Equalization only exist in theory

Let me explain why equalization only exist in theory..............................

It was once said that "the wealth of the poor has been sacrificed to that of the rich." One has to analyze and formulate his own opinion as to what is rich. It seems as if the rich are the only ones who own land, and this makes everyone else seem poor. However, is this really the case? Most likely not. The next question you have to consider "is it more profitable for the poor to work for the rich than for the poor to own plots of land"? The poor most likely do profit more from the rich land owners for they have no responsibility for taxes associated with the owning of land. No one should take from this that the "interests of the poor have been set aside for those of the rich". Someone has to provide away for the poor to profit and they are given this opportunity via landowners. Is it equal? No. Will it ever be equal? No. Do the poor need a way to profit? Yes. Is it in the best interest of the landowners that the poor profit? Yes. Thus, the mutual benefit which leads to the equalization in theory!

The same reasoning can be applied to educating our students. Some are more gifted than others in regard to capabilities of learning. No matter how you try to level the playing field for all you will always have those who are more gifted in the talents of learning. Spend all you want, but you will never make the playing field completely equal for all students with regards to learning. One could argue that you are actually causing more harm to the students gifted in the talents of learning than helping those not as gifted. It is not about the education as much as it is about the learning. Is learning equal? No. Will it ever be equal? No. Do the not so talented learners need a way to learn and prosper? Yes. Is it in the best interest of the gifted learners that all benefit from learning? Yes. Is it possible the less gifted can draw from the talents of the more gifted? The possibility exist. Thus, the mutual benefit which leads to the equalization in theory!

Can one consider the health care issue under the same theory? Yes. Can one consider the issue of Cap and Trade under the theory? Yes. Can one consider the issue of immigration under the theory? Yes.

One has to determine if the theory is provable.

Thought Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)

"Thought Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) was headed in the right direction; however, the title to the article was deceiving. He really feels Congress has any and all powers to make the American people do whatever the government commands.................read on.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) could not explain what part of the Constitution grants Congress the power to force every American to buy health insurance – as all of the health care overhaul bills currently do.

Leahy, whose committee is responsible for vetting Supreme Court nominees, was asked by CNSNews.com where in the Constitution Congress is specifically granted the authority to require every American purchase health insurance. Leahy answered by saying that “nobody questions” Congress’ authority for such an action.

CNSNews.com: Where, in your opinion, does the Constitution give specific authority for Congress to give an individual mandate for health insurance?

Sen. Leahy: We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?

CNSNews.com: I’m asking –

Sen. Leahy: Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there’s no question there’s authority, nobody questions that.

When CNSNews.com again attempted to ask which provision of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to force Americans to purchase health insurance, Leahy compared the mandate to the government’s ability to set speed limits on interstate highways – before turning and walking away.

CNSNews.com: But, which provision –

Sen. Leahy: Where do we have the authority to set speed limits on an interstate highway? The federal government does that on federal highways."

To read the complete interview click on the link:
http://www.texasinsider.org/?p=17468#more-17468

Got yours yet?

This comes forwarded to me from several individuals, and I thought it should be shared here if you should need a cell phone.

"I had a former employee call me earlier today inquiring about a job, and at the end of the conversation he gave me his phone number. I asked the former employee if this was a new cell phone number and he told me yes this was his “Obama phone.” I asked him what an “Obama phone” was and he went on to say that welfare recipients are now eligible to receive (1) a FREE new phone and (2) approx 70 minutes of FREE minutes every month. I was a little skeptical so I Googled it and low and behold he was telling the truth. TAX PAYER MONEY IS BEING REDISTRIBUTED TO WELFARE RECIPIENTS FOR FREE CELL PHONES. This program was started earlier this year. Enough is enough, the ship is sinking and it’s sinking fast. The very foundations that this country was built on are being shaken.

The age old concepts of God, family, and hard work have flown out the window and are being replaced with “Hope and Change” and “Change we can believe in.”

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/EnrollmentPublic/Home.aspx

THE COW AND THE ICE CREAM

One of the best EXPLANATIONS of why OBAMA won the election.............From a teacher in the Nashville area:

"We are worried about 'the cow' when it is all about the 'Ice Cream.' The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade this year...
The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president. We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote.

