NEW WEBSITE IS UP!

While I love Blogger/Blogspot, I have put up my own campaign website at



www.spencerfortexas.com


All future updates will be on that site. Please hop over and read the blog! Thank you for your support!!!

--Spence

Spence, What is your Platform? Part 5: War on Drugs

I'm sure this will be an extremely touchy subject with some people. So, lets go ahead and talk about the elephant in the room.

I support the legalization of marijuana.

I believe that by legalizing the growing and possession of marijuana, we will take a tremendous burden off of our criminal justice system.

I believe that placing regulation (age and consumption restrictions, just like alcohol) and levying a tax on marijuana sales, we can provide more funds for our ailing education system (that, coupled with privatization of schools, as I have advocated in earlier posts, would be a huge benefit to our citizenry), as well as other needed projects.

By de-criminalizing marijuana, we take the 'street value' of the illegal good out of the economic spectrum. When you take the crime aspect out of marijuana sales and possession, the ancillary crimes that come with this crime will go away, as well. Lets consider the trickle-down effect of this:

1. Marijuana is made legal, and controlled just like alcohol.
a. Prison overcrowding will instantly start to dissipate as less new and repeat pot heads enter the system.
b. Assault, battery, and theft crimes will begin to lessen immediately (with prices of marijuana inflated on the street, users frequently steal to support their habit. If prices drop due to greater availability, so does the need to commit crime. There's that pesky SUPPLY & DEMAND screwing things up again, doh!).
c. Tax revenue increases, which can be directly used to support anti-drug programs (such as D.A.R.E.) to help teach children the dangers associated with drug use (but, since marijuana can be habituating and not necessarily addictive, the only harm comes along the same lines as smoking cigarettes or a hookah pipe...the inhaling of smoke...).
d. With marijuana now readily available at pot stores across the country, folks that would normally have 'delved deeper' into the narcotics underground and eventually found other illegal drugs (heroin, cocaine, etc) will not have that 'livin on the edge' draw, and stay with the legal stuff.


There's a million excuses not to legalize marijuana, but no real facts that support continued prohibition. Here's some things that Big Government (the Dems and Repubs) don't like about legalization:

1. Less police needed. That's right, if we take away crimes, we need less police. Less police means less state/federal control of the citizenry.
MY RESPONSE: We apparently have a lack of police officers across the country right now. Legalizing marijuana will simply reduce the need for hiring, and lighten the already-burdensome workload on our brave men and women in blue.

2. Less revenue from fines. If something is no longer illegal, you can't be fined.
MY RESPONSE: If it is now legal and taxed as a good, then we are actually making MORE MONEY off of it! Duh!
3. It is harmful to children.
MY RESPONSE: So are race cars, toenail clippers, and steak knives. Just like anything else, however, parents should teach their children the benefits and drawbacks of safety with anything.


If elected to the Legislature, I will partner with other like-minded citizens and lawmakers to advance legislation to de-criminalize marijuana and have it fall under the legal, TAXABLE umbrella of a consumer good.

Spence, What is your Platform? Part 4: Sunset Clauses & Term Limits

Continuing with discussing issues which I feel are important, today we will discuss Sunset Clauses and Term Limits, which are the same thing but focusing on different areas.

Sunset Clauses date back to the Roman Republic, when Senators would issue a mandate for certain items. These mandates were restricted to a specific length of time, so that the Senate would be forced to review it for validity in the future.

Sunsetting has a long history in politics, and is used frequently within our own system of government. The Patriot Act, for example, had numerous sunset clauses for things such as wiretapping and voicemail evidence collection.

The Texas Constitution utilizes sunsetting on a continuous basis. Starting in 1977, Texas established a Sunset Advisory Commission which has the duty to review almost all State agencies, departments, and programs. The Commission is made up of representatives from the House and Senate, as well as a few members of the public for a fair and balanced evaluation of need.

This system helps to eliminate wasteful agencies, and helps to curb 'big government'. Now, imagine coupling this Commission with a Zero Based Budget, and a temporary hiring freeze, and imagine the efficiency that would be created!

Sunset clauses inserted in certain laws/statutes are extremely wise. Revenue bills, licensing requirement statutes, and laws involving non-violent crimes should be reviewed periodically or automatically sunset at certain periods to reduce the oppressive hand of government on its citizenry.

