'm grateful'

Dallas Morning News | Mary Jacobs:

"In a Newsweek article about baby boomers turning 60, a divorced mom mulled her financial difficulties after she'd lost her savings in risky high-tech stocks. 'Life,' she says, 'was supposed to be easier.' Oh, really? ... Only an American could have the hubris to make such a stunning pronouncement. Only an American, born after the Depression and spared the horrors of World War II, could sit in her home in an affluent suburb with presumably plenty to eat (or, more likely, too much to eat) and declare, 'Life was supposed to be easier.'"

Mary Jacobs reads way too much into a simple statement. The unnamed mom could have been simply making the point that her life did not turn out as she had planned. She is divorced. She lost her savings in the stock market. She had hoped for a better life. Not that she feels she deserves a better life. Not that she feels entitled. Not that she isn't grateful for all the blessings she does have. Just that she didn't want to end up divorced and broke at 60. Does Mary Jacobs want this for herself?

The point Mary Jacobs is trying to make is a good one. There is much for Americans to be grateful for. But Mary Jacobs should not have picked on this unnamed woman to make her point, taking a single quote out of context to read a lack of gratitude into this woman's character. That lacks compassion. It's just rude. And completely out of place in a column purportedly about being grateful.

The Court Intervenes: School-finance ruling puts pressure on Austin

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

"The Texas Supreme Court ruled clearly yesterday that Gov. Rick Perry and state legislators must solve the state's school funding problem. That's the positive take-away from the court's long-awaited decision. They must overhaul the state's method of funding schools. And they must do so by June 1. That's the best news coming out of a split verdict that on the whole is a win for Texas."

As DMN says, the Legislature dithered through four consecutive sessions without solving this problem. There's no guarantee they'll do any better even with a court ordered deadline. But the Courts have done the Legislature a favor. The Legislature doesn't have to increase overall funding, only shift the tax sources around, relieving the current burden on property taxes. They may still have a devil of time doing even that, given the power of the special interests entrenched against increasing either taxes on business or taxes on consumption. Therefore, expect overall school funding to continue to be capped at a level that results in our children falling behind in the global competition for skilled jobs.

With compassion, Miller passes test

Dallas Morning News | Jacquielynn Floyd:

"The specifics may vary, but most of us evaluate politicians pretty much the same way. We consider their positions on the issues, their experience, their leadership capabilities. We weigh them according to their opinions on taxes or public safety or any of a thousand other items we cherish in our zealous and partisan hearts. It shouldn't be a primary consideration, and maybe shouldn't be a consideration at all, but a lot of us also subject them to the barbecue test, an emotional response to another person's general demeanor: If I were having a barbecue in my back yard, would I invite this person?"

Don't encourage them. I sometimes think "the barbecue test" is the only consideration voters give to the candidates. The quick and easy cartoonish characterizations carry the day. Bill Clinton was a party animal. Bob Dole was a crotchety old man. Clinton wins that comparison, and the election, hands down. George Bush, another party animal, wins over nerdy Al Gore. And over haughty John Kerry. Our American elections are not so much choices of where voters want the country to go but who they want to sit next to on the journey. Is it any wonder we so often end up in the ditch?

War of Words: Country needs honest debate, not name-calling

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

"The administration has to recognize that the public and congressional debate over Iraq has entered a new phase, one in which sharp rebukes will not suffice as open and honest public discourse. Criticism is not coming just from the political fringes, but also from mainstream moderates of both parties."

It's said that the tipping point in America's support for the Vietnam War came the day Walter Cronkite, "the most trusted figure in America", used his commentary on the CBS Evening News to call for negotiations to end the stalemate in Vietnam.

It could be that history will record the tipping point in support for the war in Iraq came the day when Representative John Murtha (D-PA), 37-year Marine veteran, 30-year Congressman, one-time war hawk, introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives calling for the termination of the deployment of the American military in Iraq.

Vaccines: Made in America

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

"If avian flu were to pass into the general population now, the United States, like the rest of the world, would be unready. Experts predict millions could die. Few vaccine production facilities operate in the United States; most of the vaccine Americans could access is made outside the country."

