Texit Is an Action Verb

I’m starting with a personal dental problem story. Bear with me. I’m going to use it as an analogy.

 

The Extraction Question

I had a tooth break last week. Three chunks fell off, one rather large, plus a couple of crumbles. So I went to the dentist. I was hoping for a repair, albeit a likely expensive one, where maybe they could do an inlay or crown.

There wasn’t much pain involved, which was a good sign. But, in examining the tooth, the dentist noticed a weak spot on another part of the tooth that was mighty sensitive to the touch of his tiny metal probe. Not good. He laid out the situation. This tooth has had a fair amount of damage; it’s next to a partial (a removable tooth that replaces a failed root canal from over two decades ago), and that means it’s more susceptible to bacteria and pressure. My hygiene is excellent, but some things are inevitable. And the additional weak spot, close to the nerve, is very concerning.

He could do a temporary fix to both areas, very carefully, and then give it a few months to see if it stabilizes or maybe turns into an abscess. If it goes well, he could follow up with a permanent fix. If that doesn’t work, I lose the tooth—and I'm out time, pain, and expense.

Or he could go ahead with an extraction. That could be followed up by a larger partial—however, that would connect to a further back tooth already under stress. Or we could try an implant—pending a retest of materials I react to, which has made this impossible in the past, but which my current good state of health might allow.

My first wish would be to keep my tooth. I like real. And I like the integrity of real. But I had him write up the various paths forward so I could go home and talk it over with Mr. Spherical Model.

Mr. Spherical Model, who has been through a few implants already, was saying, it’s just going to get worse. You might as well go ahead with the extraction and be done with it. In a few months, you have a new tooth there, and all is well (we hope).

I think that’s the final decision, although I haven’t set the appointment yet.

The thing I’m looking at is that decision point at which you realize a temporary patch job isn’t going to solve long-term issues. At some point you need to extract and rebuild.

 

To Texit or Not to Texit?

That brings us to the topic of the day: Texit. More formally, the Texas Nationalist Movement. But I learned you can use it, not just as a noun, but as a verb. To Texit, or not to Texit? That is our question.

We had an extraordinary Tea Party meeting this past Saturday, with two very good speakers. The room was packed, with a few people needing to stand in the doorway—on a perfect spring Saturday afternoon.

Alan’s Speech

Alan Vera, speaking at Cypress Texas Tea Party
on Saturday, March 27, 2021

Alan Vera was our first speaker, on election integrity, a subject on which he is a national treasure. I consider him and his wife, Colleen, to be friends in my local political circles. When we (the local Tea Party board) were looking for speakers, we hadn’t yet confirmed him, and I went ahead and asked the Texas Independence Movement whether they could send a speaker. (I had heard Daniel Miller in a Crossroads interview.) They said yes—the same day that Alan confirmed. I was concerned about fitting them both in, but it turned out to be serendipitous. They were old friends in this battle.

Alan went ahead and introduced our second speaker, Daniel Miller, by reading what Alan called “the best 90-second speech I ever gave.” It was from the 2016 Republican Party of Texas Convention—the world’s biggest political gathering.

I missed that convention (my only trip ever to London). I apparently missed a lot. There was an hour-long floor debate sparked by this speech, ending in a voice vote badly mismanaged by the chairman, squelching the issue against the obvious will of the body. The issue was on adding the plank on Texas Independence to the state party platform. This is Alan’s speech:

At the center of this motion is a simple idea: Let the people of Texas address the 10th Amendment elephant in the room.

The Republic of Texas became a state through a treaty, with the United States—a CONTRACT.

Embedded in every contract are terms, conditions and covenants, the frequent breach of which undermine the validity of the contract itself.

Many Texans believe that the United States has already grievously breached the agreement.

When this contract was signed, the United States was a constitutional federation of sovereign states—a Republic.

Many believe this is no longer true.

The government of the U.S. once respected states’ rights and the rule of law. Today it tramples states’ rights, and the rule of law is at the bottom of a landfill, covered by the tiny, torn bodies of 60 million murdered babies.

The citizens of the United States have the right to make one bad decision after another. The government of the U.S. apparently has the right to hurl itself toward a cliff of moral and financial ruin.

But the citizens of Texas have the God given right NOT to follow them over that cliff.

My fellow delegates, when the chair calls for the vote on this motion, don’t just vote “aye.” Vote HELL AYE! For our children and grandchildren. For this dream we call Texas.

I have had mixed feelings about Texas independence for a while. I was asking, Should we have some kind of trigger that, if the federal government crosses a line, we automatically put Texas Independence on the ballot? But I couldn’t come up with such a trigger—because it’s easily arguable that any line we could come up with, the federal government has already crossed.

But I love America. I love our Constitution. How could we consider leaving?

Daniel Miller, President of the Texas Nationalist Movement, gave us plenty to think about.

He started with a story about going to the border, to Laredo, the day before. There was supposed to be a rally for people, as he described it, whose message was, “The federal government should fix it, and we should shake our fists at them until they they do.” No one showed. Our turnout in one room in a restaurant on Saturday was half again bigger than that crowd. That is not a message people in Texas want to get behind. Their main speaker, he said, (a speaker from New Zealand now living in Florida and has no say in the matter) spent 20 of his 25 minutes railing against Texit. Then Daniel spoke, and turned them all.

