Thursday, May 14, 2009
RE: Uninsured Children
I am very interested in the article, ’Uninsured Children.’ Texas is the leading state in the nation with uninsured children. In my opinion, the new bill that will allow working parents to buy into the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) will only help lighten the load for a little while. While it is very important for all children to have some form of health insurance, it is also important that people take responsibility for the families that they are trying to raise. I am in agreement with Talking Texan’s blog statement, “I do not want to support irresponsible parents of large families who are unwilling to do what it takes to earn their own way before going to the State.” I also do not want to support families who are not taking this situation seriously. If a family is below the national poverty rate and already has a few children, is it really necessary to be having more babies that they cannot take care of? Is it the responsibility of the State to finance free insurance for families who are not spending money properly? I too am on the fence with this topic. Letting families who do not already qualify for CHIP buy into the program is a great idea. This way, families are taking the initiative to support their children instead of trying to weasel free health care from the State. Since no hospital can turn away an emergency situation and low cost clinics do exist for families who cannot afford any type of health care, I do feel our health care issues should be more under control then they actually are. If parents are unable to afford any time of health care, CHIP included and do not qualify for Medicare, they should be taking precautionary measures with their children and finding low cost clinics for their care. No child should be over looked due to financial reasons. Is this bill a good idea? Yes, if people begin to take more responsibility for themselves, their children and families. But I, as a hardworking Texan, do not want to pay for health coverage of children whose parents spend money on frivolous items that I do not even have the finances to purchase. In the words of the Talking Texan, “…the 22% of uninsured children in Texas are without a doubt not responsible for being in this predicament and deserve quality healthcare.”
Friday, April 24, 2009
Anti-tax Tea Parties
Gov. Rick Perry fired up people attending an Austin anti-tax "tea party" last week by implying that Texas could secede from the United States, and that if "Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come of that." Perry claimed that when Texas joined the United States in 1845, it retained the option of being able to pull out.
Unsurprisingly, Perry has his facts wrong. Texas had the option of later splitting into four states but never the right to secede. Most folks recall the Civil War was fought because Southern states, including Texas, seceded from the Union. Most folks also recall the South lost that war, which settled the secession question. Texas did consider splitting up into more than one state during Reconstruction, but obviously nothing ever came of that.
It's one thing for the average citizen to entertain such far-fetched notions as the possibility that Texas could actually secede and exist as a separate nation. But it's quite another for the state's chief executive to indulge in such foolish talk.
Besides, if you think taxes are high now, imagine if the state's taxpayers had to completely fund a military, Social Security, Medicare, the postal system, highway construction and repair, diplomatic missions and a myriad of items now funded by the federal government. Admittedly it's with our money, but at least the burden is spread among taxpayers in 50 states.
Perry takes issue with the stimulus package passed by Congress. That's fine. But extending that protest to implying Texas taxpayers could get so fed up they would try to no longer be Americans borders on subversion. We are all Americans first, not Texans first.
Further, Perry's public speaking over the past few months seems to us a direct result of him being locked in a tough re-election battle against U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who has all but announced she's running for governor in 2010. Most polls show her far ahead, though nobody ought to write off Perry, who is a tough campaigner.
It's not just a good idea for citizens to speak up about how elected officials do their job, it's their duty. And, it's something that should be carried out every day, every week, every month. In other words, it shouldn't be considered a "special event."
The "tea parties" that were held throughout Texas and other states was considered a special event. It was a political protest against a decision by the Bush administration, Congress and the current administration to use taxpayer money to bail out financial institutions and insurers in the hope of avoiding a depression.
I fervently hope that it will work. Considering the devastating and long-lasting effect the Great Depression had on this country, we should all hope that it does, even for those who aren't in favor of a bailout.
The tea parties, while also described as a protest against "taxation without representation," was nothing of the kind. There was representation. President George W. Bush was elected to represent the United States by a majority of the citizens. He didn't ascend to the Oval Office through a royal lineage. Neither did President Barack Obama, nor our congressional representatives.
It's important to note that not every member of Congress supported the bailout plan — U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, for one. I thought his tax holiday plan, though not perfect, had merit. In any case, it was an alternative plan. It wasn't just a hands-off policy to let the market work.
Certainly, a government bailout is going to cost us all, but then so would a depression. Given the choice between no work and working harder or having less and having nothing, I'd choose to work harder and have less.
