Tired of all that fighting between Democrats and Republicans? Then do what California might do and just get rid of them

Imagine a world without Republicans or Democrats or Libertarians or members of the Green Party? Well, imagine all you want to, it's still not likely to happen, but California is getting ready to pass a referendum that would, at least, lessen the influence somewhat of party politics in state and Congressional elections.

In a measure that appears, according to the latest polls, poised to pass June 8, California would get rid of party primary elections in state and Congressional elections. All candidates, regardless of party affiliation, would appear on the same ballot and then the top two vote getters would face off in a second round that would decide the ultimate winner. Candidates could either list a party affiliation with their name on the ballot or have "no preference" listed. All registered voters could vote in this single primary, regardless of party affiliation. The result could be that the second election would feature two Democrats or two Republicans running against one another.

The measure seems to have the support of just about everyone except ... you guessed it ... the political parties. Smaller parties are especially fighting it saying it would box them out of elections, as if their candidates had a chance of winning anyway.

Supporters, who include Gov. "Ahnold" and the lieutenant governor as well as Lewis Wolff, a real estate developer and the owner of the Oakland A’s baseball team; Steve Westly, a former Democratic candidate for governor; and John W. Thompson, chairman of Symantec and a supporter of President Obama, claim passage would result in more voters participating in the electoral process and more centrist candidates being elected.  The measure also has the support of Hewlett Packard (which donated $100,00 to the campaign) and the California Chamber of Commerce.

The proposition is modeled after a law in Washington state that was upheld as constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008.A spokesperson for the Washington secretary of state says the measure encourages people to "vote for the person and not the party."

Jeb Hensarling doesn't get it

The theme of the last three Republican presidential campaigns has been "fear." Instead of outlining their own vision for the American voters, they have told them all the evils that would descend about the Earth if the Democrats won.

Yesterday, that theme of fear was repudiated and replaced by one of hope. John McCain understood this and said so in his eloquent concession speech last night. Republican Rep. Jeb Hensarling of these parts doesn't understand it, at least if he was quoted correctly by the fine folks over at the Frontburner:

“Right now, realism seems to say that [Obama] will govern from the hard left,” the Frontburner quoted Hensarling as predicting. “And if he won’t, I know Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will, particularly if they get anywhere close to 60 votes in the Senate. So we’ll see probably a wave of taxation on small business, we’ll see a wave of taxation on moderate-income Americans, we’ll see an explosion of lawsuit abuse that’ll send jobs overseas. For those that believe in freedom and opportunity, it’s not a pretty picture.”

Wake up, Hensarling. It's a new day in America. The time when fear-mongering worked has passed you by.

Esquire makes endorsements in Texas Congressional Races

Esquire magazine has released its endorsements in Texas' Congressional races, endorsing Democrat Rick Noreiga over incumbent Republican John Cronyn, who the Esquire called one of the "10 worst members of Congress."

In House races involving Dallas area representatives, Esquire endorsed:

Democrat Tom Daley over Republican Sam Johnson in District 3: "Sam Johnson once offered the president to hop in his F-15 and personally nuke Syria. His opponent, not nearly so insane, is a successful entrepreneur and lawyer who promises to focus on small-business development, sensible environmental protections, and education. He's the most impressive newcomer of the year. "

Republican Ralph Hall over Democrat Glenn Melancon: "One of the Hill's patriarchs, Hall has defended Texas's oil, livestock, and aerospace interests for nearly 30 years, first as a Democrat, now as a Republican. But party labels don't matter much to him, because ol' Ralph hasn't changed a whit."

Republican Jeb Hensarling (no major opponent): "Hensarling, the GOP's leading foe of deficit spending, was also one of the first in his party to note that its recent profligate ways have hurt its image--and the nation."

Democrat Ludwig Otto over Republican Joe Barton: "Not merely unconvinced that humans contribute to global warming, Barton has used his position to threaten scientists who argue that we do. It is a terrible shame that his opponent is hapless."

Republican Kay Granger over Democrat Tracey Smith: "Kay Granger is a Cowtown moderate, and her general support of Roe and its descendants--including RU-486, the so-called morning-after pill--earns her broad cross-party appeal."

Democrat Eddie Bernice Johnson over Republican Fred Wood: "It's not hard to see why Eddie Bernice Johnson has been Dallas's representative for 16 years: Liberal but broad-minded on social issues, she's also a big promoter of area business and infrastructure development."

Democrat Eric Roberson over Republican Pete Sessions: "Pete Sessions stinks--of Abramoff-linked corruption, of tired ultraconservative partisanship, of self-serving redistricting. Goodbye. And hello to Navy veteran Eric Roberson."

