By Geraldine “Tincy” Miller, State Board of Education member

“We must open the doors of opportunity. But we also must equip our people to walk through those doors.”
President Lyndon Johnson

When he wrote those words, Mr. Johnson probably wasn’t thinking of the Texas Permanent School Fund, but he was using the wisdom on which it was founded. Mr. Johnson himself benefited from that wisdom. As a grade school teacher, he used books that were paid for by that fund.

Few things are more important to our state than our children’s education. And few things are more vital to education than textbooks and educational materials. So it stands to reason that a successful endowment fund that provides those materials free to Texas schoolchildren would be among the most staunchly protected assets in Austin. 

It has been—until now.

The Permanent School Fund (PSF) was created in 1854 to provide instructional materials for Texas public school students. For almost a century and a half, Texas has been a model of fiscal discipline, forethought and responsibility in the way it has managed the fund, protecting it from special interests, pork-barreled politics, stock market crashes and economic recessions. 

But it has been said that prosperity is harder to manage than want, and such is the case in Austin today. A few lawmakers have drawn up a plan to raid the PSF in order to launch a health insurance program for teachers. Their suggestion is to divert $679 million from the corpus of the fund.

But there are constitutional restrictions against such a move. The founders of the PSF made it clear that the corpus of the fund was to remain untouched, providing a growing source of income for Texas school children.

The PSF is earmarked specifically for students—not because teachers aren’t important to schools but because children are the reason we have schools. They are the reason the founders of the fund felt strongly enough to include the restrictions on its use in the state’s constitution. The PSF should be the last place to look when lawmakers need cash.

Proponents of this plan say the fund can afford it. Thanks to the superb leadership of the State Board of Education and the Texas Education Agency’s Investment Office, the fund has grown to $21 billion. Surely, it couldn’t hurt to give up one little piece, the proponents say. But if the Legislature is successful this time, what will stop it from doing so again? And again?

The bottom line in all of this is exactly that—the bottom line. By taking money from one education fund and putting it in another, lawmakers wouldn’t be improving education. They simply would be robbing Peter to pay Paul. The only people to benefit would be politicians, who would have found an easy way to pay for teacher benefits.

Lawmakers are looking to muster a two-thirds majority to trigger a statewide referendum and override the constitution. It should never get that far. This is a bad idea that we should stop now, by calling, e-mailing and writing our representatives in Austin and encouraging them to heed LBJ’s words of wisdom and preserve the Permanent School Fund for Texas schoolchildren.

Teachers need health insurance. And the Legislature should find a way to support it. But to do so by taking money away from students is misguided. Let’s protect the fund that the state constitution describes as “permanent” and “perpetual.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: Our research reveals there is NO teacher health insurance crisis. Only 17 school districts out of 1041 do not already offer teacher health insurance plans, according to the Teacher Retirement System of Texas in Austin. Nine of these are charter schools, so only eight school districts do not offer plans to their teachers and employees. In those eight districts, it is estimated that approximately 350 teachers—less than one-tenth of one percent—are not offered a health insurance plan. Furthermore, many teachers are covered by a spouse’s insurance plan. And just two years ago, every Texas teacher and school employee was given a minimum of $3000 annual wage increase paid for by the surplus in the state coffers. Today, there is no surplus to pay for teacher health insurance. In order to pay for this new entitlement that would cost taxpayers $4 billion annually, Texans could be forced to create a state income tax. 

WHAT YOU CAN DO: Ask your State Representative and State Senator to oppose a Texas constitutional change to allow the PSF to be raided. While we have tremendous appreciation for our teachers, we cannot afford a new entitlement for State-funded health insurance. Ask them also to support the State Board of Education’s constitutional authority over the PSF. If such a constitutional amendment is on our Texas ballots in November, TEF will work to defeat it. Texas Legislators can be reached through the Capitol switchboard at 512-463-4630.

The survey, Teacher Attitudes in Texas Public and Private Schools, was conducted among a statistically valid sample of experienced public and private high school teachers in Texas. Teachers were asked about topics including: school discipline, teacher morale, academic performance, parental involvement, and control over class content.

