In a November 29 article titled “18 Year Olds and the Right to Bear Arms,” my colleague Tammy discusses the two current lawsuits that are challenging Texas and Federal laws regarding the legal age for handgun sales. She deliberates as to whether the age should be lowered from 21 to 18, and, in the end, I think she made the right choice; the Second Amendment applies to all legal, law-abiding citizens of age 18 and older.
At age 18, U.S. citizens are considered adults for all intents and purposes except alcohol consumption and the purchase of concealable firearms. The latter seems counterintuitive to the liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights which allows 18 year olds to serve in the armed forces and to vote as citizens. Tammy contends that if you are old enough to give your life for this nation, you ought to be able to purchase a firearm, and I wholeheartedly agree. Simply put: the age limit for handgun ownership should be lowered in order to, at the very least, establish some consistency for the age of adulthood in the U.S. In Texas, individuals aged 17 and older may be tried as an adult which I think is reason enough to allow that age group to purchase concealable weapons since they are old enough to be held accountable for their actions.
Tammy mentions that the Second Amendment guarantees citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Depriving a portion of our citizenry this fundamental right is unconstitutional and a blatant disregard of the Bill of Rights by both our state and national governments.
Furthermore, I think it is obvious that unlawful juveniles will acquire concealable weapons whether it is legal to sell to them or not. Allowing law abiding 18 year olds to purchase handguns would only allow them to protect themselves against their cohorts who may use illegally acquired weapons in acts of violence. Statistics confirm that arming the citizenry does not increase the occurrence of violence. In fact, studies show that when citizens own guns, crime actually decreases. Conversely, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns, and the rate of crime goes up.
For example, during the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law. Depriving any law-abiding citizens of the right to own firearms is a dangerous violation of our civil liberties, and I commend Tammy for bringing attention to this egregious issue.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
Yes We Cannabis
As the Texas Legislature prepares to meet in January, they will be greeted by a budget from the State Comptroller’s office that will detail the magnitude of our state’s deficit. It will explain to us, in more definite terms, that we are a little over $25 billion in debt. With such a drastic shortfall, we find that the options for a resolution are very limited and even more disheartening.
We could cut spending from K12 and higher education. We could increase revenue by dipping into our $10 billion “Rainy Day Fund”. We could legalize gambling or institute a state income tax. Several suggestions are being tossed around, but many have already made up their minds as to what ought to be first on the chopping block (texastribune.org)
Texas Republicans are collectively taking aim at programs of the Health and Human Services Department, particularly Medicaid. They make the apathetic assertion that withdrawing from Medicaid, a federally and state-funded health care program for the needy, is the only viable option for solving our budget crisis (NYTimes).
Texas’ biennial Medicaid budget is about $16 billion, which is about half of our estimated deficit. I can understand how this would be a tempting solution to our money problem (sunshinereview.org). However, rather than ditching the poor and taking our financial woes out on the HHSC, maybe we can actually aid our healthcare system by legalizing medicinal marijuana, thereby lessening the frequency and urgency of hospital visits for the chronically ill, while we, at the same time, take advantage of the taxable revenue it would generate. If medical marijuana were to be legalized, local governments would maintain the authority to determine the number of “wellness centers” operating within each county which would allow for strict regulation of operations.
A (non-university) organization for the legalization of medical cannabis that calls itself MedCan University estimates that such a program would create 200,000 jobs in Texas. They also claim that “by placing a 10 percent sales tax on medical marijuana, the herb would be expected to generate $1.9 billion in revenue in the first biennial cycle” (MedCan University) It may not seem like much in comparison to our overall deficit, but I predict that that amount would exponentially increase as the negative stigma that surrounds marijuana-use gradually fades away, and medicinal pot becomes an option for those chronic pain sufferers who are, presently, doped up on addictive, pain-killing pharmaceuticals that grow weaker with each use.
Non-medical marijuana production, sales, and use ought to be legalized as well, but that is far less likely to happen in such a conservative state. However, I believe that the revenue from the sale of recreational marijuana would close, if not substantially shrink, the budget gap over just a handful of biennial legislative sessions. It would take time and patience, but I think it would be worth the wait.
If we move to legalize medicinal marijuana only, one might argue that the program would entice individuals to start growing and selling the plant out of their own homes. I would argue that the rate of these types of crimes would not waver because laws governing recreational marijuana use would remain as they stand; the sentences for such crimes would be as severe as ever. Selling homegrown marijuana would remain a black market operation and the prospect of punishment would continue to deter the smarter criminals.
