Cruel and Unusual

In Samantha’s latest blog post, “Required Sonograms Before Abortions”, we are introduced into the legislative bill that could do just that this session. If the bill passes, abortion patients will have to attend a mandatory sonogram with a doctor, 24 hours prior to the procedure. As a citizen, and a human being we must ask ourselves, what is the purpose? It cannot be anything other than to change the patient’s mind on the matter… is this ethical?

The author of this blog does a great job providing a concise backdrop on this subject, with the supporters and opposers of this bill each having their voice heard in the blog and offering her own personal opinion on the subject. She brings up a good point, that this child is just not something that they want, but most importantly, this child is not someone that they will be able to maintain, support and provide for in order for a healthy life and as such, this bill is in fact a double edged sword. If this bill passes, we could be allowing the birth of many children who will see the tainted light of day in a less than healthy environment. The decision is to be made by the mother, as she will be the one directly affected, then assisted by the doctor, in order for a healthy choice, whichever the mother chooses, and together with the father this should all be possible. In fact this is just a personal opinion but this topic is all about such opinions, and we will surely see protests for both ends of this bill because this is going to be a controversial law if passed by the legislature.

All in all, a great take on the topic, concise but with such a topic, many stances and opinions are to be had and rebuttled, as such this is a spectacular take, with an agreeable stance for the intended audience (anyone ethically inclined to listen to any abortion topic/law).

Martyrdom

Democratic Senator, Judith Zaffirini from Laredo is just that - a martyr in the Senate after Republican Senator Jeff Wentworth attached his "guns on campus" bill to hers in order to try and get it passed. Why her bill? Senator Zaffirini is the chairman of the Senate Higher Education Committee, and as such had attempted to reform universities around Texas by lessening the amount of reporting required by each University, to lower funds as we desperately need to do so. Her bill would have most likely passed the Senate with a majority, because this is something Texas needs - Senator Wentworth has managed to kill such a prosperous bill in this time of need.
Zaffirini attempted to keep her bill alive by questioning parliamentary procedures but failed, and as such, she decided to kill it as well, to prevent passing the gun bill. In response, Wentworth has tried to revive the bill, by changing its reformation, excluding private universities - Democrats don't buy it. When interviewed, he declined to state his future (devious might I add) plans to get his gun bill to pass.
Zaffirini's bill, a martyr in the guns on campus debate is just another example of Texas politics gone wrong. We as citizens should feel a sense of outrage, I know I sure feel this way. We ourselves are feeling the impact of this as students, with higher tuition costs that could possibly have been maintained the same as before. Here at ACC it is only a $5/hour difference, but what about other colleges and universities? Altogether, this could potentially save universities millions... millions of dollars that could fund many important programs such as the research here at the University of Texas or in the form of scholarships to educate more citizens about their government! A concerned student can only hope that this is the end of Senator Wentworth's attempts at passing his guns on campus bill - but something inside my Democratic Texas soul doubts this is the last we will see of him, this legislative session.

It makes an educated citizen wonder... If the legislature is supposed to represent the people of the state (which it clearly doesn't), then should we not protest to change their minds, for we are their constituency, and as such, they need our approval for their own selfish reasons to stay in their current position. Protests should ensue, for if each student in Texas protested, they would have to hear our collective voice, asking for democracy, asking for what Texas universities desperately need. This unfair legislative procedure may work both ways, but maybe it is time for a change in the procedure when such good bills are killed by bad ones like these.

Any Good Choices? Lets find one.

In Nikki Dickerson's latest blog post, she focuses on the budget deficit we are facing as a nation but more specifically, here in Texas. She brings up a very interesting point - we must make a choice, but are there any good choices? A choice here being the choice of what to cut in order to balance this shortfall. She logically mentions the options that legislature was heavily considering such as adding gambling, cutting K-12 school funding, raising taxes, Medicaid or Medicare. The solution is not easy to find, nor would any option please all the legislature's constituency. I agree entirely with this blog post and its topic. The only way to make this critique on Texas government better is to take a stance. Any answer cannot be the wrong answer to this difficult topic - offering an original stance on which specific government proposals to cut, remove, replace, add or edit would offer a deeper insight on the topic. The claim is there, the logic stands well and the evidence is all around us, the only part missing is the next logical step to offer a solution to strengthen an otherwise very good editorial.

A very thought provoking read, as each project is definitely either helping or hurting citizens throughout Texas, whether students, the elderly or those seeking to lose hundreds of dollars at the slots (with a dream of winning millions!!).

Cut, Cut, Snip, Snip

The 82nd Texas Legislature is in session and they have scissors on their hands. With the budget deficit we are facing as a nation and particularly here in Texas, the Legislature is cutting wherever possible. First place is school funding of course. So much funding has been cut already and has been dwindling down over the years. If we continue to allow such cutting, our future will continue to lose important education and fall further down the list internationally.