Daniel Miller, President of the Texas Nationalist Movement,
speaking at the Cypress Texas Tea Party, March 27, 2021

The Question to Focus On

There’s one question that brings it all into focus. It is this:

As it stands right now today, if Texas was a free and independent nation, that we had our right of self-government, we had control of our own immigration system and our own borders, we had our own army, we had our own currency, we had our own passports, we had our own embassies overseas, we had our own Olympic team—wouldn’t that be great?—if we were a nation in every single sense of the word, free, independent, self-governing, and the question was put to us on the ballot that we were asked, “Do you want to join the union?”

The room, filled with US Constitution-loving citizens like me, shouted “No!” I didn’t really know to expect that.

Miller was there to persuade anyone not yet persuaded. So he added the “benefits” of joining the union, if we were to do that today:

So let’s just lay out the benefits. I don’t want you to make a snap decision, right? So, let’s talk about near $30 trillion worth of debt that we would inherit overnight. Let’s talk about being crushed under the weight of 180,000 pages of federal laws, rules, and regulations that turns every single one of us pretty much into a federal felon every single day—not a joke [someone said “I know”]. It’s legit. I mean, that’s a benefit, right? Would you want to live under that?

What about the fact that, if you print up all those 180,000 pages of federal laws, rules, and regulations, it’d be taller than the San Jacinto Monument? You want to live under that weight, don’t you?

Or what about the fact that federal regulatory accumulation costs you about 85% of your take-home pay? Or, what about the things that Alan Vera mentioned—about 60 million dead children?

What about the fact that your money is going to be devalued every time that they fire up the printing press?

What about the fact that they’re going to send our sons and daughters overseas to fight in the wars of self-determination for other people but will deny it to us at the drop of a hat? How does that sound? Does that sound like a winning strategy for you guys? Sound like benefits? I don’t think so.

What about this? What about the fact that, as Texans, no matter what decisions we make here on how we want to govern ourselves, they can be overridden at the stroke of a pen by 2 ½ million unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats? How does that sound? I didn’t think so.

This doesn’t sound like a winning strategy to me. So, again, I ask you the question: If you had to vote today, would you vote to join the union? [the crowd shouted, “No, no, NO” and “Hell no!”] Well, I think I might have turned some of you guys.

If we, like America’s founders, were to write up a list of usurpations and tyrannies, it would be longer and more egregious than those British monarchy wrongs listed in the US Declaration of Independence—and at least on par with those that led Texas to declare independence from Mexico back in 1836. If you were just to list the executive orders of Joe Biden, each and every one is a breach of contract with the people of Texas—and every other state.

 

It’s Inevitable

Daniel Miller's 2018 book on Texit

Miller has been working on this issue since 1996. It has been a long, hard road. But he says Texas Independence is now an inevitability. The trend has been moving toward it for a while. And with the current occupant of the White House, it’s likely to take a leap.

In 2018 Miller wrote a book, Texit: Why and How Texas will Leave the Union (which I bought a copy of and have started reading—and the intro includes that story of Alan’s speech at the 2016 convention). A lot of the details and difficulties are laid out in there—and on the website TexitNow.org (which redirects to the Texas Nationalist Movement). He mentioned some polling that surprised me, and it’s in the book:

Support for Texas leaving the Union grew from single-digit polling under Clinton to 35 percent during Barack Obama’s first term. The most recent polling in Texas shows that a majority of Republicans, approximately half of independent voters, and around one-third of Democrats support independence (p. 18).

He broke that down a few pages later:

The Research 2000 poll was a question about perceived benefit. The Reuters/IPSOS question was a question of political will. The results again broken down by political affiliation, showed 54 percent of Republicans, 49 percent of independence voters, and 35 percent of Democrats favored an independent Texas….

Support for Texit, on average, polls anywhere from 6 to 10 percentage points higher than those who want to stay in the Union (p. 28).

He told us that the Texas Nationalist Movement is the third largest and most influential political advocacy organization in the state—smaller only than the two main political parties. This is not just a fringe idea.

We talk here at the Spherical Model about the interrelationships of the political, economic, and social spheres, so I noted when Miller said this:

Texit is, at this moment, an inevitability. Not just because we can win a vote, but because there is no way that Texas and Texans can stay in a political, economic, and cultural union with a federal system that believes the way they do.

He colorfully added,

They literally just elected a head of state that went around promoting policies that make Joseph Stalin look like Jimmy Carter.

 

The Process

There’s a pretty complicated process to go through—as Britain experienced in Brexit. But the first step is simply to gauge the will of the people. Put it on the ballot for them to vote on.

The first step toward that was to put it in the Republican Party platform. That was finally accomplished in 2020 (an online convention with no floor debate—but the committees put it in and kept it).

The next step is to put a bill before the legislature. Rep. Kyle Biedermann has filed HB 1359. This simply says the question should be put before the people of Texas. (Ask your representative to sign on as a co-author.)

And the people's yes vote would not suddenly accomplish it; as with Brexit, it would require the legislature to lay out a plan to accomplish it in a given length of time, so all the details can be worked out. The question placed on the ballot would be:

"Should the legislature of the State of Texas submit a plan for leaving the United States of America and establishing an independent republic?"

 

The Battle of San Jacinto, where Texas first won its independence,
painting by Henry McArdle, found here

What About War?