I concede that taxing medicinal marijuana alone would not close the budget gap. However, if it were coupled with other measures that are less detrimental and/or more progressive for our society, such as legalized gambling and same-sex marriage, they would, together, put a noticeable dent in the deficit that I think would surpass everyone’s expectations. All of these measures would boost the economy, create jobs, and generate substantial tax revenue.
While withdrawing from Medicaid would close the gap in one or two biennial sessions, I contend that legalizing recreational marijuana would attain the same result, although it may take a bit longer. Cost-shifting and instituting a state income tax, however unlikely, would speed up the entire process. The bottom line is that we ought to exhaust all means to avoid terminating Medicaid because refusing medical service to the needy is inhumane.
We could cut spending from K12 and higher education. We could increase revenue by dipping into our $10 billion “Rainy Day Fund”. We could legalize gambling or institute a state income tax. Several suggestions are being tossed around, but many have already made up their minds as to what ought to be first on the chopping block (texastribune.org)
Texas Republicans are collectively taking aim at programs of the Health and Human Services Department, particularly Medicaid. They make the apathetic assertion that withdrawing from Medicaid, a federally and state-funded health care program for the needy, is the only viable option for solving our budget crisis (NYTimes).
Texas’ biennial Medicaid budget is about $16 billion, which is about half of our estimated deficit. I can understand how this would be a tempting solution to our money problem (sunshinereview.org). However, rather than ditching the poor and taking our financial woes out on the HHSC, maybe we can actually aid our healthcare system by legalizing medicinal marijuana, thereby lessening the frequency and urgency of hospital visits for the chronically ill, while we, at the same time, take advantage of the taxable revenue it would generate. If medical marijuana were to be legalized, local governments would maintain the authority to determine the number of “wellness centers” operating within each county which would allow for strict regulation of operations.
A (non-university) organization for the legalization of medical cannabis that calls itself MedCan University estimates that such a program would create 200,000 jobs in Texas. They also claim that “by placing a 10 percent sales tax on medical marijuana, the herb would be expected to generate $1.9 billion in revenue in the first biennial cycle” (MedCan University) It may not seem like much in comparison to our overall deficit, but I predict that that amount would exponentially increase as the negative stigma that surrounds marijuana-use gradually fades away, and medicinal pot becomes an option for those chronic pain sufferers who are, presently, doped up on addictive, pain-killing pharmaceuticals that grow weaker with each use.
Non-medical marijuana production, sales, and use ought to be legalized as well, but that is far less likely to happen in such a conservative state. However, I believe that the revenue from the sale of recreational marijuana would close, if not substantially shrink, the budget gap over just a handful of biennial legislative sessions. It would take time and patience, but I think it would be worth the wait.
If we move to legalize medicinal marijuana only, one might argue that the program would entice individuals to start growing and selling the plant out of their own homes. I would argue that the rate of these types of crimes would not waver because laws governing recreational marijuana use would remain as they stand; the sentences for such crimes would be as severe as ever. Selling homegrown marijuana would remain a black market operation and the prospect of punishment would continue to deter the smarter criminals.
I concede that taxing medicinal marijuana alone would not close the budget gap. However, if it were coupled with other measures that are less detrimental and/or more progressive for our society, such as legalized gambling and same-sex marriage, they would, together, put a noticeable dent in the deficit that I think would surpass everyone’s expectations. All of these measures would boost the economy, create jobs, and generate substantial tax revenue.
While withdrawing from Medicaid would close the gap in one or two biennial sessions, I contend that legalizing recreational marijuana would attain the same result, although it may take a bit longer. Cost-shifting and instituting a state income tax, however unlikely, would speed up the entire process. The bottom line is that we ought to exhaust all means to avoid terminating Medicaid because refusing medical service to the needy is inhumane.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
NASA Discovers Financial Black Hole in Mexico
I thoroughly enjoyed Jillien’s editorial “Mexican EXPENSIVE Business Trades” because it shines a light on a very serious subject that I'd never considered before. Apparently, billions of American dollars are funneled out of the U.S. via border-states like Texas, Arizona, and California each year en route to their final destination in the pockets of drug cartel members and the Mexican government officials they bribe. Exactly how much money is still unknown, but estimates range from $6 billion to $40 billion.
