How the City of Hurst Juggles Debt

How the City of Hurst Juggles Debt
By
James Scott Trimm

The City of Hurst says it "cycles" debt... in other words it "juggles" debt. At times borrowing money to pay off debt, and at other times paying off debt with money we already know we need with the clear intention of borrowing it again after the elections.  This often has the same effect as a consumer using one credit car to pay the bill on another.

Back in 2014 our city had recently paid off a portion of city debt, so that we went into the city elections with less city debt. Then in the very first city council meeting after the 2014 election, the City Council voted to borrow another 7.6 million dollars. This was not a bond election deal, this was just a vote of the city council. This is an example of the way the city juggles debt, frequently having a portion "in the air" during the elections."

The reason given for borrowing 7.6 Million Dollars was that our water parks needed to be refurbished. Yes, it appears that this had come as a complete surprise to our city. They have suddenly discovered that our water parks are not eternal, and have to be rebuilt every twenty years or so. In fact the city commissioned two studies to figure this out (not sure how much was spent on these two studies). Since this was totally unforeseen (yes, sarcasm is intended here), the city council voted to borrow 7.6 million dollars to rebuild them. Of course the city claimed that this would not actually raise our debt for the year because of “cycling” (a better word might be “juggling”) of the debt. Translation: The city is playing a shell game with the huge debt, borrowing money with one hand while planning to pay a similar amount down with the other. The shell game might be entertaining if our city was not spending itself into a huge debt along the way!

At this June 2014 meeting it was stated that our water parks are a "revenue source".

Of course if they were truly a revenue source they should, by all rights, be self sustaining. There should then have been a fund set aside from that very revenue, for the very day that would come (and did come) that the parks would need to be refurbished. Not only was that not done, but our city learned nothing, because it is still not being done… the “plan” (if you can call it that) is simply to be totally surprised again twenty years from now, that our water parks need to be refurbished every twenty years!

So why is our city not setting aside for an expense we know is coming, especially when these parks are supposedly a "revenue source"?

Because of the creative book keeping of our city. The Parks are NOT a revenue source, that was at least a misrepresentation, and at most a blatant lie by the city.

On Feb. 4th 2015 the City of Hurst Facebook page posted:

"For today's fun fact, we're proud to report that 54,000 patrons attended both Hurst Aquatics Centers in 2014. Chisholm is currently getting a complete makeover, and we can't wait for our patrons to see it this summer! "

Remember, at the June 10th 2014 City Council meeting we were told that it was important to refurbish the parks and to do it in the off season because we were told they "generate revenue for the city". So on June 10th the council voted to borrow 7.6 million dollars to refurbish the park (since it was borrowed we will pay back a good deal more than 7.6 Million).

So if the parks have only 54,000 patrons a year and if the patrons pay an average of $4.50 each (generous, since more than half will be Hurst residents and pay the lower price) then the parks only generate $243,000 a year. Multiply that by 20 and they generate only 4,860,000 in 20 years. Now if we spend 7.6 million every twenty years to refurbish parks that only bring in 4.9 million over that same twenty years. That does not even account for overhead (water, chemicals etc.) and payroll. It looks to me like these parks are not "revenue generators" at all, but are operating on at least a 2 to 1 LOSS. To represent these as revenue generators (as was done at the 6-10-14 Council meeting) is at the very least misleading. Why are we excited that we had 54,000 patrons when we need at least twice that amount (if not more) just to make these parks sustainable?

We waste money by spending about 1.48 on the dollar to borrow money to pay for things instead of setting aside in advance to pay for them.

It is time for a change at City Hall.  We need a mayor who will promote fiscal responsibility!  That candidate is Joel Downs. 

Mr. Downs is not the establishment candidate.  He offers positive change.   It is time for change, for new blood, and for a course correction toward conservative values that reflect those of the majority of the residents of our city.  And that is why I am supporting Joel Downs for Mayor.  I hope that you will join me.

You can Visit Joel Down's Campaign Website at http://www.downsforhurst.com

Mayor Ward has run Hurst into Nearly $100,000,000 of Debt!

Mayor Ward has run Hurst into Nearly $100,000,000 of Debt!

By

James Scott Trimm

One of the principles of conservatism is that limited government should live within its means, and this generally means living within a balanced budget. As Ronald Reagan once said:

Balancing the budget is a little like protecting your virtue:

You just have to learn to say “no.”

(Remarks at Kansas State University at the Alfred M. Landon Lecture Series on Public Issues (September 9, 1982))

Yet our tax, borrow and spend City Council, under the leadership of Mayor Richard Ward has run Hurst up into nearly one hundred million dollars in debt!  That’s:  100,000,000 !.

Once City Councilman recently claimed “The outstanding debt principal totals $66.6 million. It is not $94.5 million as has been stated in some political posts.” While $66.6 Million (interesting number) is the principle, our city has no plan to pay the 66 million principle as a lump sum this year.  94.5 million dollars is what we will owe back when you include the interest.  Therefore 94.5 million is the real number.

Unfortunately the word “no” does not seem to be in the vocabulary of our Hurst City Council.   