We did have some serious questions—in that room, and that will need to be dealt with to educate the people of Texas between the legislation (and passing a bill its first session is a huge challenge) and the November election. So let’s deal with a couple.

One was, pointing out that the last time Texas tried to leave the union it didn’t go well: If it comes down to it, are we willing to fight our neighbors over this?

Good question. Miller had a pretty good—although not a yes or no—answer: We’re not in the 19^th Century anymore. He said,

We have literally seen an explosion of self-governing independent nation states around the world over the last 75 to 80 years. As a matter of fact, in most instances in recent history, independence has been the solution to years of civil war. Sudan is a perfect example. I think it’s one and a half million lives lost in the Sudanese civil war, and it was not until they decided to separate that the bloodshed ended. So, what we have seen here is a process that has developed over the last 75 to 80 years. And for us, it ultimately needs to get in a referendum.

He added that just over half the US military would side with us. They’re not going to bomb our local Walmart because we—what? We voted the wrong way? They’re going to behave like Khaddafi or North Korea while the world is watching?

They’ll be practical. Economically too. War would interfere with infrastructure and cause misery.

While some people would be happy to see us go, in general they would be against it (I’m thinking because we could set a chain reaction such as the USSR saw at the fall of the Berlin Wall). But there’s not much they could do to stop us.

 

Will We Have Freedom on the Other Side?

A question I got to ask related to whether we could keep our freedom after regaining independence. Our governor, who had certainly convinced me before taking office that he revered our US Constitution, had no qualms about locking us down and ordering us to wear facemasks this year, and then expecting us to praise him for finally setting us free a couple of weeks ago. And we have our cities the way they are now—Democrat-run. And Austin, our capital, Republican leaning but nowhere near as pro-freedom as we ought to have, based on both the US Constitution and our Texas Constitution. How do we know we can preserve our freedoms? Miller answered frankly:

How will government be any better? I’m going to tell you right now, post-Texit is not a utopia. It’s not. There is no guarantee that it’s a utopia. They’re not going to come out here, and suddenly there will never be a pothole again. You may not get your trash picked up one day.

It’s not a utopia. Nor is it a promise of that. But it is a promise that we can have the ability to make it better.

And here’s why. Part of the reason that our state and local officials are allowed to skate by with so much is because the attention of the people is distracted by the federal circus that goes on.

If you want proof, go out into this restaurant, grab a random person, and ask them who the speaker of the House is. They will probably tell you Nancy Pelosi. They probably will not tell you Dade Phelan [Speaker of the Texas House]. And therein lies the problem.

With the attention being drawn to Washington, DC—and rightfully so, because they’re the ones that keep their thumb on us so much. But it allows these folks to skate by. It allows our elected officials to treat elective office in Texas like a triple-A ball club, like tryouts for federal office.

The moment that Texas becomes free and independent again, that stops. There is no higher office than that which they can get in Austin. There is no greater service that they can give than to serve the people of Texas. And without that distraction of Washington, DC, who here would keep a much closer eye on what’s going on in Austin or right here in our own cities?

That’s the benefit of Texit.

 

We Need to Texit

I found Daniel Miller’s presentation of the Texit idea persuasive. As much as I would prefer a whole, intact United States abiding by the US Constitution, I think it’s time we recognize we can’t recover that. All we can do is patch up that cracked tooth to postpone the inevitable.

Extract. Heal. Rebuild. According to the principles that bring us freedom, prosperity, and civilization.

I haven’t been fully ready to say it before. But I’ve now come to the conclusion: We need to Texit.

Victimhood Is a State of Mind—You Can Change It

Rep. Dan Crenshaw
Getty Images, found here

My US Representative, Dan Crenshaw, wrote an op-ed over the weekend, on The Daily Wire, called, “Victimhood Ideology Is Getting Worse. Here’s What We Can Do to Fix It.” I thought that would be worth the read. It was. 

I read his book, Fortitude, last summer. So the concepts aren’t new. But applied here to the current woke culture I think is valuable.

He refers to the clash between “victimhood” and “victorhood” as possibly the most profound of our time. Victorhood is not a word in the dictionary, but it’s understandable enough; it’s about being a winner. You can’t be a winner—come out victorious—if you see yourself as victimized and give yourself an excuse for not doing better than you’re doing.

Crenshaw says,

This divide is perhaps the most important cultural battle facing modern America, personified by those who proudly overcome adversity versus those who seek recognition for their victimhood. Empowerment versus disempowerment. Hope versus despair. Fortitude versus fragility.

You might also call this a clash between blame and responsibility.

Because, he says, “A stronger America is a more prosperous America, and we can only accomplish that if we become stronger Americans,” it’s worth looking at how we change this negative narrative. He suggests,

How do we get better? The answer lies in better storytelling. When a bad thing happens —and they certainly do happen—we tell ourselves a story about it. The story shouldn’t be about changing the facts of the event or downplaying the severity of true trauma. It should be about changing our interpretation of it. We can tell ourselves a story of despair and self-pity, from which we may never recover, or we can tell ourselves a story of overcoming hardship and being stronger for it. The outcomes of each of these opposing paths are obvious. For me, one path would have sent me on permanent disability collection. The other path sent me to Congress.

Bad stuff does happen. It happened to him. A strong person, a person with fortitude, doesn’t go through life saying, “If only such and such hadn’t happened to me, I’d be a different and more successful person.” A person with fortitude works to overcome adversity, figuring things out along the way, and then can say, “I didn’t let those things stand in my way. Maybe I’m even more successful because overcoming those things made me stronger than I would have been.”