Other key findings include:

• More than 61% of public school teachers surveyed believed that teacher morale has either “somewhat” or “substantially” worsened, compared to 36% of private school teachers.
• Both public and private school teachers cited student attitudes and behavior as the number one reason for teacher morale problems. Treatment by administrators ranked second as the reason for poor morale among public school teachers, followed by insufficient financial compensation.
• 35.6% of private school teachers stated that the trend of discipline programs was improving while nearly the same percentage of public school teachers saw their school discipline programs worsening.
• 30% of public school teachers saw student conflict increasing compared to 11% of private school teachers.
• Over half of private school teachers felt that they had very substantial control over class content, while just 26% of public school teachers felt the same.
• 42% of public school teachers rated parental involvement as “not supportive” or “slightly supportive,” compared to 8% of private school teachers.
• A larger percentage of public school teachers saw a “substantial decline” or a “moderate decline” in student academic achievement compared to private school teachers.
• Public school teachers were, overall, less comfortable with having their child attend the school where they taught.

The survey results are timely given current discussions in the legislature about improving teacher compensation and health insurance. “These results show that increases in salaries or benefits will not solve the shortage of teachers in Texas,” stated Dr. Pisciotta. “Trying to attract teachers with higher salaries without improving the school environments would be like trying to cut cloth using scissors with one sharp and one very dull blade.”

The study can be reviewed in its entirety on the TPPF website at: www.tppf.org.

The Texas Legislature is on the verge of classifying certain crimes as “hate crimes,” a redundancy which implies that certain crimes are hateful while others are somehow affectionate. Under legislation sponsored by state Rep. Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston), and state Sen. Rodney Ellis (D-Houston), which recently cleared a Senate committee, crimes committed out of hatred based on “race, color, disability, religion, national origin or ancestry, age, gender, or sexual preference” would be subject to stiffer penalties. However, if stiffer penalties deter crimes, it would protect more innocent people to simply increase penalties across the board.

Indeed, is a crime committed because of hatred against federal workers, such as the tragic Oklahoma City bombing, any less serious than a crime committed out of hatred against any of the named groups? Moreover, it is unfair to extend special protection to only the groups singled out in this legislation. If a Boy Scout leader scribbled graffiti on the property of a homosexual because he disagrees with that sexual orientation, that would be a hate crime subject to enhanced penalties. However, if it was a homosexual who committed the same crime against the Boy Scouts because he finds their position on homosexuality repugnant, that would not be a hate crime. 

An even more fundamental flaw inherent in hate-crimes legislation is its punishment of speech and thought above and beyond the criminal act. A bulwark of criminal law for centuries has been the principle of actus reus, which means we punish acts rather than beliefs. Even though a defendant must be convicted of an underlying crime for additional penalties to be added, the extra increment of punishment is triggered only because of the defendant’s speech or beliefs, which, however bigoted, are in and of themselves, fully protected under the First Amendment.

Unlike the hate crimes bill introduced last session (passed the Texas House but did not get of committee in the Senate, and thus failed to pass), the current proposal would heighten penalties for even nonviolent crimes. As illustrated by the administration of the death penalty to the killers of James Byrd, a hate crimes law cannot augment the existing punishment for capital murder. However, many misdemeanors would automatically be transformed from punishable only by fine to substantial jail time.

Consider a hypothetical case of Texans opposed to homosexuality who publicly present pictures of gay sex to illustrate their point. For doing so, they could be guilty under Texas Penal Code A743.22 of “Obscene Display or Distribution.” This offense, unlike selling obscene materials, which is a Class A misdemeanor, is a Class C misdemeanor and thus carries only a $500 fine. Because the proposed hate crimes legislation elevates this offense to a Class B misdemeanor solely because of the defendant’s objection to homosexuality, the defendant could receive up to 180 days in jail.

When substantial thought has gone into classifying misdemeanors into different categories in view of whether a fine or jail time is most appropriate, overhauling these classifications in one fell swoop seems reckless and unwise.

Finally, few realize that Texas already has a hate crimes law, which provides additional penalties for violent crimes motivated by bias or prejudice. In fact, delegates to the 2000 Texas Democratic Party Convention decided such a general statute is preferable to specifying particular categories because they could not reach agreement over whether to include bisexuals and transsexuals. The legislation pending this session resolves this by including bisexuals in the definition of sexual orientation while excluding transsexuals. 

