Proposed panhandling ban Downtown | KXAN.com

Panhandling need to be banned all over the city and these tent cities in the woods need to be removed.  There are plenty of places for the homeless to go but they do not want to have to obey the rules of the places that are available to stay.

 

Proposed panhandling ban Downtown | KXAN.com.

Groups want council to change ordinance

Updated: Tuesday, 29 Sep 2009, 10:54 PM CDT
Published : Tuesday, 29 Sep 2009, 8:30 PM CDT

• Shannon Wolfson

AUSTIN (KXAN) – Several Downtown business and residential groups are asking the Austin city council to ban panhandling Downtown. The current ordinance only bans panhandling Downtown at night.

“I’m panhandled every day Downtown. I’m panhandled aggressively Downtown,” said Bill Brice, with the Downtown Austin Alliance.

The DAA, along with several Downtown churches and even the ARCH, support a Downtown ban. They have proposed a ban to the Austin city council which would prohibit any panhandling from 11th Street to the West Frontage road of I-35 and Cesar Chavez to San Antonio.

“I’d definitely be willing to consider that and I think we’re at the point now where we’re ready to have that conversation,” said Austin City Council member Chris Riley.
“Even social service providers have stepped up and said- we really need to do something about this because panhandling is really not serving the best interest of the folks who are getting money this way.”

Some groups, like the DAA, are concerned panhandlers are costing the city business.

“When people come here and they’re in unfamiliar surroundings, and they are asked for money, it’s very uncomfortable to them and we are very concerned about what that does to our visitor and convention economy,” said Brice.

No proposed changes to the ordinance have been drafted, but supporters hope the council will consider it sooner rather than later.

Dining in can help Texas out | KXAN.com

Dining in can help Texas out | KXAN.com.

2nd annual GO Texan Restaurant Roundup Week

Updated: Monday, 28 Sep 2009, 8:54 AM CDT
Published : Monday, 28 Sep 2009, 4:48 AM CDT

• Kate Weidaw

AUSTIN (KXAN) – Monday kicks off the second annual GO Texan Restaurant Round-Up Week .

More than 200 restaurants across the state and five in our area are taking part by buying and preparing foods that come from local producers.

“By supporting our local farmers and ranchers, ultimately we are putting money into the Texas economy, and we’ll see that money comes back to us in the long run,” said Joel Welch, executive chef with Kerby Lane Café .

Last year, the event was just one day, but since it was such a success, it will now go all week long.

Kerby Lane Café will have a special seasonal menu for customers to order from, and $1 from each item ordered goes to Caritas .

“And in turn, when they are buying them, we get to give to a local food bank – Caritas – in another way to give back,” said Allison Bright, Kerby Lane’s marketing director.

To see what restaurants are taking part click on this link .

CBO: Obamacare Cuts Your Medicare Benefits » The Foundry

CBO: Obamacare Cuts Your Medicare Benefits » The Foundry.

Posted September 23rd, 2009 at 1.02pm in Health Care.

President Barack Obama has promised Americans on multiple occasions that his health care plan would not cut benefits for Medicare enrollees. For example, on August 11th Obama promised: “I just want to be clear, again: Seniors who are listening here, this does not affect your benefits. This is not money going to you to pay for your benefits; this is money that is subsidizing folks who don’t need it.”

We pointed out at the time that Obama’s statement is simply not true. Yesterday, Associated Press reported:

The head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, told senators Tuesday that seniors in Medicare’s managed care plans would see reduced benefits under a bill in the Finance Committee.

The bill would cut payments to the Medicare Advantage plans by more than $100 billion over 10 years.

Elmendorf said the changes would reduce the extra benefits that would be made available to beneficiaries.

