Veni Quid Veniat

Statewide Offices

Lt. Governor

Dan Patrick vs. David Dewhurst (I)

The Texas Lt. Governor fills a role in both the executive and legislative branches of the Texas government. In the executive branch, the Lt. Governor becomes the acting governor Governor be incapable of fulfilling his duties, either temporarily or permanently. The Lt. Governor is also President of the Senate, and has extensive control over the workings of that body and thus state policy in general. In Texas, the Lt. Governor is often considered more powerful than the Governor.

David Dewhurst (I) is an experienced and competent candidate. In the fight over SB 5 (the bill later passed as HB 2), the Democrats started the climax of the fight by using procedural measures to get the gavel out of Dewhurst’s hand to prevent him from restoring order, indicating their respect for his abilities. Although at heart he appears to be a moderate, he knows enough to know that he needs to toe the line for conservatives in the state, and has done so since his encounter with Ted Cruz. In addition, he ran the cleanest campaign of any of the three, running on his own merits without tearing down his opponents (up until the later part of the campaign, when he started hitting back at Patrick).

On the other hand, Dan Patrick talks an excellent talk, and has been one of the most conservative members of the state senate. The trouble is, he has also been exceptionally dishonest and infantile in his campaign tactics, and, according to those who work with him, has been hindered in managing his committee (Education) by his high opinion of his own self-worth. Combined with the fact that he jumped into the race after three solidly conservative candidates had already declared, a picture emerges of an egomaniac concerned with his own advancement, using pretended principles as a means rather than an end.

Patrick says everything you could ask of him, but his actions paint an ugly picture. David Dewhurst certainly isn’t perfect, but right now he’s what we need to get things done.

Attorney General

Ken Paxton vs. Dan Branch

The Texas Attorney General is the chief lawyer for the state of Texas, and is required to defend the laws and Constitution of Texas, represent Texas in litigation, and oversee public bond issues.

Ken Paxton has been a staunch conservative, consistently ranking among the most conservative state representatives and then, in his single term in the state senate, among the most conservative state senators. During his time in the state house, he put his career on the line to challenge Joe Straus, a liberal who draws most of his base of support from the Democrat members of the state house, for Speaker of the House. Paxton, an attorney by trade, is one of the most articulate and reliable conservatives in Texas politics, and has been spoken favorably of by Ted Cruz and endorsed by Tim Lambert, David Barton, and a who’s who of the most conservative state representatives.

The Republican establishment’s candidate, Dan Branch, is more than willing to use conservative rhetoric, but his record is less impressive. His ratings from conservative groups place him as the forty-second most conservative state representative out of only ninety-five Republicans. He has been described variously as a “mainstream” or “moderate” Republican, and a number of the more liberal commentators on state politics expressed dismay as he moved toward the right in preparation for running for Attorney General as a conservative. Perhaps most troubling, though, is that Branch attempted to weaken a bill banning third trimester abortions by attaching an amendment expanding the exceptions allowed in the bill.
Branch may talk a good talk while he’s running for Attorney General, but he hasn’t walked the walk as a state representative. Ken Paxton will be an excellent Attorney General, with the courage and ability to stand for conservative principles.

Commissioner of Railroads
Wayne Christian vs. Ryan Sitton

         Alexander Kim also has a slight edge here, for much the same reason as above. Both Bob McCoy and Alexander are good men who would make good judges, but Kim is endorsed by Jonathan Stickland, the most conservative member of the Texas State House, and THSC.