Quote attributed to Anonymous,
Matthew McConaughey, Raunak Narula, and others.
Image found here.

Reading this op-ed coincided with my re-reading the book Bonds That Make Us Free: Healing Our Relationship, Coming to Ourselves, by C. Terry Warner of the Arbinger Institute. This is a deep thinking book. And I don’t agree with it entirely; there’s a section near the back, on forgiveness, that strikes me as blaming a person for even noticing that wrong has been done to them. I think you can’t be so focused on what you think is forgiving that you end up inviting disrespect or even abuse. Maybe that’s not the intention, but I prefer this Prager U video on forgiveness instead.

Warner says this “feeling stuck” we may sense is “experiencing other people or circumstances as having more power over our own happiness than we do.” That seems to me the same thing Dan Crenshaw is talking about. We want to regain our own power over what we experience in life. But in most of the book, the emphasis is on how to reframe what you’re experiencing—with the intention of actually seeing the truth rather than a distortion you’re making up because you’re centered on yourself.

Despite that part of the book I don’t agree with, in the body of the book Warner differentiates between being a victim—for which we are not responsible, such as being mugged or falling ill or actually being discriminated against—and portraying ourselves as a victim. As he says, “acting and feeling victimized does not make a person a real victim.” And if it’s a matter of frame of mind, that’s something you can change. That’s the good news.

Warner suggests stepping back and looking at who your focus is on—yourself or others. If it’s on ourself, we’re not seeing truth; we’re seeing a distortion. We are in an untruthful, distorted state when we are:

·         Accusing others,

·         Excusing ourselves, or

·         Displaying ourselves as a victim (p. 59).

I remember when the country was first getting acquainted with Dan Crenshaw (after we Texans voted him in, so we already knew him), it surrounded his interaction with SNL actor Pete Davidson, who said derogatory things about him. Dan wasn’t concerned. As he said, he’s had bullets shot at him, and he’s been blown up; words thrown at him aren’t worth noticing. He only responded when he saw an opportunity to stand up for the military. He wasn’t a victim; he was a victor.

Even when you are actually victimized, there’s a point at which being a victim ends; you don’t have to live your life acting out the part of the victim. You can recover and get on with the business of living.

What if you don’t know how to recover? That’s where a deep dive into this book, or Crenshaw’s book, might be helpful. And maybe some counseling. But it’s really an attitude shift. Warner says, “The general principle is this: One person can give offense only if the other will take offense” (p. 98). Later on the same page he refers to those who choose to take offense:

We use words like touchy, thin-skinned, and hypersensitive to describe such people. Sometimes I have thought of them as missile-seeking targets.

Much of the effort at attitude change come in letting go of self-absorption. It is seeing self at the exclusion of the other person—dehumanizing them. If you accept someone as the human they are at a given time, flaws and all, then those offenses can get shrugged off. I’ve read that bullies often don’t know they are bullies; they think they are defending themselves from being bullied or taken advantage of. If you can see yourself in a position of strength, willing to help another human, then their offenses look different. You may still get injured, but you don’t get victimized.

I’m looking at this “woke culture” “social justice warrior” situation that Dan Crenshaw is referencing. It seems to me that what needs to change—and what he’s recommending—is that those who feel offended just stop it.

I see it as a problem for them to fix in themselves.

That, according to Warner, is me in the way of the problem; I’m blaming. Hmm. I’ll want to fix that.

I can only deal with me and my attitude. So, I recognize that there are humans suffering—some of them suffering actual hurt, some of them suffering only what they’ve invented—and isn’t that sad for them. I don’t want them to be stuck in anger, resentment, and self-pity. There are happier ways to live.

What can I do? Recognize their humanity, while also speaking out against a culture that encourages their weakness rather than their overcoming adversity. If we truly care about them, we want for them a culture than increases their fortitude.

So, we need to find more truth and say it. Don’t smash them with it; offer it for them to take or leave. But let them know life is already happier for people who don’t do what they’re doing. As Crenshaw says in his book,

[Y]ou’ll never see a happy (or funny) social justice warrior: A system that falsely promises the end of suffering also strips individuals of the capacity to deal with it (p. 240).

It isn’t compassionate to censor words they’ve decided are offensive. It isn’t compassionate to coddle, mollify, and infantilize. Maybe we should try treating them like adults, so maybe they can live up to that.

Candace Owens with her new baby
image found here

Candace Owens wrote a piece for British media comparing her life situation to that of Meghan Markle, who gave an interview with Oprah a couple of weeks ago, trying to elicit sympathy for how hard life has been for her because the British royal family is so racist; apparently someone wondered what the royal son would look like. Owens is an American black (not half-black and indiscernible like Meghan Markle, but fully black) and also married to a white Englishman. In Owens’ case, she married the son of a Lord rather than a prince. Owens gave birth to a son in January. She says this about the question of her son’s color:

I cannot tell you how many times I was asked that question while I was pregnant with my son last year.

It came from not only my sisters, who are fully black and darker than I am, but also from my husband and from me as we day-dreamed about what our beautiful boy would look like. ‘What colour do think his eyes will be?’ we’d enquire aloud. ‘Will his hair be darker or lighter?’

If it needs spelling out, no, I am not a racist black American, nor is the man who happened to marry me a racist Englishman.

