Speaker John Boehner is engaged in an epic struggle to pass some sort of compromise plan to raise the debt ceiling while cutting spending, moving forward with desperation and a certain amount of bullying to push through a plan which has now been modified and reduced to the point where it can only be described as absurd. Feeling the pressure from the endless fearmongering of President Obama and Timothy Geithner, Boehner seems to have gone off the rails with a plan which actually offers fewer cuts than the Democrats and no spending cap at all.

It’s a very heated issue in which some of the facts are being lost, so let me straighten them out.

Boehner’s Plan

Boehner’s current proposal is being described in some quarters as an increase in cuts from his earlier proposals, but in fact the cuts included are bizarrely inadequate. The plan currently includes $1.2 trillion in cuts over 10 years with another $1.8 trillion in unspecified cuts to be implemented by a special committee at some point in the future, in exchange for a $2.7 trillion increase in the debt ceiling.

There are a number of problems with this proposal.

The first phase of cuts only comes out of discretionary spending and all cuts to entitlements are left to the bipartisan committee at some future date. Whether this committee or its cuts will ever happen is highly debatable when the balance in Congress shifts next year and plans get rewritten.

The cuts are spaced out over a 10 year period, amounting to only $300 billion a year, and with more than half the cuts still in abeyance, the real cuts in the first year are only $120 bilion or likely even less. In fact, the way the cuts are structured the cuts in the next year may be as low as $6 billion. And because the cuts are not enough to offset increases in debt just from interest, spreading them out over 10 years means that they will be outpaced by debt increase and never come close to catching up. Ten years of small cuts to offset an immediate debt limit increase only works if there are not more debt limit increases down the road, and with cuts so small further increases are unavoidable.

The total cuts over a 10 year period, assuming even the entitlement cuts happen is less than the proposed budget deficit for the next two years, leaving 8 years worth of further debt increase in the next 10 years adding up to an increase of almost $10 trillion in the national debt. So the net result of the plan is a massive increase of the debt, not any real reduction.

The current Boehner plan also includes no provision to pass a strong Balanced Budget Amendment as a prerequisite to any debt limit increase. Every Republican in the House and Senate signed on to the Cap, Cut and Balance pledge and Boehner’s plan fails to meet its requirements. It also puts no caps on federal spending except for discretionary spending which makes up about a third of the budget.

Boehner’s plan is so bad that Sen. Harry Reid can actually make an argument that his proposed plan has more real cuts than Boehner’s does, because Reid’s plan includes substantial cuts to military spending and more overall cuts per year. It still results in a huge net increase in spending, and it raises taxes on those who already shoulder most of the tax burden, but in total it’s just a different bad plan, not really any worse than Boehner’s.

The Fearmongering

Perhaps the biggest lie in this whole melodrama is the claim coming from the White House and from Tim Geithner that the US will default and have our credit rating downgraded next Tuesday if we don’t raise the debt ceiling. These claims are nothing but an irresponsible intimidation tactic.

As Senator Rand Paul eloquently points out, and as I explained in detail in a previous article, there is absolutely no need to default on our debt if the debt ceiling is not raised. By prioritizing spending we can easily meet the requirements to servie the debt and provide for entitlements out of incoming revenue and we could probably keep doing that for 6 or 8 more months before it became a real problem.

Of course, this would put a lot of pressure on the administration because Obama and Geithner would be the ones who would have to make those spending decisions and they would get the blame for cutting subsidy programs, furloughing federal workers, closing down national parks and the other small short-term austerity measures necessary to meet obligations. They’d rather scare us with empty threats than admit the truth that we’re broke and need to tighten our belts – even in the federal government.

The other big lie here is that raising taxes on the “wealthiest among us” will actually solve the problem. If we were to raise taxes substantially on the top 1% of earners that would not be enough to balance the budget. Even raising taxes to the 70% rate of the Reagan era – almost double the current rate – would only raise about $300 billion more a year at a huge cost to the economy. So when Obama talks about raising taxes on the rich, he’s mostly making an argument for a symbolic act of class warfare.

What they also don’t point out is that we’re just as likely to have our credit rating downgraded if either of the current proposals passes. Because both Boehner’s and Reid’s plans are so inadequate they don’t represent the kind of real solution to the long term debt problem which international credit agencies are looking for, so they’re really worth nothing at all.

