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.