Other countries guarantee a market for vaccines by offering free flu shots to their populations. In the US, flu shot demand rises and falls with outbreaks of flu, which provides too little time for manufacturers to react. This isn't new with recent stories of avian flu. Last year's flu vaccine shortage was a wake-up call that our government slept through. It took the public's angry response to the debacle of FEMA's handling of Hurricane Katrina to get our government's attention focused on other possible disasters like pandemics.

And when their attention was obtained, what do they do? They craft legislation (The Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act) designed more to protect the drug industry than to solve the root cause of the shortages -- unpredictable demand. The legislation calls for exclusivity contracts, liability protection, and antitrust exemptions. The legislation does not call for stockpiling of drugs, assuring market demand, or compensation for defective products.

This legislation is deficient. It is aimed more at rewarding drug company special interests than in safeguarding the health of Americans. Congress should be urged to go back and craft a complete strategy for dealing with this potentially disastrous threat.

Think again about bullish outlook

Dallas Morning News | Danielle DiMartino:

"The U.S. has had to forge a hugely dependent relationship with China to keep our economy up and running. We buy Chinese goods on credit; they wash their dollars back through our Treasury market. Slowly, we become a nation of people bought and paid for."

The day of reckoning has to come some day. Like the stock market bubble of the late '90s, like the housing bubble of the first half of this decade, like Google's stock price barreling past $400, the day of reckoning is inevitable. But, for now, it's in the interests of both the US and Chinese governments to delay that day for as long as possible. It's the American consumer, going deeper and deeper into debt, who will have to pay the price some day. And that day gets closer every day.

Prop 2 just slapped whoever was closest

Dallas Morning News | Steve Blow:

"In the days leading up to the election, I noticed something curious. I talked to people strongly opposed to gay marriage who also said things like: 'I've got nothing against gays.' Or, 'I think gay people should be treated fairly.' I believe them. My sense is that this vote does not reflect renewed animosity toward homosexuals."

The majority of voters deny gays legal rights with regard to marriage, yet firmly believe they have "nothing against gays." How people can hold such contradictory beliefs simultaneously is hard to fathom. Yet they do. And are completely oblivious to that fact. Understand how the human mind can do this and you'll have your explanation how good people can hold hateful beliefs without becoming hateful themselves.

Many slave owners in the 1800s must have believed they held nothing against African-Americans, either. They just believed that blacks shouldn't have the same rights and privileges as whites. To later generations, such beliefs reek of hypocrisy. To the people of the time, the contradictory beliefs must have seemed perfectly compatible.

Another ballot initiative indicates how long such mental feats of juggling can persevere. The voters of the city of White Settlement defeated a proposal to rename the town West Settlement. Some of the good townsfolk firmly argued that their town's name is not racist; it just refers to the historical fact that that's where the white folk settled, separate from the nearby native American settlements. They see no contradiction.

It sometimes takes centuries, but attitudes towards African-Americans, towards women, towards homosexuals, are slowly moderating. Actions are slowly aligning with the words. Sadly, that's no consolation for the victims of discrimination today. Discrimination by people who have no idea that they are discriminating.

Healing the Church: Bishops must be accountable for crisis

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

"We would like to see the bishops abide by their promise of openness and transparency, but we'll take a pass if the only way they could talk frankly about this catastrophe and their own role in it is away from the public eye."

This editorial reads much like yesterday's titled "Message to the White House: America wants to know more about the war". In both cases, the interest of the leaders (the President's administration and the Church bishops) in suppressing public discussion of the debacles is not aligned with the nation's interest in an open and honest airing of the problems and fixes. Beware a situation where society's interest and the leaders' interest are not aligned.

Message to the White House: America wants to know more about the war

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

"The American public and Congress need greater evidence that the Bush administration and Iraq government are doing the right things to make sure that U.S. forces are not at risk any longer than necessary. It is in the Bush administration's best interests to become more transparent about military and political progress – and setbacks – in Iraq."