Real Solutions

The reality is that we need to put all this bickering aside and pass a real plan which actually addresses this problem in a substantive way. We’re not getting out of this mess without major cuts and a real cap on spending along with some policy changes which will spur economic growth.

• Pass a Balanced Budget Amendment and cap spending at a level tied to a percentage of GDP like the 18% proposed in the Cap, Cut and Balance pledge. Only by capping future spending can you make long-term cuts offset short term debt increases.

• Make cuts equal to or greater than any increase in the debt limit and make them take effect more quickly so that they reduce debt faster than interest increases it. A minimum of $600 bilion a year for 5 years would be a responsible proposal. And to do this you would need to go beyond the Boehner proposal to go after both military spending and entitlements. Just ending our current foreign deployments would take care of most of these cuts.

• If a tax increase is what it takes to get President Obama on board for real cuts, then let him have an increase of 10% on those earning in the top 1% (over $380 million a year), but offset that increase with a 10% cut in capital gains, which would have a great stimulative effect on the economy.

• Do the only thing which will really spur the economic growth which will get us out of a recession relatively painlessly. Cut corporate taxes. They don’t bring in that much money and that revenue is going down as companies offshore to avoid what is now the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Cut the rate substantially or eliminate all corporate taxes so that they will come to the US as a tax haven instead of fleeing and taking jobs and money out of the country with them. Short of lowering wages – which is not at all popular – cutting taxes on businesses is the easiest way to create jobs and grow the economy.

At this point the melodrama surrounding this issue is becoming embarrassing. Real problems need real solutions, not pandering, fearmongering and passive-aggressive walkouts on negotiations. Boehner, Reid, Geithner and Obama need to start acting like grown-ups, make serious proposals and work out compromises which give up more than either side wants for the good of the people and the nation.

This article appeared previously on Blogcritics Magazine.

Republican Liberty Caucus of Virginia Endorses Patricia Phillips in Senate District 33

June 19 (Fairfax, VA) – The Republican Liberty Caucus of Virginia announced its endorsement of Patricia Phillips today in her race for the Senate of Virginia in District 33. She has the Republican nomination in hand, and will face incumbent Democratic Senator Mark Herring in November.

Virginia RLC Secretary Rob Kenyon observed: “Patricia‟s dedication to federalism and liberty will be a breath of fresh air in the Senate, a body that desperately needs it. She‟s also a longtime advocate of good stewardship of taxpayer dollars, as evidenced by her opposition to the Dulles Metrorail boondoggle, and the effective selling off of the Dulles Toll Road, for example. Patricia will also be a voice in Richmond against unconstitutional federal mandates like the Affordable Care Act, and understands the duty of the state government to interpose itself in such cases.”

Phillips will represent a change from “business as usual‟ in the Senate of Virginia, and a welcome contrast to the unmitigated disaster that is incumbent Mark Herring’s votes for big government. The Republican Liberty Caucus of Virginia and its Board of Directors is proud to offer its endorsement to Patricia Phillips.

The Virginia RLC was founded in 2007 and has formal chapters in northern Virginia and central Virginia. Members meet periodically to discuss issues, lobby, and endorse candidates.

One of the serious problems facing the Republican Party is that their leadership cadre is aging and ossifying. The people who make up the county and state committees all over the country are getting older and older and increasingly out of touch with the grassroots of the party and the younger people who vote Republican but aren’t at all satisfied with what the party has come to stand for or the way that it is run.

The party desperately needs new blood and younger leaders who can relate to young voters. Yet it’s awfully hard to get the entrenched blue-hairs to open their fists and share a little power, and even when they do they often aren’t comfortable with the results. Young people want to actually do things and stand up for principles and make the party dynamic and effective and for people who are set in their ways and just want to do the same things that have produced mediocre results for years, that’s threatening.

A classic example of this conflict between the dinosaur elite and the younger generation who want to make the GOP an effective party and a party to be proud of is now on display in Tucson Arizona. Last year they elected as Chairman a young Air Force veteran who had just concluded an unsuccessful run for Congress. 36 year old Brian Miller seemed to be the model of what the party leaders were looking for in a younger Republican to join their ranks. He was younger but not too young and had a military background they could admire, plus he was articulate and had already showed his political commitment by running for office.

