Ed Hubbard

The same day that I was finalizing my last post about Organizing for Action (also known by its acronym, “OFA”), I had lunch with a friend of mine who also is a local lawyer and a Republican.  As our conversation turned to the several scandals now swirling around the Obama Administration, I told him about what I had found about OFA, and we both shared our disgust with the audacity of the Obama team.  One of the key facts addressed in my post, which angered both of us, was that, while 501(c)(4) applications for conservative groups had been delayed for years, the application to perpetuate Obama’s campaign apparatus as a 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organization had apparently sailed through the IRS’ approval process is no more than 73 days.

Then, a few days ago, after my post had been uploaded, my friend forwarded to me this link to an online story from US News & World Report that appeared on May 15, 2013, after the Treasury Audit report had been made public.  In this story, the reporter quotes unnamed “officials” with OFA as saying, for the first time, that OFA had not yet filed its 501(c)(4) application, though it was organized and operating as if it had sought and obtained approval of as a tax-exempt organization.  The reason the “officials” gave for not applying for the tax exemption was that OFA had only been operating for four months and the law allowed the application to be filed anytime within 2 years of the start of operation of the organization.  To lend credibility to this assertion by the unnamed “officials,” the reporter quotes the unusually vague sentence at the end of OFA’s description of its status on its website (which I previously cited in another recent blog):

… OFA will operate as a “social welfare” organization within the meaning of section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code.

I guess, in hindsight, the use of the future tense in this sentence was supposed to tell everyone that OFA had not yet even applied for a tax-exempt status.

To say the least, this revelation from these unnamed “officials” was inconsistent with everything I had read to date.  So, with everything else that was being revealed, I was skeptical of its accuracy.  Regardless of my skepticism, though, I began preparing an update to my last post to acknowledge that I may have made a mistake in stating that OFA had already received its IRS approval, based on what US News & World Report had reported.  In the meantime, however, I also re-visited the available information trail about the formation and operation of OFA since mid-January.  What I found convinced me that a confession of a mistake may be premature.  Instead, I am now convinced that either the unnamed “officials’” assertion is wrong, or something much more troubling may be at work.

But rather than make any further accusations, what I want to do is present you with what I found over the last few days, and with the questions I now have, and then let you decide on your own what is going on.

First, some more background about the approval process for 501(c)(4) status.  Although my friend and I are not tax lawyers (although I am licensed to practice before the U.S. Tax Court, I have only provided procedural and evidentiary advice over the years to help tax lawyers to prepare for and participate in hearings with their clients—I am not a tax lawyer), both of us have enough passing knowledge of tax laws to have been skeptical of what the unnamed “official” of OFA was saying, so we asked a local tax lawyer about the credibility of the “official’s” assertions.  Interestingly, this tax lawyer said he had heard independently that OFA had filed an application, and that it had been approved very quickly.

In any event, what we learned about the process is that, in general, someone can start-up an organization and operate it as a tax-exempt 501(c)(4) organization before the exempt status is finally approved by the IRS.  The reason this practice is allowed is due to the varying time it takes for each application to get approved.  However, there is a risk to taking this approach—if the application eventually is denied, the entity will owe back taxes and interest (as well as possible penalties, if it is found that there was no basis for a good faith belief that the entity could be operated under 501(c)(4)). This is the same procedure used for other tax-exempt organizations recognized under the IRS code.  Also, you apparently do have two years to submit the application, but—and here is the important caveat—because interest and penalties could be significant if the process is delayed and then denied, the standard practice is to get the paperwork filed immediately in order to minimize the costs related to that potential risk.

Again, this summary is not meant to be a legal opinion, but just a lay summary of how the process works.  However, the insight as to the standard filing practice is consistent with what a noted legal scholar, Richard A. Epstein, recently observed as he discussed the present scandals involving the administration:

… few individuals or groups are foolhardy enough to jump the gun and set up shop without obtaining the necessary approvals first.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/147511

So, based on this added insight about the filing process, but giving the unnamed “officials” the benefit of the doubt as to their veracity, I began to wonder why people as allegedly intelligent as those who are the leaders of OFA would not follow the standard, prudent practice and file their application for a tax-exempt status at or before they formed and started operating Organizing for Action.  Remember, the officers and directors of OFA include the cream from Obama’s team:  Jim Messina, Stephanie Cutter, Robert Gibbs, Jon Carson, Jennifer O’Malley-Dillon, Julianna Smoot, Erik Smith, and David Plouffe.  And, that nagging question especially aroused my interest when the news reports over the last few months show the following:

• Two days after the news broke about the formation of Organizing for Action amid the fanfare of the inaugural festivities last January, OFA held a fundraiser at which it was reported it raised over $500,000; and
• OFA reported it raised $4.4 million during the first quarter of 2013.

With that much money raised, the potential back taxes, interest and penalties are significant; so, why would any reasonable person significantly increase the risk of being wrong by not at least filing a 501(c)(4) application, let alone by waiting to operate and raise money until you’ve gotten regulatory approval?  The answer is, you wouldn’t, and they probably didn’t either.  To reach that answer you could conclude that either the US News & World Report misunderstood the unnamed “official,” the unnamed “official” was wrong, or these smart people had other prudent reasons to delay filing the application while having a high degree of confidence that the eventual application would be approved.

