Welfare and healthcare

This is a response to the Texas State & Local Government blog that I read on December 11, 2007. I agree that more parents need to enroll in the CHIP and Medicaid programs. The reason why they don't is because it is a lot of work to get enrolled in Medicaid. If you have ever been to the welfare office you know you will be there all day and may not get to see anyone. Matthew should have mentioned the inadequate system we have that provides these services. CHIP also had a 90 day waiting period and if they provided insurance at your work you would have to go through another process to try to get some insurance for your children. Another thing parents do not consider is if your child gets hospitalized the bills can be outrageous. Many parents think that they can just ignore the bill and nothing will happen, but the reality is that is why hospital and insurance prices are going up. Someone has to pay for all of the medical care. CHIP has had a few television programs, but not enough to make a real difference and I have to agree more advertising should be put out there. Here we can see again that prevention is not be exercised in Texas. Overall his blog was good, but could have expanded on a few areas and perhaps listed the source from which he got the first sentence of his paper.

Austin Traffic

After reading an article in the Austin American Statesman written by Ben Wear on November 26, 2007 called CAMPO wrestling rail planning from Cap Metro I believe that we should do something about our traffic problems other than the toll roads. A fourteen member work group (Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization or CAMPO) has been assembled to determine the next step for central Texas rail. Although this sounds promising it is doubtful anything will happen in our near future. Untangling all this in time for a 2008 election, however, could be a stretch. Doing it right, not fast, is what matters, McCracken said. It is detrimental that we have already wasted twenty-two years on planning and still can not seem to come up with a realistic plan nor enough money to fund a rail system. There is even talk of us not being able to repair or expand current roads to meet current traffic needs and that more money is needed from the legislation. There are many reasons for the rail to not be built. I believe the crime rate in Austin will increase if an underground rail system is implemented, but an external one would be difficult because of the already over crowded space. The main reason for the delays seems to be money. The Capital Metro says they do not have the funding for rail projects and just last year a proposal for a $210 million was declined when presented by our current Mayor Wynn (who will lead the CAMPO). I really believe our legislature should either fund the project or deny it. It would be more logical to spend our money on something more productive like building more roads instead of wasting our money on a committee that leads to nowhere, while allowing foreign countries to come in and use our needed labor to build toll roads resulting in a private gain.

Positive Proposition 15

Proposition 15 was one of the most debated propositions and is discussed on October 31, 2007 by one of my classmates on her Fattutu website. She gives us an idea of what the money is going to be used for when she states “The plan is to establish the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas.” She describes simply what an opportunity proposition 15 is and supports her arguments by stating it may save lives and how it will affect us not only on a state, but a national level. I was not aware of the proposition or what it could do until I read the article. It provided me with the information, data and a positive opinion necessary for making a logical decision. I do not understand what she meant by ($10,000 a month for rent). She may have meant the price it costs to pay for rent of the governor’s mansion or something, but it is not very specific in this area. I know I do not pay that much a month for rent. She also states that there was “no indication that there would be a proposed tax increase, now or in the future.” This indicates that the new bond proposal may not raise our taxes. Although this is possible it is not probable because the 3 Billion has to come from somewhere (either by reducing other funding or new taxes) and it is definitely not a small amount of money. Not that I would not want to raise my taxes to pay for cancer research it is a worthy and justified cause considering most people die from cancer. Overall her paper was effective, informative, and well written.

Propostion 2 an Economical Idea

Proposition 2

There are many propositions that are being voted on at this time, but one of the most important ones is proposition 2. There is an article in the Austin American Statesman written by Ralph Haurwitz on October 21, 2007 called Election: Constitutional amendments Student loans depend on voters that explains Proposition 2 will authorize “the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to issue $500 million in bonds to finance low-interest loans to college students.” This is a smart and economical proposition because it will not affect the taxpayers money, in other words the funds for these lower interest rates will not come from our taxes. The bonds will be paid back by the students’ loan money; therefore it will not even affect the states deficit. The money will be taken out in bonds and allow a lot of students to reach their dream of succeeding in graduating college. Education has always been stressed as important and as a fellow college student it is more important than ever right now to be able to pay these loans back at the lowest rate possible. We are currently using a bond at this time and the only reason we must re-instate the bond is because the old one is running out. According to an analysis by the House Research Organization, a nonpartisan unit of the Texas House, The current coordinating board's bonding authority will run out in 2009 if Proposition 2 is not approved. If this bill is not approved it may mean less education for many students who will not be able to afford to re-pay the high interest loans, which would damper our community and our economy. It just does not make sense to not approve this bill, unless you are a commercial bank owner who wants to rather receive profit, than to further the better education of our children. In conclusion it is plain and simple to see that our students need this proposition to pass to better our economy and our future.

