Response to "Power to the Women"

One of my colleagues, Ms. Trejo, recently wrote a blog titled, "Power to the Women." In the article, she brought up some interesting points about gender representaiton in our state government. She states that women currently occupy only a small percentage, 21% to be exact, of all state government positions. She argues that it is to be inconceivable how such a small percentage can represent such a large population of women. I think she brought up some great points and shed light on an issue that should demand progressive action. We have talked as a class about the stereotype of our government leaders: old, white, and rich. This profiling causes many to question whether these leaders can provide the appropriate representation of all citizens living in the area. I believe that it is impossible for them to fully appreciate and represent the stances of all the citizens, nor should we be able to expect them to. Like Ms. Trejo states, there should be progressive movement to offer a more balanced, representative staff of governmental leaders.

While Ms. Trejo did a great job of portraying the issue, I thought it could have used some data to justify her claims. Her main focus was on the lack of women in office, and how that provides poor representation for the voice of women citizens. I thought that was a great point. However, I wish she would have provided a few examples of laws or bills that demonstrate favoring a certain gender over another. Ms. Trejo states that these male figure heads don't know what is best for the opposite sex. This could very well be true, but I believe some applicable data could really emphasize her point. Overall, I thought she did a great job of portraying an issue that obviously resonates with her. She came across as very passionate about the issue, and I believe it is important for people to voice their opinion on something they feel strong about. I look forward to seeing progressive steps taken in regards to the issue.

Water Panic

After reviewing the Texas Tribune, it seems that numerous articles are being written in regards to the growing water drought in Texas. Even after all the recent rain, it has become apparent that not much was beneficial to our water conservation projects such as aquifers.  This has caused numerous problems for the state, and is having a strong negative effect on agriculture. Many farmers are relying on underwater aquifers to supply the water they need to pump out to their crops since there hasn't been sufficient rainfall to sustain them. There have been many ideas proposed by politicians to preserve the water including the imposing of extremely expensive fines on farmers who pump out water from underground aquifers that exceeds a set standard limit. I feel that this is not the answer. I believe that would be poor leadership to design a "solution" that endangers one of the most crucial industries to our economy and even survival, the production of food. The decisions to impose harsh fines are more of a rush decision inspired by panic then a sound decision that will combat the problem. There needs to be more intuitive proposals set by our state government that will aid in resolving the issue rather than prolonging it.

There obviously has to be several factors considered in combating this issue. One must consider how much money is available, what infrastructure could be designed to retain more water, and prioritizing the water to who needs it the most. Installing more aquifers to capture more rainfall isn't necessarily the answer since that doesn't guarantee enough water retention to sustain our agricultural needs. I think agriculture deserves high priority in water rights since water is absolutely critical to their success. Instead of imposing fines, I believe a more appropriate route would be developing more effective use of the water. We can't reduce agriculture need for water, but we can reduce the amount of water needed for effective crop growing. I believe creating more funds for better technological improvement in irrigation and other water uses in agriculture would have better long-term sustainability. This would aid in lowering water consumption and taking the pressure off of these water conservation organizations. Whether this could be a potential answer to the problem or not, Texas needs to look into solutions that take steps in solving the problem instead of avoiding it.

Analyzing Campus Carry Legislation

This analysis is in response to a colleague's blog about the legislation for carrying firearms on school campuses in Texas. Mr. Chao, the author of the blog, did a great job of outlining the issue of concern. The issue being that there have been numerous shootings at school campuses across the United States, and not many effective countermeasure have been produced to restrict them. Mr. Chao uses his own point of view to interpret the factors that cause such tragedies, and forms a solution strategy to limit them. I really appreciated the way he took a general problem, isolated a specific issue, and strategized a solution that he truly believes would have a positive impact. He stated that the main concern which must be addressed is that the legislation currently restricts students from being able to defend themselves during an attempted school shooting. Mr. Chao made it clear that he would support any legislation that would allow for students to carry firearms for their own protection, therefore providing a progressive countermeasure to these school shootings.