With those three possible conclusions in mind, I challenge you to now do what I did—take another look at the following articles from various news sources since January 17th (including the video introduction by Michelle Obama contained in several of the articles and the video interview with Jim Messina contained in one of them), as well as a very informative chronology, and decide for yourself what is going on:

• http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/obama-campaign-to-relaunch-as-tax-exempt-group-86375.html
• http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/17/nation/la-na-obama-campaign-20130118
• http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-aides-organizing-for-action-20130118,0,5086484.story
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/01/18/report-obama-campaign-to-become-nonprofit/
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/18/organizing-for-action-obama_n_2503668.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
• http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/19/us-usa-obama-nonprofit-idUSBRE90H1DQ20130119
• http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/promoting-candidate-obama-group-runs-afoul-irs-rules-its-own-promise_700450.html
• http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/us/politics/obamas-backers-seek-deep-pockets-to-press-agenda.htmlpagewanted=all&_r=2&
• http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/07/opinion/messina-organizing-for-action/
• http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/287931-plouffe-ofa-should-be-celebrated-not-criticized
• http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/03/21/12345/obama-nonprofit-not-disclosing-all-donor-data
• http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/12/news/la-pn-organizing-for-action-fundraising-20130412
• http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/04/nation/la-na-donor-network-20130504
• http://researchandideas.com/index.php?title=Jon_Carson#Major_Activities_on_Organizing_for_Action

After reading these articles, it becomes very clear that, even though a couple of early articles use the future tense to describe OFA, no one in the media or affiliated with independent watchdog groups questioned the present existence of OFA’s tax-exempt status prior to the statement of unnamed “officials” in the May 15th story.  Also, as I showed in my prior post, Democrats like Maxine Waters considered OFA to already be such a 501(c)(4) entity.  Most importantly, no one from OFA denied it was such an entity until news of the Treasury Audit surfaced.

If OFA really had not followed the standard practice and filed these papers before it started operating and raising money, why not?

Why did OFA not disclose that it had not filed its application earlier, when it was clear that everyone was working under the impression that they had actually sought and received 501(c)(4) status?

Remember, the testimony is that Congress made over 130 inquiries about the treatment of applications from conservative groups by the IRS in 2011 and 2012, that by June, 2011 supervisors within the IRS knew of the practice, and that Treasury department leaders knew by the summer of 2012 that an audit of this practice was underway. Could it be that the Obama team was tipped-off about the investigation and told to delay filing the application until the dust settled?

If the Obama team was tipped-off but guaranteed a later approval, could this explain its confidence in taking the risk of incurring back taxes, interest and penalties for operating and fundraising as a tax-exempt non-profit that could result from a later denial of an application?

So, rather than feel that I need to confess a mistake in my last post, I now believe that the report in US News & World Report only raises more questions—and the plot thickens.  I hope as our Congress investigates this matter, that it ask these questions to get to the bottom of what the Obama team in Washington and Chicago knew, when they knew it, and what happened after they learned of it, regarding the IRS tax-exemption scandal.

In the end, though, all of this begs the real scandal that I addressed in the last post:  “If Obama’s campaign apparatus is a “social welfare” organization, then we have a more serious problem with the IRS, and this administration, than just a biased enforcement against conservative groups…”  I still don’t see how a campaign operation whose primary asset is a database it plans to use to mobilize Democrats could ever be a “social welfare” organization as contemplated in our tax laws.

Yvonne Larsen

The Texas Democrat Party official who threatened to kill NRA President David Keene and all NRA members is an “interested party” supporting the passage of SB 346. The bill you are considering signing into law is based upon public comments submitted in writing to the Texas Sunset Advisory Commission by John Cobarruvias! To make matters worse, another “interested party”,  the River Oaks Area Democrat women (ROADwomen), the ones who hold holiday parties at Planned Parenthood, also submitted public comments to the TSAC.

In December 16, 2012 Big Jolly Politics published Houston blogger & Democrat Precinct Chair John Cobarruvias’ Tweet advocating for the murder of NRA members:

Governor Perry! You are an NRA member, too!

Rhymes With Right posted a follow up piece further explaining Cobarruvias is not only an elected member of the Texas Democratic Party Executive Committee, John has a history of violating federal law & threatening acts of violence against his political enemies at the State Capitol.

Remember what happened in California when businesses and people in support of Prop 8 were targeted for harrassment? How about the IRS witch-hunts targeting Conservatives? Where will it end?

ROADwomen and Planned Parenthood have been exempted from the bills’ requirements:

(c)  A person or group of persons accepts political contributions if its members or donors make  a payment, including dues, to the person or group of persons and, at the time of making the payments, the members or donors have reason to know that their payments may be used to make political contributions or political expenditures or may be commingled with other funds used to make political contributions or political expenditures.

It’s bad enough we had Republican Senators who sided with Democrat Senators & voted in favor of SB 346.

Please veto the bill!

Bill Frazer

Bill Frazer announced his candidacy for Candidate for Houston City Controller in February of 2013.

Mr. Frazer has many years of experience in the accounting and financial services industry. From 1991 through 2012 he served as Chief Financial Officer of CB Richard Ellis Capital Markets, one of the world’s leading commercial real estate financial services firms. As a board member of GEMSA Loan Services, a partnership between CBRE and GE Capital Real Estate, he helped form one of the nation’s largest commercial real estate loan management and advisory service companies.