For a few months it looked like the Pima County GOP was going to move forward and do great things under Miller’s leadership. Then came the horrendous death of Jose Guerena at the hands of the Pima County Sheriff’s Department SWAT Team. Guerena was a decorated Marine Corps veteran of the Iraq War who was gunned down unnecessarily in a bizarrely excessive SWAT raid on his home in which he fired no shots and was shot 22 times.

The incident became an international scandal. Miller was understandably outraged by the situation and sent out an email as Pima County Republican Chairman objecting to the tactics used by the police in the raid, writing “It is my hope that this tragic event will lead to a renewed discussion of the policies that routinely lead to heavily armed and militarized local police invading private homes and a renewed interest in the civil liberties codified in our Bill of Rights.”

Miller continued to be personally outspoken about the need for an investigation and accountability in the case, not saying anything much different than the criticisms of the raid in local and national news media, but this began to rankle some members of his County Republican Executive Committee who like many older Republicans subscribe to a law and order mentality which assumed that whatever the police did was right because they were the good guys and anyone they went after was automatically guilty by assumption.

Miller disagreed, citing things like the rule of law and due process and the Bill of Rights, but that didn’t mean much to his critics who accused him of causing “division and chaos” and that his statements “created serious problems for our elected officials.” The Executive Committee board issued a statement condemning their own Chairman and ultimately demanded his resignation. When he refused they voted 10-2 to effectively suspend him as chairman pending a vote of the entire County Executive Committee on the issue of removing Miller from office. That vote would require a 2/3 majority and is scheduled for tonight.

Miller has been waging a quiet campaign to build support for his position in the several weeks leading up to this vote. He has sworn not to give up without a fight. The outcome of the vote is by no means certain, because as is the case in many county parties nationwide the rank and file precinct chairs are a much more diverse than the established leadership and also tend to be younger. With a 2/3 majority required to oust Miller the vote will likely be very close.

Miller has described the campaign against him as a “political witchhunt” and that some on the board are “avenging old political scores.” It seems quite likely that outrage against Miller’s statements in some quarters are being used by others to advance their desire to regain control of the party leadership.

This specific situation is troubling, but what is more worrisome is what it says about the current state of the Republican Party at a key organizational level. This problem is not isolated and it is not unique. It is something the party will need to come to terms with if it is to survive. It is unhealthy to suppress the next generation of leadership and alienating Republicans who want to be involved from the party leadership is a sure formula for disaster.

It’s a particularly ugly situation because in this case Miller was just speaking up for principles which he grew up believing were what the Republican Party stood for. The party claims that it champions civil liberties, human life and keeping the government off of our backs. The preamble to the Arizona Republican Party Platform says:

“…the citizens of our great state might blossom under
new freedoms borne from less government regulation; and, the prosperity of a society that shall one day come to recognize fully the value of life, the value of each individual, the value of responsibility, the value of the rule of law, and the value of personal dignity.”

Those are the kinds of values the Republican Party is supposed to stand for. In his statements about the Guerena case Brian Miller was clearly concerned about those very issues, justifiably angry that Guerena was deprived of life and dignity and his individual rights in violation of the rule of law and the kind of responsibility we should expect of our government and its agents.

Miller merely asked his fellow Republicans to stand up for the values they claim to believe in and that got him labeled a traitor.  What kind of message does that send to the other young Republicans around the country who might want to get involved in the party?  What kind of party is represented by that kind of hypocrisy?

More and more it has become clear that we have two Republican Parties in the United States.  One is dedicated to principles and one is dedicated to holding on desperately to status and position and failed ideas.  The party of principles is the party which Brian Miller spoke for which he spoke up for Jose Guerena.  That’s the Republican Party I want to be part of.

This article appeared previously on Blogcritics Magazine

When a virtual army of RLC endorsees including Senators Jim DeMint, Rand Paul, Pat Toomey and Mike Lee plus Congressmen like Jeff Flake and Ron Paul are all backing something you know it has to be a good idea and an important statement for smaller and more responsible government. While some congressional leaders like Sen. Mitch McConnell seem ready to sell out to the Obama administration’s demands for more taxes and spending, responsible leaders with principle are promoting the “Cap, Cut and Balance” pledge.

With the US facing an unavoidable debt crisis, we’re not going to be able to balance the budget and revitalize our economy on the backs of taxpayers or with superficial cuts in a few programs or cuts put off over long periods of time. We need real and substantial cuts now, including an end to our unnecessary wars, restructuring of entitlement programs and a program by program audit of every aspect of the federal government.