Heritage fellow Bob Moffit details just what the benefits are, including:

• prescription drug coverage
• preventive-care services
• coor­dinated care for chronic conditions
• routine physical examinations
• additional hospitalization
• skilled nursing facility stays
• routine eye and hearing examinations
• glasses and hearing aids

Moffit continues:

Medicare Advantage has several features that are superior to previous private health plan experiments: an improvement in financing and a greater level of market penetration and stability than Medicare Plus Choice. Most important, it gives senior and disabled citizens new and different private health plan options, more affordable care, and broader and better benefits, including care management programs and prescrip­tion drug coverage.
…
While these Medicare Advantage features are substantial improvements over traditional Medi­care, the next stage of reform must also make the total program affordable, modernize its insurance arrangements, and improve the delivery of medical services.
…
For future generations to be able to afford Medi­care, the program will have to be restructured and reformed. For that reform to be successful, Con­gress will have to reform the existing payment sys­tem and provide a fixed-contribution system of premium support, properly adjusted, for each ben­eficiary.

FT.com | Gideon Rachmans Blog | How Gaddafi upstaged Obama

FT.com | Gideon Rachmans Blog | How Gaddafi upstaged Obama.

How Gaddafi upstaged Obama

September 23, 2009 9:41pm

Approaching the UN today, I came across pro and anti-Gaddafi demonstrators. The “pros” were American members of the Nation of Islam, in their trademark suits and bow ties, who seemed to regard Gaddafi as “the leader of Africa”. The opposition was provided by real Libyans, protesting about human-rights abuses.

As it happens the UN General Assembly is currently being chaired by a Libyan diplomat, Ali Treki. He had insisted that all heads of state speak for no longer than 15 minutes. But he did not apply this to Gaddafi, who he introduced in neutral style as “king of kings and leader of the revolution.” The Libyan leader rambled on for some 96 minutes, reading off scraps of paper, and throwing the UN schedule into chaos.

Now clearly Gaddafi is going to get bad reviews in the morning papers here in the US. But I have to say that some of what he had to say made perfect sense. It is entirely true that the structure of the UN Security Council is anomalous and outdated (although it was perhaps a bit harsh to call it “the terror council”). Gaddafi’s analysis of why it is so hard to reform the council was also bang on the money – each time you suggest one country, you trigger a demand from the next one in the queue. (So if you suggest Germany, Italy jumps up and down.) And his proposed solution – a Security Council of regional organisations such as the EU, Asean, the African Union – sounded like an elegant way out. Gaddafi was even quite witty. I liked his comparison of the UN General Assembly to Speakers Corner in London; you can speak as much as you like, it is just that you will be ignored.  It must be admitted that there were also some pretty eccentric statements. Obama could probably have done without being called “our son Obama” by the colonel. (Is he still a colonel?) It was an odd forum in which to call for a fresh inquiry into the Kennedy assassination. And I’m not sure how many people will agree that the H1N1 flu virus is a military weapon.

But that’s the thing. Many of Gaddafi’s statements, which will be scorned in the West, actually probably resonate in the developing world. His views on the Security Council are widely shared. President Lula of Brazil said something not too dissimilair.

Still, there is no denying that Gaddafi makes a weird impression. He looks strangely youthful for a man who seized power in 1969 – but youthful in an eerie, articifical way that reminded me a bit of the late  Michael Jackson. He’s definitely had “work” done. But then that is true of a lot of people in New York.

FCCs Diversity Czar: White People Need to be Forced to Step Down So Someone Else Can Have Power | NewsBusters.org

FCCs Diversity Czar: White People Need to be Forced to Step Down So Someone Else Can Have Power | NewsBusters.org.

Tea Party Patriots | Contract FROM America

Tea Party Patriots | Contract FROM America.

Click on the above link to get to the Contract From America webpage and see how you can lend your voice to helping change the course of what is going on in our nation.

Constitutional Amendment Election, November 3, 2009 | SanAntonioTeaParty.org

Constitutional Amendment Election, November 3, 2009 | SanAntonioTeaParty.org.