     YCT goes on to address the votes they disagreed with during Patterson’s first term. While discussing voting records, it should be noted that Patterson’s lifetime score from YCT is 85%, while Patrick, the candidate YCT endorsed, has a lifetime score of 84% - any commentary YCT would like to offer on insignificant conservatism in Patterson’s record could be applied equally to Patrick. YCT, unfortunately, did not find it appropriate to mention this, however. YCT mentioned four votes they found objectionable: Patterson coauthored SB 456, which created “hate crime” laws in Texas, voted for the creation of the state lottery commission, supported a ban on corporal punishment in schools, and voted to advance the spectacularly unsuccessful “Robin Hood” system. All of those votes are questionable, but YCT does not tell the whole story. On the first two things are simple enough - dubious meddling with motives and a misguided plan to raise money by fleecing the gullible are simply enough. The third, the ban on corporal punishment in schools, is actually slightly different, since the motivation was not opposition to corporal punishment, but support for parental rights (actually, I might have supported the measure myself, provided it were worded correctly). Finally, YCT completely ignores the circumstances under which Texas’ “Robin Hood” system was passed. In 1987 the courts found the Texas system of funding education in violation of the Texas Constitution. Twice after that the Texas legislature attempted to create a system that would satisfy the courts, but each time the courts struck it down. This was the situation in 1993, when the Texas Senate finally tailored a SB 7 73 (R)to the Texas Supreme Court’s whims enough that it was allowed to stand (until 2006, when the Texas Supreme Court struck that one down, too - it would be laughable if it wasn’t true). That bill was the “Robin Hood” bill, and its nature was largely determined by what the Texas Supreme Court dictated. Even at that, Patterson didn't vote for the final version of the bill. Patterson joined all but four members of the state senate in voting to advance the original bill from the senate (Journal of the Senate of the State of Texas, Regular Session of the 73rd Legislature, Volume 2, p. 1848), but what YCT doesn't mention is that Patterson joined with five other senators in voting against the final passage of the bill (Journal of the Senate of the State of Texas, Regular Session of the 73rd Legislature, Volume 3, p. 3014). Once again, YCT carefully manages the facts they release to present an apparently correct but actually very misleading picture.

      YCT’s next accusation stands out among a number of doubtful accusations as being particularly misleading, even dishonest. They charge Patterson with using “his position as Land Commissioner to dictate to property owners along the Gulf Coast, even going so far as to confiscate their land without compensation after a natural disaster.” What they’re referring to is Patterson’s action as the head of the Texas Land Office to enforce the letter of the law regarding Texas public beaches. The beach is considered public from the vegetation line seaward. Unfortunately, as the shore moves, the vegetation line moves. Through time, it was generally accepted that the boundary of the public beach shifted with the vegetation line, otherwise the shoreline would eventually simply shift inland and completely obliterate all of Texas’ public beaches (for various reasons our sediment balance is low, so the beaches typically move inland). When a storm hit, the vegetation line would often shift quite dramatically, and that’s what YCT is referring to. After Hurricane the vegetation line shifted inland so much that it moved behind a set of condominiums. The Land Office followed the law as written and informed the landlord that the property up to the vegetation line was now public beach (the Texas Supreme Court eventually struck down the Land Office’s decision). YCT and Dan Patrick’s interpretation of events is mind-boggling twisted and nothing short of dishonest. YCT goes on to make ambiguous complaints about Patterson’s management of the Land Office. Since they provide no support for their claims, and since those claims seem to bear little resemblance to anything that occurred in the Land Office, it is difficult to determine exactly what they’re referring to in order to refute it. It can safely be assumed, then, that it holds as much weight as the rest of the press release, or perhaps even less, since in the rest of the press release there were at least facts there to twist, whereas this appears to have been a complete fabrication. 

     YCT does bring out a few of Patterson’s downsides, but they intermix them so thoroughly with misrepresentations approaching outright lies that the exercise is largely pointless. Those of us who claim the mantle of Christian conservatives have a particular duty to be perfectly honest in everything we do. Young Conservatives of Texas’ press release not only fails to reach that standard, it doesn't even come close. We need to honestly examine our candidates in the primary to decide which one to support, but that needs to be a truly honest examination, not a prejudiced attempt to justify the candidate we already support by denigrating his opponents.

Introduction

TARP

Medicare Part D

One could easily allow a certain amount of leeway on TARP and Medicare Part D. As destructive and wrong-headed as the programs were, Republican senators were faced with an unbelievably difficult situation when voters elected a Republican president who was not dedicated to conservatism and who was willing to apply pressure to fellow Republicans in support of liberal programs. Even if we write off Cornyn’s votes on TARP and Medicare Part D, however, his “conservative” record is far from stellar. In 2013, Cornyn expressed support for a proposal by the “Gang of Eight,” a group of eight Republican and Democrat senators pushing for amnesty, which would provide a preferential path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Cornyn indicated his willingness to vote for the bill if his amendment, a vaguely-worded voluminous piece of legalese that required nothing the DHS couldn’t weasel out of, was attached to it. The heart of the Gang of Eight’s proposal, as Marco Rubio, a member of the Gang of Eight, has stated, is that “first comes the legalization. Then comes the measure to secure the border.” Granting amnesty, then securing the borders, the approach Cornyn and the Gang of Eight would like us to take, has been tried before, in 1986. That proposal, intended to provide amnesty only when strict conditions had been met - like the Gang of Eight’s proposal - only accelerated the influx of illegal immigrants across the border and effectively turned California blue. Rather than learning from history, Cornyn and the Gang of Eight insist on attempting to implement the same liberal policies that have failed every time they’ve been tried.