Mr. Frazer has been a Certified Public Accountant since 1975. He is a past President of the Houston CPA Society and has served on the Board of Directors of the Texas Society of CPAs for the past 20 years. CPAs must meet stringent educational and professional requirements and are trained to establish effective business operations. They must adhere to strict state licensing guidelines that distinguish them from other accountants and professionals in the financial services industry, and they must abide by a strict code of professional ethics.

Mr. Frazer is involved in his church and his community. He is a member of St. Martin’s Episcopal Church and has served on its Vestry and is currently a member of its Senior Council. He serves on the advisory committee of the Episcopal Diocese’s Camp Allen. He is actively involved in helping Volunteer Interfaith Caregivers-Southwest provide much needed transportation services to elderly Houstonians who can no longer drive. He has recently joined the Board of Directors of St. James House, a retirement community sponsored by the Episcopal Diocese of Texas to serve those who need housing and critical nursing care in their later years. He believes “that we cannot depend solely on government programs to meet all of the needs of our fellow citizens, but must commit to do our part to make Houston a better place for all.” Mr. Frazer seeks to continue his commitment and dedication to the community of Houston through his candidacy for the position of City Controller.

Mr. Frazer was raised in San Antonio and graduated from the University of Texas at Austin in 1973 with a BBA in Accounting. He began his accounting career in Houston as a staff accountant with Ernst & Ernst. He has been a licensed CPA since 1975. He and his wife Jean, also a CPA, moved into the Ayrshire area 37 years ago. Their two children, Jennifer and Jeremy, attended public schools and graduated from Bellaire High School.

It is especially timely in light of the Mayor’s attempted takeover of Memorial Park in order to give TIRZ 16 an opportunity to put liens on the park as it borrows money for a Bus Rapid Transit System. Don Hooper wrote about that nonsense yesterday – click here to read all about it.

I hope that Charles Kuffner and Chron commenter WRM will take the time to enjoy a good lunch at the Spaghetti Warehouse and learn how TIRZ’s work. After I introduced you to Mr. Frazer back in March, Mr. Kuffner had this to say:

I will note that his claim about property valuations appears to be wrong, according to one of the commenters on that post who did a little digging, and that explanation about TIRZes doesn’t jibe with my understanding of how they work. Perhaps this is a transcription failure on Big Jolly’s part, I don’t know.

No transcription problem at all. Simple math. What Kuffner and WRM didn’t do was read the darn report. If they had, they would have seen this:

The FY2012 property tax value estimate is derived from CAD projections provided to the City in April 2011. The taxable value used was $142 billion. This amount is a net of the senior/disabled exemption, which was $70,862, the same as FY2011. This is projected to exempt as much as $6.4 billion in taxable value from the tax rolls, reducing revenue by an estimated $40.6 million in FY2012.

The estimated taxable value is then reduced by the estimated incremental value of properties within the Tax Increment Reinvestment Zones (TIRZ).

You see, TIRZ’s reduce the amount of property valuation that the City of Houston can tax – exactly what I said. So, hopefully, these two and many more will use tomorrow’s meeting as an opportunity to learn what a real accountant could do when he is elected to the position of Controller.

The Downtown Houston Pachyderm Club meets weekly upstairs at the Spaghetti Warehouse in downtown Houston – click here for a map. They start promptly at noon and finish up at 1:00 pm. Good food, good company, good conversation.

Rep. Debbie Riddle

Rep. Debbie Riddle is one of those politicians with whom I agree about 80% of the time. When she’s wrong (in my opinion), I let it be known. And when she’s right, she’s right, and I’m willing to help her in any way I can. And by golly, Big Jolly, she’s right when it comes to HB3361, the sunset bill for the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs.

It’s sort of complicated but I’ll try to lay it out. If someone wants to build a government housing project in your neighborhood, one of the points that the TDHCA had to take into consideration is the local state representative’s or state senator’s viewpoints, be it positive or negative. Rep. Riddle has been a fierce opponent of these projects in her district and has been quite effective at keeping them out .  When HB3361 was originally filed by Rep. Harold Dutton (and the companion in the Senate, SB214 by Sen. Brian Birdwell), it removed the ability of the local state rep/senator to affect the decision process. Rep. Riddle was able to get this requirement back into the bill by amending it, making it “optional” for the local rep/senator to weigh in. If they chose not to, other criteria could be used in their place.

When the bill was approved by the House, as amended, and sent to the Senate, Sen. Birdwell substituted his original version, eliminating the ability of the local rep/senator to have a say in the process. Yes, it allows them so send in a letter but removes their viewpoint from the actual scoring system. In my opinion, that is a terrible idea, but it sailed through the Senate with hardly a blip. My senator, Sen. Larry Taylor, tried to amend it to allow the local state rep to have input, but found no support, and withdrew his amendment. So now it heads to a conference committee to hash out the differences.