Faced with demands to raise the debt limit without implementing needed cuts, fiscal conservatives in Congress are signing the new “Cut, Cap and Balance” pledge which follows the guidelines of the Republican Study Committee and demands real and immediate cuts, enforceable spending caps, and Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.

As proposed by the Republican Study Committee, Cut, Cap, and Balance entails:

* Cut – Immediate spending cuts to reduce the deficit by half next year. According to March projections from the Congressional Budget Office, this would require spending cuts of approximately $380 billion in the 2012 fiscal year.
* Cap – Statutory, enforceable caps that bring spending into line with average revenues at 18% of GDP. Reps. Kingston and Mack have each introduced legislation that would ratchet total federal spending down to 18% of GDP over the course of 5-6 years.
* Balance – House and Senate passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that includes a spending cap at 18% of GDP and a supermajority requirement for tax increases. The House Judiciary Committee and all 47 GOP Senators have endorsed Balanced Budget Amendments along these lines.

You can show your support by signing the pledge too at www.cutcapbalancepledge.com.

And please help support our efforts to promote liberty issues and reform the Republican Party by joining the RLC today or by making a donation.

Yesterday the RLC created a Presidential Endorsements Committee under RLC At-Large Board member Aleq Boyle.

The goals of the committee are to review presidential candidates, take member input, and make recommendations on what actions — if any — to take moving forward.

The RLC has not endorsed any presidential candidate since 1996, when we endorsed Steve Forbes.

Our Bylaws purposefully make it difficult to endorse a candidate for president of the United States and the RLC has traditionally focused on state and local races instead.

Rule 5.D. of the RLC Bylaws states, “Candidate for President of the United States may be endorsed by the Caucus by a 2/3 vote of the active and voting Chartered state’s executive committees. The national Secretary shall notify all Chartered states of a favorable national board proposal for endorsement and state executive officers shall inform the Secretary of the approval or denial by their executive committee within 60 days.”

The chairman of the committee, Mr. Boyle, has more than 20 years of experience in GOP politics. You may contact him if you are interested in providing feedback to the committee.

Only RLC members’ opinions are valued in this process, so please join our organization if you have not yet done so.

Questioning the modern welfare state’s wisdom or solvency is the most effective way to irritate those of a liberal political orientation. Raising doubts about its constitutionality at the federal level is something no Democratic candidate or loyal rank and file voter would ever be caught engaging in. The identity of the modern American left is distinctly defined by a no-questions-asked embrace of federal money for allegedly charitable purposes.

Most conservatives are excellent at outlining the ways our system for helping the needy is gamed and taken advantage of. They are also accurate when stressing the role of churches and individuals in helping the downtrodden; generosity is more honorable when done voluntarily and not due to an implicit threat from the IRS. But what frequently goes unasked is whether conservatives have become equally uncritical when it comes to the parts of government they hold no aversion toward.

Newly elected Tea Party Senator Rand Paul recently stated that “Many Republicans treat war like Democrats treat welfare,” shedding light on a glaring deficiency in conservative critique of the states’ growth. While they are spot on in analyzing federal welfare’s potential to erode social mores, this suspicion is absent when it comes to the claims government makes about war and foreign policy.

Conservatives once prided themselves on jealously guarding America’s sovereignty and stressing only judicious overseas intervention. When Ronald Reagan was faced with the 1983 killing of 241 Marines in Beirut, he decided to pull the troops out instead of further enmeshing his nation in difficult to comprehend Arab internal politics. No fear-tinged lectures were given about “Surrender” or “Cowardice”; Republican stalwarts like Reagan instinctively understood the distinction between protecting America and wasting taxpayer dollars in a part of the world we share little in common with.

But many of those who embrace the neoconservative philosophy heap outright scorn on Republicans who would exhibit these characteristics today. When John McCain derided as “isolationist” anyone who opposes the Libyan bombing campaign, he was using logic that flew in the face of the Republican tradition of foreign policy realism alive as recently as the George H. W. Bush years. But fortunately the Arizona senator is becoming a minority in his own party.

Most Republicans readily acknowledge domestic government intervention causes unintended consequences such as unemployment and inflation. But frequently overlooked is that American overseas intervention, no matter how noble it sounds in the abstract, often holds the same potential for unforeseeable outcomes. Conservatives like Robert Taft and Reagan understood this, backing use of the military that was reserved for constitutionally prescribed national defense purposes only.

