Letters from Linden
by JACK LINDEN

Saying that the Republican governor’s primary election was interesting is to make a very big understatement. Having a governor who has cited secession as an option, a senator who has brought millions if not billions of federal monies to Texas, and a local conservative who was thrown under the bus by Glenn Beck made for interesting politics. The governor won by citing his record of promoting small government in Washington, not what he was doing in Texas.

First of all, Texans have to thank Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson for all the help that she has brought to Texas.  From military expenditures, intelligence community sites, highway dollars, and even down to the local school level, she has been there to help Texas and Texans.  While the governor’s campaign named her Kay Bailout, she was doing what Texans elected her for.

It will be interesting this fall when the governor will have to talk about what is going on in Texas and not what is going on in Washington.  During the primary election, he jumped on the Sarah Palin-Sean Hannity-Glenn Beck bandwagon and talked more about the “evil doers” in Washington than what his record was here in Texas.  He will have to answer some questions this fall.

His argument about government interfering in the health of others just doesn’t hold up when we look at his record.  How can he say that government should stay out of the relationship between a doctor and a patient when he, by executive order, mandated that girls in the 6th grade were to receive a vaccination.  While that idea may be quite okay, his order does not jibe with his small government rhetoric.

Our governor frequently states that “we in Texas know best how to educate our young.”  Does that mean that he is proud of the surveys indicating that we rank anywhere from the bottom third to some surveys showing we are 48th?  He must be proud of our schools since he rejected any opportunity to enter into the federal program titled “Race to the Top.” He also contradicted his statement about limited government when he himself dictated that Texas would not participate in the program. He did not ask school districts or the state legislature; he made the decision.

Adding to the contradiction, he has allowed seven members of the State Board of Education (SBOE) to dictate what is to be taught in Texas schools, and more importantly what is to be included in textbooks that teachers throughout Texas must use.  If education is a local matter, why is it that the governor and the SBOE are allowed to dictate tests, curriculum and other measures of education?
Finally, the governor talks about how he defends Texas values.  I have been told that ownership and property rights are one of the values of Texans. If he is defending that particular value, how is it that he proposed the taking of some 600,000 acres of land for his so-called Trans-Texas Corridor program?  Granted, the uproar was sufficient enough that he scrapped the program, but the question remains as to how he is protecting the values of Texans.

The governor won the primary by being anti-big government, but his record tells an entirely different story. It is “big government in Washington, but small government in Austin” according to the governor.  Senator Hutchinson had to defend a record of helping Texas and Texans while the governor ran a campaign against the federal government. While taking money to balance the state budget, he rejected money for unemployment benefits and would not allow participation to help our education system.  Is he running for governor now to keep his name in the public eye for 2012?  If he is, is it going to be for senator or president?  It makes one wonder.

jdlinden@satx.rr.com