I’ve taken a snapshot of the relevant differences between the two versions from the Senate analysis (click to enlarge):

Rep. Riddle is pleading for citizens to call Sen. Birdwell, Sen. Dan Patrick, and their state representatives and lobby them to allow their local reps/senators to have the ability to affect the outcome of decisions on where to place government housing projects. She has taken to Facebook to keep us apprised of the situation and in typical Riddle fashion, is loud and forceful in her arguments. Here are a few of her comments (note, these are taken from several days worth of her updates):

Debbie Riddle May 18

ALERT!! The biggest fight I have had, and continue to have, this Legislative Session is about the LOW INCOME HOUSING APARTMENT PROJECTS that try to come into your neighborhoods. For the 11 years I have been in office I have fought these projects. Yesterday, Sen. Birdwell (R) passed his bill that would eliminate the point system and the ability for me (or your State Rep and your State Sen. to object or approve these projects. To take away my voice takes away the voice of the people in my district. Sen. Larry Taylor(R) introduced an amendment to continue the point system and allow the State Representatives to have a voice. NOT ONE SENATOR – NOT EVEN ONE – stood with Sen. Taylor. This is so sad, it is so bad for our communities – I have kept some really bad actors out. On the other had I fought hard for a project for seniors ONLY in the Aldine Westfield area of my district that the folks really wanted. Now, unless we can win the battle in Conference Committee your voice will be silenced about how your tax money is being used regarding what is brought into your neighborhood to over crowd your schools, cause more traffic, increase crime, and stress the emergency services and police. Let your State Rep. know how you feel about this. Rep. Harold Dutton (D) has been my hero in this fight! Please thank Rep. Harold Dutton (D) who has taken a brave stand AGAINST having our voice silenced and has fought this battle with me side by side. Rep. Rep. Sylvestor Turner (D) and Rep. Patricia Harless (R) and Rep. Allen Fletcher (R) have been fight this battle with me. This is not about party – it is about allowing the voice of the people to he taken seriously or causing the voice of the people to be silenced. This silences all the State Reps – not just me – this silences all the people of Texas. Pray that we will be victorious in the Conference Committee – call your State Reps and your State Senators and let them know that if they silence your voice – you will silence theirs in the next election. Help us in this fight – make your voice known. Share this on your FB page – this is important for all the folks in Texas!!

Debbie Riddle James, it is a Republican Senator who is silencing your voice – his name is Sen. Birdwell (R) – it is a (D) Harold Dutton (D)) who is fighting to KEEP our voice heard. This is not about party. These Low Income Housing builders are very wealthy and very powerful – this is a serious fight – let your State Reps know where your stand and let your Senators know how you feel. Again, not one Senator – not even one – Republican or Democrat stood with Sen. Larry Taylor and his amendment that would allow the point system and our voice continue to be hard. Session ends May 27 – we are at the end of this fight and we must win – this is serious. Let the folks from the Gov. office on down know who you are and know that you vote.

Debbie Riddle James and Mark and Chris – I am saying Senator Larry Taylor is the ONLY Senator who stood up for us on this issue and received NO support from anyone else. If the Senators do NOT want to be part of the conversation about Low Income Housing – that is OK – just DO NOT take my voice away as a State Rep. Most of the other State Reps say the same thing. This the TDHCA Sunset bill. TDHCA is TX Dept of Housing and Community Affairs. This fight is not new – but this is the worst one yet on this issue – and if we do not win it will be bad news for all the good folks of Texas. Sen. Birdwell cussed me out on the floor of the Senate (bold added for emphasis) because he got some calls from my district – odd how some Senators resent hearing from tax payers!

Debbie Riddle Max, please understand this is not an (R) (D) issue – the three that have stood at my side on this are *(D’s) and a number of (R’s) but it is a Senate full of R’s that are stripping away our voice.

Debbie Riddle Connie, Birdwell and the Senators have large districts – and to get in the business of fighting these low income housing apartment projects can be time consuming and difficult – I do not have a problem with that – however I DO have a problem with their taking away our ability to have the voice of the people we represent as State Representative and they do that when they remove our ability to write letters positively or negatively. That, Connie, is the problem. Larry Taylor’s amendment was a good compromise and a solution – all the other Senators rejected the idea.

Debbie Riddle Susan, Birdwell iis a fine American and an honorable man – however he fundamentally believes that State Reps and State Senators should have no voice in this issue. He is only in his second session – I have been fighting this battle for 11 years – I think he does not fully understand the issue.l

Gerry Daly Antonini I have contacted Senator Patrick he supports the change that this bill brings. He said that the scoring letter will come from the local commissioners, city council, or whatever the local governing body is and not state representatives and senators. I don’t know what that means in the effort to stop this project. Probably not going to help us. What else can be done if the Bill is made law?

Lamar Casparis Debbie, please talk to Dan. He sees it differently believing that even though the reps loose the point(s) [which I don't like] more representation will occur locally. I’m not close enough to the proposed legislation to know the end effect, but I want you to be involved and want your voice to count!

Debbie Riddle Lamar, I spoke with Dan – turning it over to the County Commissioners is not making it more local – all of us State Reps LIVE in our districts. NO county commissioner lives in my district or even close to my district. NOBODY knows my district better than me – I live there! Passing the buck and passing the responsibility will not work and does not work.

Debbie Riddle Lamar, I am working on a solution – but Birdwell who is only in his second legislative session is holding us hostage and says he will not budge. We are willing to let the senate take themselves out of the situation of writing a letter for or against with points but leave the House alone. He wants to dictate to both. I am still working,

I did try to contact Sen. Birdwell through the standard email form on his state website. Since I don’t know him and do not live in his district, I didn’t expect a reply and didn’t get one. I was surprised that he would curse out Rep. Riddle on the Senate floor. And Dan has been too busy for me to bother with him on this one, so I gave him a break and didn’t call. But I hope that Speaker Straus puts together a conference committee that understands Rep. Riddle’s concerns. And I will contact Rep. John Davis and Sen. Larry Taylor in hopes that they can help her.