Cornyn’s record of collapsing in important votes has not been a few isolated incidents, either. In 2005, and again in 2007, Cornyn voted with the Democrat majority to increase the minimum wage. The proposed increase would increase the minimum wage gradually, eventually reaching $7.25 in 2009. Conservatives, who opposed the legislation, argued that it would result in economic stagnation and increased unemployment, as it did, although other factors obscured the decline - 2009, the year the minimum wage reached $7.25, was also the year the housing bubble collapsed, making attributing the subsequent rapid decline in employment and economic growth difficult. Nonetheless, Cornyn once again stood in opposition to conservatives and sound economic principles by voting with the Democrats.


Nor did Cornyn limit himself to hamstringing the current economy. Eight times since taking office he has voted to continue our reckless deficit spending by raising the debt ceiling. Since Cornyn took office in 2002, the national debt has increased by $10 trillion dollars (TreasuryDirect 2013a) and the interest on the debt has increased by $83 billion dollars (TreasuryDirect 2013b). Further, the increase in interest in the debt would be much higher, except the Fed has artificially depressed interest rates, a situation that is untenable in the long term. Eventually, interest rates must rise again, or the economy will begin to stagnate. When that happens, the rise in interest payments will begin to parallel the increase in the debt. Since 2002, revenue has increased by only $63 billion - in other words, revenue has increased by $6.3 billion per year, while interest on the debt is set to increase by $50 billion per year. If both debt and revenue continue increasing at current rates - certainly not a precise prediction, but a reasonable approximation nonetheless - in forty years, annual interest payments on the debt will exceed annual revenue. Granted, that is only an estimate, and whether it will happen in precisely forty years or not is certainly debatable, but what is certain is that it will happen, and when it does the US will be forced to erase the debt - somehow - within the next few years. Whether by defaulting or inflating the currency, any such action would be catastrophic economically. Continuing to accumulate debt at current rates is simply untenable, yet John Cornyn wants to continue building the debt, keeping the country on a trajectory for disaster.


He could still resort to the standard argument given by those in favor of raising the debt limit, though: he was simply funding the programs already agreed on. How could he be blamed for simply setting aside funds for programs Congress had already decided? Unfortunately, Cornyn voted for and supported those programs, too. Mike Lee proposed a budget for FY 2013 which would have balanced the budget - theoretically, but probably not in reality - in five years. Cornyn voted against it. Rand Paul proposed budgets for FY 2012 and FY 2013 which would also balance the budget in five years. Cornyn voted against them. Cornyn instead chose budget plans that either did nothing to balance the budget, in most cases, or remained perfectly vague on how, exactly, the budget as to be balanced. He has shown himself willing not only to allow any amount of borrowing to facilitate reckless spending, but also to actively advance reckless spending.


In 2007, and again in 2012, Cornyn voted for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act - first to authorize it, then to reauthorize it when it was set to expire. The act provided immunity from prosecution for telecommunications that had assisted in warrantless - illegal - wiretapping. FISA provided the lynchpin for the NSA’s extensive illegal data collection program - by voting to authorize and reauthorize FISA, Cornyn helped provide the NSA with the ability to collect data on millions of US citizens.


As head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), Cornyn consistently backed liberals over conservatives. Cornyn was head of the NRSC from 2007 to 2012, and during that time oversaw elections in 2008, 2010, and 2012, seeing significant losses in all three of those years. In the past, the NRSC had not supported candidates in primaries, choosing to wait and support the Republican nominee. That precedent was rarely broken, but when Cornyn did choose to break it, it was for liberal incumbents over more conservative challengers. In the 2010 election, when outrage over government overreach was in the process of sweeping Republicans to nearly unprecedented gains, Cornyn repeatedly acted to hamstring the conservative surge.
Cornyn began benignly enough. He appeared to pledge to continue the NRSC tradition of staying out of primaries, with the caveat that the NRSC would be used to support incumbents. Just days after that pledge, however, Cornyn hosted a fundraiser for Gilbert Baker, a candidate for Senate in Arkansas who faced six Republican challengers, including Tom Cox, the leader of the Arkansas Tea Party. In response to criticism that he had broken his word, Cornyn pointed out that he had said that the NRSC wouldn’t spend money, not that they wouldn’t endorse candidates or help candidates raise money. Far from being a continuation of the NRSC tradition, Cornyn’s pledge was a bit of Cornyn-esque doublespeak all-too-familiar to those who know him.