This traditional Republican foreign policy is slowly coming back into style. Nation building and democracy spreading experiments no longer elicit enthusiasm among conservatives; trillion dollar deficits and an ultra-hawkish left wing president have helped reignite a desire to see a small government footprint at home and abroad. Any conservative hoping to establish their debt-shrinking prowess must now put Pentagon spending on the table next to the litany of federal handouts.

Any Republican who questioned overseas expenditures was sure to be banished to the conservative ghetto during the all war, all the time Rumsfeld/McCain era of GOP dominance. Today, with a debt-concerned and war weary public, asking these same questions might just mean a seat in the Oval Office.

[UPDATE 8/10/11 -- Florida's 4th District Court of Appeals rule today IN FAVOR of county term limits. Thanks to the Broward County attorney's office and all the RLCers and others who rallied behind their voter-approved term limits laws!] In Palm Beach County, two county commissioners – Burt Aaronson and Karen Marcus, a Democrat and a Republican -- have announced they intend to defy 70% of the voters by running again in 2012 in spite of a voter-approved and initiated term limits law. RLCers and others are not taking this news sitting down. Citizens – including RLCers Rick Shepherd, Bill Skinner and George and Philip Blumel – met on Monday to plan a response. The meeting, called just two days before, drew over 20 activists, most veterans of the successful campaign to impose term limits in 2002. Earlier this year a new local website was launched to track this issue, www.pbctermlimits.com. At Monday’s meeting, activists raised some Monday and decided to buy ads in local media and start a 93,000 home robocall informing voters of the commissioners’ intentions and directing them to the website. A poll has been created on the site, allowing readers to weigh in on the controversy. Palm flyers were created for distribution at public places and citizens are encourage to participate in the current charter review process, calling for retention and defense of the people’s term limits law. On Thursday, Philip Blumel spoke to the Palm Beach County Young Republicans and distributed the flyers. The goal of the so-far unnamed group is to educate voters about the law and discourage Marcus and Aaronson from running against the clearly expressed will of the people. Both commissioners are pinning their hopes on a legal challenge to the Broward County term limits law, but the citizens committee is echoing the Palm Beach Post’s call for commissioners to stand down in accord with the clearly expressed will of the people. The term limits law is typical of those in home rule charter counties throughout the state. It imposes an 8-year consecutive term limit and passed with 70% of the voter. Activists collected over 60,000 petition signatures to put the idea on the ballot for a vote. The term limits went into affect in 2010. In the eight-year period before the limits went into effect, four members of the commission have been indicted and three have gone to prison for corruption.

To the dismay of many Texans and of civil libertarians nationwide, after a dramatic struggle this week, the Texas legislature’s special session ended on a sour note with the defeat of Rep. David Simpson’s bill opposing invasive TSA searches of airline passengers.

The failure of the bill was made considerably more bitter by the underhanded tactics by which a tiny faction of the House leadership scuttled the bill against overwhelming support from both parties and the public. With all of the hard work put into promoting the bill by grassroots groups, its defeat under questionable circumstances has redirected anger originally aimed only at the TSA to political leaders in Texas, particularly House Speaker Joe Straus.

The story of how such a widely supported bill could end up not being passed is an object lesson of how easily the will of the people can be subverted by those who value power over principle.

During the regular legislative session Rep. Simpson’s anti-groping bill made it through the House of Representatives by unanimous acclamation . It was passed out of committee and onto to the floor of the Senate where it was set to pass when the TSA stepped in and lobbied against it and the Department of Justice issued a letter threatening to close Texas airports if it passed. This lead Lt. Governor David Dewhurst to apply his influence to get the bill which was minutes from passing pulled from the floor.

As the inevitable special session approached, Senator Dan Patrick and other supporters convinced the governor to come on board and support the bill and agree to sign it if they could get a pledge from a majority of the members of the House and Senate to support it. This would let them fast-track the bill through both houses and to the governor for his signature quickly without unduly delaying other legislation.

They got the votes. They notified the Governor’s office that they had the votes and they asked the Governor to call the bill for the special session. Governor Perry was out of town doing a pre-presidential tour and when confronted by a citizen journalist and asked about the bill he said that he was not aware that the necessary votes had been pledged, but when he returned to Austin on Sunday the 19th of June he did put the bill on the call for Monday the 20th.