Instead, we are parents, as my sisters were future-aunts, beyond excited to imagine who our bi-racial, multicultural child would look like.

So hearing Meghan Markle frame the questions about her son’s skin colour—however innocently intended—as racist ‘concern’ rather than harmless imagination made my skin crawl.

If you have seen a picture of Archie and you believe that he was ever the victim of anti-black racism, then I am a stranded Nigerian prince who needs you to send him your bank account details straight away.

She talks about that difference in attitude:

How is it that despite the British press having spent years covering my political commentary, and with at times deeply critical and mean-spirited attacks against my character, I have never interpreted such criticism as evidence of Britain’s inherent racism?

Maybe it’s because, through the school of hard knocks, I’ve come to accept that not every person is going to like me. I’m also perceptive enough to conclude that branding every person who dislikes me a racist might be the quickest way to ensure that I really am disliked.

Meghan does not seem to have worked through this equation just yet.

The difference in attitude is a choice. And Candace Owens has made the better one. I think Owens is a happier person than Meghan Markle. It’s not the color of skin that matters; it’s the toughness of skin. Owens has learned not to let herself be a victim. That’s admirable. Crying that being a princess is just too hard—that’s not admirable. If living a fairy-tale life leaves you miserable, you’re not living right.

As musician Zuby put it in a tweet:

Tweet passed along by Buck Sexton on

 

 

The Family Educational Relief Program

How do you lower costs while improving quality? Use the free market.

That is a straightforward, easy to understand concept. We’ve seen it work with phones, computers, and other technologies. It’s true for various services and products as well.

Combine that concept with this one we often say, about government’s role and its interference:

Whenever government attempts something beyond the proper role of government (protection of life, liberty, and property), it causes unintended consequences—usually exactly opposite to the stated goals of the interference.

Today we’ll apply the free market and getting government out of the way to education. If we can allow the free market to do its thing and innovate, we’ll get better quality education at lower cost—guaranteed better than government has been doing.

from the cover of Waiting for 'Superman'

We need to let go of the fear that says, “We can’t trust the free market with something so important to us.” No. We can’t trust government interference with something so important to us.

Isn’t education, though, a basic responsibility of government? Definitely not at the federal level; it isn’t an enumerated power in the Constitution and was never granted to the federal government. The fact that there is a federal Department of Education is a usurpation—a seizure of power not granted.

At the state level, at least in Texas, for better or worse it is written in the state constitution that the state will provide a free education to all students up through high school. So that means it has to be done.

How much did school closures due to
COVID-19 set Texas student's back?
Infographic from FamiliesEmpowered.org

But, if you lived through 2020, you know, better than you did before, that government doesn’t actually follow through on its promise to educate your children. And, when it doesn’t, it makes you pay for it anyway. For parents who have used an alternative method of educating their children—private school, homeschool, charter school—they’ve been aware of that inequity for a long time.

The Texas legislature is in session. That means (besides that our freedoms are in jeopardy), if we’re going to do something about this—following a year when public schools failed pretty spectacularly—this is the time.

My State Senator, Paul Bettencourt, filed bill SB 1968  last Friday, and later that day Representative Mayes Middleton filed the identical House companion bill, HB 4537. It is called the Family Educational Relief Program.

The bill looks to me to be similar to an Education Savings Account (ESA), although there are some differences. Arizona is noted for doing ESAs several years ago, limited to special education students. The parent would have the option of taking 90% of the amount allotted for the child, to be used in any combination of ways the parent sees fit. It’s similar to a medical savings account in that way. Only approved expenses could come out of the account. But the person manages their own funds.

The Texas bill isn’t aimed at special education students, but at special needs; namely low income. While it could be expanded in future years, as a pilot it is aimed at those whose incomes qualify them for federal free or reduced-cost lunches. Lack of choice harms low-income families’ children most.

There’s a Need

Texas educates approximately 5.5 million K-12 students, roughly 10% of the children in the US’s 50 states. 

A few years ago, we heard from Colleen Dippell, founder of FamiliesEmpowered.org, which specialized in helping families get access to charter schools. She told us in 2017 that there are 900,000 Texas students (almost 1 in 5) attending over 1,000 failing Texas schools—meaning the school didn’t meet the minimal yearly progress (a pretty low bar) for three years in a row.

One approach to solving that deficiency has been charter schools, which are growing ever more prevalent. But her estimate at that time was that there were 130,000 students on wait lists for charter schools. Charter schools simply can’t meet the demand. You might also note that there are multiple bills we have to oppose this session aimed at making it harder for a charter school to start or expand.

Meanwhile there are 100,000 empty seats in private schools.

There’s a demand. And there’s a supply. But they aren’t getting together.

Maybe it’s because the pent-up demand is coming primarily from low-income families who can’t afford to pay private school tuition, and the private schools can’t exactly provide education for free.

This bill uses money already being spent on those students and allows them to use it for private school tuition. It could also be used for online courses—of the parents’ choice, rather than what has been inflicted on them by their school districts during closed schools this past year. It can be used for curriculum, or therapies, or other materials as well.

 

What Are the Details?

If we use round numbers, we can say $10,000 is allotted per student per school year. Of that $10,000, 90% means $9,000 put into a trust for the student, with the parents as trustees, instead of the school district’s board of trustees.