I would push for strict adherence to sunset provisions and look to work with the Sunset Advisory Commission to help shrink our state government to the appropriate, efficient size.

TERM LIMITS

There are legitimate arguments both for and against term limits on any level of government. Some folks say that we need to refresh the pool of Congresspersons every x amount of years, while others state that in doing so we are stripping our government of some of the wisest lawmakers and thus handicapping ourselves.

Fresh ideas via fresh faces in government (whether local, state, or federal) is always a good idea, provided the term limits imposed are not ridiculous. Some folks believe that politicians should only serve one term; others state that 6 years is plenty. On a federal level, I would say that 6 year stints for the Congress (that is both the House and the Senate) is a fair term. 6 years is plenty of time to accomplish the goals needed by the citizenry.

Furthermore, I would say that these are only blocks for consecutive terms, not lifetime limits. Let me use an example:

Joe Smith runs for State Senate, and wins. He serves 6 years in that body. At the end of that term, he runs for the House of Representatives, and wins. After serving 2 terms there (4 years), he decides to run for the Senate, and serves a 6 year term there. He finishes out his 'political career' by returning to his home state to serve out a final 2 years as a State Representative.

Essentially, our example above was a 'career politician', but he did not park himself in a seat for 20+ years as lord and master over a select few Committees...and thus would not have enough time in each body to have any special interests/lobbyists sink their claws into him (creating that co-dependent relationship we see festering in our system today).

Think about the benefits of this system; serving in multiple bodies gives this legislator a tremendous exposure to different needs, duties, and requirements. He can now see the 'wide angle view' of serving one's constituents, and would (in theory, at least) be better prepared for each successive position.

So, I believe in modified term limits that allow the 'wise' to stick around and still serve the government, but placing realistic limits that act like a thumbtack on the seat of power...uncomfortable, to be sure, but prodding just enough to remind you that while you do your job, that term limit is still there.

I would love to sit down with the citizens of my District that believe in strict term limits and hear out their reasoning, suggestions, and concerns. If elected to the State Legislature, I would do my best to make sure sunset clauses and appropriate term limits are introduced and carried forth.

Spence, What is your Platform? Part 3: Privatization

Government is a necessary evil. Since Man is flawed and evil motives can creep into the normal interactions that our species requires, we must have some type of framework in place to assist in our societal functioning. Some would argue that the more regulation we have, the better off we are. I disagree.

Since Man is flawed, government (which is made up of humans) is flawed, as well. What keeps me from being considered an anarchist, however, is the belief that we have a set of laws that all men can agree upon as fair, just, and in the interest of all who fall under it.

...well, we did until professional politicians started f'ing with the Constitution (but that is a debate for another time).

Anyway, back to my point. Man is flawed. Government should restrict the amount of influence it holds over the populace, and especially over the economy.

I hold to what is called the Austrian school of economic belief. I believe that the ultimate 'regulator' in the economy is naturally-occurring supply and demand. I also believe that the more fingers the government sticks into the economic pie, the worse off the economy is.

So, when the government creates an agency or department to oversee some part of our society that can be done by private business, they are hurting the economy. Lets take a look at some industries that can be privatized:

1. Corrections. Yes, privatizing prisons and corrections officers can have tremendous economic benefits. Not only can costs drop 10-15%, but introducing competition to a system that traditionally increases its budget requirements every year will also help keep costs down. Corrections also has a reputation for being a 'dumping ground' for law enforcement professionals who cannot/will not 'advance' to other forms of law enforcement. Privatization increases job competition, and thus a higher quality of correctional officer can become the average, not the exception.

2. Transportation. Texas is a prime example of how well privatization works! Not only do we have an average 10% savings on highway maintenance, but other states are using Texas as a model for privatization of their respective highway maintenance programs. One finds it silly that this great example of privatization hasn't inspired the Legislature to spread this method out to the other money-absorbing departments in the Lone Star State.

3. Education. First off, let me say that I support public education. Our Founding Fathers believed that education is a fundamental right of all Americans, and that a sound public education system would benefit our country more than any other program. The key term there is a SOUND public education system. Ours is a broken, union-controlled quagmire. Privatization of public education is not, as the NEA or other teacher groups would have you believe, forcing parents to pay a tuition for education (which you already do...its called your local SCHOOL TAX). Instead, it forces schools to provide a higher level of education while keeping costs low (there's that pesky free market again). A great way to start this privatization would be a voucher program. For further reading, check out what Nobel Economics Prize winner Milton Friedman had to say on this.