I have heard a lot of people try to blame a portion of our financial troubles on undocumented workers for sending their earnings back to their loved ones in Mexico, but I think that statistic is dwarfed by the amount of money that is exported by drug cartels and their accomplices.
I was born and raised in the Rio Grande Valley. In my experience, when you cross the border into Mexico, vehicles are not inspected. You just pay the small toll to cross. It's only when emerging from Mexico that you are questioned about what you're carrying, whether it's liquor (legal, one bottle per adult), prescription drugs (legal with a prescription), or fruits and vegetables that have been seeded (legal). When you buy avocados, they take out the pit and replace it with half of a seeded jalapeno pepper to keep it from oxidizing, although that may just be an old wives tale. I always use the jalapeno in my guacamole. And I have never tried to stuff the center of my avocados with drugs.
However, if you look suspicious (like a car full of teenagers), you will be asked to pull over to have your vehicle searched by border patrol agents and their drug-sniffing canines. Again, this is only enforced on your way out of Mexico. It made sense to me, at first, to think that they don't care if you're a coyote (someone who smuggles illegal immigrants across the border) because they know if Mexicans want to return home they can just walk across, no questions asked. And they don’t care if you're smuggling drugs back into Mexico because they know that just doesn't happen. I never imagined that the amount of money being exported might be a huge contributing factor to our nation’s money woes. The Border Patrol doesn’t have the authority to stop every car and ask them how much cash they are carrying; but cash has a pretty distinctive smell and German Shepherds are trained to detect the scent of American dollars. You may ask: wouldn’t that alert officers to every person that walks by with a dollar bill in their pocket? No, they only sniff for very large deposits of cash hidden in tires, underbodies, and in the compartments and trailers of semi-trucks. But, again, these dogs are not employed on your way into Mexico; only on the way out. I’m as intrigued as Jillien: how is all that money getting across the border?
CNN News Anchor, Kiran Chetry, says “gift card technology is now making it easier for drug lords to move cash across the border undetected.” I might never have guessed. Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard reveals in an interview with Chetry that these gift cards are being issued by offshore banks and “since they’re not considered monetary instruments, they can be taken across the border and you don't break any laws.” Goddard adds, “it is a huge loophole in our financial crimes observations.” It sounds, to me, like we need to install some new laws.
However, it seems gift cards are not the only means of illegally exporting our dollars. U.S. federal agents in California discovered a tunnel last week that connected a warehouse in San Diego to another warehouse in Tijuana, Mexico. The 180-meter tunnel was quite sophisticated as it was equipped with a rail system, lighting, and oxygen pumps. Thirty tons of marijuana was seized overall. Tunnels like these are not uncommon and are not just used to transport inanimate objects. There is, also, no doubt in my mind that Texas has their fair share of such “underground railroads”. Jillien says that US agents do patrol the border, but it’s not enough; and she’s right. US Border Patrol agents armed with drills and ground-penetrating radar search for these tunnels regularly but they prove to be extremely hard to find, even with the best equipment.
In her editorial, Jillien states that “the people from Mexico are choosing to use Texans as their primary ‘business partners’ and although some action is being taken against the trade, it has had little effect.” I completely agree; and it makes me wonder: How hard are the (uncorrupted) Mexican government officials really trying to stop American money from entering their country? I would guess “kind-a” to “not very”. Thanks go to Jillien for her stimulating editorial. It opened my eyes to a very interesting, hard-hitting topic.
I have heard a lot of people try to blame a portion of our financial troubles on undocumented workers for sending their earnings back to their loved ones in Mexico, but I think that statistic is dwarfed by the amount of money that is exported by drug cartels and their accomplices.
I was born and raised in the Rio Grande Valley. In my experience, when you cross the border into Mexico, vehicles are not inspected. You just pay the small toll to cross. It's only when emerging from Mexico that you are questioned about what you're carrying, whether it's liquor (legal, one bottle per adult), prescription drugs (legal with a prescription), or fruits and vegetables that have been seeded (legal). When you buy avocados, they take out the pit and replace it with half of a seeded jalapeno pepper to keep it from oxidizing, although that may just be an old wives tale. I always use the jalapeno in my guacamole. And I have never tried to stuff the center of my avocados with drugs.