The remaining 10% stays with the school district to pay maintenance and operations costs and loan interest. In other words, for every student in the program, the school district gets $1000 for a student they don’t have to educate. That means, the more students use the program, the higher per pupil spending the school district has. There’s incentive to let the students go into the program.

There are limitations. One is that the payments can’t go to a household member or relative (within three degrees of consanguinity). In short, homeschoolers can’t use it to pay one parent to teach, for example. But a homeschooling family can use it for curriculum, online programs, therapies, etc.

We homeschooled for ten years. Our total costs added up to much less than that for the entire decade, including field trips and camps. That was for all three children. In other words, all our expenses, barring of course loss of income from a second parent working, would be easily covered under this program.

If the account has money remaining at the end of the school year, it rolls over in the child’s account for the following year. That means there’s incentive for the parent to shop around and get a good deal—free market at work.

The Arizona version was arranged to roll over yearly and could eventually be used for college tuition. This Texas version also rolls over to each next year but is only available as long as the child is eligible for public school. That means it could be used for dual-credit courses at a community college, as we did with our kids by age 15 or 16. Or it could be used for university courses—in person or online. But, unlike the AZ plan, once the child graduates and is no longer eligible, any funds remaining return to the program fund for other students to use. That means there’s even incentive for the state to hope families use the fund, because the state educates those students with a possible rebate at the end.

What about parochial schools? Is that a problem? No, it isn’t. The Supreme Court recently ruled in a Montana case that money used by parents for the education type of their choice is not an establishment of religion when it goes to a parochial school; in fact, it would be an infringement on freedom of religion to bar that educational choice only for religious reasons. So that is now settled law.

 

What about Accountability?

Service providers and vendors must get pre-approval according to rules set by the Comptroller to participate (i.e., to get paid by a parent out of the child’s fund).

Private schools have to show notarized documentation related to following the rules, including the number that can be accommodated, safety measures at the location, etc., and would need to be accredited. Actually most private schools in Texas are unaccredited, so this is a limitation. Or it is incentive to get accredited. (Note: there is no correlation between accreditation and education quality.)

Private tutors, therapists, or teaching services must provide notarized documentation of their qualifications, licensing, current employment (when applicable), and criminal history.

Online course or program providers must show notarized documentation of their qualification to serve the students, accreditation, etc. Services and vendor types not listed must also provide evidence of qualification to serve.

In other words, it’s on the service providers to apply, and the Comptroller’s office to verify their validity, so the parent doesn’t have to.

Theoretically, if a parent wanted to use something not on the list, they could let that service provider about the program and suggest they apply. But otherwise the parents simply use those services already verified by the Comptroller. The state’s agent would post a list of approved service providers and vendors for parents to use.

While an education service provider may not charge a child participating in the program an amount greater or less than the provider’s standard amount charged for that service, a parent can choose to pay out-of-pocket for anything either not on the list or any cost beyond the limits of the student’s allotment. For example, in a market where this program is well established, it is likely private schools would work to make costs fit within the allotment; however, more expensive private schools can still be used, but the parent would pay anything over and above the allotment. This is still better than having to pay the full tuition over and above the taxes the parents pay the state without receiving any educational service from the state.

 

Where Does Funding Come From?

image found here

The Comptroller allots money for the program. The amount allotted is the only limitation on how many students could participate. Funds come from the state's education funding and also from grants, gifts, and donations as well as from additional general funds the Comptroller may put toward the program.

About those grants, gifts, and donations: A company wishing to donate could make a tax-deductible gift to the program. Even better, it could apply for a tax credit—up to half the entity’s estimated tax payment could be allotted to this program. (This comes under Chapter 230, Subsection B, which is longer and more technical than I want to go into here.) This would actually increase funds going to education without raising more tax revenue to do so.

A small percentage of the student’s allotment (no more than 3% of any of four payments or a total of 5% annually) goes to the Comptroller’s office for administering the program.

No Curriculum Interference: Another good feature is that the Comptroller’s office has a hands-off approach to curriculum; it only handles the funding. If the TEA or Commissioner of Education were handling the fund, they would no doubt attempt to control what is taught and how, which kind of defeats a main purpose of school choice.

There’s no federal money used, which means there’s no federal control over what is taught or how, or anything else to do with the program. That’s a definite plus. I think it also means, any education block grant to the state is divided up among students still in public schools, leaving more of any such funding to spread among fewer students—another incentive for public schools to support this program.

 

Any objections?

The people who have drafted this bill have decades of work and experience behind them, working toward school choice. They have addressed every objection opponents have voiced.

·         It particularly helps low-income students.

·         It does it without causing public schools to lose funding; it even increases their per student amount.

·         Vendors, service providers, and private schools are all held accountable—as are the parents serving as trustees of their child’s accounts.

It doesn’t address the opponents’ unvoiced objections—that they want to maintain control over what is taught, and that’s more important to them than actually providing an education to every student.

It’s voluntary. This is only for parents who are interested and involved in their children’s education. Uncaring parents don’t have to bother with it; they can leave their children right where they are.

 

It Introduces the Free Market

The most valuable thing about this program is that it introduces the free market into this tiny corner of what has been a failing government monopoly. Free market, once introduced, is likely to grow. That is likely to lead to innovation, which means better education at lower cost, something people have been saying couldn’t be done, even by adding obscene amounts of money. It can’t be done by government. But when government gets out of the way, and allows caring parents and the free market to see to education, the possibilities are unlimited.