There is a Texas Constitutional Amendment Election coming up on November 3, 2009. The San Antonio Tea Party encourages you to get informed on the issues and make your voice heard. Off year elections are notorious for low voter turnouts. So if you don’t want to wake up on November 4^th and say “How did that pass?” then you need to get involved.

Here are some important dates that Texas voters should be aware of:

Constitutional Amendment Election, November 3, 2009

First Day to Apply for Ballot by Mail:
September 4, 2009

Last Day to Register to Vote:
October 5, 2009 (moves to next business day, Monday)

First Day of Early Voting:
October 19, 2009 (17th day before election day falls on a Saturday, first day moves to next business day)

Last Day to Apply for Ballot by Mail:
(Received, not postmarked) October 27, 2009

Last Day of Early Voting:
October 30, 2009

What Proposition 1 Says:

HJR 132 (History of HJR 132)

“The constitutional amendment authorizing the financing, including through tax increment financing, of the acquisition by municipalities and counties of buffer areas or open spaces adjacent to a military installation for the prevention of encroachment or for the construction of roadways, utilities, or other infrastructure to protect or promote the mission of the military installation.”

What Proposition 1 Means:
(HJR 132)

HJR 132 would amend the constitution to authorize the legislature to allow a municipality or a county to issue bonds and notes to finance the purchase of buffer areas or open spaces adjacent to military installations. The buffer areas would be used to prevent encroachment or to construct roadways utilities, or other infrastructure to protect or promote the mission of the military installation. The municipality or county may pledge increases in ad valorem tax revenues for repayment of the bonds or notes.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the financing, including through tax increment financing, of the acquisition by municipalities and counties of buffer areas or open spaces adjacent to a military installation for the prevention of encroachment or for the construction of roadways, utilities, or other infrastructure to protect or promote the mission of the military installation.”

What Proposition 2 Says:

HJR 36-1 (History of HJR 36-1)

“The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for the ad valorem taxation of a residence homestead solely on the basis of the property’s value as a residence homestead.”

What Proposition 2 Means:
(HJR 36 – #1)

HJR 36 would amend the constitution to authorize the legislature to provide for the taxation of a residence homestead solely on the basis of the property’s value as a residence homestead, regardless of whether the property may have a higher value if it were used for other purposes.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for the ad valorem taxation of a residence homestead solely on the basis of the property’s value as a residence homestead.”

What Proposition 3 Says:

HJR 36-3 (History of HJR 36-3)

“The constitutional amendment providing for uniform standards and procedures for the appraisal of property for ad valorem tax purposes.”

What Proposition 3 Means:
(HJR 36 – #3)

HJR 36 would amend the constitution to require the legislature to provide for the administration and enforcement of uniform standards and procedures for appraisal of property for ad valorem tax purposes.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment providing for uniform standards and procedures for the appraisal of property for ad valorem tax purposes.”

What Proposition 4 Says:

HJR 14-2 (History of HJR 14-2)

“The constitutional amendment establishing the national research university fund to enable emerging research universities in this state to achieve national prominence as major research universities and transferring the balance of the higher education fund to the national research university fund.”

What Proposition 4 Means:
(HJR 14 – #2)

HJR 14 would amend the constitution to establish the national research university fund to provide a source of funding that will enable emerging research universities in this state to develop into major research universities. The amendment would require the legislature to dedicate state revenue to the fund and to transfer the balance of the existing higher education fund to the national research university fund. This amendment would further require the legislature to establish the criteria by which a state university may become eligible to receive and use distributions from the fund.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment establishing the national research university fund to enable emerging research universities in this state to achieve national prominence as major research universities and transferring the balance of the higher education fund to the national research university fund.”

What Proposition 5 Says:

HJR 36-2 (History of HJR 36-2)

“The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to authorize a single board of equalization for two or more adjoining appraisal entities that elect to provide for consolidated equalizations.”