So there's just a few of the 'biggies'. What are some of the benefits of privatization that we can agree on?

A. LOWER COSTS
B. HIGHER QUALITY
C. LOWER TAXES
D. SMALLER GOVERNMENT
E. INNOVATION not STAGNATION

If elected to the Texas House of Representatives, I will strive for privatization and right-sizing of our State government. Please help us win this battle against big government and over-regulation. A vote for Spencer is a vote for the free market. Thank you.

Voting "No" Does Not Make You A Conservative

While doing some research with a few members of our campaign last night, the recognition of a certain trend within all levels of legislative government in this country turned into a spirited conversation. The gist of it was this: If a legislator consistently votes "no" on revenue bills that would increase taxes, does that make him fiscally conservative?

Initially, the answer was a resounding yes. As we delved deeper, however, most began to shift their position. Why, you ask? Well, that's the subject of this morning's discussion!

When a member of the legislature (whether state or federal) simply and consistently votes 'no' on any bill that spends a taxpayer's money, most people would consider them a good conservative. I don't see it that way. What it says to me is the person is actually a good nay-sayer, and nothing more.

A 'good' conservative would not only vote against the proposed increase, but put forward legislation to REFORM current tax laws and put money back in the hands of those who have earned it.

Most Republicans would have you believe that they are strong fiscal conservatives. I would challenge you, however, to look past the voting record alone and see what they are doing to ADVANCE the cause of fiscal conservatism. I bet you will find few who actually do.

Anyone can vote no on a bill. A true leader will stand up and try to change a failing system.

That is why Texans in the 130th District need to vote for me in the 2010 election. No more of this 'just say no' stuff. Lets actually get something done.

Spence, What is your Platform? Part 2: Zero-Based Budgeting

Continuing on with this series, today we'll be discussing Zero-Based Budgeting.

Who this applies to: All State departments as well as State contractors


WHAT IS ZERO-BASED BUDGETING?

Zero-based budgeting is a complete 180-degree shift from standard budgeting practices used by the government. The current budgetary process requires responsible parties to only justify increases in their previous budget. As such, budgets can (and usually do) rise each and every year.

With a zero-based budgeting plan, every budget period (annually or bi-annually) starts from $0.00 and each line item in the budget must be justified. Each time the director of a department goes before the Legislature at budget time, he has to have a detailed reasoning for each and every item on his list.

This fiscal accountability is directly in line with what we need; the government is a steward of the citizenry's funds collected through taxation, and they MUST be good stewards.

Now, lets get into the details of Zero-Based budgeting.


WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES OF ZERO-BASED BUDGETING?

The largest and most beneficial benefit of Zero-Based Budgeting (ZBB) is identification and eradication of inflated budgets. Departments can no longer put in unidentified special project money or 'CYA' funding. Without this ability, departments and contractors will be forced to spend our money wisely. Wasteful or outdated projects can easily be identified and eliminated. Furthermore, this type of budgeting creates an opportunity to identify those departments/duties that can be outsourced to private companies for better cost control and efficiency.

There are numerous derivative benefits, as well. Increased communication between members of the department as well as inter-departmental interaction helps efficiency and productivity. The ability to inspire the staff to reduce waste and work smarter (buy-in) can tremendously help morale and output.

WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES OF ZERO-BASED BUDGETING?

In my opinion, the benefits well outweigh the challenges. To be fair, however, I must list the speedbumps involved in such a plan.

First of all, ZBB is quite time-consuming on the part of all parties. Not only must the entities requesting funds spend large amounts of time on building their case, but then the issuing entity (in this case, the Legislature) must spend time reviewing the documentation and commencing the back-and-forth to find out the actual budget. I see this as a 'labor pain' challenge, however, since it will eventually become a stream-lined process as all parties become used to it, and the burden will lessen.

Another challenge would be honesty, which ties directly in to the above-mentioned challenge of time. If the submitting entities are not completely forthright in their budgeting requests, it may take longer periods of time to sort through the muck to get to the bottom line.