If you’re in Texas, let your state senator and representative know you support the Family Educational Relief Program. If you’re outside of Texas, let your representatives know about it and ask them to do something similar in your state.

Go Ahead and Party: or The Two Weeks That Stretched into a Year, Part III

Our current occupant of the White House made his first actual public address last Thursday, for about 20 minutes. Among the words he read to us, he told us that, if we’re good little children, and have our vaccinations in the next month or two, then, maybe, by the 4^th or July we can consider getting together with close family who also have their vaccinations, maybe outside, and to be safe wear masks:

Because here's the point, if we do all this [get vaccinated], if we do our part, if we do this together, by July the 4th, there's a good chance you, your families and friends will be able to get together in your backyard or your neighborhood and have a cookout and a barbecue and celebrate Independence Day.

That doesn’t mean large events with lots of people together, but it does mean small groups will be able to get together.

He added,

We need everyone to get vaccinated. We need everyone to keep washing their hands, stay socially distanced, and keep wearing the mask as recommended by the CDC.

So, if we get everyone vaccinated, we still need to keep washing our hands, stay socially distanced, and keep wearing masks. But if we do all that, we can be in the presence of other vaccinated people maybe by July 4^th?

image from Sen. Ted Cruz's Facebook page

Does this make sense?

If it were small pox—a much more dangerous disease—and you got vaccinated, would you wait an extra half a year to be around other people that are also vaccinated? If you’re my age, you got vaccinated for small pox as a small child. You didn’t have to quarantine for any time at all. You got to be around everybody right afterward, and the whole rest of your life (in this case, because the disease was eradicated; other vaccinations, like tetanus, may need a booster). Because that’s how vaccinations work. You might want to make sure you’re not exposed to the disease within a couple of days of the shot. Beyond that, you’re considered to be immune.

For this much less risky disease (not risk-free, but only likely to cause death in 1/10,000 people who are young and healthy), why the extra time?

Actually, they haven’t even made a case for getting the vaccine at all when the illness is so unlikely to cause death and is so treatable. In fact, people are starting to note that, if you’re in those younger healthier demographics, your risk of death by vaccine is considerably higher than your risk of death by the coronavirus. And the virus is treatable, while reaction to the vaccine is not.

image found here

Then there’s this other truth that seems to be forgotten: in most parts of the country, businesses were opened to at least partial capacity sometime early summer 2020, and have expanded since. Our church gatherings started at 50 during late summer and expanded to about 100 in the fall, assuming all other precautions are taken.

Small gatherings of up to 10 people were allowed almost everywhere, maybe even California.

While we Americans didn’t have many big gatherings (except maybe for BLM protests) all year, we were seeing our families, with some precautions. We had July 4^th with family last year. And birthdays. And Thanksgiving. And Christmas.

Now that many are vaccinated, we should be feeling even more free to do those things.

Vaccinated people—and people who have recovered from the illness in the past half year—should not have to wear masks (assuming masks actually work at all); they can neither get nor spread the virus. The only reason for them to social distance is to avoid spreading some other illness, like the common cold or the annual flu. We ought to get used to seeing people without masks and assuming they are immune—rather than assuming they care so little about others that they don’t care if they spread the illness.

Biden also said,

Listen to Dr. Fauci, one of the most distinguished and trusted voices in the world. He's assured us the vaccines are safe.

Fauci also just came out and said we don’t need 6 feet of social distancing; 3 feet is sufficient. Did science change? Or is he just throwing out whatever he thinks at the moment, the way he has been doing all along? I don’t think Dr. Fauci has been a trusted voice for a very long time.

Biden offered up this sort-of-sentence (I challenge you to diagram it):

Just as we were emerging from a dark winter into a hopeful spring and summer is not the time to not stick with the rules.

So much for clarity.

There was actually something in the speech I agree with—the words, anyway. He said,

Look, we know what we need to do to beat this virus. Tell the truth. Follow the scientists and the science.

Depending on the scientists, and whether politics has infiltrated, yes, I agree. And he emphasized with this anecdote:

Last summer, I was in Philadelphia, and I met a small-business owner, a woman. I asked her, I said, “What do you need most?”

I will never forget what she said to me. She said — looking me right in the eye, she said, “I just want the truth, the truth. Just tell me the truth.”

If only they would!

Despite the lack of truth, there are some things we know.

The estimate of 2.5 million dead was based on a radically flawed model; besides wildly exaggerating, it also assumed we would do nothing to protect ourselves.

The only way to eradicate the virus early on was to isolate every case. This wasn’t going to be possible, because, as we were told, there was a long period between exposure and onset of symptoms, and a person could possibly spread the virus for several days before the onset. Unless everyone locked down for longer than that contamination period, then the virus would still exist.

The loss of life due to shutting down the entire world for 2-3 weeks would be tremendous. It would mean shutting down hospitals and any other type of care. It would mean shutting down food supplies—and every other kind of supply. None of this “essential workers only.” You’d have to shut down all workers for that length of time, including treatment of those already ill with the virus.

If you can’t shut down the entirety of society, the shutdown has no expectation of eradicating the virus. And that means worldwide. There was a brief period in which New Zealand, an island nation, was able to isolate long enough to eradicate all cases. Done. But as soon as there was any contact with the rest of the world, cases started happening again.