What Proposition 5 Means:
(HJR 36 – #2)

HJR 36 would amend the constitution to authorize the legislature to allow for a single appraisal review board for two or more adjoining appraisal entities that elect to provide for consolidated reviews of tax appraisals.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to authorize a single board of equalization for two or more adjoining appraisal entities that elect to provide for consolidated equalizations.”

What Proposition 6 Says:

HJR 116 (History of HJR 116)

“The constitutional amendment authorizing the Veterans’ Land Board to issue general obligation bonds in amounts equal to or less than amounts previously authorized.”

What Proposition 6 Means:
(HJR 116)

HJR 116 would amend the constitution to authorize the Veterans’ Land Board to issue general obligation bonds, subject to certain constitutional limits, for the purpose of selling land and providing home or land mortgage loans to veterans of the state.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the Veterans ’ Land Board to issue general obligation bonds in amounts equal to or less than amounts previously authorized.”

What Proposition 7 Says:

HJR 127 (History of HJR 127)

“The constitutional amendment to allow an officer or enlisted member of the Texas State Guard or other state militia or military force to hold other civil offices.”

What Proposition 7 Means:
(HJR 127)

HJR 127 would amend the constitution to allow an officer or enlisted member of the Texas State Guard or other state militia or military force to hold other civil offices.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment to allow an officer or enlisted member of the Texas State Guard or other state militia or military force to hold other civil offices.”

What Proposition 8 Says:

HJR 7 (History of HJR 7)

“The constitutional amendment authorizing the state to contribute money, property, and other resources for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of veterans hospitals in this state.”

What Proposition 8 Means:
(HJR 7)

HJR 7 would amend the constitution to authorize the state to contribute money, property, and other resources for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of veterans’ hospitals in this state.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the state to contribute money, property, and other resources for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of veterans hospitals in this state.”

What Proposition 9 Says:

HJR 102 (History of HJR 102)

“The constitutional amendment to protect the right of the public, individually and collectively, to access and use the public beaches bordering the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico.”

What Proposition 9 Means:
(HJR 102)

HJR 102 would define what is a state-owned public beach. The public, individually and collectively, would have an unrestricted right to use and a right of ingress to and egress from a public beach. The amendment would authorize the legislature to enact laws to protect these rights.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment to protect the right of the public, individually and collectively, to access and use the public beaches bordering the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico.”

What Proposition 10 Says:

HJR 85 (History of HJR 85)

“The constitutional amendment to provide that elected members of the governing boards of emergency services districts may serve terms not to exceed four years.”

What Proposition 10 Means:
(HJR 85)

HJR 85 would amend the constitution to authorize the legislature to provide that members of the governing board of an emergency services district may serve terms not to exceed four years.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment to provide that elected members of the governing boards of emergency services districts may serve terms not to exceed four years.”

What Proposition 11 Says:

HJR 14-1 (History of HJR 14-1)

“The constitutional amendment to prohibit the taking, damaging, or destroying of private property for public use unless the action is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, a political subdivision of the State, the public at large, or entities granted the power of eminent domain under law or for the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property, but not for certain economic development or enhancement of tax revenue purposes, and to limit the legislature’s authority to grant the power of eminent domain to an entity.”

What Proposition 11 Means:
(HJR 14 – #1)

HJR 14 would amend the constitution to provide that the taking of private property for public use (“eminent domain”) is authorized only if it is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, its political subdivisions, the public at large, or by entities granted the power of eminent domain, or for the removal of urban blight. The amendment would prohibit the taking of private property for transfer to a private entity for the purpose of economic development or to increase tax revenues. The amendment would also limit the legislature’s authority to grant the power of eminent domain in the future unless it is approved by a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to each house.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment to prohibit the taking, damaging, or destroying of private property for public use unless the action is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, a political subdivision of the State, the public at large, or entities granted the power of eminent domain under law or for the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property, but not for certain economic development or enhancement of tax revenue purposes, and to limit the legislature ’s authority to grant the power of eminent domain to an entity.”