Unnecessary political projects aren't a new concept. Some of the projects built by the government program aimed at giving jobless young men something to do in the 1930s, the Civilian Conservation Corps, might have been considered unnecessary. Giving people work, which is the aim of an economic stimulus, is useful in itself. Besides, many millions have benefitted from the use of public parks, facilities and schools built by the CCC for the past seven decades.
That's not to say that I support handing over billions, no questions asked. Congress should be asking questions, holding people accountable. They should have been doing that all along. We all should have. More people need to get engaged in the political process. And more importantly, stay engaged, long after the party is over.
However, I find talk of secession from the governor embarrassing. It's reminiscent of what came from the Republic of Texas Militia in the mid 1990s. Most folks then found such talk foolish, even dangerous. I think the same of Perry's remarks last week.
Unsurprisingly, Perry has his facts wrong. Texas had the option of later splitting into four states but never the right to secede. Most folks recall the Civil War was fought because Southern states, including Texas, seceded from the Union. Most folks also recall the South lost that war, which settled the secession question. Texas did consider splitting up into more than one state during Reconstruction, but obviously nothing ever came of that.
It's one thing for the average citizen to entertain such far-fetched notions as the possibility that Texas could actually secede and exist as a separate nation. But it's quite another for the state's chief executive to indulge in such foolish talk.
Besides, if you think taxes are high now, imagine if the state's taxpayers had to completely fund a military, Social Security, Medicare, the postal system, highway construction and repair, diplomatic missions and a myriad of items now funded by the federal government. Admittedly it's with our money, but at least the burden is spread among taxpayers in 50 states.
Perry takes issue with the stimulus package passed by Congress. That's fine. But extending that protest to implying Texas taxpayers could get so fed up they would try to no longer be Americans borders on subversion. We are all Americans first, not Texans first.
Further, Perry's public speaking over the past few months seems to us a direct result of him being locked in a tough re-election battle against U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who has all but announced she's running for governor in 2010. Most polls show her far ahead, though nobody ought to write off Perry, who is a tough campaigner.
It's not just a good idea for citizens to speak up about how elected officials do their job, it's their duty. And, it's something that should be carried out every day, every week, every month. In other words, it shouldn't be considered a "special event."
The "tea parties" that were held throughout Texas and other states was considered a special event. It was a political protest against a decision by the Bush administration, Congress and the current administration to use taxpayer money to bail out financial institutions and insurers in the hope of avoiding a depression.
I fervently hope that it will work. Considering the devastating and long-lasting effect the Great Depression had on this country, we should all hope that it does, even for those who aren't in favor of a bailout.
The tea parties, while also described as a protest against "taxation without representation," was nothing of the kind. There was representation. President George W. Bush was elected to represent the United States by a majority of the citizens. He didn't ascend to the Oval Office through a royal lineage. Neither did President Barack Obama, nor our congressional representatives.
It's important to note that not every member of Congress supported the bailout plan — U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, for one. I thought his tax holiday plan, though not perfect, had merit. In any case, it was an alternative plan. It wasn't just a hands-off policy to let the market work.
Certainly, a government bailout is going to cost us all, but then so would a depression. Given the choice between no work and working harder or having less and having nothing, I'd choose to work harder and have less.
Unnecessary political projects aren't a new concept. Some of the projects built by the government program aimed at giving jobless young men something to do in the 1930s, the Civilian Conservation Corps, might have been considered unnecessary. Giving people work, which is the aim of an economic stimulus, is useful in itself. Besides, many millions have benefitted from the use of public parks, facilities and schools built by the CCC for the past seven decades.
That's not to say that I support handing over billions, no questions asked. Congress should be asking questions, holding people accountable. They should have been doing that all along. We all should have. More people need to get engaged in the political process. And more importantly, stay engaged, long after the party is over.
However, I find talk of secession from the governor embarrassing. It's reminiscent of what came from the Republic of Texas Militia in the mid 1990s. Most folks then found such talk foolish, even dangerous. I think the same of Perry's remarks last week.
RE: Should Texas Consider Reducing Tuition Costs?
Should Texas Consider Reducing Tuition Costs?
I am intrigued by the article about some Texas school districts considering paying their students for making good grades. As is pointed out in this article, receiving money for good grades would be an incentive to students to keep grades up and work well in school. I am not sure if this is proposed for students looking to enter college as high school seniors, or those students who are already in college and who maybe have made the dean’s list.
