The Finale

My comment is to Running to Stand Still: The Politics of Texas: “Bikes.”

I extremely enjoyed this blog.  I found that it is an informative blog that everyone should read and be familiarized with.  I agree with the proposal to allow only bicycles to occupy the streets of Austin for three or four days a week.  While it would bring positive change to the city, I do not believe it to be a realistic proposal, and it leaves me with one question.  What about the people who live outside of the city limits?

A lot of people live outside of the city limits of Austin, and commute to their job in the city.  There are other ways to cut down the cost of gasoline.  Carpooling (for ex: in DC most everyone carpools, I believe they call it “slugging,”) invests in more fuel-efficient cars, renting the Austin Car-2-Go.  From my point of view, I currently live in Kyle, and it takes me an hour and a half to get to school everyday.  As much as I would love the exercise, I do not want to even imagine how long and the heat stroke (or freeze) I would have riding a bike to school three or four days a week. 

Mr. Downing’s blog was a well organized, put together and most importantly an interesting but attention getting.  I really enjoyed the fact that you had multiple topics to support your proposal.  I only hope one day there will be a realistic and helpful way for people outside of the city limits to be able to travel to place within the city limits, to contribute to your proposal.  Overall, you did an excellent job and I enjoyed every piece of your work.  Have a great summer!

Planned Parenthood

            Monday, April 25, 2011, Steven Kreytak, an American-Statesman Staff published: “Fired bus driver gets $21,000 settlement after refusing ride to Planned Parenthood.”  This Austin American-Statesman article adds another addition to the on going Planned Parenthood/women’s rights controversy.  

A $21,000 settlement has been paid by the Capital Area Rural Transportation System, on a lawsuit filed last year in U.S. District Court in Austin, by a driver who was fired for refusing to take two women to a Planned Parenthood clinic last year. 

           Edwin Graning, an employee with the nine-county public transportation system, known as CARTS, filed a lawsuit that claimed officials with CARTS discriminated against him based on his religion.  In the lawsuit, Mr. Graning stated: he refused to drive the women because he had been “concerned that he might be transporting a client to undergo an abortion.”  In January 2010, after Mr. Graning was called to take the women to Planned Parenthood, he called his supervisor “and told her that, in good conscience, he could not take someone to have a abortion.”  Following Mr. Granings decision, he was fired. 

           The Capital Area Rural Transportation System board members approved the lawsuit settlement after determining the cost of defending the lawsuit could exceed the settlement amount.  However, Mr. Graning is no longer allowed to seek employment again with the transportation system.  Graning said it was a “fair settlement.”  David Marsh, general manager of the Capital Area Rural Transportation System, said that because of Mr. Graning’s case, officials have begun making it clear when drivers are hired “that we have a job to do and we don’t decide what destinations are.”

          I believe that Mr. Graning was rightfully fired; however, I do not believe that he should have been paid out that amount of money or any money at all.  He was not fired for discriminating against his religion, as he may believe, he was fired for not doing his job.  It frustrates me being a woman, and seeing this is just another area in reality that we are being discriminated on.   I truly hope one-day women, as individuals, will have our own rights for us to decide and not for everyone else to decide for us as a group of women.

Your Rights

On her blog, “Guns= Bad News Bears”, Samantha Johnson, posted her opinion towards the article, “Texas Poised to Pass Bill Allowing Guns on Campus,” she read on Yahoo.  In her blog, which is directed towards Texas residents, she informs the audience that she believes the bill should not be passed, to allow guns on campus.  Although her blog provided one persons direct quote, the article needs more facts and evidence.  These two items also need to be provided from both sides of the argument.  If Johnson was to provided facts and evidence from both sides, her article would have more substance to hold up her opinion of the argument.  
Johnson states:  “if guns are allowed on campuses I think that there will be a much greater risk of people getting upset and acting irrationally, and if that irrational person has a gun on them, there is no telling what could happen.”  The assumption the argument relies on is that every student may carry a hand gun or the entire outcome of this bill being passed will be negative.  Unfortunately, Johnson does not support her argument with many facts.  However, she has provided opinions that were provided to the Yahoo article, by other people and she does state the bill should not be passed.
No, I do not believe the argument is successful and it does not convince me.  It does not convince me because, I do not have enough facts to base a decision on and I only read one side of the story.  Initially, I believed allowing anyone to carry handguns on campus is not a good idea.  However, after reading this blog, I believe I need to read more into the bill and hear from both sides of the argument.  