He didn’t stop there, either. In Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter, a former and future Democrat who even during his time as a Republican was virulently pro-abortion and pro-spending, was in a tough primary battle against his more conservative opponent from 2004, Pat Toomey. Cornyn sent funds to Specter through the NRSC and personally endorsed him, claiming that he was the “best bet to keep this Senate seat in the GOP column.” He was wrong, as it turns out, since Specter switched his affiliation to Democrat when it became apparent that, despite the best efforts of Cornyn and Mitch McConnell, Pat Toomey was on track to win handily. Cornyn quickly reversed his position - evidently the same positions next to a (D) were unacceptable - and backed Toomey in the general election, where Toomey defeated Democrat Pat Sestak after Specter failed to win the Democrat primary.

In Alaska, incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski faced a challenge from Joe Miller, a Tea Party-backed conservative. Murkowski first entered the Senate after being appointed by her father, Frank Murkowski, to his unexpired term when he was elected governor. She handily won a challenge in 2004 by promising Alaskans that she would bring home more pork for them, and went into 2010 the heavy favorite. However, conservatives in Alaska had begun to grow tired of her consistently liberal voting record, and Miller, an unknown candidate, quickly began to gather steam. Despite NRSC endorsement of Murkowski, the primary results were originally too close to call, and a recount effort commenced. Cornyn promptly sent funds and experts to Alaska to attempt to swing the recount in Murkowski’s favor. Cornyn’s efforts failed, and Miller received the Republican nomination, but, like Specter, Murkowski had far less allegiance to the Republican Party than Cornyn, and ran - and won - as an independent.

Both Pennsylvania and Alaska could be dismissed as an attempt to maintain Republican incumbents. That would be understandable, if still a bit unprincipled. In Florida, though, Cornyn went beyond simple party loyalty. In May 2009 Marco Rubio, the conservative speaker of the Florida House, and Charlie Crist, the liberal governor of Florida, both announced their campaigns for governor. As governor, Crist had been pro-abortion, repeatedly vetoing pro-life bills, (although he was briefly “pro-life” while running for Senate as a Republican), anti-offshore drilling, pro-expanded government subsidies, and generally took every opportunity to spit in the face of the Republican base. As in Alaska and Pennsylvania, a conservative faced off against a confirmed liberal. In this case, though, no incumbent’s seat was in danger, yet Cornyn still jumped into the race, endorsing - and funding - Crist. The people of Florida had had more than enough of Crist as governor, however, and a year after entering the race Crist, realizing that he had no chance of defeating Rubio, dropped out to run as an independent. Rubio soundly defeated Crist and the Democrat nominee, Kendrick Meek, in the general election. Since then, Crist has gone on to change his party affiliation to Democrat and announce a run for governor against Republican Rick Scott.

While his most visible perfidy came in 2010, Cornyn was never exactly a bastion of conservatism as head of the NRSC. As liberal as Cornyn had been with NRSC funds in 2010, showing himself more than willing to hamstring conservatives by supporting moderates in primaries, in 2012 he became much stingier, at least when it came to conservative nominees. When the otherwise solid Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin planted his foot squarely in his mouth by claiming that women do not become pregnant from “legitimate rape,” Cornyn first tried to force Akin from the still-winnable race (even immediately after the comment, McCaskill only led by ten points, and that lead declined steadily until McCaskill’s funding advantage began to wear Akin down), then, when Akin continued running, cut off all NRSC funds to Akin, allowing McCaskill to outspend Akin by almost six-to-one and virtually guaranteeing a Democrat victory in the race.

Throughout his time as head of the NRSC, Cornyn seemed to have a knack for finding the Republican candidates and senators most likely to switch their affiliation to Democrat and funding them. In Alaska Murkowski might as well have; in Pennsylvania Specter did; and in Florida Crist also did. While much of Cornyn’s actions as head of the NRSC can be attributed to an attempt to position himself for a run for Senate Minority Whip, some of his decisions cast serious doubt on his commitment to conservatism.