If the administration becomes more transparent, the American public is apt to learn that the administration is NOT doing the right things. It's in America's best interest to learn that. It's not in the Bush administration's best interest for America to learn that. Beware a situation where the country's interest and the President's are not aligned.

Don't just reform our tax code, replace it

Dallas Morning News | Scott Burns:

"We need to tax consumption. We need to stop taxing labor, capital and savings. We can't do that without dealing with the employment tax. ... We can [eliminate the employment tax] by replacing it with the same national sales tax that would replace the income tax and every other tax."

Scott Burns' recommendations are fair. Shifting taxes on capital and savings to a tax on sales is usually recommended as a way to encourage and reward savings and investment. So why wouldn't elimination of taxes on labor encourage and reward labor? Isn't that a Good Thing™? Why is it not a part of any Republican plan for tax reform?

Fair Tax advocates claim that prices at the cash register won't go up because elimination of corporate taxes and payroll taxes will lead to base price reductions of 20-25%, offsetting the new sales tax. (I have to wonder how that works for goods made in China.) Even if that proves true, would a 23% national sales tax (or whatever will truly be needed to be revenue neutral) lead to a boom in the off-the-books cash economy? There are many more retail sales transactions than paychecks issued. The numbers suggest a greater cost of enforcement.

By the way, base price reductions resulting from elimination of the hidden tax content of goods and services would apply to the price of labor as well, meaning salaries and wages would drop. Take-home pay should be the same, but the psychological pain of nominal wage cuts will be a big barrier to adoption.

The Fair Tax may sound good, but in practice it will likely be riddled with flaws like the income tax is today. And the rules and regulations designed to correct those flaws will result in the same kind of monstrosity that our current tax code is.

Tax Cut Strategy: Congress should help Katrina victims first

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

"Just as Congress needs to show how it would pay for spending increases, it also needs to offset tax reductions. Otherwise, we risk adding mountains of debt onto today's third- and fourth-graders, who eventually will have to pay for our budget excesses. Many Americans plan wisely for their heirs; they want to see Congress do the same."

The DMN's call for paying for tax cuts is fiscally responsible. Therefore, don't expect it to be championed by this administration. Vice President Dick Cheney famously told Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill "Reagan proved deficits don't matter. We won the (2002) midterms. This is our due." Ever since, it's been impossible for this administration to lay any claim to fiscal responsibility. Whether the House, or more likely, the Senate, will acquire some fiscal responsibility before the 2006 midterms depends on the mood of American voters. Let's hope that, collectively, Americans demand that Congress start planning wisely for our heirs.

Ready for a rebound

Dallas Morning News | William McKenzie:

"The Rush Limbaugh crowd wants the president to secure the border by cracking down on illegal immigrants. The chamber of commerce and liberal church types want Washington to give foreign workers a chance to come here legally. If Mr. Bush combines the two aims, he can win big – and the country comes away with a better immigration system."

The far right is stronger than ever after killing the Harriet Miers nomination, embarrassing the President in the process. The right will fight any amnesty program for illegal aliens that President Bush proposes. No amount of policing the border will counteract that anger. So, don't expect President Bush to challenge his right wing again. They are all he's got left and they've got him on probation.

First step finally taken toward abolishing horse slaughter in U.S.

Dallas Morning News | Kevin B. Blackistone:

"Among the amendments in the [2006 Agriculture Appropriations bill HR2744] was one that could shut down in the United States the absolutely sickening business of slaughtering horses – including some that once were raced for our entertainment – for human consumption."

Kevin Blackistone does not object to breeding, training and using horses for human entertainment, only for human consumption. Others might object to using rodeo bulls for human entertainment, but don't mind eating hamburger. Hindus object to eating beef. Jews and Muslims object to eating pork. Christians don't have a strong taboo against eating horse meat. Most Americans are just squeamish about the practice. I wish Kevin Blackistone had tried to lay out a logical argument why his particular taste in meat should be enshrined in law, but not others. He apparently sees it as self evident, but it isn't. Blackistone offers no reasons why readers should share his revulsion.