However, if you look suspicious (like a car full of teenagers), you will be asked to pull over to have your vehicle searched by border patrol agents and their drug-sniffing canines. Again, this is only enforced on your way out of Mexico. It made sense to me, at first, to think that they don't care if you're a coyote (someone who smuggles illegal immigrants across the border) because they know if Mexicans want to return home they can just walk across, no questions asked. And they don’t care if you're smuggling drugs back into Mexico because they know that just doesn't happen. I never imagined that the amount of money being exported might be a huge contributing factor to our nation’s money woes. The Border Patrol doesn’t have the authority to stop every car and ask them how much cash they are carrying; but cash has a pretty distinctive smell and German Shepherds are trained to detect the scent of American dollars. You may ask: wouldn’t that alert officers to every person that walks by with a dollar bill in their pocket? No, they only sniff for very large deposits of cash hidden in tires, underbodies, and in the compartments and trailers of semi-trucks. But, again, these dogs are not employed on your way into Mexico; only on the way out. I’m as intrigued as Jillien: how is all that money getting across the border?
CNN News Anchor, Kiran Chetry, says “gift card technology is now making it easier for drug lords to move cash across the border undetected.” I might never have guessed. Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard reveals in an interview with Chetry that these gift cards are being issued by offshore banks and “since they’re not considered monetary instruments, they can be taken across the border and you don't break any laws.” Goddard adds, “it is a huge loophole in our financial crimes observations.” It sounds, to me, like we need to install some new laws.
However, it seems gift cards are not the only means of illegally exporting our dollars. U.S. federal agents in California discovered a tunnel last week that connected a warehouse in San Diego to another warehouse in Tijuana, Mexico. The 180-meter tunnel was quite sophisticated as it was equipped with a rail system, lighting, and oxygen pumps. Thirty tons of marijuana was seized overall. Tunnels like these are not uncommon and are not just used to transport inanimate objects. There is, also, no doubt in my mind that Texas has their fair share of such “underground railroads”. Jillien says that US agents do patrol the border, but it’s not enough; and she’s right. US Border Patrol agents armed with drills and ground-penetrating radar search for these tunnels regularly but they prove to be extremely hard to find, even with the best equipment.
In her editorial, Jillien states that “the people from Mexico are choosing to use Texans as their primary ‘business partners’ and although some action is being taken against the trade, it has had little effect.” I completely agree; and it makes me wonder: How hard are the (uncorrupted) Mexican government officials really trying to stop American money from entering their country? I would guess “kind-a” to “not very”. Thanks go to Jillien for her stimulating editorial. It opened my eyes to a very interesting, hard-hitting topic.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Monday, November 1, 2010
Immigration Reformation
Known as a couple of blue dots in a red state, Austin and Houston are allegedly serving as “sanctuary cities” by anti-immigration advocates, implying that they are soft on illegal immigration. However, according to a recent study released by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Austin and Houston are among the toughest cities when it comes to immigration law (ICE.gov). In October 2008, under Mayor White, Houston became the first city to adopt the Secure Communities program (Politifact.com).
The ICE’s Secure Communities program uses the information sharing capabilities between the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) by allowing local law enforcement agents to run instant background checks on the fingerprint scans required during booking (ICE.gov). Both FBI records and DHS immigration records are checked; if a detainee is identified as an illegal immigrant, their immigration status and criminal background are assessed and they are promptly deported. Why is there such an urgency to remove immigrants from Texas? If they are hard-working, minor-first-time offenders, they ought to be allowed to pay their dues and get back to work. In the end, I believe their contributions to our society strengthen our economy.
In the mean time, Republican Legislators are doing everything they can to block the passage of the DREAM Act. The act would allow illegal immigrants who 1) arrived in the U.S. as minors, 2) have been in the U.S. for at least 5 years, 3) graduated from a U.S. high school, and 4) are of good moral character the opportunity to earn permanent residency after completing two years in the military or two years at a four year institution of higher learning (dreamact.info). While Hispanics are largely Democratic, they have yet to noticeably engage in this election season to help combat the Republican suppression of the DREAM Act. It is also difficult to replace an anti-DREAM Act incumbent with a pro-DREAM Act candidate since the majority of Texas residents directly affected by the Act are non-citizens.
Anti-immigration Republicans may have the upper hand in this case, as they tend to more cohesively voice their opinion with their votes. It has always been their general opinion that illegal immigrants take jobs from American citizens and are partly responsible for the level of unemployment in Texas and the U.S., today. What Republicans fail to realize is how much our economy depends on undocumented workers.