CAN THERE BE BONUSES FOR NOT USING ALL OF THE BUDGETED FUNDS?

One of the greatest things about ZBB is the ability to reward people for doing a good job. If a department meets or exceeds all goals and comes in under budget, there is potential there to issue the remaining finances as a bonus to those involved. This acts as an enticement to do work speedily, correctly (the first time), and happily. Employees who know they can receive a nice bonus if they can beat a deadline and still put out quality results will be eager to do so.

Lets use an example.

Lets say that the Department of Transportation is undertaking the renovation of Highway 123 between cities A and B. The ZBB allowed for $2million dollars and 6 months to complete the project. Upon completion and final inspection, any funds left unused from that project will be split amongst all employees (pro-rated by position and contribution).

Five months, two weeks after the project commenced, Highway 123 has been inspected and found to meet/exceed expectations. The entire project has come in at $1.78 million, leaving a $220,000 surplus. As such, that surplus is awarded to the employees as previously discussed.

What was the extra cost to the taxpayer? None. The ZBB verified that the project estimate of $2million is fair for the job being done. By being good stewards of their resources and working harder than they normally would have, the department (or contractors) were able to come in early and under-budget. As such, they are rewarded for their being good stewards without incurring any additional costs to the taxpayers.

CONCLUSION

As you can see, Zero-Based Budgeting can greatly increase the tax savings, productivity, and efficiency of government. While it is not a perfect system (no budgeting system is), it is much better than our current version of incremental budgeting.

Spence, What is your Platform? Part 1: Government Spending

Since some of the folks visiting this blog are not members of the campaign Facebook group, I decided to post a brief synopsis of my Platform (a.k.a. my mission statement for if I were to be elected to the Legislature).

This post is the first of numerous in the series that will go through my position on each topic I hold near and dear to my heart.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

The bureaucratic machine that is the Texas State Government is bloated and redundant. Too many jobs are underutilized.

I will work for a 100% hiring freeze for 3 years for all State positions. With a standard average of 3-5% attrition/year (retirement/termination/job change), costs will decrease while productivity per position will increase. Those in non-essential/redundant positions can be shifted to cover those that are immediate due to the attrition.
---------

Lets dissect this. A hiring freeze is utilized by many companies as a way to trim costs without a drastic step (like a lay-off, or department/branch closure). This allows the employer (in this case, the State itself) to maintain costs and gradually lower them while evaluating what other steps can be taken to trim the budget (such as cost overflows and reconstructing a spending plan based on realistic numbers).

A 100% hiring freeze means that the State will stop accepting new applications for the majority of jobs. This does not mean that absolutely no-one is hired...if an essential position is not filled, and CANNOT be filled by a lateral move or promotion from WITHIN, then the State would be forced to hire; the catch being that the decision to make that position available would rest with the Legislature (or a subcommittee thereof), and not branch heads or supervisors.

Doing a hiring freeze accomplishes a few things. First of all, it allows a real-world test of what jobs are functioning at peak performance, and what ones are not. As employees retire/terminate/transfer, work load will increase. As work load increases, additional strain will fall upon the remaining folks. A ratio of acceptable work-to-employee will be established, and thus equilibrium can be found. No more 'loafing' positions that have IRS-style redundancy (where 2 and 3 people do the EXACT same job, so the work load is hilariously light), but people actually working to capacity for their pay.

Another benefit of a hiring freeze is a period of evaluation on budgeting. Without an influx of new employees, costs will drop to a more realistic level, as will resource consumption. An appropriate level of workers allows for an appropriate level of supplies, and thus costs will shrink in the bloated departments, and balance out in the understaffed ones.



CONCLUSION


This discussion may sound overly simplistic, but the point is to show the platform and the overview of the goal, not the exact intricate workings (which could take weeks or months of work amongst a committee to flesh out properly).

The bottom line is this: A temporary hiring freeze allows the State to appropriately analyze how the money is being spent on salaries, and what departments are bloated. It also allows for internal transfers to undermanned departments, and helps create a situation as close to equilibrium as possible. With the cost of staff on the decline during the freeze, other costs can be 'right sized' within the budgetary framework of the State, and thus another step towards State Government responsibility and PROPER, lower taxation can occur.