Under the gun, she was in control

Dallas Morning News | Jacquielynn Floyd:

"I don't know whether I'm ready to endorse Susan Buxton's firm belief that women should arm themselves, that they should be prepared to defend themselves, their families and their homes with deadly force. It's a personal decision that cannot be made lightly. But she makes a compelling argument. Her experience is hard to contradict."

Not hard to contradict at all. Go out and find a story about a 66 year old grandmother whose 7 year old grandson finds the gun granny keeps in her nightstand and accidentally shoots his 5 year old brother. Grandma says she's had that gun since before the boys were born and never had to use it. She almost forgot it was there. I made up the details, but stories like this are not hard to find. That's the trouble with anecdotes. There's a good story to support almost any argument. The complete picture is a lot more complicated.

A good case in favor of responsible gun ownership can be made. So can a good case against irresponsible gun ownership. The two cases do not have to contradict each other. Why does the argument have to come down to a choice between the gun nuts who want no limits on gun ownership and the anti-gun nuts who want to do away with all guns everywhere? Can't the moderate center in this country take back the middle ground in this debate?

Raised Stakes of Terror: U.S. must sway people, not just their leaders

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

"In the midst of this political and religious ferment, America faces the difficult but urgent task of communicating to the people themselves, not just the rulers, that our nation and our democratic ideals offer them a path to a better life. That is a message they seldom hear today. Instead, they are bombarded, often with their governments' implicit or explicit approval, with rhetoric that paints America as a militaristic bully, a greedy exploiter and would-be destroyer of their culture and faith. Winning hearts and minds is a notoriously dicey proposition. Yet leaders in Washington, Amman, Cairo and Riyadh alike ultimately will discover that, in a battle of ideologies, nothing less will suffice."

Maybe there's some truth on both sides. America's democratic ideals do offer a path to a better life. But America also can be a bully, an exploiter, and a destroyer of culture. America needs to promote the former and temper the latter to have a chance at "winning hearts and minds." So long as the "War on Terror" is viewed primarily as a military operation, America may be doomed to fight a long twilight struggle. Worse, if we fight using the Cold War strategy of propping up whichever local military strongman whose loyalty we can buy, our ultimate defeat is assured. "Winning hearts and minds" is no longer just a tactic in a larger battle against an Evil Empire. "Winning hearts and minds" over to the American ideals of liberty and democracy is now the goal itself.

Elsewhere in the country, it was a good night for Democrats

Dallas Morning News | Carl P. Leubsdorf:

"And Democrats could do a lot worse than pick a moderate former Southern governor as a New York senator's running mate."

Governor Mark Warner of Virginia? Clinton/Warner? Another northeast liberal/southern moderate ticket for the Democrats in 2008? I don't think so. Senator John Edwards of North Carolina did nothing to help Massachusetts Senator John Kerry carry any southern states, even his own. Hillary Clinton is going to have to moderate her views to win over independents. Her views. Putting a moderate southerner on the ticket to showcase his moderate views won't do it. She may be tempted to go the other way and put a northern, liberal, African-American on the ticket to contrast with her own newly moderate views. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, maybe? (And Obama may be needed anyway to counteract a Republican move to put Condoleezza Rice on their ticket.)

As for Mark Warner, either he is going to have to win the top spot on the ticket for himself, or Democrats are better off leaving him off the ticket altogether. If Warner doesn't fall flat on the national stage, his background indicates he could be a formidable nominee. He provides a safe harbor for independents and Republicans disaffected by the incompetence shown by the Bush administration, but still solidly moderate at heart. If he can hold on to the blue states carried by Kerry and take two or three of the newly "purple" swing states like Virginia, Democrats might be inaugurating one of their own in January, 2009.

In Texas, Prop 2 scare tactics lost

Dallas Morning News | Mark Davis:

"As for the priorities listed by Prop 2 opponents, issues of hospital visitation, survivorship and property rights are taken care of with a combination of basic decency and a good estate attorney."

There is plenty of evidence that gays and lesbians are too often the victims of a lack of "basic decency" on the part of heterosexual society. Asking them to depend on the basic decency of others is denying them benefits and privileges that heterosexual couples enjoy, not only through the basic decency of others, but through codified law.