This one is still winnable folks. Hey, if you want one of these projects in your neighborhood, then you can have them and your state rep should be able to help you get them. Or, in my case, I don’t want them in my neighborhood and my state rep should be able to help me stop them. Sen. Birdwell’s largest “urban” area, if you can call it that, is Waco.  He has no idea of the types of problems we face in Harris County with these huge crime centers.

Rep. Debbie Riddle is right – let’s help her in this fight. Call today.

Immediate Release                                                                      Contact: Sherry Weesner Tuesday, May 21, 2013                                                                  832.393.3005 Houston City Council Member Melissa Noriega Chapter 42 Community Meetings Houston, Texas - The recent adoption of amendments to Chapter 42, the City’s Land Subdivisions, Developments and Platting ordinance, provides residents with additional tools to preserve their neighborhood’s established character. The new tools are intended to preserve existing lot sizes, to retain existing single family character, and ensure that future buildings adhere to existing building lines. The City of Houston Planning Department is hosting several community meetings in May and June to explain the new tools and how Houstonians can utilize them. Please consider attending one of the following meetings: Tuesday, May 21, 2013, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Welch Middle School 11544 South Gessner Houston, Texas 77071 Wednesday, May 22, 2013, 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Alief Community Center 11903 Bellaire Boulevard Houston, Texas 77072 Wednesday, May 22, 2013,  6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Ingrado Community Center 7302 Keller Houston, Texas 77012 Thursday, May 23, 2013, 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Sunnyside Multi-Service Center 9314 Cullen Houston, Texas 77051   Thursday, May 23, 2013, 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Northeast Multi-Service Center 9720 Spaulding Houston, Texas 77016 Wednesday, May 29, 2013, 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Briar Grove Elementary School 6145 San Felipe Houston, Texas 77057 Wednesday, May 29, 2013, 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Avenue CDC Home Ownership Center 707 Quitman Houston, Texas77009 Thursday, May 30, 2013,  6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m Garden Villa Community Center 6720 South Haywood Drive Houston, Texas770612 Monday, June 3, 2013, 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m La Fontaine Reception Hall 7758 West Tidwell Houston, Texas 77040 Thursday, June 6, 2013, 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Freed Community Center 6818 Shady Villa Lane Houston, Texas 77055 Tuesday, June 10, 2013, 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Willowridge High School 16301 Chimney Rock Road Houston, Texas 77053 Thursday, June 10, 2013, 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Jefferson Davis High School 1101 Quitman Houston, Texas 77009 Tuesday, June 18, 2013, 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Memorial Drive United Methodist Church 12955 Memorial Drive Houston, Texas 77024   To learn more about this program and download applications, visit http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/Neighborhood/prevailLotBldg.html. To download the flier at http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/docs_pdfs/pres_neighb_meetings.pdf  ####

 
Obviously I’m not a fan of these “preservation” laws that take away rights from property owners. That said, the law is the law, so if you want input into it, you need to show up.

Don Hooper

Memorial Park was a gift from the Hogg Family to the City of Houston. In 1924 Mike and Will Hogg, the sons of former Governor of Texas James Hogg (1891-1895), deeded 1,503 acres to the City of Houston. Under the transfer agreement, the land must be used for park purposes or be subject to reversion to the Daughters of the Republic of Texas. Ima Hogg, sister of the two donors, charged several people with the task of protecting the park: Sadie Gwin Blackburn, Terry Hershey, Frank C. Smith Jr., Dr. John D. Staub. This group later became known as the Memorial Park Advisory Committee. To give you an idea of the value of this gift, a square foot value of $100 multiplied by the park acreage equates to 6.5 billion dollars. Currently, land in the Memorial Park area has sold for $300 per square foot; so, you do the math. There is no question that we are talking about a lot of money.

Approximately one month ago, rumors began flying around town that Mayor Annise Parker was planning to allow TIRZ 16 to expand into Memorial Park. Mayor Annise Parker indeed placed a proposal on the May 15 City Council agenda to have TIRZ 16 expand its borders to include Memorial Park. Please note I used the word expand and not annex.

First, you should know TIRZ 16 is a Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone established in 1999. This sends the incremental value of City of Houston property tax from 1999 to the TIRZ – this is big money, hundreds of millions of dollars. TIRZ 16 covers the Galleria area and their leadership wants to build a Bus Rapid Transit System down Post Oak. I disagree with his scheme for a number of reasons; but, I have remained silent because the TIRZ 16 board includes some of the property owners within the TIRZ. If they want to ruin their property value, far be it for me to tell them they cannot do so. Let me explain how this impacts Memorial Park.

All TIRZ are a political subdivision of the State of Texas and and have a specific purpose and duration. As you can imagine, the City of Houston would love to have their hands on this revenue stream. TIRZ 16 has spent most of their future revenues on other projects through the life of the TIRZ, which is set to expire in 2029.

Think of the value of the Galleria and Uptown areas. The area has more than doubled in value since 1999, we are talking hundreds of millions of dollars in property taxes. TIRZ 16 is looking for an extension; so, this is not a good time to go hat in hand and ask Mayor Parker “mommy may I” when there is an election around the corner. TIRZ 16 desperately wants to be extended through 2040, which would allow them to to finance construction of the Bus Rapid Transit System.

This spring, I spoke twice against expanding the TIRZ to include Memorial Park: once at council and then at a public hearing held by Stephen Costello. Yes, another controversy involving Costello. By now, alarm bells should be going off in your head.