This confusion over which categories to specially protect sharply contrasts with the elegant simplicity of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees all Americans equal protection under the law.

We could avoid these problems and protect more Texans by simply increasing (and enforcing) penalties for all crimes where insufficient punishment now exists. The question is whether the Legislature is more interested in making a symbolic statement or good public policy.

WHAT YOU CAN DO: Write or call your state senator and ask him/her to vote NO on SB 87 (the hate crimes bill). Also, let your representative know your opposition to this bill. Both need to hear from you TODAY. 

FYI: The 2001-2002 Texas Legislative Handbooks are available in our office for a gift to TEF. The handbook is a valuable resource listing legislators’ addresses and phone numbers and committee assignments. Please earmark your check “LH.”

 

California prides itself in being on the cutting edge of new ideas, but recently some of these strange theories have produced a calamity that can be called the California rock ’n roll. I am, of course, referring to the recent “rolling blackouts” that turn electricity off for a block of customers for about an hour, then restore service and move on to the next block to be darkened.

A great urgency exists for us to pinpoint the underlying cause behind this energy disaster and explain its relevance to EVERY other state. Quick fixes are not enough for even with stringent energy conservation measures in place, California’s electricity prices are expected to double or triple over the next 18 months.

You may have read that the blame for the “rolling blackouts” should be placed on “deregulation” of the energy industry, but in fact, what was done in the name of “deregulation” in California was actually an imposition of more regulation. Under the guise of “deregulation,” California politicians put a cap on the price of energy, and at the same time created so many additional environmental regulations that new generating plants could not be built. In fact, NO new major power plants have been built in California in the last 15 years. To put this into perspective, Texas has built 22 power plants in the past five years; that number will rise to 37 within a year. Clearly, deregulation is NOT to blame for the “rolling blackouts.” 

Several factors prevented new power plants from being built. As the revolutionary students of the 1960s carried their crazy ideas into the industrial world, America witnessed the growth of radical environmental groups; there were 200 such groups as of March 1970 in San Francisco alone! When Green Party candidate Jerry Brown became governor of California in 1975, he backed a state moratorium on building nuclear plants because he opposed both coal and nuclear power. As a result, it took 17 years to build California’s Diablo Canyon nuclear plant and cost $6 billion, 12 times its original estimate. “After the experience with Diablo Canyon,” comments Miro Todorovich, executive director of the pro-nuclear Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy in the 1970s and 1980s, “no utility in its right mind would build a power plant in California.” From 1988 to 1998, the state’s electric generating capacity declined 5% while some older generating plants were closed. That is why California produces less power per resident than any other state and imports one-quarter of its energy from places as far away as Quebec. 

California politicians were warned for decades to build more power plants, but instead imposed stringent environmental rules and bureaucratic red tape (a.k.a. regulation) that prohibited the construction of new energy plants. Nonetheless, almost 60% of Californians believe that the “rolling blackouts” are a conspiracy of the power companies to raise rates.

Furthermore, radical environmentalists have done an excellent job of scaring people away from the cleanest producer of electricity: nuclear power. It does not emit carbon dioxide because it does not burn fossil fuels. In fact, more people are likely to die when coal is mined than when nuclear power is employed. For example, in America 36 people per year are killed in the coal mining industry, and China reportedly loses about 10,000 per “normal” year in coal mining. At the same time, when two workers were killed in a nuclear power plant in Japan, it made the headlines around the world last year. That leads people to fear its use, even though it is more dangerous to mine coal. 

Economist and California resident Thomas Sowell concludes in the July 12th Jewish World Review, “If we are too squeamish to build a dam and inconvenience some fish or reptiles, too aesthetically delicate to permit drilling for oil out in the boondocks and too paranoid to allow nuclear power plants to be built, then we should not be surprised if there is not enough electricity to supply our homes and support a growing economy.”