Prop 2 gives heterosexual couples no new rights, no new benefits, no new privileges. It is purely a negative law, denying such benefits to others based solely on sexual orientation. How do you sell such a proposition to voting Texans, the majority of whom are fair and not discriminatory? With scare tactics. You convince voters that unless this proposition is passed, all sorts of terrible things will happen. Polygamy. Group marriage. Incest. And, yes, gay marriage. See the recent column by Tina Benkiser (chair of the Republican Party of Texas) for a classic example of such scare tactics. Despite Mark Davis' headline to the contrary, scare tactics clearly carried this election.

After the Vote: The road ahead

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

"Legislators who supported Proposition 2 assured Texans that it would not make life harder for gay and lesbian citizens. Now comes the test. The editorial board respects the religious sensibilities of those who believe that the sacrament of marriage should be reserved for heterosexuals. But this amendment, with its nebulous prohibition against 'any legal status identical or similar to marriage,' encompasses far more. Those who apply the law must read it in the way legislators say it was intended -- and not as a license or a mandate to discriminate."

I don't recall any such assurance by the proponents of Proposition 2. How could there be any? The sweep of the amendment is far reaching. Now passed, it's a Constitutionally enshrined mandate to discriminate. What was the point of getting it on the ballot and passing it if the intent wasn't to enforce it? Wake up, DMN. Your opposition to the amendment was commendable. But pretending the amendment was just some harmless expression of conservative morality is silly. Although perhaps many who voted for it might have thought that's all they were saying, expect the conservative activists who spearheaded this proposition to now use it to deny gay and lesbian citizens of the State of Texas the privileges and benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy. That was the point of the amendment in the first place.

Katrina's Aftermath: Two ways Congress can pick up the pieces

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

"Texas Sen. Kay Hutchison persuaded the Senate in September to give FEMA the authority to reimburse states for Katrina add-ons like extra textbooks and more teachers. The House, unfortunately, has yet to pass a similar bill. In fact, the House's education committee chairman, John Boehner (R-Ohio), appears more interested in a school voucher fight. This newspaper supports vouchers, but the House doesn't need to get bogged down in an irreconcilable debate over them."

DMN stands behind the State of Texas as it lines up for federal money. Principles like school vouchers take a back seat when there's money being handed out. It's understandable and I don't even disagree. DMN's readers are mostly Texans. Take hurricane relief money while the memory of Katrina is still fresh in the nation's mind. But I can't help thinking that the DMN position might be different if it were, say, Ohio schools that were asking for reimbursement. Maybe the DMN would be more willing to promote school vouchers if it were some other state's money at risk of being tied up in a political hot potato. And Rep. John Boehner might be less enthusiastic about pushing vouchers if it were his state's reimbursement money that was at risk. Or am I just being cynical?

Global Scam: Lots of blame to go around on oil-for-food

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

"About half of the nearly 4,500 companies in the ill-fated U.N. program paid illegal surcharges and kickbacks to former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein that helped perpetuate his regime."

The breadth of the corruption is stunning. DaimlerChrysler, Daewoo, Siemens, Volvo, and on and on. If such abuse occurred in a high profile case like the Iraq Oil-for-Food program, can anyone doubt the amount of corruption in daily operations in countries around the world run by dictators, one party governments, and immature democracies? Cleaning up business corruption needs to be a priority among the developed democracies. The cost of stricter regulation of business may be high. But the cost of letting businesses repeat what happened in Iraq can potentially be disastrous.

Playing bad word games with Prop 2

Dallas Morning News | Mark Davis:

"But what of a large group of people who seek to preserve state recognition solely for heterosexual marriage, but who have no quarrel with some ancillary status – call it civil unions, domestic partnerships, whatever – that would allow committed gay couples some of the basic decencies afforded their straight counterparts on issues like property rights, hospital courtesies and survivorship status? Does the language in Proposition 2 prevent that because it would be 'similar to marriage'? Good question."