Two years ago, Stephen Costello, leader of Costello, Inc., a civil engineering and surveying firm, used the Renew Houston (Prop 1) ballot measure to bolster his own pocketbook. The last time I looked, Mr. Costello had over 40 million dollars in contracts with the City of Houston and he refuses to recuse himself from voting on contracts involving his firm. More importantly, there was a contract that he and the city of Houston refused to disclose, even after I made repeated trips to City Council. We still do not have that contract, even though he reports the contract on a disclosure form.

Now that we have established that a conflicted councilman does not mind the appearance of impropriety, you should be prepared for the next bit of information. Mr. Costello is a past president and current advisory board of the Memorial Park Conservancy. The new chairman of the Memorial Park Conservancy is Bryan Jordan. Mr. Jordan is President and CEO of Jones & Carter, Inc. This is the engineering firm owned by Bob Jones – the man who said, “We do not have any leadership from our African American council members.”

When I spoke at City Council on the Memorial Park issue, I expressed concern that TIRZ 16 would include the park in their borrowing schemes. Council Members Oliver Pennington and Mike Laster were quick to say that could not happen. This was disconcerting to me because Mr. Laster was previously sued for his conduct involving a management district. The City Attorney responded that he would offer an opinion on potential borrowing issues involving Memorial Park. Unfortunately, that opinion never came and this issue went unaddressed.

Memorial Park was a gift to the City of Houston, a gift of incredible magnitude that no one could ever afford to replicate. Mayor Parker has balanced the City of Houston budget by selling off assets over the last several years. Mayor Parker and Bill White have established a precedent by spending far more money than the City brings in and selling assets to produce a balanced budget. This brings grave concern to anyone who cares about Memorial Park.

Allowing Memorial Park to be annexed into a political subdivision of Texas also creates risk. The city has now created an opportunity for the Legislature to interfere with the park. This, of course, would never be an issue if Mayor Parker had cared enough to take care of this jewel of Houston.

Now, we get to the root of the matter – Mayor Parker has bankrupted the City. For years, as Controller and Mayor, Annise Parker has spent far more money than the City’s revenue. She is using the drought as a reason for this necessity; but, I say “hog wash”. There will always be natural disasters that will always threaten the park. It is an asset of the City and should be maintained as such. The Mayor’s liberal spending policies have now made it so the City cannot even take care of this great asset.

After murderer Kermit Gosnell was brought to justice, there are gruesome allegations that Houston abortionist Douglas Karpen murdered babies and operated a “house of horrors” clinic.We can do more to stop these incidents from ever happening with your help.First, find your State Senators here: http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/Home.aspxThen, call your State Senator and tell them to support SB 25, SB 537 and SB 1198.SB 25 would outlaw abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. SB 537 would force Texas abortionists to abide by the same regulations as those governing ambulatory, or outpatient surgical centers.  SB 1198 would require Texas abortionists to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion facility.Why are these so urgent? Here’s why: BREITBART: ”A new video exposé released Tuesday of the Aaron Women’s Clinic in Houston, one of three clinics owned by abortionist Douglas Karpen, depicts gruesome details of the practices of an abortionist who is currently facing a criminal investigation for allegedly allowing late-term babies to be born alive then twisting their heads off with his bare hands.” (Dr. Susan Berry, “Texas Lt. Gov. Demands Investigation of Abortionist After Video Exposé,” Breitbart, 5/15/13) “Texas Lt. Gov. Demands Investigation of Abortionist After Video Exposé.” “The lieutenant governor of Texas, David Dewhurst, demanded an investigation Wednesday of an abortionist whose employees claim he twisted the heads off of babies who were born alive during abortion procedures. (Dr. Susan Berry, “Texas Lt. Gov. Demands Investigation of Abortionist After Video Exposé,” Breitbart, 5/15/13) For too long, abortionists have run roughshod over the law. It’s time to hold them accountable for their actions. Call your State Senator today and tell them to pass SB 25, SB 537 and SB 1198 out of the Senate today! For life, David Dewhurst

Pol. ad. paid for by David Dewhurst Committee

Hopefully you already know who your State Senator is but if not, use that link above.

Lt. Gov. Dewhurst is really pushing hard on conservative issues this session. But he can’t do it alone – he needs your help. Remember, with 19 Republicans and 12 Democrats, the Senate is 2 votes short of being able to pass conservative legislation at will. This call to action is critically important if you happen to live in one of the Democratic Senate districts because it will take at least 2 Democrats to join with the Republicans if these bills are allowed to be voted on. Make your voice heard.