Three choices for Ted Stevens

Now that he has been found guilty of seven felony counts of violating ethics laws, Alaska Senator Ted Stevens faces three choices. The first is his choice: He should resign immediately, as his fellow Republicans John McCain and fellow Alaskan Sarah Palin have been urging him to do. If that doesn't happen (and perhaps even if it does), the second choice belongs to the voters of Alaska: They should not vote for him in next Tuesday's election. If neither of those things happen, the third choice belongs to the U.S. Senate: It should begin the expulsion process as soon as possible. It's just that simple.

A good way to run an election

I decided yesterday was a good time to vote. I figured that most of the early voting fanatics did exactly that -- voted early or, at least earlier. A mid-afternoon visit on a Monday, I thought, would be tranquil. I was mistaken ... again. When I arrived at the Audelia Road Library, the parking lot was full, motorists were circling it like buzzards just waiting for someone to leave and parked cars lined the side of the streets for blocks in all directions. The line waiting to vote stretched out the front door of the library, a couple dozen deep.

However, when I assumed my place at the back of the line I discovered it moved faster than I was expecting. Once inside, probably not more than 15 minutes after I had joined the parade, I witnessed an expertly orchestrated, efficient operation. I was directed to a desk where a woman took my voter's registration, entered data into a computer that produced a print-out which she ripped from the printer and I signed. Then I was directed to a second desk where a woman quickly directed me to a touch-screen voting booth.

My hats are off to the people at the election officials at the Audelia Road Library for the way that process is operating there.

Lieberman to be VP choice again?

Eight years ago Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut was Al Gore's choice to be his running mate in the presidential elections. Which means, of course, if the popular vote decided presidential elections, Lieberman probably would be the vice president of the United States today.

Instead, he's being seriously considered to be a bridesmaid again, but this time on the other side. Word has it that GOP presumptive presidential nominee Sen. John McCain is seriously considering Lieberman, a man McCain considers a close, personal friend, to be his choice for VP. It has already been announced that Lieberman, who currently is listed as an independent, will speak at the GOP convention.

Choosing Lieberman and the timing of an announcement of that choice makes a certain Hollywood-style diabolical sense. I have been told that McCain plans to announce his VP choice a week from this Friday. For those not paying attention, that's the day after the Democratic National Convention ends, a day when all the media attention would naturally be focused on newly anointed Democratic nominee Barach Obama. What better way for McCain to steal the spotlight away than by naming Lieberman as his running mate. No other choice would have as big of a news value.

Of course, this choice would further alienate the far-right wing, but, when push comes to shove, where is this wing going to go?

Dallas ISD bond program

Just received an e-mail from the folks behind the May 10 Dallas school bond election, which, of course, encourages me to vote "yes," get a campaign sign and to generally show my love for DISD.

Now, I gotta tell ya, I'm a big supporter of public schools. I am a product of public schools, yet I'm still a supporter of them. But in this e-mail, which makes no mention whatsoever of the total amount of the bond proposal (it's a whopping $1.2 billion), it says by voting to sell these bonds I will "help give Dallas the best urban school system in America."

What a load of crap!

Spending $1.2 billion on construction, which includes funds for new cafeterias and athletic facilities, is not going to give Dallas the best urban school system in America. A complete overhaul of the way in which Dallas schools specifically and Texas public schools generally approach education might help. But the money shouldn't be poured into buildings, it should be poured into the salaries of our educators. I find it almost criminal that the highest paid educator at any high school is usually the head football coach.

If we as a city, a state and a nation really believe in investing in our future, then we should raise the minimum starting salaries of public school educators to $65,000 for those in elementary education and $80,000 for those in secondary schools. Then we might attract those who can make a difference in a young person's life but can't afford to because of what teachers are paid right now.

We also need the cooperation of businesses to incentivize students to stay in school. One of the problems, I think, we are facing as an urban school district is the feeling inherent in many students "Why should I put any effort into education. I could never afford to go to college anyway." A mayor in Kalamazoo, Michigan, started a program called the Kalamazoo Promise. I won't go into all the details, but basically it guarantees that a graduate of city's public school system will have his or her college tuition paid for. You can also click on the link to see how this program has raised the test scores of Kalamazoo public school students.

It's programs like this that are needed if we truly want "best urban school system in America." If, however, you think the recipe for success is simply more buildings, then go ahead and support the bond program.

Don't drink or call while driving

Starting July 1, all drivers in California will be required to use a hands-free device when talking on a cellphone. Five other states -- Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Utah and Washington -- plus the District of Columbia already have such laws. The question remains, however, what's the point?

"There's a common misperception that hands-free phones are safer when the research clearly suggests that they are both equally risky," Arthur Goodwin, a researcher at the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, told the Los Angeles Times.

Forcing drivers to use hands-free devices is a political maneuver, not one designed to increase safety, according to most researchers. It's simply an action taken to make people feel safer. Statistics indicate, however, it will not reduce accidents or highway fatalities. In fact, Goodwin believes hands-free devices may make things worse by encouraging drivers to make more and longer calls while driving.