Illegal immigrant workers really do take on the jobs that Americans prefer not to make a career out of because they will accept less pay and fewer benefits (berkeley.edu). The companies that hire them can avoid payroll taxes and unemployment insurance. Meanwhile, the workers are happy to not pay into health insurance, 401ks, and income taxes. Some of the more lawless corporations would be more than happy to take their business outside of the U.S. if they were one day forced to pay their workers minimum wage, which is something that their undocumented employees do not require of them.
It is said that for every one “field” job sent overseas, 300 complementary jobs held by Americans would be lost or adversely affected. That means that a job held by an illegal farm worker directly affects the availability of and the wages of positions for truckers, retail workers, machinists, assembly line workers, Walmart shelf-stockers, HEB cart-pushers, etc. As evidenced by elaborate studies on immigrant and American workers, most economic experts agree that immigrants actually create more jobs than they fill (berkeley.edu). Rather than rushing hard-working immigrants out of our state, I think we should reconsider their status and deport based on severe or repeat criminal offenses only. The DREAM Act would be a great start. While Texas is becoming a minority-majority state, this means nothing unless young Hispanic Democratic voters become galvanized in the political system and are convinced that their vote is really worth something.
The ICE’s Secure Communities program uses the information sharing capabilities between the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) by allowing local law enforcement agents to run instant background checks on the fingerprint scans required during booking (ICE.gov). Both FBI records and DHS immigration records are checked; if a detainee is identified as an illegal immigrant, their immigration status and criminal background are assessed and they are promptly deported. Why is there such an urgency to remove immigrants from Texas? If they are hard-working, minor-first-time offenders, they ought to be allowed to pay their dues and get back to work. In the end, I believe their contributions to our society strengthen our economy.
In the mean time, Republican Legislators are doing everything they can to block the passage of the DREAM Act. The act would allow illegal immigrants who 1) arrived in the U.S. as minors, 2) have been in the U.S. for at least 5 years, 3) graduated from a U.S. high school, and 4) are of good moral character the opportunity to earn permanent residency after completing two years in the military or two years at a four year institution of higher learning (dreamact.info). While Hispanics are largely Democratic, they have yet to noticeably engage in this election season to help combat the Republican suppression of the DREAM Act. It is also difficult to replace an anti-DREAM Act incumbent with a pro-DREAM Act candidate since the majority of Texas residents directly affected by the Act are non-citizens.
Anti-immigration Republicans may have the upper hand in this case, as they tend to more cohesively voice their opinion with their votes. It has always been their general opinion that illegal immigrants take jobs from American citizens and are partly responsible for the level of unemployment in Texas and the U.S., today. What Republicans fail to realize is how much our economy depends on undocumented workers.
Illegal immigrant workers really do take on the jobs that Americans prefer not to make a career out of because they will accept less pay and fewer benefits (berkeley.edu). The companies that hire them can avoid payroll taxes and unemployment insurance. Meanwhile, the workers are happy to not pay into health insurance, 401ks, and income taxes. Some of the more lawless corporations would be more than happy to take their business outside of the U.S. if they were one day forced to pay their workers minimum wage, which is something that their undocumented employees do not require of them.
It is said that for every one “field” job sent overseas, 300 complementary jobs held by Americans would be lost or adversely affected. That means that a job held by an illegal farm worker directly affects the availability of and the wages of positions for truckers, retail workers, machinists, assembly line workers, Walmart shelf-stockers, HEB cart-pushers, etc. As evidenced by elaborate studies on immigrant and American workers, most economic experts agree that immigrants actually create more jobs than they fill (berkeley.edu). Rather than rushing hard-working immigrants out of our state, I think we should reconsider their status and deport based on severe or repeat criminal offenses only. The DREAM Act would be a great start. While Texas is becoming a minority-majority state, this means nothing unless young Hispanic Democratic voters become galvanized in the political system and are convinced that their vote is really worth something.
Monday, October 18, 2010
The Resilience of the Lone Star
Native Texan Paul Burka of the Burka Blog has been with Texas Monthly Magazine since the very beginning. After graduating with a B.A. in history from Rice University, Burka obtained his Juris Doctor from the UT School of Law. Burka is a member of the State Bar of Texas which is a state agency responsible for assisting the Texas Supreme Court in overseeing all licensed attorneys in Texas. Burka also spent time as an attorney with the Texas Legislature (texasmonthly.com).