Personally, I agree with the idea of lowering tuition costs. Ever since state schools have been allowed to remove the cap from tuition rates and charge upwards of 300 dollars a semester hour, it does make it more difficult for certain students to afford some of the larger state universities. However, I cannot justify lowering tuition fees, or awarding free tuition, for only those students who make good grades.
The top ten percent incentive is great. I think that is the key for students who make good grades. This way they have no concern about being accepted into the college of their choice here in Texas. As for tuition costs, I don’t feel it is appropriate to lower costs for anyone based on grades, especially not to make their college tuition free. There exist scholarships and grants for those students with good grades. There are so many scholarships and grants available that go unused each semester. Students just need to know how to find them.
Going to college is a privilege and should be treated that way. Doing well in classes is something that each student in college should desire in order to get a better job and possibly go to graduate school. It is not something that can be awarded to students who desire to do well for some form of compensation.
I understand that tuition costs are up and it is hard to afford school when you are from a family with multiple children in college. But, universities can use this “excess” money they want to award students with good grades to help lower tuition costs for everyone. Though it would not be much, every little bit helps.
As stated before, there are plenty of grants and scholarships for those students with great grades in high school and in college. I am saying we should deny students who work hard, but in college you cannot make certain exceptions or promotions for one or a few individual students when all students need deductions in tuition. There are too many students who work too hard and make great grades for this money to go to a select number of students.
I am intrigued by the article about some Texas school districts considering paying their students for making good grades. As is pointed out in this article, receiving money for good grades would be an incentive to students to keep grades up and work well in school. I am not sure if this is proposed for students looking to enter college as high school seniors, or those students who are already in college and who maybe have made the dean’s list.
Personally, I agree with the idea of lowering tuition costs. Ever since state schools have been allowed to remove the cap from tuition rates and charge upwards of 300 dollars a semester hour, it does make it more difficult for certain students to afford some of the larger state universities. However, I cannot justify lowering tuition fees, or awarding free tuition, for only those students who make good grades.
The top ten percent incentive is great. I think that is the key for students who make good grades. This way they have no concern about being accepted into the college of their choice here in Texas. As for tuition costs, I don’t feel it is appropriate to lower costs for anyone based on grades, especially not to make their college tuition free. There exist scholarships and grants for those students with good grades. There are so many scholarships and grants available that go unused each semester. Students just need to know how to find them.
Going to college is a privilege and should be treated that way. Doing well in classes is something that each student in college should desire in order to get a better job and possibly go to graduate school. It is not something that can be awarded to students who desire to do well for some form of compensation.
I understand that tuition costs are up and it is hard to afford school when you are from a family with multiple children in college. But, universities can use this “excess” money they want to award students with good grades to help lower tuition costs for everyone. Though it would not be much, every little bit helps.
As stated before, there are plenty of grants and scholarships for those students with great grades in high school and in college. I am saying we should deny students who work hard, but in college you cannot make certain exceptions or promotions for one or a few individual students when all students need deductions in tuition. There are too many students who work too hard and make great grades for this money to go to a select number of students.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Time to Flow with the Free Flow of Information Act
An attempt to protect whistleblowers and journalists is closer than ever to becoming reality after the Texas House voted 146-2 in favor of the Free Flow of Information Act. The bill now goes to the state Senate, where it appears likely to be passed since a similar measure passed there in 2007 but died in the House. Additionally, the main group who opposed the bill, district attorneys, dropped its opposition.
This issue is imperative to exposing wrongdoing in government and in stemming the wave of subpoenas handed out to journalists in criminal and civil cases. Without some type of legal assurance that a whistleblower's identity won't be revealed, many are unwilling to provide the type of confidential information that uncovered, for example, the Texas Youth Commission scandal.
Just last year, for example, in a case in Tyler, either the defense attorney or the district attorney subpoenaed journalists from the newspaper and three different television stations covering the Mineola Swingers' Club trial. They were caught in the middle of a dispute between the defense and prosecution and ended up spending hours testifying on matters that had little or nothing to do with the actual case. Judges now don't have a structure to decide whether to grant subpoenas in these situations or not. This bill will provide that structure.
House Bill 670 does not give journalists absolute protection against testifying or revealing confidential sources. It would be up to a judge to decide whether the information is absolutely necessary to the case, or if it can be obtained elsewhere. Journalists who are eyewitnesses to a crime could be compelled to testify, and the confidentiality of grand jury testimony would still be protected.