For Immediate Release                                                                       Contact: Sherry Weesner Monday May 20, 2013                                                                       832.393.3005   Houston City Council Member Melissa Noriega Special Called Transportation, Technology & Infrastructure Committee Meeting Houston, Texas – Council Member Melissa Noriega announces a Special Called Transportation, Technology & Infrastructure Committee meeting Wednesday, June 12, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. TTI committee members will review the changes to Chapter 9, Stormwater Design Requirements, Chapter 13, Stormwater Quality Design Requirements and receive public comments.   The Standards Review Committee (SRC), Department of Public Works and Engineering (PWE) was established to review, revise, and update PWE’s Standards and Documents. The Public is invited to provide their input and to participate by the submittal of proposals for suggested changes, comments, recommendations and other information. The deadline is Friday, May 24, 2013. In this year’s review cycle, SRC has reviewed Infrastructure Design Manual Chapter 9, Stormwater Design Requirements and Chapter 13, Stormwater Quality Design Requirements and the associated design specification and details on the basis of comments received from all interested parties.The SRC’s draft versions of the recommendations are posted at the following link: http://documents.publicworks.houstontx.gov/document-center/cat_view/88-engineering-and-construction/181-standards-review-committee.html All the interested parties are asked to please review the recommended changes and provide comments for the final review by no later than Friday, May 24, 2013. After that time the committee will review all the final comments and authorize the City Engineer to publish the 2012-2013 version of the Infrastructure Design Manual by July 1, 2013. You can provide your comments two ways: Email comments to: standardsreviewcommittee@houstontx.gov Attend Special Called TTI committee meeting Wednesday, June 12, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. City Hall, 901 Bagby, Houston, Texas 77002 For more information contact Rajiv Arya at 832.394.9131or at email: Rajiv.Arya@houstontx.gov  ####

Okay, you have your opportunity for input. Don’t complain later if you don’t make your voice heard. Remember, the deadline is Friday, May 24th.

Ed Hubbard

In recent posts I have addressed two distinct issues:  the attempt by the Democratic Party to use new technology to nationalize the urban-machine approach to party building mastered in Chicago during the 20^th Century; and the coerced conformity at the root of the modern progressive view of society.  Now I want to show how these issues collided to help create the IRS scandal now plaguing the Obama Administration.

I want to start with a not-so-obvious proposition:  the real scandal is not the mistreatment of conservative groups by the IRS—that was just a necessary by-product of the abuse of power, and the abuse of the tax laws, by this administration.

Instead, the real scandal is how the same abuse of power and law has been used to facilitate and perpetuate the database from both of Obama’s presidential campaigns for future use by the Democratic Party to identify and mobilize voters for their candidates.  What I am referring to is Organizing for Action, which is now a 501(c)4, tax-exempt “social welfare” organization.

Let’s recap what Organizing for Action really is—it is a website that gathers and sorts into a master database information from the contacts it obtains from its followers, which is then used to contact, identify and mobilize voters for Democratic candidates and the causes they support, and to solicit funds to support those candidates and causes.  As I recently quoted from an article in Salon, the database started during Obama’s 2008 campaign as “MyBarackObama, an interface for campaign supporters to create online identities, connect with other supporters and publicize their campaign activity.”  The website address was “my.barackobama.com,” and the email addresses for contacting the site or a campaign operative was “____@barackobama.com.”  As the Salon article went on to state, “[s]hortly after Obama took office, Democratic planners moved the MyBarackObama listserv and online community into the apparatus of the Democratic National Committee, converting it into Organizing for America.”  After being maintained by the DNC until the 2012 presidential election cycle, the same “listserv and online community” using the same email address became part of the Obama re-election campaign, known as Obama for America.  Then, after Election Day, November 6, 2012, this “listserv and online community” using the same email addresses used since the 2008 campaign, morphed yet again.

By January 18, 2013, what started out as MyBarackObama, then became Organizing for America, then became Obama for America, and had now become Organizing for Action, a 501(c)4, tax-exempt “social welfare” organization.  That’s right … within just 73 days after the election, the application to convert Obama’s campaign database into a tax-exempt “social welfare” organization to shelter its future donors from disclosure had been prepared for, submitted to, and approved by the IRS—that same group that could not figure out how to “provide good customer service” and evaluate the Tea Party applications since 2009.  The political importance to the Democratic Party of maintaining Obama’s database in this fashion cannot be underemphasized.  In a revealing interview from February of this year, Congresswoman Maxine Waters described the future political importance of this database as follows:

… I think some people are missing something here. The president has put in place an organization that contains the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life. That’s going to be very, very powerful, and … that database will have information about everything on every individual in ways that it’s never been done before. And whoever runs for president on the Democratic ticket has to deal with that. They’re going to have to go down with that database and the concerns of those people, because they can’t get around it. And he’s been very smart. I mean it’s very powerful what he’s leaving in place, and I think that’s what any Democratic candidate is going to have to deal with.

(See http://freebeacon.com/maxine-waters-describes-the-impact-of-the-ofa-database/).

So, the Obama IRS facilitated the use of “social welfare” status by Obama’s Chicago-based campaign apparatus to maintain its database for use by the Democratic Party in perpetuity without ever having to disclose its donors in the future.  If Obama’s campaign apparatus is a “social welfare” organization, then we have a more serious problem with the IRS, and this administration, than just a biased enforcement against conservative groups—it is the biased use of government power to benefit one set of political views and one political movement, while using that same power to suppress the opposing political view or movement.

Welcome to the way of Chicago politics, now playing nationally.

The flip-side of the coin of expanding the block-to-block organizational approach of the Chicago machine to national Democratic Party efforts through groups like Organizing for Action (and Battleground Texas), is the raw use of governmental power by such a political machine to protect itself and suppress its opposition—you don’t get one without the other.  This adaptation of raw machine political power to the administration of our national government is the real scandal that is surfacing.

How did this happen?