In his October 15th editorial “The best-run states: another view,” Burka compares Texas’ recovery from the "Great Recession" to that of the state of California’s. The two states have always been measured against each other because they are two of the nation’s largest states in size, population, and ego. However, Burka believes that it is unfair to compare the commercially superior Lone Star to the lassitude of the antiquated Golden State.
Burka cites Investors.com’s October 14th article,“A Trenchant Tale Of Two States”, by reiterating what recent statistics have been reporting about Texas’ outstanding economic resiliency. California businesses, on the other hand, are burdened by high taxes coupled with overregulation. The article praises Texas for its relatively low taxes on businesses and its non-existent state income tax. In fact, the lack of income tax is one of the main reasons why CEOs find Texas to be so attractive (Burka). I agree that Texas is extremely CEO friendly, supporting small and mid-size businesses while curtailing the growth of labor unions with its “right-to-work” laws.
While I am not sure if Texas is back where it was before the recession, I trust Burka’s analysis of Texas’ economic state. His insight far surpasses mine. Although he doesn’t seem to refute or affirm the data presented, I assume that that is because experts have come to a consensus. Either the article is referring to the “payroll count” of CEOs only, or perhaps the “pre-recession” employment levels of Nov 2007 were not so good to begin with. The truth is not clearly stated in this article. However, I think we can all agree that, while Texas is better looking comparatively, we can and should be at a much higher rate of employment, overall.
In his October 15th editorial “The best-run states: another view,” Burka compares Texas’ recovery from the "Great Recession" to that of the state of California’s. The two states have always been measured against each other because they are two of the nation’s largest states in size, population, and ego. However, Burka believes that it is unfair to compare the commercially superior Lone Star to the lassitude of the antiquated Golden State.
Burka cites Investors.com’s October 14th article,“A Trenchant Tale Of Two States”, by reiterating what recent statistics have been reporting about Texas’ outstanding economic resiliency. California businesses, on the other hand, are burdened by high taxes coupled with overregulation. The article praises Texas for its relatively low taxes on businesses and its non-existent state income tax. In fact, the lack of income tax is one of the main reasons why CEOs find Texas to be so attractive (Burka). I agree that Texas is extremely CEO friendly, supporting small and mid-size businesses while curtailing the growth of labor unions with its “right-to-work” laws.
While I am not sure if Texas is back where it was before the recession, I trust Burka’s analysis of Texas’ economic state. His insight far surpasses mine. Although he doesn’t seem to refute or affirm the data presented, I assume that that is because experts have come to a consensus. Either the article is referring to the “payroll count” of CEOs only, or perhaps the “pre-recession” employment levels of Nov 2007 were not so good to begin with. The truth is not clearly stated in this article. However, I think we can all agree that, while Texas is better looking comparatively, we can and should be at a much higher rate of employment, overall.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Federal Education Funds Expected Just In Time
Texas schools better off waiting for federal aid - September 11, 2010
In an editorial in the Austin-American Statesman on September 11th, titled "Texas schools better off waiting for federal aid," the Editorial Board writes about the federal funds that Texas may or may not have coming to them in 2011 that are intended to keep public schools afloat. The federal government’s Education Jobs Fund (Ed Jobs) program approved by Congress allocated $10 billion in assistance to states based on their population in an effort to create or save education jobs for the 2010-2011 school year. Texas, due to its size, would receive $830 million for its schools. This includes early childhood, elementary, and secondary education. These funds come at a critical time during a recession that has led to increased debt and massive layoffs in a state that was already struggling to support its public schools. The author of this editorial observes that not only has the U.S. Department of Education decided to postpone Texas’ receiving of their share until 2011, but there is a chance that the postponement may turn into a cancellation.
The author of this editorial remarks that it is the governor of Texas’ job to make sure that the percentage of state education spending does not decrease in proportion to total percentage of state spending. Governor Rick Perry replied that he cannot uphold that responsibility because the governor’s office cannot earmark funding nor coerce future Legislature without violating the Texas Constitution (Editorial Board). An amendment in the Texas Constitution blocks Texas Legislature from using federal education dollars in place of state education dollars, which would be an attractive move for leaders looking to shrink the appearance of the state deficit.
