Headlines: This Old Glenbrook Valley; That Ship Channel Hurricane-Protection Gate

Photo of Chong Hua Sheng Mu Holy Palace at Overture and Ashford Point: elnina via Swamplot Flickr Pool

17 Comment

  • Well ppl, I hope you’re happy with Colberson, Cruz, and Cornyn.
    These ‘principled’ conservatives pretty much assure us no federal $ for the centennial gate project. The pickins’ are slim as is, but these antagonistic politicians will assuredly keep us from getting Texas’ fair share of it’s tax $ back on projects good for Texas.
    The irony of voting in these far right candidates (who proclaim themselves fiscal conservs) is that we as Texans / Houstonians are going to have to pay more in taxes, not less, had we voted in more reasonable, savvy, and centrist politicians.

  • You silly commie, you make it sound like its free money from thin air. It’s still coming out of our federal income taxes and I’m sure comes with strings attached which will cost us on a local level for decades to come. These are not the times for grandiose projects, these are the times where every politician who wants to spend money needs to be smacked on the nose with a rolled up newspaper like a dog trying to steal a piece of chicken from the BBQ grill.

  • Let’s not pretend Sheila Jackson Lee accomplishes a damn thing either.

  • The Chong Hua Sheng Mu Holy Palace looks a lot like Vienna’s Secession building. I wonder what the story is there.

  • I agree, totally counter productive, thankfully the state is becoming purple and these statewide elected politicians will moderate or become extinct, Cruz for sure is a one and done, he’s too extreme for Mississippi much less Texas. As for the poll on the Dome, I’m most pleased.

  • But, DNAguy, what about those politicians’ efforts to have Texans not pay as much in federal taxes to begin with? Would be better if Texas could simply spend its own money rather than giving it to the federal government and then begging to get some of it back with strings attached. We’re all interested in real estate here: just like we’d do in a real estate transaction, let’s cut out the middle man here! Who’s more interested in ensuring the health of POH than Texas itself and Greater Houston in particular?

  • Methinks you guys need to look up what the definition of “extreme” is and look on your side of the isle.

  • Austerity programs only deepen and entrench ongoing recessions. The experiment has been going on for three years in Greece now, piling disaster on top of disaster.

  • Texas has in the past received more federal dollars than it sent to the federal government in taxes – like most Red states!

  • @commonsense
    1.) That $ is going to Washington regardless. Try as you might, reducing the size of government is hard / takes the majority of country. Fiscal & social conservatism is a relatively southern/regional phenomenon. Being in that block doesn’t help us. We had it good for a long time with KBH. She brought the $ back to Texas.
    2.) This project is needed. I work in the petrochemical industry and on the ship channel. This is needed. It’s needed yesterday. To put this perspective, this would be like investing $2000 to ensure that your $200,000 house doesn’t flood during a hurricane.

  • @Spoonman

  • @Jason C
    Well, the federal government helped create the ship channel in the first place as they funded 50% of it’s creation.
    I’m pretty sure they’ve got a dog in the fight.

  • Projects like these almost always save money in the long run. If the ship channel were to be devastated by a hurricane, it would end up costing several billion dollars in repairs and lost profits anyway. It’s pretty irresponsible to just leave the ship channel vulnerable, just because you’d rather spend the money on something new and shiny. Congress is going to spend the money regardless, whether it’s on fancy new spying software, or drones that make you breakfast. We might as well get some of that money here to use for something worthwhile.

  • Reducing the size of the government is hard, so trying to do so is wrong?

  • FistBump: Since what the government spends is in no way constrained by its revenue anymore, spending on one government program doesn’t reduce spending elsewhere.

  • @Spoonman
    I didn’t say that. I said that reducing the size of government is SO hard that just having a regional block of congress isn’t going to solve it. If it was such a great idea that would fix all our ills, there would be broader support. House races’ popular vote totals wouldn’t have favored democrats (republicans won more seats but lost the popular vote when all race totals were added up) in the last election and Barry wouldn’t have mopped the floor with Mittens if reducing the size of the federal government was truly palatable to the majority of voters.
    Besides this is all about discretionary spending anyhow. The real culprits are military spending and entitlements (medicare & ss)
    To get tough over ~20% of the budget while not touching the other 80% shows a lack of seriousness and is just political posturing for re-election. All the while your constituency is getting screwed b/c you’re not working to return any of the federal tax $ back to your district… which is a key part of your job as someone in congress.