What has happened in California is only a prelude to what will happen if the UN’s Kyoto Protocol is adopted. I was in The Hague last November at a follow-up conference dealing with the treaty. Thankfully, the conferees failed in their quest to write a rulebook for implementation and penalties for non-compliance of the Kyoto Protocol, because its implementation would restrict industrialized nations’ energy use by between 30-40% within a decade, exactly what has happened in California. 

The premise of the Kyoto Protocol is that the globe is warming because of the burning of fossil fuels. While the UN science panel continues to predict a rise of more than 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 100 years, other scientists have detected little or no warming since about 1940. The climate change debate has not always, however, believed that the globe is warming. 

In April 1975, Newsweek magazine claimed, “There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically,” and scientists are “almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century,” because average temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere are COOLING. Today, the “prevailing view” is that fossil fuels are causing the planet to WARM dangerously. Dr. Fred Singer, a representative of 17,000 scientists, however, has testified before the U.S. Senate stating that predicted regional temperature and precipitation changes cannot be trusted, nor can predictions about sea level rise. 

Moreover, global data from satellites shows no appreciable warming trend since measurements began in 1979. Additionally, last November was the second coldest November on record in the United States. July’s temperatures were the coolest on record in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. The global warming thesis is certain only in computer models, but those models cannot factor in the wind or ocean currents or sun activity. Nor can they predict volcanic activity that has had a large effect in recent years. 

Even though scientists have yet to decide whether the earth is warming or cooling, America entered the global warming fray in 1992 when former President Bush signed and the U.S. Senate ratified the Climate Change Treaty that was produced in Rio de Janeiro at a UN conference led by Maurice Strong. Mr. Strong was the secretary-general of that Earth Summit II as well as its predecessor held in 1972—20 years earlier. Today, Mr. Strong sits at the right hand of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and is in charge of reforming the UN. With the late radical feminist Bella Abzug, he set out to radically move America off of its Constitutional base and into the radical UN agenda. That agenda intends to force Americans to scale back our standard of living by forcing the same rules and regulations that have caused the California “rolling blackouts” on EVERY state.

The Kyoto Protocol was written five years after the UN’s 1992 conference in Kyoto, Japan. The U.S. negotiating team in Kyoto was in a deadlock when VP Al Gore arrived to tell the negotiators to be “flexible.” That meant to sell out American interests and kow-tow to the internationalist/socialist agenda. In the end, the U.S. agreed to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, the gases produced when fossil fuels are burned, by 7% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012.

The way it plays out is that the Kyoto Protocol binds industrialized nations while non-industrialized nations are not affected by it. If the U.S. is forced to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions (emitted when fossil fuels are burned), read REDUCE industrial output by 7% below 1990 levels, and Mexico nor China are exempt, then America’s industries would be enticed to move to Mexico or China. If the industries stayed in the U.S., they’d have to pay the consequences for burning fossil fuels that are necessary for continuing their industries. The UN’s Kyoto Protocol would force millions of American jobs to move to third world nations not bound by the treaty. They would profit from our losses. As you can see, “rolling blackouts” are only a forerunner of the pain that would result if the Kyoto Protocol were implemented.

The UN is trying to figure out what the new Bush administration thinks about global warming because they want to further their agenda. We must wait and see what happens at the UN’s planned meeting in Marrakech, Morocco this November. I plan to be there, and I’ll be most happy to tell you what I learn.

The other major conference affecting ALL Americans this year is the update on the UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child.

• It is based on the concept that a child’s rights originate with the UN Treaty itself or with government, in contrast to the American ideology that rights flow to the individual from our Creator.
• The treaty assumes that the UN rights of the child would be enforced against parents, probably by government attorneys, and could empower a child to:
  • Refuse to do household chores because they interfere with his right to “rest and leisure,”
  • Demand the right to watch television in order to get information from the “media of the child’s choice,”
  • Assert his right to express himself freely (i.e., sass his parents) at the dinner table,
  • Select a different church from the one his parents attend, or no church.

This September in NYC, the UN will meet to update this Treaty. With God’s grace, I hope to be there to defend traditional families.