Already a week had been wasted, but there was still time to pass the bill. Despite the Governor’s support, after the session began on the 20th the bill was not scheduled for consideration until the Friday the 24th, wasting more precious time. Then, when it was scheduled to be introduced on Friday, House Speaker Joe Straus made a public announcement that he thought the bill was a “publicity stunt” and not serious legislation, sending a clear message to his supporters to oppose it. This despite the fact that he had not voted against it in the regular session.

Nonetheless, a version of the bill was introduced in the House and another in the Senate with wording which had been edited by the Attorney General’s office to reduce the chances of the bill being contested in court and to satisfy complaints from Speaker Straus, but because of wrangling over the language any votes on the bill were delayed until Monday with the session scheduled to end on Wednesday.

With the Speaker apparently unwilling to advance the House version of the bill, desperate supporters in the Senate passed their version through committee and passed it on the floor in a matter of hours and sent it on to the House where the decision was made to use the Senate version as written to avoid the possibility that the Speaker would keep the House version off the floor.

The House session didn’t start until 2pm on Tuesday and when the messenger from the Senate arrived with the bill the Speaker’s office refused to accept the bill and it was kept waiting for several hours. This final delay guaranteed that passage of the bill would be extremely difficult because of Constitutional rules about how bills have to pass the House.

Under the Texas Constitution, for a bill to pass the House it has to be read and voted on three times, on three separate days and win each vote. At the point where the bill finally made it to the floor there was less than 24 hours left before the end of the session on Wednesday, so the only way to pass the bill was to hold a vote to suspend that constitutional rule to allow them to hold two of the three votes on the same day. Although there were plenty of votes in favor of the bill – enough to make up a supermajority – the vote to suspend the Constitutional rule required a 4/5 majority, and that was going to be very difficult.

The bill passed its first reading easily on Tuesday and then passed a second reading on Wednesday morning easily 106-27, but by the time the held a vote on the motion to suspend the constitutional rule some members had left and it passed with a 96-26 majority – an overwhelming vote in support of the bill, but not quite enough to meet the 4/5 requirement. Ironically the previous vote did meet that requirement, but it didn’t apply to that particular motion. At that point the bill which so many supported and which was enormously popular with the public, was dead.

Before adjourning the special session, the Speaker allowed Rep. Simpson to make a final speech about the bill and how the legislative process had failed so dismally. Simpson was not afraid to point fingers, saying:

“The people in support of this bill have succeeded in shining the light on those who collaborate with the growing tyranny of our federal government….Its’ defeat only propels the liberty movement in this state. The people now know that it is possible to fight back.”

His sentiments were echoed by a statement from the Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas, one of the grassroots groups which had made calls to legislators in support of the bill, which said “We may not have won the final victory today, but we sure flushed out the enemies hiding in the brush.” Another grassroots group, Stop Austin Scanners thought that Governor Perry should share the blame, citing Perry’s “failure to call the bill in a timely manner despite numerous requests to do so, his total lack of stewardship in the process, and Speaker Joe Straus’ willful misconduct are the principal reasons why the legislation was derailed.”

At every step Rep. Simpson and his allies did what was requested by the leadership. They amended the bill. They watered down the language. They even ultimately changed “probable cause” to “reasonable suspicion” to give the Feds an easy out. Yet despite promises from Governor Perry, they were met with obstruction and delays from the Speaker at every step of the way. With two weeks to pass the bill they ended up having to try to pass it in two days with a special suspension of the rules requiting an outrageously large majority and creating the ironic outcome that a bill which passed easily with a 4/5 majority in the morning when it didn’t need it could not get that same majority in the afternoon when it did.

The defeat of the bill was not a complete loss.  It raised awareness of the issue substantially and drew attention to the forces opposing it and exposed the heavy-handed tactics of the TSA. There’s also some evidence that Simpson’s bill helped influence the TSA’s recent decision to reduce the intensity of their searches of children, though it did not stop them from carrying out a horrendous and highly publicized abuse of a 95 year old Leukemia patient.

This fight is not over. The issue still draws great public interest and anger at the TSA and its practices has never been higher. Supporters in Texas promise to continue to pursue the issue and legislators in a growing number of additonal states are introducing similar legislation. People don’t like having their privacy invaded and their persons violated in the service of excessive security procedures which have never been proven to be at all effective. The people may have lost this battle, but the war is far from over.

A version of this article appeared previously at Blogcritics Magazine.