I thought Mr. Chao's analysis and proposed solution are definitely warranted. Obviously these growing trends of school shootings need to be limited by some form of effective change. Mr. Chao did note that Texas has adopted a bill allowing students with concealed carry permits to bring their firearm on campus as long as it always remains in their parked vehicle. I do agree with him though, that further steps must be taken as the current bill still has some notable flaws. I believe allowing students, with the proper permits, to carry firearms on their body during school could definitely reduce the number of school shootings. I definitely support Mr. Chao's analysis and proposed solution, however, I do wish he would of provided some statistics to emphasize the need for new legislation. I think some data that correlates different States' "campus carry laws" and "frequency of school shootings" could be beneficial in emphasizing the need for a change in the current legislation. Overall, it was an interesting read and an issue that has direct relevance for our class.

Unemployment Fraud

The Texas policy concerning unemployment benefits appears to be very relaxed in its regulation. This soft style regulation calls for abuse of its system and negative consequences for the state. The eligibility requirements for benefits merely consist of having earned wages in more than one of the previous four quarters preceding one's claim. Also your base wages earned during that period must be at least 37 times more than your benefit amount. There is limited restriction on the cause of separation from one's prior employer. Even those who quit their jobs could remain eligible for unemployment, which is rightfully justified since there are always situations that could warrant such a decision. However, once one has become eligible for benefits, the obligations to earn the benefits are rarely regulated by state authorities. This creates a problem by encouraging unemployment fraud, which is both wasteful of state spending and unprogressive to the state's workforce.

The way the system is set up now allows for no solid evidence to the amount of fraud currently taking place. However, the enforcement to eliminate fraud is severely lacking, and it would be naïve to believe it doesn't take place. There are several obligations that one must complete in order to remain eligible for benefits. First, you must register to work in the state of Texas. Next, you must actively seek work. The requirement is for one to complete five job searches each week. A job search would consist of actually applying to work for a certain position. They require you to document your work searches weekly by filling out a document that requires basic information: name of employer, address, person contacted, and whether an application was filed. Finally, you must accept suitable full-time work. In order to actually receive the weekly payment benefit, one must fill out a payment request each week. The request only asks the individual to verify that they were available for full-time work and completed the minimum number of work searches during that period. There is no obligation for the beneficiary to submit any confirmation of their work searches. In my opinion, this allows for individuals to merely obtain state money without any "required" obligations. The only way for the Texas Workforce Commission, the state authority concerning unemployment, to catch fraudulent beneficiaries would be to audit the individual and verify their work searches. The audits, however, are very few and far between. A lack of resources could be the reason for such few audits, but this also causes the loss of valuable financial resources as well.

The solution to this would be to merely require individuals to submit their work searches with their payment request each week. Obviously, the Texas Workforce Commission would have to verify each individual work search to determine the validity of each claim. This proposes the biggest challenge, allocating the resources to be able to verify the vast amount of work searches. However, just by merely requiring the submission of work searches would deter some individuals from committing fraud. Plus the retaining of benefits, which are currently going to fraudulent claims, would allow the state to put more money into resources for auditing more claims. I believe this would cause more individuals to actively pursue jobs or pursue continued education for their benefit. It is hard to encourage those routes now when one can collect money for a period of time with virtually no real imposed requirements.

Unemployment benefits are definitely needed within our state. There are obviously many situations that warrant for individuals to be compensated for lack of wages. I just believe that state spending should be allocated with great priority, and that is compromised by a lack of regulation on this category. Requiring more documentation for the receiving of benefits will not completely solve this concern, but I do believe it would be taking steps in the right direction. Unemployment spending is very minimal in regards to all welfare spending by the state. However, it is still a vast amount of money and needs to be more firmly regulated.

Affordable Housing Bonds

I read a blog that was posted on Burnt Orange Report, a liberal political blog. The blogger addressed the issue of amendment for affordable housing bonds that will be up for vote in the November election. The purpose of the blog was for Burnt Orange Report to endorse a "yes" for the vote, and get other supporters on board with it. The affordable housing bonds would be specific bonds set in place for the city of Austin, and would be used for constructing and improving affordable housing for low-income citizens, acquiring land and property for the affordable housing, and funding non-profit affordable housing programs that are already in place. The blogger points out that these funds would help families, senior citizens, those with disabilities, and everyone else in between with the growing cost of Austin as a city. The funds would not come from taxation, since the funds are within the City of Austin's existing bonding capacity. Also, all recipients of these funds would be paying rent or have some sort of payment set up for their housing.