Now I doubt that most Hurst citizens truly understand how mind boggling this number really is, so I thought I would illustrate for you just how much money the City of Hurst would have to have…. Before it would only be broke, and not actually in the hole.

To pay off this massive debt, 3,500 average Hurst citizens would have to contribute their entire income for an entire year! (That’s almost 10% of our residents, including children!)

Lets illustrate home much money we are talking about in physical cash. If you laid the bills from end to end, they would reach from Hurst City Hall to the International Space Station… and back… forty one times!

If you laid it out end to end the Hurst debt would reach from Los Angeles to New York… and back… TWICE!  Or from Hurst to London… and back again!

Folks, the tax borrow and spend machine at city hall must learn to say “no”. If they keep expanding this massive debt, the math will eventually crush us with interest! Even now, substantially reducing this debt could take many years.

It is time for a change at City Hall.  We need a mayor who will promote fiscal responsibility!  That candidate is Joel Downs. 

Mr. Downs is not the establishment candidate.  He offers positive change.   It is time for change, for new blood, and for a course correction toward conservative values that reflect those of the majority of the residents of our city.  And that is why I am supporting Joel Downs for Mayor.  I hope that you will join me.

You can Visit Joel Down's Campaign Website at http://www.downsforhurst.com

Dishonest Star-Telegram Guts Letter to Editor

Dishonest Star-Telegram Guts Letter to Editor
By
James Scott Trimm

The liberal rag known as the Fort Worth Star-Telegram (Startle-gram) has done it again!  I wrote a letter to the editor intended to hilight the fact that Hurst Mayor Richard Ward is an anti-gun activist and that his opponent Joel Downs support our Second Amendment rights.  So the Star-Telegram dishonestly edits my letter and removes the core issue.  Here is the letter I wrote:

I have lived in Hurst for all of my fifty years.  As a conservative I have values about the limited role of government, and personal liberty, applicable on every level of government.

Joel Downs is running for Mayor of Hurst on a platform of limited government, personal liberty and self-determination, principles that the kind of new business growth that south east Hurst badly needs.

Hurst Mayor Richard Ward is a gun control activist.  Ward is one of seven Texas Mayors to join Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), a coalition of mayors who support gun control.  Ward uses his position as Mayor to campaign for gun control measures nationwide.  In a Jan. 17 2013 New York Times interview, Ward laughed at our citzens for failing to vote him out of office over this issue.

Mr. Downs offers positive change, a course correction to conservative values that reflect those of the majority of our residents of our city.

- James Scott Trimm


And here is the letter the Fort Worth Startle-Gram printed:

I’ve lived in Hurst all of my 50 years.

As a conservative I have values about the limited role of government and personal liberty, applicable to every level of government.

Joel Downs is running for mayor of Hurst on a platform of limited government, personal liberty and self-determination, principles for the kind of new business growth that southeast Hurst needs.

Downs offers positive change, a course correction to conservative values that reflect those of the majority of residents of our city.

James Scott Trimm,
Hurst


The letter that the Startle-Gram printed systematically edits out all referees to the gun rights issue!  I barely recognize the letter they printed after the gutted the single most important issue in it in their biased effort to sanitize an anti-gun activist!

Should GOP Fear a "Brokered Convention"?

Should GOP Fear a "Brokered Convention"?
by
James Scott Trimm

Lately there has been a lot of hand wringing by some about the idea of the RNC delegates choosing the party nominee. 

Our Founding Fathers always had delegates choose their party nominees in the party conventions.  The Founders never envisioned the primary election system.  The primary elections were an invention of Progressive Era reformers and did not begin until the 20th century!  The Primary elections were originally intended to be taken under advise by the delegates, these elections were not even binding until the 1960's! In fact the Libertarians still choose their nominee the old fashioned way, through delegates at their national convention.

There is no difference between a "contested convention" and the way a convention is supposed to work.  In fact we had a contested convention back in 1976. 

But now suddenly the media wants you to believe that democracy is threatened if RNC delegates choose our nominee.

OK so here is how it works: the first round vote of the convention delegates is "bound" by the results of the primary election.  But to win the nomination a nominee must win a majority (50% plus 1) of the delegates.  So to win the nomination in the first round, via the primary election, a candidate must win 1,237 delegates.  Otherwise further rounds of voting take place until a majority back a single candidate.  This is an important part of the system, designed to prevent a minority from choosing a nominee that the majority actually oppose.  In elections we have run offs to prevent the minority from choosing the nominee, but that is obviously impractical here.

Now we come to the concern about the "establishment" substituting an "establishment" figure as the nominee rather than either Trump or Cruz.

Under rule 40b of the current rules, a candidate must have won the majority of delegates in at least eight states to be eligible for the nomination.  Meaning that in this case, only Trump and Cruz will be considered in the second round vote.