EAGLES SWOOP INTO AUSTIN FOR DOMA LOBBY DAY
By Ryan Bangert, TEEF Director of Communications

By all accounts, the Defense of Marriage Act Workshop and Lobby Day held at the TMA Ballroom in Austin on February 14 was an overwhelming success. Over 300 conservative activists, including a large contingent of Eagles from around the state, converged on Austin to urge the state legislature to pass the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This bill would protect Texas from recognizing other states’ homosexual “marriage” or “civil union” laws. It would also protect families from being re-defined to include “same-sex” couples.

The day began with a rousing morning workshop hosted by Texas Eagle Forum, Texas Christian Coalition, Texas Justice Foundation, American Family Association-TX, Free Market Foundation, Concerned Women for America-TX, Young Conservatives of Texas and the Coalition for Traditional Marriage. The morning session featured inspiring speeches by state leaders from the sponsoring groups, and an insightful analysis of the key issues involved in the DOMA debate by renowned lecturer and author Teresa Collett of the South Texas School of Law. Representative Warren Chisum (R-Pampa), author of the DOMA bill in the House, finished the morning session with a call for pro-family activists to encourage their lawmakers to pass his bill in a timely fashion. 

The afternoon lunch session included a word from Attorney General John Cornyn and a keynote address from Governor Rick Perry, both of whom expressed strong support for DOMA. After lunch, activists spilled out of the TMA ballroom to attend a media rally at the south Capitol steps, followed by visits to their state representatives and senators to press for the passage of DOMA. Prior to the day’s events, 78 representatives had already signed as co-sponsors of DOMA. 

With the momentum generated by the large outpouring of support for traditional marriage demonstrated at the Capitol, DOMA has a better chance of becoming law before the legislature concludes in May.

WHAT YOU CAN DO: Thirty-five states already have DOMA on the books, and Texas is lagging behind. Please contact House State Affairs Committee Chairman Steve Wolens (D-Dallas) and ask him to schedule a timely hearing for HB 496. He can be reached at 512-463-0746. 

STEM CELL RESEARCH
Concern is growing whether the Bush White House is prepared to fulfill its promise to ban federal funding for research on stem cells from aborted babies or discarded embryos. The new Administration is under heavy pressure from disability groups, who believe such research could eventually lead to cures for many diseases. But the research also violates the basic tenets of how human life should be treated. There may be a solution on the horizon. Cells from umbilical cords, discarded after birth, are showing great promise in treating many of the same diseases, including strokes. This is where limited federal funds can and should be used to further research without undermining the sanctity of life.
Source: Campaign for Working Families, 2/20/01

FAITH-BASED INITIATIVE UNDER FIRE
President Bush’s faith based initiative to allow religious groups to participate in federal grant programs may be in trouble. Pat Robertson shocked the White House by joining liberal groups in attacking the proposal. Marvin Olasky, who advised Bush on faith issues, now appears to have changed his mind too. There is growing concern that money will go to groups like the Hare Krishnas on the one hand, and that federal dollars sap the vitality and independence of Christian groups on the other hand. Support is growing instead for a much-expanded charitable tax deduction, as well as a proposal to allow taxpayers to designate charitable groups they would like their income taxes to go to.
Source: Gary Bauer, 2/22/01

ABSTINENCE EDUCATION
Abstinence education is expected to thrive under President Bush, who has given his word that the abstinence message will receive equal support to Planned Parenthood’s message of “safe sex.” The President has proposed increasing federal funding for abstinence education from $80 million to $135 million per year. Abstinence education leaders hope to work with the administration in developing abstinence as a solution to the multi-faceted problem of teen health.
Source: Education Reporter, 2/01

EAGLE FORUM’S 8TH ANNUAL COLLEGIANS SUMMIT
Conservative Texas college students are encouraged to join other like-minded students in Washington, D.C. on June 14-15 for two days of challenging speakers, great Q&A, good fellowship and a terrific chance to get to know our nation’s leaders and conservative media (yes, really!) face to face. The cost of the Summit is FREE to college students. Contact Kristina Twitty at eagleforum@aol.com or 1-800-504-6332 for more information.

CHRISTIAN HERITAGE WEEK
Governor Rick Perry had designated March 4-10 as Christian Heritage Week. The observance “aims to generate greater awareness of the role religious faith played in our country’s founding, and how it enhances the personal well-being, peace of mind, and family and community life of countless individuals.”