I thought this blog was interesting, and thought it could have some impact on several of my peers within the class. The author's intended audience was obviously those who share a liberal view of politics. I thought the blog was written to highlight the benefits of the housing funds, which was done nicely, but was also very vague on the details. The author states that these funds are "within the City of Austin's existing bonding capacity", but does not state what programs would lose funding if we adopted these housing bonds. They also state that a purpose of the funds would be for "acquiring land and property", but there is no mention of where this land and property come from. This vagueness in the details of the program makes me weary of the consequences of its adoption. It sounds like a great program, one that could serve progressively to a great number of people. However, I would appreciate more insight to effects that these funds would place on other issues. As stated earlier, the blogger was definitely trying to appeal to a more liberal leaning group of people. This became apparent when it was written, "For those who oppose "government hand-outs," (and who probably do not read this blog anyways) it's worth noting that all residents of housing supported by these bonds pay rent or put some of their own money into purchasing their homes." While this is a great point, the apparent stab at conservative leaning supporters could be viewed as an ignorant remark. I thought this took away some credibility from the author, and could possibly discourage people, who are on the fence about the issue, from supporting the issue.

Overall, I thought the blog fit its purpose. However, there were many flaws that created some hesitation for supporting these affordable housing bonds. The benefits of these bonds seem very useful to many people, and I hope that a balance can be reached so they can be implemented. I would recommend looking more into more sources about the details of this amendment rather than just basing a decision off what is written in this blog.

Veteran Relief

There was an editorial written in the Dallas Morning News for the support of Propositions 1 and 4 in the upcoming election. These specific propositions are both in regard to tax exemptions for disabled veterans and the spouses of veterans killed in action. Proposition 1 would grant tax-exempt status to the surviving spouse of a veteran killed in action on the market value of their primary residence. Proposition 4 would ease the tax burden on donated homes given to fully disabled veterans. The author who wrote this editorial was obviously in favor of passing these propositions, and feels that they will pass without much opposition. I'm not sure that the author was trying to reach any specific intended audience, as the article would only have a substantial  effect on a small percentage of those eligible to vote on the issue. However, the author did a beautiful job of laying out the minimal cost compared to the potential benefit of those who could capitalize from these propositions. Stating that the two-year financial cost for tax payers would amount to less than $100,000 as pertaining to Proposition 4 or the worry over whether Proposition 1 would cause spouses to reconsider re-marrying, where they would no longer be eligible for tax exemption, were the only negatives listed in the article. The support from the audience was all based on patriotism. I think America as a whole has been real supportive of our military members in the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The author used this to their advantage to pull on the reader's emotions and label it as their responsibility to support these honorable men and women with their vote. I definitely agree with the author on these propositions. The men and women that these propositions directly pertain to have been through some real traumatic experiences, and should definitely receive some appreciation from their home state. A $100,000 debt over two years seams minimal in comparison to the budget figure as a whole. It would also be nice to see support for an issue from people who are not directly impacted by its decisions other than the minimal tax consequences. Overall, it was a great article that shed some light on issues that are very important to these honorable men and women of our state and our country. These propositions definitely deserve some attention, and I look forward to the passing of them.

National Strike by Fast-Food Workers

I read an article from the Texas Tribune about the national strikes of fast-food workers. The article describes a growing situation of fast-food workers organizing together to protest the minimum wage of the fast-food industry. The federal minimum wage is currently $7.25 an hour, and the national median for fast-food workers is $8.94. These organized protestors are demanding $15 an hours, essentially doubling the current minimum wage. These efforts stem from the belief that the current standard wage is not enough for these workers to live off of. Within the next couple months, many employees are expected to walk off the job if their wage complaints are not addressed.

I thought this would be an interesting article for our class as many students work in the fast-food industry in order to make ends meet. In my opinion, the wage increase demand seems a little steep. I don't believe $15 an hour would be appropriate for the skills of the job. It seems like the employee holds the upper hand in this situation. Even if many workers walk off the job, it seems like they could bring in many of the current unemployed, who would gladly accept the current minimum wage. I have not personally worked in the fast-food industry, so I really don't have a valid basis for my assumption of the wage increase not being appropriate. However, I do believe that many of these workers should use the skills developed in the industry, to help further their careers in other opportunities. Changing their career direction instead of changing the economics of the industry seems a more probable solution.

I look forward to seeing how this plays out, as well as the opinions of those directly affected.