This would stop television reporters and journalists from having to spend hours in a courtroom simply to verify a broadcast or a story. And news organizations would have to be compensated for their costs in complying with a subpoena.
I hope the Senate will act quickly and send this bill to the governor.
This issue is imperative to exposing wrongdoing in government and in stemming the wave of subpoenas handed out to journalists in criminal and civil cases. Without some type of legal assurance that a whistleblower's identity won't be revealed, many are unwilling to provide the type of confidential information that uncovered, for example, the Texas Youth Commission scandal.
Just last year, for example, in a case in Tyler, either the defense attorney or the district attorney subpoenaed journalists from the newspaper and three different television stations covering the Mineola Swingers' Club trial. They were caught in the middle of a dispute between the defense and prosecution and ended up spending hours testifying on matters that had little or nothing to do with the actual case. Judges now don't have a structure to decide whether to grant subpoenas in these situations or not. This bill will provide that structure.
House Bill 670 does not give journalists absolute protection against testifying or revealing confidential sources. It would be up to a judge to decide whether the information is absolutely necessary to the case, or if it can be obtained elsewhere. Journalists who are eyewitnesses to a crime could be compelled to testify, and the confidentiality of grand jury testimony would still be protected.
This would stop television reporters and journalists from having to spend hours in a courtroom simply to verify a broadcast or a story. And news organizations would have to be compensated for their costs in complying with a subpoena.
I hope the Senate will act quickly and send this bill to the governor.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Drawing Tan Lines for Teenagers
‘Legislature Tires to Draw Tan Line for Teenagers; State lawmaker is right to seek more restrictions on use of tanning salons by teens’ posted on Monday, March 23, 2009 in the Austin American Statesman. In the editorial, the author brings up State Representative Burt Solomons’ proposal for a new House Bill that would bar anyone under the age of 18 from using a tanning bed without a doctor’s note and a parent present. After a recent study done by San Diego State, the Austin area has 58 tanning salons, and only 34 Mc. Donald’s and 32 Starbucks. The current law requires anyone under 16 to have a parent present at the salon while they are tanning and anyone under 13 to have a doctor’s note. The main concern presented by this bill is the potential long-term health risks. Dr. Sharon Raimer, president of the Texas Dermatological Society, said even one exposure on a tanning bed before age 35 can increase the risk of melanoma. In opposition to this bill, Diane Lucas, president of Palm Beach Tan, who states there are about 1300 tanning salons in the state of Texas alone, also says that teenagers under the age of 18 only present about 5% of overall business. She continues to say “In this difficult economy, taking away this piece of the business would be extremely detrimental.”
The Austin American Statesman editorial board is presenting this article to the general public of Texas. The Statesman is also known for being a more liberal paper due to the high amount of liberals in the Austin area. In the editorial, the author’s stance is behind the Legislature, saying that the bottom line should be the welfare of the state’s teenagers. There is logic in the author’s claim, and evidence to support his/her stance in the article.
Personally, I agree with the author in wanting to protect the health of our state’s teenagers, but as for proposing a new State Bill, I feel that is a little unnecessary. Health is important, but decisions a child’s health generally is for parents to decide. I do not think that our Legislature needs to be involving themselves in trying to pass a Bill that is of such little importance during this time of financial struggle in our economy. There are many more pressing issues that require attention before passing a Bill about tanning in Texas. Parents need to be the ones stepping forward and informing their children of the health concerns involved with tanning. In the article there is a quote which Solomons told the House Committee on Public Heath a couple of weeks ago, “This is like big tobacco. These guys are basically luring teens in.” I agree with the author in saying comparing tanning to tobacco is a bit harsh but the cancer concerns are real. This is a family matter for children to discuss at home with their parents, not something the state should be concerning themselves with during this time in our economy.
The Austin American Statesman editorial board is presenting this article to the general public of Texas. The Statesman is also known for being a more liberal paper due to the high amount of liberals in the Austin area. In the editorial, the author’s stance is behind the Legislature, saying that the bottom line should be the welfare of the state’s teenagers. There is logic in the author’s claim, and evidence to support his/her stance in the article.