Cornyn didn’t limit himself to acting through the NRSC when making endorsements and passing out funds, though. Through his leadership PAC, Alamo PAC, Cornyn sent funds to eight Republican senators who were up for reelection, including Olympia Snowe, the third most liberal of the forty-six Republican senators, Dick Lugar, the ninth most liberal Republican senator, Scott Brown, the second most liberal Republican senator, and, perhaps surprisingly given Cornyn’s record, Orrin Hatch, the twenty-fourth most liberal Republican senator. In addition, Cornyn sent funds to several Republican senators who were not up for reelection - Kelly Ayotte, the twentieth most liberal Republican senator, Susan Collins, the most liberal Republican senator, Lisa Murkowski, the fifth most liberal Republican senator, and Lamar Alexander, the sixth most liberal Republican senator (Wagner 2012; FreedomWorks 2013).

For context, Cornyn donated to all but four of the ten most liberal Republican senators. Of the four who did not see funds from Cornyn, John Hoeven won his last election with 76% of the vote and won’t face another until 2016, Thad Cochran was a senior senator from a solidly red state who wouldn’t be up for election for two years, Kay Bailey Hutchison intended to retire, and Roy Blunt had won handily in 2010 and wouldn’t see another election until 2016. All of the most liberal Republican senators who had any use for funds got them from John Cornyn, and, with the exception of Ayotte and Hatch, who have amassed a decent voting record but tend to collapse on important points, all of the senators Cornyn sent funds to in 2012 were among the most liberal Republicans in the Senate.

As in the case of the NRSC, Cornyn’s decisions may have been driven by a desire to drum up support for his run for Senate Minority Whip, rather than a desire to make the Senate more liberal. Still, his selections must at the very least raise questions about his ideology, not to mention the viability of a senator who uses Senate seats as bargaining chips to gain power. Senate politics seems to be a game John Cornyn plays a bit too well.


That brings us to the issue that finally prompted a primary challenge (for a more detailed version of this account, see this post). Cornyn had shown himself unfaithful before, but it wasn’t until the stakes were much higher and the stage much larger that the full extent of his treachery became apparent. It all began when Texas Senator Ted Cruz, the latest addition to the Texas delegation to the Senate, devised a clever - nearly diabolical, actually, from a Democrat's perspective - plan to force Democrats to vote to defund their president's most visible program. It hinged on the fact that the Senate cannot originate a spending bill, and therefore must rely on amending House bills, combined with the fact that Senate Democrats did not have the votes they needed - sixty - to amend the bill. Democrats would be forced to choose between voting to defund Obamacare and voting to defund all of government. In the first case, they would be hamstringing their president's legacy; in the second, they would take all the blame for shutting down the government (the blame Republicans actually wound up taking). Ideally - and it's not far-fetched - a few Democrats from red states would choose not to face waves of negative public opinion over an extremely unpopular program, and would vote to defund. Had Cruz's plan worked, there would have been no shutdown, and Obamacare would not have been funded.

It didn't work, though, partially because of Harry Reid's skill, but partially because Senate Republicans betrayed their base. By filing for cloture on the bill, Reid could effectively lower the number of votes needed to amend the House bill to fund Obamacare from sixty to fifty-one, allowing the bill to be amended. Of course, cloture still requires sixty votes, but Reid banked on betrayal from enough Republican senators to win the cloture vote. By allowing Republican senators to vote for cloture, ensuring that they would lose the vote to amend the bill to fund Obamacare, but then technically vote against funding Obamacare, he gave them the cover they needed to sell out their constituents. Cruz responded with his now-famous pseudo-filibuster, calling attention to the fact that Republican senators were considering voting for cloture on the bill, thus guaranteeing that Obamacare would be funded. Ultimately, enough Republican senators decided that their constituents either didn't care or would forget how they voted, and chose to derail Cruz's plan to defund Obamacare, leaving Republicans fighting without their best weapon, set up to fail and to take the blame for the shutdown.

That's where Cornyn comes in. He talked a good enough fight, claiming that he only differed with Cruz on tactics, not strategy. He wanted to defund Obamacare, so that's why he was going to vote to advance the House bill. "Big John" was standing up for Texas, and voting to pass the House bill defunding Obamacare. Texans should be proud! The trouble is, it was all a lie. Cornyn claimed that voting for cloture as voting to advance the House bill: it wasn't. Cloture is only needed to advance a bill if someone threatens to halt that bill through extended debate, and no one had threatened to do that (even Cruz's pseudo-filibuster had been carefully timed to avoid delaying the bill). In this case, all cloture on the bill did was allow Democrats to amend the bill, removing the House's provision that Obamacare not be funded. Despite his rhetoric, Cornyn's vote when he voted for cloture on the bill was a vote for funding Obamacare, and a vote to scrap the most important elements of the House bill.