Now notice I said "current rules".  By this I refer to the rules used for the 2012 GOP Convention.  However each convention establishes its own rules.  The Rules Committee will create and propose a set of rules which will be brought to the floor, debated, potentially amended on the floor, and voted either up or down by the general assembly of the Convention delegates.  However, the rules committee does not start from scratch, they always the previous Convention rules as a basic starting point.  Certainly all eyes will be on "rule 40b" and whether it was substantively changed, and for that reason, I think a change of this rule is unlikely.

So who are the delegates?  Are the the Republican Elite?  Are they the Establishment?  Who they are and how they got there is a mystery to many, and that is a shame.  Its unfortunate that the convention system is not taught in our schools.

After the polls close in each voting precinct in Texas, there is a precinct meeting, typically chaired by the local Precinct Chair.  A precinct is typically a neighborhood sized breakdown of the county (at least in the suburbs).  Anyone who voted in the primary of the Republican Party may participate in this precinct meeting.  At this meeting two major things are done; first a group of delegates are selected to represent the precinct at the County or Senatorial District Convention (some populous counties are broken down into Senatorial District Conventions), and resolutions for the party platform may be proposed and voted on to be sent up to the county or SD convention to be considered there.  At the County/SD convention, the same process occurs on a larger scale, and delegates and platform proposals and resolutions are sent to the State Convention where the same process occurs again toward the national convention. 

Anyone who wants to be involved can and should show up to their precinct meeting and volunteer to be a delegate.  If you show up and volunteer you are almost certain the be sent up as a delegate to the SD/County convention.  For example in my precinct we were allowed to send up to thirty delegates to the Senatorial District Convention, all six of the people who showed up at our precinct meeting became SD delegates.  

These delegates are chosen by voters from the ground up, starting at neighborhood meetings.  They tend to represent the grassroots.

So it appears as a function of math that no one GOP candidate will win the nomination via the primary vote (i.e. the pledged first round vote of the delegates) and that the delegates will choose the nominee in the second round vote, where they are not pledged.  This is no reason for panic and no reason for conspiracy theories.  This is normal, it is how a convention is supposed to work.  Let not your heart be troubled.  

Trump Fires the Constitution

Trump Fires the Constitution 

By

James Scott Trimm

In the recent Wisconsin Town Hall Meeting Donald Trump was asked what are the three most important roles of the Federal Government.  His answer absolutely shocked me!  His answer was: security, education and healthcare… and when asked further, he even added “housing” to the list of major roles for the Federal Government.

OK I get security, that is clearly a power delegated to the Federal Government in Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.  However nowhere does the U.S. Constitution delegate powers to the Federal Government to regulate education, healthcare or housing!  Even Andreson Cooper was shocked by Trump’s answer!  

Article 10 of the US Constitution clearly reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since the U.S. Constitution does not delegate authority to the Federal Government to regulate education and healthcare, that authority is reserved to the states or the people, which means the Federal Government has no such power!

There were plenty of delegated powers in Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution that would have been valid answers to the question Trump was given, but the answer he gave shows that he has no regard for the U.S. Constitution and no interest in restraining the out of control Federal Government which continues to usurp powers not delegated to it.

The 2012 National GOP Platform stated proudly:

We are the party of the

Constitution, the solemn

compact which confirms our

God-given individual rights and

assures that all Americans stand

equal before the law.

The 2012 platform says:

We support the review and examination of all

federal agencies to eliminate wasteful spending, operational

inefficiencies, or abuse of power to determine

whether they are performing functions that are

better performed by the States. These functions, as

appropriate, should be returned to the States in accordance

with the Tenth Amendment of the United

States Constitution. We affirm that all legislation,

rules, and regulations must conform and public servants

must adhere to the U.S. Constitution, as originally

intended by the Framers. Whether such

legislation is a State or federal matter must be determined

in accordance with the Tenth Amendment, in

conjunction with Article I, Section 8.

After citing the 10^th amendment the platform says:

In fidelity to that principle, we condemn the current

Administration’s continued assaults on State governments

in matters ranging from voter ID laws to

immigration, from healthcare programs to land use

decisions.

Yet Trump says that “healthcare” for him is a major role of the Federal Government!

While Trump maintains education is a major role of the Federal Government, the  2012 RNC platform says concerning education:

Parents are responsible for the education of their

children. We do not believe in a one size fits all approach

to education and support providing broad education

choices to parents and children at the State

and local level.

And in fact Republicans have called for an end to the US Department of Education as an undelegated power-grab of the Federal Government ever since it was created under the Carter administration! 

As for “healthcare”, while Trump calls for an end to Obamacare, its not for the reason that Conservatives have done so.  Conservatives maintain that the Federal Government has no delegated powers in this area under the U.S. Constitution, and that under the 10^th amendment, such powers are retained by the people an the state.  Trump says he wants to replace Obamacare with something "better", and his something "better" <gulp> involves getting rid of the lines around the states!   

Trump wants to directly attack state sovereignty and make an even bigger Federal power grab in the area of healthcare!

Trump has no regard for the Constitution, and no regard for the Conservative principles reflected in the 2012 Republican Platform.  We will not “make America great again” by flushing the Constitution, expanding the undelegated powers of the Federal government, and dissolving the lines between the sovereign states!