You can read the proposed amendments at the Texas Secretary Of States site:

Ballot Language and Order for the November 3rd, 2009, Constitutional Amendment Election:
http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/2009novballotlang.shtml

Explanatory Statements for the November 3rd, 2009, Constitutional Amendment Election:
http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/2009novballotexp.shtml

Rail line offers less, costs more I KXAN.com

Rail line offers less, costs more I KXAN.com.

 

Red Line also will offer fewer runs, fewer stops

Updated: Tuesday, 15 Sep 2009, 6:09 AM CDT
Published : Tuesday, 15 Sep 2009, 5:13 AM CDT

• Nanci Wilson

AUSTIN (KXAN) – It was supposed to begin runs in early 2008, but numerous delays have pushed the start date of the Capital Metro Red Line to well past this September.

According to Capital Metro’s proposed budget for next year, the Red Line, after numerous starts and stops, might leave the station in October. But when it’s up and running, Cap Metro said there will be fewer trains making fewer stops carrying what will be fewer passengers than what the transit agency has projected all along. The new Cap Metro budget, in fact, expects 23 percent fewer riders than the agency projected in last year’s budget.

KXAN News found those aren’t the only areas where Cap Metro’s projections are wrong. The numbers show the cost of running the rail system is at least $4 million more a year than the original estimate presented to voters five years ago. That sounds like a lot of money to long-time rail opponent Jim Skaggs.

“Their estimate was $2 million, and now they say $6.5 million. That doesn’t include all the costs. (It) doesn’t include a number of things they are going to be paying for,” Skaggs said. “You’re talking $5 or $6 million over their estimate, and you say that’s annually, spread that over 20 years, and you’re talking about pretty big dollars.”

On Election Night 2004, Austin voters approved Cap Metro’s plans to operate a 32-mile commuter rail line from Leander to downtown Austin. After a prior failed referendum on rail, local leaders were jubilant.

“It’s about vision, about our future, about dealing with population growth,” said mayor Will Wynn at the time. “Most say we’ve got to change the paradigm.”

But not everyone was celebrating, including Skaggs, who preferred road construction over a big-ticket transit system.

“As we go forward and Capital Metro falters in achieving what they promised, the public will know it’s not being accomplished,” Skaggs predicted at the time.

Fast-forward five years. At the time the 2004 election was held, Capital Metro sent a brochure to voters, detailing a modest bare bones project estimted to cot no more than $60 million. According to the literature, half of that original funding would come from local funds and half from federal matching dollars.

The election brochure also estimated an annual $5 million to operate the commuter rail line. That included leasing trains.

The $30 million in matching funds never materialized. In fact, Cap Metro admits the agency never applied for the funds. So what about that proposed $60 million start-up cost?

In a May 2007 letter to the community from Capital Metro President Fred Gilliam, Gilliam wrote, “In 2004, we projected the capital costs of our track improvements, maintenance facility, and stations to be $60 million. At the present time, we believe our final costs will be approximately $5 million lower. This lower cost includes the addition of the Union Pacific flyover bridge — a $6.9 million project — that was not included in the 2004 cost estimate…”

By 2009, however, Cap Metro has claimed a budget that has ballooned to $105 million. The agency, however, claims the $105 million tally includes other costs. The $60 million was the orginal capital costs. Add to that the cost of the rail cars, plus the flyover and maintenance facility, and the total now is up to $105 million.

But the records obtained under the public information act show even more costs. The $105 million doesn’t include more than $1 million paid to design a rail station it didn’t build. Nor does it include costs shifted to other Capital Metro programs. Neither the capital cost, nor the annual operating budget, account for the additional $7.9 million it eventually will cost to finance the rail cars.

That’s just the capital budget. What about that $5 million dollar annual operating cost originally promised? That total no longer includes the annual $4.4 million in lease-purchase payments. Now that it no longer includes the yearly $4.4 million in lease/purchase payments, the budget should drop dramatically.