Lowering College Interest Rates

This article represents Proposition 2 which will lower the interest rates on student loans. Sen. Judith Zaffirini argues to support the bill and as chairwoman of the Senate Higher Education Subcommittee is a credited party. The bill is quite simple and she does state reasons for supporting the bill and reasons for not vetoing the bill. She gives us the date on which to vote, November 6th and has a very strong argument.

She begins her core argument by addressing the current resolution of using bonds to fund the lower interest tuition loans, and how this has positively affects a large number of students. She provides us statistical data to support this when she states “In the last 10 years alone, more than 58,000 Texans cumulatively received about $659 million in low-interest loans to help pay for college expenses.” She then explains that the funds may run out by 2009 and gives us a source, the “Coordinating Board”. She does lean a lot of her argument to educating our future and stresses that education is important which is opinionated and does not have supporting evidence, but nonetheless applies to her article. Her last statement expresses an important factor that may be weighed when considering voting on an economical issue. Will it affect our taxes? The answer is no which is seen when she states “Prop. 2 will have no impact on our local property taxes, sales taxes or other taxes collected by the state.” In conclusion, her article does seem very convincing and supportive.

Link to article described above:
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/10/04/04/1005zaffirini_edit.html

Share the Burden or Ignore the Problem?

John D. Esparza's goal in this article is to convince the legislature not to change the taxes. It is assumed they are planning to leave a full burden on the trucks for all highway state taxes maintenance and repair. Many news articles I have read tend to claim that we should increase the cost of overweight-oversized permits to compensate for the damage done to Texas’ highways and bridges. This is clearly a response to the incident of the Minneapolis bridge mishap. He has successfully deemed a responsible party, the routing service, to allocate the responsibility of the trafficking of this potential danger. This explanation of the funds being allocated to the routing service to assure our safety was a plausible response to the accusations of wrongly funded money. It is then assumed by increasing the cost of permits we would not increase the funding for road maintenance, but expand the employment of the routing service.

Though many questions are answered, considering this information is coming from the Texas Motor Transportation Association, many ideas are half stated and not supported with additional information. One example is when he states, “Counties have the authority to obtain engineering data to make restrictions they need for their bridges as well (Esparza 1).” Many questions many come to mind. Are the counties required to extract the engineering data to review this information? Is this done on a regular and consistent basis? How is this regulated?

This article explains how trucks are committing a violation when crossing an unsafe bridge. He however does not supply us with the information on how often trucks cross unsafe bridges, how this is determined, or supply supporting information on the enforcement of this policy. Statistical data would have helped in this area.

Mr. Esparza then makes several generalized one sided assumptions without any factual data to support his argument. Some examples would be: “Should the Legislature act to impose the cost of highway maintenance on the trucking industry alone, no shipper could afford to move its goods on trucks (Esparza 1).” and “Infrastructure costs are so high that the public must participate (Esparza 1).” This may be true, but could a compromise be made where the trucking industry take more of the responsibility than they do now? How much would this raise their costs compared to what they spend now in taxes? In order to make a sound judgment, these ideas should be clearly interpreted and not approached with such a bias conclusion. In the end he bluntly states what has been done, but does not list any alternative options that might be possible.


Work cited
Esparza, John. Esparza: Share the burden to maintain highways 21 Sept. 2007 http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/09/21/0921esparza_edit.html

New Driving Regulations Accepted and Rejected

The Austin Chronicle gave me a fairly detailed article about the legalislation's decisions to pass or deny new driving laws, which became effective on September 1, 2007. Is is important to read this article because these laws affect many members throughout the communities and are important for the safety and well being of many. If speeding over 95 mph you will have to sit through a very long driving-safety class or the ticket will not be dismissed. If you have a learner in the car you can not be asleep or drunk, because the adult should be responsible for assisting the young driver. The elderly will have more restrictions on driving. If you are 79 or older you may not renew by mail or online. Adults older than 85 must also have an eyesight test.

An important part of this article is about the school buses that carry our future in their hands. HB 323 requires that all new buses have seat belts, but only if the legislature puts the required money into future budgets. So, if the legislature thinks it is important they might give us money to ensure our children's well-being, which is absolutely ridiculous. Firearms will also be banned not only inside schools, but now also on buses and in parking lots. Governor Perry seems to have many objections this year, not only to funding colleges, but also to the environment and well being of students. He displayed this by vetoing a law to ban diesel-engine buses from running their engines while parked at school events. He also denied this bill even though it passed through both chambers.

The last section of the article explains that cell phones were not banned while driving this year, but in 18 other states they are. In conclusion the legislators and our Governor do actually have a great amount of control over our lives and our children’s lives, which can be helpful or life threatening to us all.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A531759