The author fears that the Texas Legislature will use the allocated federal funding as state funding since they have a reputation of doing just that. Texas used $3.25 billion in federal stimulus dollars to replace state aid, which ultimately made their budget appear more balanced (Editorial Board). However, by swapping out the names on the gift card, the end recipients are no better off. In this case, public education jobs are no more secure than they would be without federal funding.
However, there may be a silver-lining to the postponement of the federal funds from the Ed Jobs program. This editorial explains that if the money is delayed until after the Legislature passes a budget by summer 2011, the federal dollars would not be swapped, but rather, paid in conjunction with, state aid to schools. The only risk, then, is that the U.S. Department of Education may rule Texas out of the 10 billion dollar equation altogether (Editorial Board).
The Austin American Statesman’s Editorial Board insinuates that the public should keep an eye on Texas Legislature’s moves to seemingly balance their budget by taking without giving. Rick Perry seems to be behaving well by citing the Texas Constitution, which, in this case, prohibits him from taking action. The amendment itself seems to be serving its purpose by protecting the people from the Texas Legislature.
By addressing this article to the local public and the parents of students of the Texas public school system, the Editorial Board works to enlighten them about the current education jobs crisis, and the pending layoffs facing schools in Texas. The Austin American Statesman, as a highly respectable, left-leaning newspaper, seemed to call out Gov. Rick Perry for not exercising rights that he, honestly, may not own, according to the Texas Constitution. I think the Editorial Board does a good job overall of bringing an important issue to light without seeming too partisan. However, the article may be written in a way that directs the reader’s opinions of the Texas Legislature and the Governor, both of whom are largely Republican.
In an editorial in the Austin-American Statesman on September 11th, titled "Texas schools better off waiting for federal aid," the Editorial Board writes about the federal funds that Texas may or may not have coming to them in 2011 that are intended to keep public schools afloat. The federal government’s Education Jobs Fund (Ed Jobs) program approved by Congress allocated $10 billion in assistance to states based on their population in an effort to create or save education jobs for the 2010-2011 school year. Texas, due to its size, would receive $830 million for its schools. This includes early childhood, elementary, and secondary education. These funds come at a critical time during a recession that has led to increased debt and massive layoffs in a state that was already struggling to support its public schools. The author of this editorial observes that not only has the U.S. Department of Education decided to postpone Texas’ receiving of their share until 2011, but there is a chance that the postponement may turn into a cancellation.
The author of this editorial remarks that it is the governor of Texas’ job to make sure that the percentage of state education spending does not decrease in proportion to total percentage of state spending. Governor Rick Perry replied that he cannot uphold that responsibility because the governor’s office cannot earmark funding nor coerce future Legislature without violating the Texas Constitution (Editorial Board). An amendment in the Texas Constitution blocks Texas Legislature from using federal education dollars in place of state education dollars, which would be an attractive move for leaders looking to shrink the appearance of the state deficit.
The author fears that the Texas Legislature will use the allocated federal funding as state funding since they have a reputation of doing just that. Texas used $3.25 billion in federal stimulus dollars to replace state aid, which ultimately made their budget appear more balanced (Editorial Board). However, by swapping out the names on the gift card, the end recipients are no better off. In this case, public education jobs are no more secure than they would be without federal funding.
However, there may be a silver-lining to the postponement of the federal funds from the Ed Jobs program. This editorial explains that if the money is delayed until after the Legislature passes a budget by summer 2011, the federal dollars would not be swapped, but rather, paid in conjunction with, state aid to schools. The only risk, then, is that the U.S. Department of Education may rule Texas out of the 10 billion dollar equation altogether (Editorial Board).
The Austin American Statesman’s Editorial Board insinuates that the public should keep an eye on Texas Legislature’s moves to seemingly balance their budget by taking without giving. Rick Perry seems to be behaving well by citing the Texas Constitution, which, in this case, prohibits him from taking action. The amendment itself seems to be serving its purpose by protecting the people from the Texas Legislature.
By addressing this article to the local public and the parents of students of the Texas public school system, the Editorial Board works to enlighten them about the current education jobs crisis, and the pending layoffs facing schools in Texas. The Austin American Statesman, as a highly respectable, left-leaning newspaper, seemed to call out Gov. Rick Perry for not exercising rights that he, honestly, may not own, according to the Texas Constitution. I think the Editorial Board does a good job overall of bringing an important issue to light without seeming too partisan. However, the article may be written in a way that directs the reader’s opinions of the Texas Legislature and the Governor, both of whom are largely Republican.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)