But records show MetroRail’s operating cost for this year, however, is expected to be more than $6.5 million, and the proposed budget for next year is an estimated $6.6 million.

“Well, as you develop these projects, you make estimates of what things are going to cost five years in the future, and to be on a budget of more than $4 million on out of how many millions of dollars on an annual budget, I think you’re getting into levels of detail that probably aren’t accurate to be focused on,” said Doug Allen of Capital Metro.

But, still, $4 million can buy a lot of stuff. And when you multiply that by 20 years, this additional cost bump is more than the original estimated cost to start up the 32-mile commuter rail line.

“The bigger picture here that you need to hopefully look at is that what was represented to the public was a low-cost rail system using the infrastructure we had, and that the operating costs was going to be in this neighborhood,” Allen said. “What’s being delivered is

a higher quality system for essentially the cost that we said it would cost.”

 

 

« Previous Page|1|2Next Page »

Universal School Choice Prevails – For Sweden » The Foundry

Universal School Choice Prevails – For Sweden » The Foundry.

Posted September 14th, 2009 at 11.28am in Education.

In socialist Sweden, universal school choice allows every parent to choose the best school for their child. The voucher program, which has been in effect since 1992 and was created to tackle the kind of problems plaguing the U.S. educational system, provides families with the opportunity to send their child to any type of school they like – public, private, religious, or even for-profit. Stuart Butler, Heritage Vice President of domestic policy studies, explains in Washington Times:

These independent schools, like the public schools, get a voucher payment for each child. They compete vigorously with one other because the money follows the child to the school of his or her choice. Schools must satisfy their customers … or lose them.

While schools must adhere to the Swedish national curriculum and testing, they are free to design their own programs and implement any teaching style they see fit. This arrangement has led to high levels of satisfaction among parents as well as a thriving private school market: 

The growth of the competing private sector has been dramatic. Before the voucher program, less than 1 percent of Swedish children attended private schools. Now it is 10 percent. At the senior high school level, it is 20 percent. About one in five Swedish schools is now private, and roughly 10 percent of the private schools are church-based.

Swedes have somehow managed to do what the United States has been unable to do – placate the teachers unions, which vociferously oppose school choice. But while socialist Sweden has provided families with the opportunity to receive the best education possible for their children, lawmakers here at home shamefully deny such opportunity to American children. Butler concludes:

But it is ironic – and embarrassing – that if the 216 low-income D.C. children now effectively being barred from going to private school lived in socialist Sweden, they would be able to exercise choice in a free-market school system.

Lance Izumi of the Pacific Research Institute also highlights some of the logistics of the Swedish voucher system in a video op-ed in the New York Times. “We implemented competition in education…anybody can use their voucher to choose any school,” states Peter Fyles, CEO of Internationella Engelska school.

The universal school voucher system has worked beautifully in Sweden, providing families with choice and children with educational opportunity. If President Obama and Education Secretary Duncan want to stay true to their promise to do “what works” in education, Sweden certainly provides an effective template. 

Beware of Obama’s Healthcare Trickery

Beware of Obama’s Healthcare Trickery.