Cornyn didn't just vote to fund Obamacare and hand Republicans a loss in the shutdown fight, he wasn't even man enough to own up to it. He continued spouting the same drivel about advancing the House bill, even after the nonsensical nature of his reasoning was thoroughly explained. He took the cover Harry Reid handed him to betray Texas and conservatives across the nation (if he at least had the decency to admit to what he did he still wouldn't deserve to be a senator, but at least he could have made Texans proud of his courage). When it really mattered, when Republicans had a chance to accomplish something significant against the odds, he folded.


And that’s John Cornyn. That’s always been John Cornyn. He is the epitome of the slick lawyer, carefully crafting his public image to appear to be something he is not, more than willing to take a stand whenever the fight’s somewhere else.

Already, we’ve seen that his record as a fiscal conservative is questionable, and that his record on other issues that matter to conservatives is second-rate. In addition, we’ve seen that he’s happy to do whatever it takes to pack the Senate with liberals, without fail choosing to endorse the liberal in every primary battle and happy to send financial support to the most liberal Republicans in the Senate, while carefully excluding conservatives from his largess. Although it may have been less obvious, we’ve also seen why the ratings systems have failed to identify Cornyn for what he is: he cheats. On unimportant votes he runs up the score, voting a hard conservative line when it doesn’t matter, and reserving his perfidy for important votes, where he could make a difference. At the same time, he lies about what he’s voting for - think about it: if Ted Cruz hadn’t called attention to it, Cornyn’s vote for cloture, ensuring funding for Obamcare, would have been ignored, and his vote against the amendment funding Obamacare would have gone down as a valiant last stand against overwhelming odds. Once we know, though, we know that when it mattered Cornyn caved; when it didn’t, he talked tough.

Cornyn can talk a good game, no one denies that. The trouble is, when it comes right down to it, he’s not a conservative. He’s been “hired,” if you will, by conservatives, so he has to pay his dues every once in a while, but he’s nothing more than a hireling. When he has a chance to make a difference, he doesn’t. That might be enough for other states, and even for Texas in the past, but that isn’t good enough for Texas today. If we can’t get a solid pair of senators, who will? The country needs Texas to be Texas; they’re relying on us. It’s time for Texas to step up, and send John Cornyn home.






References:
Not all references are cited here. Many facts which are readily available and fairly widely known are not referenced; this partial list exists only to provide support for the more salient and disputable facts.

Bartlett, Bruce. 2013. “Medicare Part D: Republican Budget-Busting.” New York Times, November.
     19, 2013. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/medicare-part-d-republican-budget-busting/
Carafano, James. 2013. “Senator Cornyn’s Border Security Amendment Doesn’t Cut It.” June 17,
     2013. http://blog.heritage.org/2013/06/17/senator-cornyns-border-security-amendment-doesnt-cut-it/
Erickson, Erik. 2013. “The Sad Joke from John Cornyn’s Office.” RedState.com. Accessed
     12/12/2013. http://www.redstate.com/2013/07/28/the-sad-joke-from-john-cornyns-office/
FreedomWorks. 2013. “Scorecards.” Accessed 12/12/2013 from http://congress.freedomworks.org/

     Gillespie, Nick. 2010. “Happy Birthday, Medicare Part D! Now Die! Die! Die!” Reason.com.
     Accessed 12/12/2013. http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/19/happy-birthday-medicare-part-d
Klein, Phillip. 2013. “Bush’s Costly Medicare Legacy.” Washington Examiner, April 24, 2013.
     http://washingtonexaminer.com/bushs-costly-medicare-legacy/article/2528070
TreasuryDirect. 2013a. “Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2012.” Accessed 12/13/13.
     http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
TreasuryDirect. 2013b. “Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding.” Accessed 12/13/13.
     http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
Wagner, Samantha. 2012. “John Cornyn Shells out Cash to aid his GOP Colleagues.” Houston
     Chronicle.
Withrow, Joshua. 2013. “John Cornyn’s Top Ten Worst Votes.” FreedomWorks. Accessed 12/12/2013.
     http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/jwithrow/senator-john-cornyns-top-ten-bad-votes