To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot. The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids. I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support. I had never seen Olivia's mother.

The day arrived when they were to make their speeches. Jamie went first.
He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best. Everyone applauded and he sat down. Now is was Olivia's turn to speak.
Her speech was concise. She said, "If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream." She sat down.

The class went wild. Yes! Yes! We want ice cream." She surely would say more. She did not have to.

A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn't sure. Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it. She didn't know. The class really didn't care. All they were thinking about was ice cream. Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a landslide.

Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered ice cream and 52 percent of the people reacted like nine year olds. They want ice cream.

The other 48 percent know they're going to have to feed the cow and clean up the mess."

Remember, the government cannot give anything to anyone --that they have not first taken away from someone else.

The American Dream

"You can't put a price tag on the American Dream. That dream is the heart and soul of America; it's the promise that keeps our nation forever good and generous, a model and hope to the world." - President Ronald Reagan

Ft. Worth Star-Telegrams take on appraisal reform props

http://www.star-telegram.com/242/story/1680432.html

Everything I read these days informs me that the newspaper business is struggling. No one is reading the hard copy and that has led to less advertising revenue. However, you would think the folks at the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram are flush with cash. In an editorial they have asked voters to reject all 3 props dealing with appraisal reforms. They present some okay arguments in the case for prop 2, but they still don't get the big picture of appraisal reform and the fact the people know best how to spend their hard earned pocket money.

Prop 2 will no longer require CADs to appraise under the highest and best use principle contained within the statues. A piece of property that is currently a homestead for a fine Texan cannot be appraised based upon its potential to be a shopping mall. After all these folks did not ask for the development the development came to them. If they should decide to sell then the property can be reappraised for its intended purpose. There is still a lot of rural land in Texas, and one would hate to see that land put on the tax rolls as commercial property for the sake of higher tax revenue for the taxing entities.

Prop 3 will standardize appraisal practices across the state. CADs had this responsibility, but failed in their duties to the property owning taxpayers. The only real way to fix this problem is by making local CAD executive boards elected positions. No one sitting as a school board member, city council member, commissioner's court member, etc. should be allowed to serve on the executive board of a CAD. This is comparable to the fox watching over the hen house. I would think that the chief appraisers of this state would be in favor of this prop in order to remove any possible pressure to increase values to raise local tax revenue conflict that may arise between them and the executive board. Can't deny the argument the Star-Telegram makes with regards to bigger government on this issue; however, I think the prop out weighs the negative. Texas state government seems to get very little done when they meet in Austin and I think property owners would be the winner if prop 3 passes.

Prop 5 will allow appraisal districts in adjacent counties to have consolidated appraisal review boards to handle property-owner appeals. What a great idea! Now a property owner can have a real ARB hearing with an impartial jury of his/her peers. In far too many cases in this state the ARB is equipped with retreaded members. The same people seem to find their way back as sitting members of an ARB. No one should be allowed to serve more than one term (at least one term every 10 years) as an ARB member. Property ownership should be a requirement to serve as an ARB member, and every property owner should be given an opportunity to serve. Prop 5 lends itself to an unbias jury and the ARB member pool gets larger. This is especially helpful in the rural areas of the state. The Star-Telegram has forgotten that Ft. Worth and Tarrant county are no longer rural, and we still have some 'real' rural areas remaining in this state.

Book slams Perry over ‘starving government'

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/Book_slams_Perry_over_starving_government.html

Don't know which camp you fall into - Perry v. Hutchinson, but this book is a 'crock'. Perry can be blamed for being an A&M graduate; however, his stance on limited government is right on. Texas is the only state in the union that has managed to maintain jobs and lure business operations into Texas from other states during this financial meltdown. Agree that we might be a little slow on the food stamp handouts, and the press reported lack of insurance, etc., but the individuals have to take some responsibility for their own interests at times. Government is not the answer to all the problems.

State Sen. Eliot Shapleigh (D) El Paso has the belief that government is the engine that makes the state roar. “Perry's leadership for 25 years has been about starving government,” according to Sen. Shapleigh. If re-elected may the good Gov continue to starve government!

Wonder if Sen. Shapleigh has starved during his time of service to this great state?