Monday, September 14, 2009 3:29 PM By: Ernest Istook

When their direct path is blocked, politicians often resort to chicanery.   That approach is evident in the healthcare debate.   Political tricks like legislative “triggers” and putting a “co-op” label on government-run insurance are just two of the gimmicks to beware. Another deceptive practice is to claim a measure is deficit-neutral (or “won’t add a dime to the deficit”), then resort to cutesy book keeping to claim the promise has been kept, when it hasn’t.   Trick plays are fun in football, but not in politics. It’s real life, not a game.   The trigger   Let’s start with the trigger. The gun imagery is apt because it’s like being threatened with a gun at your head. The warning is that unless something happens — or fails to happen — the trigger will be pulled.   And it’s those who wield the weapon who decide for themselves whether to fire.   So the notion that we won’t have a government-run public option for healthcare “unless X happens” is a way to give more power to those who hold the weapon. Is it unless total healthcare spending matches some arbitrary number? Unless the number of uninsured reaches a threshold? Those numbers can be juggled and adjusted to match a political agenda. The key condition might as well be “unless the sun comes up tomorrow.” It’s arbitrary nonsense.   The notion of a trigger is just a cute legislative trick for politicians to shift and dodge blame for a program they establish.   The co-op   There’s nothing wrong with a good private sector co-op, whether it’s to buy health insurance or to run a granary. These groups have a long and good history in America. But slapping a misleading label on a government program is also a long-time and dishonorable practice. As The Heritage Foundation’s Stuart Butler says, “If it walks like a duck. . . . And if it has all the characteristics of a public plan option then it is a public plan option. “There would be federal legislation to design a new form of national or regional co-op and set rules for how these would be run. There would be yet another federal board (presumably with yet another czar) to keep a close eye on them and to make sure they remember who is in charge. And billions of dollars in federal money to keep them tied to Washington. In short, a public plan with a co-op veneer.” As concluded in a Heritage report, “Cooperatives must be voluntary, open to individuals who choose to freely join together without coercion or restraint, and controlled by its members, not the government; . . . viable on their own and must not receive anti-competitive government support in any form including assumption of risk, “start-up” capital, or continuous subsidies to the organization.” Fortunately, some on the left are skeptical about co-ops also. Former Democrat National Chairman Howard Dean is one such doubter, as is Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., who says, “You might as well talk about unicorns . . . I think this co-op is just a way of ducking the issue of having the public plan.”   Deficit neutral   The Associated Press did a quick article to fact-check Obama’s big speech to Congress, including his claim that his plan “won’t add a dime to the deficit.”   Obama flunked the test. In fact, because federal bookkeeping is such a mess, politicians can pick and choose from a variety of budget analyses. If they don’t like the version from the Congressional Budget Office, they can get different numbers from the Government Accountability Office, or the Office of Management and Budget, or the White House Council of Economic Advisors. Or they could pick a different arbitrator. Or create a special group that would give them whatever number they want. Ultimately, they’ll find one to use to claim they’ve kept a promise about spending.   But here’s what the AP story said: “. . . the White House and congressional Democrats already have shown they’re ready to skirt the no-new-deficits pledge. House Democrats offered a bill that the Congressional Budget Office said would add $220 billion to the deficit over 10 years. But Democrats and Obama administration officials claimed the bill actually was deficit-neutral. They said they simply didn’t have to count $245 billion of it.”   The notion that government can expand health coverage to provide a greater variety of treatments, tests, and checkups, extend it to a larger group of people, and not raise costs, just doesn’t pass the common-sense test. Ask anybody in Tennessee, where the TennCare state program found costs for the first 10 years were triple the projection and wound up consuming one-third of the state budget. It reminds me of an e-mail I received that says:   “The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775 — you have had 234 years to get it right; it is broke.    “Social Security was established in 1935 — you have had 74 years to get it right; it is broke.    “Fannie Mae was established in 1938 — you have had 71 years to get it right; it is broke.    “The “war on poverty” started in 1964 — you have had 45 years to get it right; . . . it hasn’t worked and our entire country is broke.    “Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 — you’ve had 44 years to get it right; they are broke.    “Freddie Mac was established in 1970 — you have had 39 years to get it right; it is broke.”  Whether the latest claim is a trigger, a co-op, deficit neutrality, or any other gimmick, the underlying truth is that our government has a good track record of making promises but an awful track record of keeping them. Butler, of The Heritage Foundation, has a simple suggestion for everyone who claims we’re going to save money with a healthcare overhaul: “Bank the savings before you spend them.” That would be refreshing, to require a government program to prove it works before we use its projected benefits to justify higher spending right away. For once, that would not be a gimmick.   Ernest Istook served 14 years as a U.S. Congressman from Oklahoma. He is a distinguished fellow at The Heritage Foundation.