Former Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta had drafted a letter in 2003 that was supposed to be sent to governors urging them not to endorse hands-free only calling. He wrote in the letter "overwhelmingly, research indicates that both hand-held and hands-free phones increase the risk of a crash." For some reason never adequately explained, the letter was never sent.

The letter was drafted because a 2003 study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a division of the Transportation Department, found that 955 deaths in 2002 could be directly attributed to persons using cellphones while driving.

Other studies are even more startling. The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis in 2003 estimated there are 2,600 deaths and 12,000 serious injuries a year caused by drivers using cellphones. A 2006 study by the University of Utah revealed drivers using cellphones were four times more likely to get into an accident than those not using them and there was no difference between those using hands-free devices and those not using them. The issue, they said, is not whether a driver has both hands on the wheels, but whether the driver is concentrating on a telephone conversation instead of driving. The same study showed that the rate of accidents caused by those using cellphones was the same as for those who were legally drunk although those that were drunk did a better job of braking and avoiding rear-end collisions than those talking on cellphones.

There are those who will argue that there are more accidents involving drivers without hands-free devices than those with them, but that's a faulty argument because fewer drivers use hands-free devices. The risk of an accident is identical.

It's interesting to note that DuPont, Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell prohibit employees from using cellphones while driving, even hands-free cellphones.

Of course, no lawmaker desiring re-election is ever going to introduce legislation banning cellphone use while driving a motor vehicle. But don't go thinking that hands-free accessories are a safety device. They are simply devices.

Ever heard the term "dependency ratio"? It's important

The New York Times has a fascinating story today about population forecasts that predicts by the year 2050, 72 percent of the American population will either be above the age of 64 or younger than 18. This percentage is apparently called the "dependency ratio." That ratio today is higher than I thought it might be--around 60 percent.

Much of government spending--whether it's in the form of retirement benefits, health care or schooling--is devoted to programs for this group. What will the political composition of the country that will drive policies look like? The article says that by 2050, 23 percent of the workforce (those outside the dependency ratio) will be foreign born and many of them will be ineligible to vote.

At the risk of drastically alarming the folks in Farmers Branch, it is estimated that 19 percent of all Americans will be foreign born by 2050 (interestingly enough, that's the percentage of foreign-born residents living in Canada and Australia today) and the share of Hispanic residents will more than double to almost 29 percent. (Births will account for a large share of the Hispanic as well as the Asian population growth which is why the Hispanic population percentage is significantly higher than the foreign-born percentage.)

What all this boils down to is this: By the year 2050, those over 64 (a population that will include my son) will have the most powerful political voice in the country.

In a somewhat related story, the Times also reports that the economy of Arizona is weakening while the number of illegal immigrants seems to be dropping. No one is sure whether the illegal immigrants are leaving the state because of the economic downtown or whether the economic downturn is being caused by illegals leaving Arizona, which recently passed some of the toughest immigration laws in the country.

Memo to Mayor Leppert: Give credit when and where it's due

One of the many issues former Dallas City Councilman Garry Griffith was passionate about was panhandling, especially around the Lakewood Shopping Center. The center was a mecca for beggars. I remember one sunny afternoon after a lunch at Cantina Laredo a panhandler approached a woman about to enter the restaurant and asked her for some money. She reached into her purse and gave him a 20-dollar bill. I was about to rush home, put on some scrubby clothes, return and work the neighborhood myself.

But the Lakewood merchants were alarmed, especially when the panhandlers became more aggressive. Led by Mr. Griffith, as part of his efforts to reduce crime throughout his District 9, and Carol Hensley, who had formed the Lakewood Business Association in part to help fight the panhandling, they began a campaign to drive the panhandlers out of Lakewood. Their first effort was basically a "Just say no" program. The theory was (and is) simple: If the panhandlers realize the Lakewood money fountain has dried up, they will move elsewhere. The problem is that it didn't work so well because (1) the Panhandlers became even more threatening and (2) there are a lot of people in Dallas with good hearts who just want to help those less fortunate than they.

So Ms. Hensley organized a business Volunteers in Patrol program with the help of the Dallas Police Department and Mr. Griffith came up with something called "the Apple campaign." The way it worked was something like this. Those Lakewood merchants who were part of the campaign had large apple posters in their store windows and plates of fresh fruit inside their stores. The stores also provided lists of charities in Dallas that helped the homeless and other unfortunates. If a shopper was accosted by a panhandler, he or she would give the beggar some fruit and also could make a donation to the charity. Mr. Griffith even convinced a local advertising company to donate its efforts to create a logo and to help spread the word.

This morning, Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert, along with John Crawford, president and CEO of DowntownDallas, and city council members Angela Hunt and Pauline Medrano announced the launching of something they are calling "Lend a Hand," which is nothing more than a blatant ripoff of Mr. Griffith's Apple campaign. The program is worthwhile, I guess, but instead of patting themselves on their collective backs they should be giving Mr. Griffith some acknowledgement, especially since he recently briefed Mr. Crawford on the Lakewood effort.