In short, shutting down the entire world to beat the virus was never an option.

Remember, the purpose of the 2-3-week shutdown, begun exactly one year ago, was never to eradicate the virus; it was to “flatten the curve,” which meant to prevent the healthcare system from becoming so overwhelmed it would have to leave some people untreated.

We flattened the curve. But that, in itself, came at a cost—beyond the obvious costs to people’s businesses, and plans for other healthcare that they needed. It made eradicating the illness by natural means further away. It delayed herd immunity.

Herd immunity is the goal of vaccination: get enough people in the population to have antibodies so that the virus doesn’t easily find a new host to spread to. We could have done that months ago if we had:

·         Been accurate about the risks to the different population groups (age and other risk factors), which were known quite early on.

·         Protect those most at risk by limiting their possible exposure.

·         Allowed appropriate low-cost treatments from the beginning (they were actually known by 2005, but were being used by March, until, while continuing to research other treatments, possibly while also working toward a vaccine.

·         Taken good care of ourselves (diet, exercise, vitamin D and zinc levels, etc.)

·         Carried on with our daily lives without lockdowns or masks.       

If we had done that, our deaths would have been exponentially lower, and deaths to other causes (delayed care, suicide, etc.) would also have been lower. Extending the time to "flatten the curve" way beyond the original need magnified all the costs.

What we went through this year was not a necessary tribulation; it was imposed hardship by government seizing power while claiming it was all for our good.

tweet image passed along by Buck Sexton here

What we haven’t had is truth. And what we do not get—and will continue not to get—from this president and his ilk is truth.

He claimed the lie that we were hit with “a virus that was met with silence and spread unchecked, denials for days, weeks, then months.” Actually, while Democrats—him included—were deriding President Trump as xenophobic for closing travel from China, and were calling people to attend Chinese New Year celebrations in large downtown gatherings, President Trump set plans into action. He brought back manufacturing of PPE and critical supply chains, which shouldn’t have been sourced through our enemies in the first place (Obama/Biden administration), and gathered information and data, and spread information as we got it in daily briefings. Anything President Trump did went overnight from fearmongering to being in denial. Meanwhile the President put together Operation Warp Speed and set a goal to have a vaccine by the end of the year—years faster than any previous expectation. Pre-election Biden mockingly said it would take a miracle. The other night, he said,

The development, manufacture and distribution of vaccines in record time is a true miracle of science. It's one of the most extraordinary achievements any country has ever accomplished.

All of this was done prior to his administration, but he gives no credit where it is due. He announced on inauguration day that the previous administration had failed to even have a plan, and there was no promised vaccine—even though he had already had both doses himself.

By mid-December 130,000 people had received the vaccine, in “the biggest mass vaccination in US history.” 

President Trump’s team provided 20 million doses by the first week of January, plus 30 million more later in January, with a plan for an additional 50 million in February. That’s 100 million. Enough for 50 million to have both doses. I expect he had manufacturing underway and a rollout plan for March, rather than just halt everything. I think we can conservatively assume a million more for March. We credit 200 million to Trump, then. This is only two-thirds of the number of doses hoped for in early projections. But since the normal expectation at this point—and for several years hence—would be zero, let’s just admit it’s far better than nothing.

Biden claimed in his speech to have just ordered another 100 million, enough for 50 million more adults. He says it’s months ahead of schedule to have enough doses for every adult by the end of May. That’s about 241 million adults, or a total of 482 million doses. Doing the math, Trump provided 100 million, with plans for maybe that much more in March. Biden just added 100 million more, for April. That’s 300 million, leaving him just 182 million needed by May to reach the absolute maximum.

That, of course, is far more than is necessary—because not every adult is willing to get the vaccine. To get herd immunity totally from the vaccine (disregarding those who have immunity from getting the disease, and just lumping them in as if there aren’t any such people), you’d need 70% to get herd immunity. That’s about 170 million. So he really needs just an additional 40 million doses by the end of May. Considering that Trump’s original plan was for 300 million ASAP, it doesn’t look like the Biden administration is doing anything but saying, “Carry on.” Yet he says in his speech this is “months ahead of schedule.” Hmm.

Adult Population	70% to reach herd immunity	Doses needed	Doses provided or lined up by Trump administration: December-March	Doses by Biden administration: April	Additional needed: May
241 million	~170 million	340 million	200 million	100 million	40 million

 

There’s the additional lack of truth surrounding the relief package, creatively called the American Rescue Plan, that just passed. Each person gets $1400. But the $1.9 billion bill as a whole costs each person—I’ve seen estimates between $5,800 and $50,000. Any way you look at it, having someone take your money, give you back a pittance of it, and then insist you call them generous is just plain ludicrous. (Rep. Dan Crenshaw did a good parody of the situation, using the lower estimate.)

Biden claims this generous package will magically “cut child poverty in this country in half” and “create millions of jobs.” If you hadn’t stopped believing him long ago, you probably ought to get around to that now.

Who knows what he’ll say next time he’s allowed in front of a mic to read a teleprompter? But you can be pretty sure it won’t be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

In the meantime, unfortunately we must continue to distrust our government. To compensate, I suggest a party. With family and loved ones. And no masks. Invite the neighbors too. Do it for St. Patrick’s Day. And Easter. And Memorial Day. And Flag Day. And any birthdays that come up. Waiting until July 4^th is unnecessary and unthinkable.