And that's the last Mark Davis has to say about that "good question." Instead he spends the rest of his column criticizing some fringe Web site called savetexasmarriage.com for using misleading scare tactics to encourage a "no" vote on Prop 2. Why doesn't Mark Davis similarly condemn the scare tactics employed in DMN by Tina Benkiser (chair of the Republican Party of Texas) to encourage a "yes" vote? Perhaps because he himself is more interested in achieving a certain result at the polls than in a fair intellectual discussion of an important public policy question. A "good question" that Mark Davis doesn't talk about, once again wasting the valuable space DMN has given him on a "bad word game" of his own.

Chertoff at the Border

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

"But there are not enough guns, planes and agents in the world to safeguard the long stretch from Brownsville to El Paso. Washington needs to create a program where workers from foreign countries, including illegal immigrants already here, can qualify for a legal work visa and apply for citizenship."

True, but there are powerful constituencies in the President's base firmly opposed to such a work program. The conservative base demonstrated how quickly they could turn on President Bush when he nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. He is still licking his wounds. So, it's unlikely that he will stand up to his base on a matter like immigration reform.

It took a Lyndon Johnson to get a Civil Rights bill past southern Democrats. It took a Richard Nixon to get an opening to China past anti-Communist Republicans. It would take a compassionate conservative like George W Bush to get immigration reform past xenophobic Republicans. But now it looks like Bush is a premature lame duck, unable to lead his party and his country to a solution to our immigration challenges.

Free Speech in the EU

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

"Theo van Gogh was a crude lout, but he was also a citizen of a nation and a civilization that recognized his right to free expression. That right must be defended without hesitation or apology."

If we are willing to defend the rights of those whose drawings blaspheme Allah and his Prophet, we ought to be willing to tolerate those who express their political viewpoints by burning the American flag. Has the DMN editorial board taken a position on the subject?

Battling Over the War: Let's stick to honest debate - and our ideals

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

"Honestly and openly assessing the source of governmental errors is no weakness. Refusing to stoop to the kind of cruelty embraced by our enemies is no weakness. They are our strengths."

Then why no criticism of Republicans? The GOP is the only party to resist a probe into prewar intelligence. And, in the words of Senator John McCain, a victim of torture himself as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, the United States, under a Republican government, "is the only country in the world that asserts a legal right to engage in cruel and inhumane treatment."

Instead of criticism, the DMN editorial board digs deep to find a way to compliment Republicans. Apparently, the administration having "serious debate" about cruel punishment is good enough for the DMN editorial board. And a Republican controlled Congressional committee wrapping up a political whitewash of a probe by some early date is more important to the DMN editorial board than getting to the truth. I hope in a month or two, when the Republicans have buried these issues without taking action, that the DMN editorial board will revisit the topic and express its disdain of Republican handling of the issues.

Does marriage need defending?

Dallas Morning News | Tina Benkiser:

"I feel a little like Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz - life has changed, and I want to go home, where Texans run Texas, where we are free to love God and serve each other and aren't afraid to speak our minds. Yet, I have awakened to liberal Northern activist judges trying to tell 'we the people' what we can do, say and believe."

Maybe Ms. Benkiser (chair of the Republican Party of Texas) is still dreaming. Last time I looked, Texans are running Texas, Texans are free to love God, and Texans are free to speak their minds. Proposition 2 is certainly not going to reinforce any of these freedoms. Rather, if passed, it will deny legal rights to Texans based solely on their sexual orientation.

Her arguments boil down to two -- slippery slope and states' rights. She doesn't really make a case against granting legal rights to gay partners. Instead, she argues that without this Consititutional amendment, we'll have to accept polygamy and incest and arrangements where marriage partners are "bought and sold in a variety pack." She must know that most Texans believe in fair play, so she has to invent extremist outcomes to scare fair-minded Texans into voting for a blatantly discriminatory law.

As for states' rights, passing a Texas Constitutional amendment doesn't change the fact that Texas cannot negate the US Constitution. Like it or not, Texas is bound by the US Constitution, which stipulates that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." Passing a Texas Constitutional amendment won't help Ms Benkiser with her states' rights argument, either, but anti-Yankee rhetoric sure plays well in Texas.