I believe the Obama administration’s abuse of the IRS tax emption process was caused by the collision of at least four variables that had to exist to create this scandal.  First, Obama’s political campaign and administration attracted people who believe in the liberal orthodoxy of the benign and beneficial role of an expanded national government in domestic affairs—what I earlier called the “Magical Kingdom” model of government.  Second, the expansion of the national government these people started to implement exposed the natural limits of the liberal orthodoxy—the limits of individual and institutional competence, and the effect of the aggregation of power on human nature.  Third, the exposed incompetence and avarice left the government vulnerable to those who would abuse power for their own gain.  Finally, the Chicago political mindset does not tolerate, or even recognize the legitimacy of political opposition, and it uses political power to suppress its opposition and to win at all costs.  When these forces collided within the Obama administration, the IRS tax exemption process was too irresistible a tool not to use—and abuse—to further their goals.

Now we are seeing an old tactic of machine politicians caught “with their hands in the cookie jar”:  feign ignorance, blame incompetence, and designate a “fall guy,” in order to stop any further investigation of the real scandal—in this case, to stop any further investigation that might focus on the abuse of the IRS to shelter the maintenance and expansion of the database of the Obama campaign for use by the Democratic Party without public scrutiny in the future.

As the committee investigations and the media interviews unfold, remember the questions that probably won’t be asked and the real scandal that will be hovering like a cloud over Washington:  Organizing for Action, and the Chicago-style misuse of governmental power.  To preserve whatever is left of the integrity of our government, we must demand the right questions be asked, and that we get real answers to those questions.

But when you get below the surface, it gets a bit murkier and not quite as clear as some of the proponents want to make it. I mean, seriously, if someone is here illegally and making barely enough to survive by mowing lawns or whatever, what are the chances that this person is going to spend a large chunk of his or her paycheck to purchase insurance? Pretty much zero is my guess.

Then you get the argument that people have been here for “decades” and suddenly can’t renew their licenses and it is a security issue, not an immigration issue.

That 2011 measure has left undocumented immigrants who drove legally in Texas for decades unable to renew their licenses or buy insurance, a problem that has caused major headaches for law enforcement officials across the state.

“It’s good for law enforcement. It’s good for security,” said Rep. Roberto Alonzo, who authored the measure, House Bill 3206. “We have already gone past the immigration debate and now we’re into the law enforcement debate.”

What a load of bovine processed hay. If someone has been here illegally for  ”decades”, that would be two – remember that 1986 amnesty law? Which means these people were part of the flood that started after that “final” amnesty and basically prove the point that the current version of amnesty will only bring more people here illegally. You cannot possibly say that giving driving permits to people here illegally is not an immigration issue with any credibility.

One of the downsides of an emotional issue is the overreaction by either side. In this case, the proponents of the effort to legalize illegal drivers in Texas are way over the top. One of them, Bob Price, who blogs over at TexasGOPVote.com, went so far as to call Rep. Van Taylor’s refusal to allow the effort to legalize illegal drivers to be attached to a bill he is supporting “cowardly“. Yeah, the same Rep. Van Taylor that won a medal for valor:

Born in Dallas, Representative Taylor earned his Eagle Scout at age 13. He graduated from Harvard College in 1995 and joined the Marine Corps. After graduating from intelligence, infantry, sniper, and airborne schools, Taylor led a Marine reconnaissance platoon. Following four years of active duty, he joined the Marine Corps Reserves to continue serving his country while earning a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School.

As a Marine Officer and paratrooper, Captain Taylor volunteered for duty as a platoon commander with the Marine Corps’ C Company, 4th Reconnaissance Battalion. He deployed to Iraq where he fought with 2nd Force Reconnaissance Company. Taylor led the first platoon into Iraq for his brigade and led a mission that rescued 31 wounded Marines during the pitched Battle of An Nasiriyah. For his service in Iraq, the Marine Corps awarded Captain Taylor the Combat Action Ribbon, Presidential Unit Citation, and the Navy Commendation Medal with “V” for valor.

Wow. If Bob wants to call Rep. Van Taylor “cowardly” that’s his right. But the fact is that the bill that Rep. Van Taylor was pushing was a pilot program allowing the Texas Department of Public Safety to reduce crowding at their offices by partnering with certain county commissioners. Nothing whatsoever to do with legalizing illegal drivers, immigration, or anything else related to the issue. Thus, Rep. Van Taylor was correct in his decision to call a Point of Order and that is why the chair sustained it. There isn’t anything “cowardly” about using correct parliamentary procedures to get a bill passed.

Are people that are in the USA and driving without insurance a problem? Certainly. You want to fix it? How about requiring proof of citizenship before you are able to purchase a vehicle? Get to the root of the problem. Legalizing illegal driving is not the way to go. Of course, the same people supporting legalizing illegal driving would most certainly oppose requiring proof of citizenship to purchase a vehicle because deep down, they really don’t want the “problem” solved.

Let me ask the supporters of legalizing illegal driving a question: Would your approach have stopped Andres Munos-Munos from killing Sgt. Dwayne Polk last night? Or would giving people here illegally some sort of quasi-legal status encourage even more people to come here illegally? I’m betting that it would be the latter.

I think that Rep. John Smithee has it right:

Some Republicans remain staunchly opposed to the bill. Rep. John Smithee, R-Amarillo, said that, although supporters have made some convincing arguments, he still sees the proposal as “primarily an immigration situation.”

“The whole premise that the state of Texas is going to provide to people who are not even here lawfully a state-issued permit for what is really a privilege is contrary to … how we’ve traditionally done things here in Texas,” he said.

For another view, see mi amiga Karen Townsend’s Texans Deserve Protection Afforded by Cook Amendment.