Making It Harder to Vote in Texas
The Dallas Morning News came down in opposition to the voter ID bill making its way through the Texas legislature. No argument from me on that subject or on the News' reasoning. Currently, a voter need only present his voter registration card at the polls. If the bill passes (and it will), a voter will need to present his voter registration card *and* a photo ID, such as driver's license.
A driver's license is the most common form of photo ID. Many poor and elderly persons don't have a driver's license because they don't own cars and don't drive. Inevitably, some of them will be turned away from the polls for lacking what most of us take for granted. Who do the poor and elderly tend to vote for? Democrats. Now you see why this is a big deal for Republicans. It's a way to help win elections. Not a big way, by any means, but every vote counts (or in this case, every vote that isn't counted for your opponent).
Perhaps as important as the effect at the ballot box is the effect on energizing the base. Republicans are using this voter ID issue in their latest fundraising appeals, documented in an email reproduced by Paul Burka.
So, why is getting a photo ID such a burden, really? It isn't, really. And how big a problem is voter fraud, really? It isn't, really. Republicans have never been able to demonstrate that voter fraud is a problem. It's not for lack of trying. The legislative battle isn't really about voter fraud or even voting rights. It's about winning elections. Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst says the bill moves Texas "one step closer to a more secure voting system that will help us prevent voter fraud and instill greater confidence among all Texans." The irony is that it's Republicans like Dewhurst who are responsible for undermining confidence in the first place, claiming voter fraud that simply doesn't exist. Confidence was never the goal. Stirring up the base was. And winning elections.
Paying For Our Roads
More and more, we are hearing about serious proposals to replace the current gasoline tax with a mileage tax. On its surface, it sounds dumb. The gas tax *is* a mileage tax. The more you drive, the more gas you burn, the more tax you pay. The gas tax also encourages consumers to buy cars with better gas mileage. They still pay per gallon (which translates into per mile), but less than their neighbor who buys a gas guzzler. And the gas tax is easy to administer. You pay at the pump. There's no getting around it. A mileage tax would require the introduction of expensive new equipment to track mileage. All that makes the question of a gas tax vs a mileage tax a no-brainer, right?
That's the kind of iron-clad logic that leads people like the editorial board at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram to scratch their heads and say, "We'll freely admit it -- we don't get it."
Well, there's one big reason to consider a mileage tax. Electric vehicles use no gasoline. As the industry moves to electric cars, an alternative to the gas tax to fund roads must be identified. This is not a question of if, only a question of when. A complete transition will take decades, but well before that, the number of electric vehicles on the road, completely free of the gas tax, will become significant. We don't need to replace the gas tax with a mileage tax today, but we do need to be discussing it and planning for it. And not dismissing it as a hare-brained idea like the Fort Worth Star-Telegram does.
Dirty Politics by Richardson Coalition
Two years ago, the city council managed to change zoning laws in Richardson to effectively shut out the possibility of sexually-oriented businesses (SOBs) in Richardson. It was very challenging legally to do this, as Supreme Court rulings prohibit cities from banning such businesses altogether. Disgraceful reporting by local news media (WFAA, I'm looking at you) attempted to cast the story as the city council inviting sexually-oriented businesses to set up shop in Richardson, when the opposite was the case. Despite the black eye, Richardson did end up with zoning very unfavorable to such businesses.
What's changed now? Nothing. The zoning is still in place. The SOBs are still squeezed out. So what is the Richardson Coalition PAC complaining about in a new editorial about SOBs in Richardson? The editorial excoriates Mayor Steve Mitchell and the "new members of the Council" for treating this issue with a "head in the sand attitude." Huh?!? What did the council do to deserve this? On January 7, 2008 (over a year ago!), the council's list of initiatives for its term didn't include further evaluation of restrictions on SOBs. Never mind that the Richardson Coalition's editorial itself says the council had already taken care of the problem in 2007: "In fact the 2006-2007 City Council enacted ordinances to effectively control zoning to the fullest extent possible in light of recent U. S. Supreme Court decisions." You'd think the Richardson Coalition would be praising the mayor and the new members of the council for their actions. To cast this achievement as a failure of the council to lead, and to do it now, more than a year after the success was achieved, is puzzling, to say the least. At least until you look at the calendar and see that the campaign for the May 9 city council elections has just begun. The Richardson Coalition is slinging mud. It's using smut to wage dirty politics.
3 comments:
So Ed
Why is it that Democrats are so in favor of voter fraud. Is it because you and I both know more dead people vote for Democrats than old people who do not have drivers licenses.
It amazes me when the intellectually vacant publish the fog that exist between their ears. Put a skylight in you tornado/bomb/storm shelter and let some light in ED.
Who do the poor and elderly tend to vote for? Democrats
Poor, maybe. Elderly? I'd say Republicans. What's your source, please?
Will, I withdraw the "elderly" comment. Seniors do tend to vote Republican, with the possible exception of the elderly poor.
Anonymous, Democrats are *not* in favor of voter fraud.
Post a Comment