Personally, I agree with the author in wanting to protect the health of our state’s teenagers, but as for proposing a new State Bill, I feel that is a little unnecessary. Health is important, but decisions a child’s health generally is for parents to decide. I do not think that our Legislature needs to be involving themselves in trying to pass a Bill that is of such little importance during this time of financial struggle in our economy. There are many more pressing issues that require attention before passing a Bill about tanning in Texas. Parents need to be the ones stepping forward and informing their children of the health concerns involved with tanning. In the article there is a quote which Solomons told the House Committee on Public Heath a couple of weeks ago, “This is like big tobacco. These guys are basically luring teens in.” I agree with the author in saying comparing tanning to tobacco is a bit harsh but the cancer concerns are real. This is a family matter for children to discuss at home with their parents, not something the state should be concerning themselves with during this time in our economy.
Lead on Education
An editorial titled ‘Lead on education’ posted March 30, 2009 in the Fort Worth Star Telegram brings up the debate of Texas public school funding. The author is asking House Speaker Joe Straus “It isn’t enough that superintendents across the state are pleading that their districts will have to deplete savings, slash programs or increase local tax rates substantially — all of which some have already done?” He continues to say that the funding mechanism that was adopted in 2006 as a temporary solution to the problem needs to be changed in order to help out funding in our state schools. Straus recently replaced Tom Craddick as House Speaker, and the author feels that he brings a new, welcome open-mindedness to the speaker’s chair.
This editorial is presented to the general public of Texas. And though the Fort Worth paper tends to lean towards a more conservative audience, I feel the author presents a concern that arises from conservatives and liberals alike. Though the approach might be slightly different between the two parties on how to handle the state public funding, the concern still remains. The author brings up the concern of Straus’s comment, "We tend not to address situations until we absolutely have to, and we don’t have to this session. The political will doesn’t exist to do anything major.” What is it going to take to get more funding for state education?
The author makes a clear claim and stance in the editorial. After discussing the opposing statements that Straus made regarding the federal stimulus package and its effect on the public school system, the author sums up by stating that one proposal would inject $1.9 billion dollars into the school finance system, all that is needed is some leadership to help it find its way.
Personally, I agree with this editorial. I feel that the funding in our public school system is a huge issue that needs to be addressed as soon as possible. As a soon to be teacher for the state of Texas, I would like to know that the appropriate funding for not only the basic school needs but also other programs that each school offers to ensure learning and the safety of our children will remain intact. Education is something that cannot be taken lightly, even in a time of financial hardship around the country. If we do not have educated children, if we do not strive to make individuals in our country better, then how to we expect to come out of the fiscal problem that we are in. Education to me is the key for success in our country and it should never be over looked.
Friday, March 6, 2009
UT President Warns of Consequences to Automatic-Admission Law
UT president Warns of Consequences to Automatic-Admission Law. This article, by Ralph Haurwitz of the Austin American-Statesman, is discussing the proposal that UT president William Powers Jr. hopes to take to Senate about changing the current top 10 percent law in Texas. This law allows any student who graduates ranked in the top ten percent of their class in high school to automatically be admitted to any state school in Texas. The top 10 percent law was initially enacted by the Legislature in 1997 in an effort to boost minority enrollment after a federal court ruling effectively halted the use of affirmative action in admissions. Unfortunately, enrollment of Hispanics and African Americans has not risen significantly since 1997.
The problem arising now is that because of the high percentage of students wanting to come to UT (81% last year with an expected rise to 86% by fall) UT is having to turn down out of state students and other applicants the school would like to admit taking into account leadership, musical and artistic talent, race, ethnicity and other factors. I feel this is important information for all current UT students and especially those wanting to attend UT in the future. Powers says that the school might have to go so far as to eliminating the football program since most football players do not rank in the top ten percent.
Powers proposal is to tweak the top ten percent law for UT allowing the top one percent, then the top two percent, and so on until half of the incoming freshman spots are filled. This leaves room for other applicants to be fitted into the process. If it comes to a vote, I for one will be participating on the side of president Powers. UT without football is unfathomable to me!
The problem arising now is that because of the high percentage of students wanting to come to UT (81% last year with an expected rise to 86% by fall) UT is having to turn down out of state students and other applicants the school would like to admit taking into account leadership, musical and artistic talent, race, ethnicity and other factors. I feel this is important information for all current UT students and especially those wanting to attend UT in the future. Powers says that the school might have to go so far as to eliminating the football program since most football players do not rank in the top ten percent.
Powers proposal is to tweak the top ten percent law for UT allowing the top one percent, then the top two percent, and so on until half of the incoming freshman spots are filled. This leaves room for other applicants to be fitted into the process. If it comes to a vote, I for one will be participating on the side of president Powers. UT without football is unfathomable to me!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