Slam the door on tax proposals

Dallas Morning News | Steve Brown:

"President Bush's tax reform advisory commission is suggesting that we slash the home mortgage interest deduction and eliminate the home property tax deduction. Why not raise interest rates to 20 percent and put an extra $6 per gallon tax on gasoline at the same time? As long as we are going to trash the economy, let's do a complete job of it. "

A good example of a straw man. No one is seriously proposing that we should do all of those things. Why does Steve Brown need to lump them together to argue his case? Maybe because cutting the mortgage interest deduction by itself would not spell the doom Steve Brown would like us to believe. Maybe to deflect attention from the fact that the status quo is unsupportable. The fact is, the huge federal budget deficits have to be addressed. We can postpone the day of reckoning only at the expense of increasing the ultimate pain. Some combination of spending cuts and tax hikes is inevitable. The home mortgage interest deduction cannot be spared just because touching it will cause discomfort. Discomfort is a given. The hangover we face can't be avoided by continuing to party like it's 1999.

Iran's Gathering Threat

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

"The tsunami of 'holy hatred' envisioned by Mr. Ahmadinejad won't stop at the shores of Israel or America. It is time for the civilized world to get serious about stopping Iran - while there is still time."

Do something ... but what? DMN doesn't say. President Bush's options are limited, given the debacle this administration has made in Iraq. Can't count on Iraq to balance Iran as in the past; it's disintegrating. Can't count on the "civilized world" for joint action; Bush alienated them in all sorts of ways. Can't use the US military; they're overextended in Iraq. Can't even use diplomacy; Bush put a war hawk in charge of the State Department and an uber war hawk at the UN. That leaves tough talk. And so DMN has started talking tough... to do something.

Danger at the bottom

Dallas Morning News | Scott Burns:

"According to the most recent IRS statistics on tax returns (for 2003), households needed at least $295,495 to be in the top 1 percent, $130,080 to be in the top 5 percent, $94,891 to be in the top 10 percent and $57,343 to enter the top 25 percent. "

I know a lot of families in the top 10 percent who firmly believe they are middle class. Maybe it's human nature. Because there will always be someone richer than you and someone poorer than you, you always see yourself as being in the middle.

Democrats, try not to be so rude this time around

Dallas Morning News | Mark Davis:

"I would hope for hearings that reveal the kind of bipartisan courtesy shown to Mr. Clinton's nominees. My expectation of that is precisely zero."

Is that a typo in the headline? Did Mark Davis instead mean to ask Republicans not to be so rude this time? Unlike the pillorying they gave to Harriet Miers? The Democrats mostly sat that one out as Republicans themselves tore apart the nominee of this Republican President, denying her even hearings, to say nothing of an up-or-down vote in the Senate. For them to now ask Democrats to act nice to this next nominee matches any perceived Democratic hypocrisy. Keywords: Supreme Court nomination, Alito

Republicans run a risk in pushing gay marriage ban

Dallas Morning News | William McKenzie:

"But what I don't understand is why Republicans push the gay marriage issue so hard. They obviously want to rev up their die-hards, but staunch conservatives already run things in Austin. What more fodder do they need for the next campaign trail?"

It's not a campaign issue. It's a religious issue. Backers of this amendment see homosexuality as a sin. They want to make it illegal. The Texas Constitutional amendment is one step in that direction. The long term goal is to restore anti-sodomy laws struck down by the US Supreme Court. But that will require packing the US Supreme Court with conservatives. Conservatives are making progress there, too. Driving Harriet Miers to withdraw and pressuring President Bush to nominate a staunch conservative in her place is a step in that direction.

As for politics, the conservative goal is not to draw gay voters to Republican ranks, anymore than it is to draw robbers or rapists. Their ultimate goal is to eliminate homosexuality altogether, which they view as criminal behavior. So far, it's been smart politics. So long as the number of homophobic voters outnumbers gays, it is likely to remain smart politics.