Recently this has affected the ACC environment in the shape of a $5 increase in tuition per credit hour. This is in response to the cutting the Legislature has proposed for the upcoming year. That's an extra $15 per 3 hour class to make up for such state funding and it is stated that ACC has proposed. It is possible that more increases will come after the summer classes to make up for the state funding cuts but more importantly, the record setting enrollment of this year and very likely the fall semester.
The House voted in a vast majority to cut $7.8 billion from school district funding - about $870 less per student overall. The Senators are yet to weigh in - which is predicted to be in favor of school funding. What will Texas do?
It is up to the Austin community to support school funding and not allow such cuts to occur. If we let the Legislature cut tremendous amounts now, it will take years to regain that money in our already fragile education system. With teachers losing their jobs already, what will occur now? As a community we have to voice our opinion for the future of our children.

We Love This Enfranchisement! ...wait, what? Disenfranchisement?!

Charles Kuffner from over Off the Kuff has written a critique over the 'new' voter ID bill that has passed in the Texas Legislature last night. The audience here is anyone interested in politics but mostly the Democrats of this Lone Star state. The critique is indeed of the Republican majority in the House where the vote FOR voter ID passed 101-48. Mr Kuffner generously lets us know that there are 101 Republicans in office and 49 Democrats, from his source. His blog post is charged with the facts that point towards disenfranchisement of different categories of people from the poor, elderly, minorities and college students.

The implied claim here is that the voter ID will in fact disenfranchise the prior-mentioned groups, of which, minorities are protected by Section 5 of the 1964 Voting Rights Act. This protection is why the simple vote that has passed in the House is not of enforceable quality because this must be heard by the United States Department of Justice (US DoJ). At this hearing the DoJ has to "pre-clear" any changes in voting prerequisite, standards or qualifications due to historical woes of disenfranchisement. It is the duty of the Republicans, or their Burden of Proof, to established that the change is in fact not one with a retrogressive purpose.

This is the evidence the author brings to the reader. The entire piece is quite logical, following the facts and leaning towards the Democratic view of it all. The critique, again, is of the Republican party in power as it is as he quotes "[wasting] time on unnecessary, nonemergency legislation that chips away at citizens’ fundamental rights" instead of spending it fixing the budget crisis.

I can only agree with the author (with a historical credibility as a political commentator) as it has been seen before that the Republican party in control will always try to change policies, laws, norms and anything else to create a pool of voters in their favor to maintain office as long as possible (see: Gerrymandering in Texas). The Republicans are again trying to do such a thing with Senate Bill 14 - disenfranchising the very people who have historically voted Democratically here in Texas. I can only hope that the Department of Justice can see through the Republican claim that this is to thwart voter fraud in Texas. The author provided another useful tidbit of information on that regard, in which is stated that since 2002, there has been one prosecuted case of voter fraud, in the millions of votes here in Texas. Everyone should read this critique of our Senate and House Republicans to change the stupidity of laws and regulations that a majority causes and hope for an outcome of  Democracy in the next voting session, caused by an enlightened voting population (of course not likely).

School Time Woes

Money in our school system is in definite need in our current school's financial troubles. The editorial board from the Statesman has much to say for the acquiring of federal money following Title I guidelines, in the state of Texas. Wouldn't it be grand if we didn't have to cut jobs in our already failing education system and better improve upon it?

This editorial piece in the Statesman is a critique of two people in Texas that have the power to allow the contested $830 million into the state, Texas Governor Rick Perry and Texas representative for the House, Lloyd Doggett. Because of disagreements between the two, the money will not see the light of day in Texas before the November elections of the U.S. House of representatives. Why is that date important? It is speculated that the House will be dominantly Republican and therefore cut spending, most likely killing this provision for the state. The basic disagreement is the following of the federal Title I guidelines in comparison to Texas formulas in place. The logic shows that a densely, poorer, populated area like Austin would gain millions more under the Federal guidelines than a less densely populated, richer, area like Round Rock.

The editorial goes on to show evidence of the need for money in the school district as many school jobs have been cut as a result. Such cuts eventually end up as less money for the classrooms themselves. Such an argument appeals to the audience, allowing for an effective critique of their Texas representatives.

The article's logic is solid - act on this now or regret it later. Just another example of how politics is like two children fighting over something - neither gets it in the end when the adult takes it away.

Sell Your Raft!

Amazon, the global sales giant, is leaving Texas. The reason? Taxes.

Texas is seeking different ways to pay its budget deficit and found a way in the form of the internet retail giant Amazon. The corresponding Statesman article, states that the period in question is from 2005-2009. Amazon is contested to owe back taxes from that period of time, as the Texas Comptroller, Susan Combs had notified the company as of last year. Amazon contended that they are in the business of internet interstate commerce, therefore not able to be taxed by Texas, the 'business friendly' state. Citing a 1992 Supreme Court case, Amazon's physical presence in the form of the Dallas distribution center could place them in a position to pay taxes - $269 million, to Texas.

Governor Rick Perry has recently been in the news for opposing the Texas Comptroller. Rick Perry says it is in the support of Texas business and the 119 jobs being lost at this distribution center. Such politics creates discord in Texas. This is important because this could be the case that sets case law for future tax cases involving internet commerce in Texas if the prior law is amended. The future of businesses in Texas will be affected as well as the future of the Texas budget.