The Decision

In early 2009, President Barack Obama, in efforts to stimulate the economy and prevent major budget cuts and/or tax increases, spent almost $1 trillion and sent a large amount of the federal money to state governments.  However, Texas had an upper hand to other states.  The Texas Legislature, with a two-thirds vote, could tap into a multibillion-dollar rainy day fund.  

Due to conflicting ideas, the dispute between U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, and Gov. Rick Perry began, regarding the appropriate way to spend the money.  With the stimulus money available, the Texas Legislature, prepared to reduce education spending to balance the budget, was able to maintain and increase the education budget.  In addition, Perry feels the government should not attach strings to money it send to states that require the state to increase taxes or change its funding priorities.  Doggett had a different idea, he planned on increasing overall education spending by $3.25 billion, although not required by law, which would need the Legislature to tap the rainy day fund.  

In response to Doggett, John O’Brian, executive director of the Legislative Budget Board, informed legislators of two things: first, without a tax structure able to maintain that level of spending, it was not fiscally sound budget policy to use one-time federal funds to increase the base budget, and two, Doggett’s plan would create a structural deficit that would soon require tax increases and/or major budget cuts. 

The Legislature ended up passing a budget that did not contain cuts, raise taxes, or tap the rainy day fund.  Soon after, in summer of 2010, Congress passed another funding bill dedicated for education.  In an attempt to ensure that additional money would increase education spending instead of make up for shortfall; Doggett attached an amendment to the bill.  The amendment denied Texas its $821 million portion of the funds unless the governor assured the Department of Education Texas would continue with a level of spending equivalent to the current spending for three years. 

Furthermore, Texas spent the 2009 stimulus money in a responsible way, just like the other states.   Texas put the money to make up for the reduction of tax revenue caused by the recession.  If Texas had gone with Doggett’s plan, there would be a $3.25 billion less in the fund and the state deficit would be an additional $3.25 billion.   Although Dogget’s plan is wrong, he continues to repeal his amendment and release the money to Texas.

In the end, the outcome of the matter will be in one of three ways: Congress may repeal the restriction, the Texas Legislators may pass a new budget that gives Doggett what he wants, or Texas will not receive the $831 million that it should get.  Whether the state tax dollars should be spent on education, health care, prisons or any funds is a state decision and Doggett is wrong for trying to force Texas to spend down its reserves, Texas should have the final decision.

The Sonogram Bill

            On Thursday, March 3, 2011, Chaille Jolink posted, on the Burnt Orange Report website, The Sonogram Bill is Back- Government Intrusion on Full Display by Texas Republicans.  Jolink, available to anyone, primarily liberals, provides an informative blog, as well as an alternative point of view, for an audience of any ideology, to make their own decision regarding the Sonogram Bill debate.

            The basic argument of Jolinks blog is over her disappointment towards a revised and stricter version of the Sonogram bill, which requires a woman to have a sonogram between 72-24 hours before an abortion procedure is performed, that is back up for debate on the House Floor Thursday night.  Jolink states the bill will also have additional requirements, such as:  The Department of State Health Services (DSHS) must come up with a form for the doctor to administer to the patient requiring her signature and initials at least three different times to make sure that doctor described specific areas, provide a list of abortion alternatives to the patient after the sonogram is administered, the DSHS will take on the budgetary cost of the bill, a 72-24 hour timeline is for the women to have enough time to reflect on her decision, it also states the clinic providing the sonogram is not allowed to receive a payment, or that there even be an agreement on what the price of the abortion will cost, the same time they meet to do the sonogram.  Jolinks values that are held about what is important and what government should do are described as “there is a difference between the personal politics of this bill and the actual policy the bill enacts.  This is exactly why it is wrong to try to legislate these kinds of personal decisions.  It creates an unprecedented scenario of what the government can do and you have nothing short of a public policy disaster.  I personally do not see how state republican lawmakers can be for this kind of legislation where there is a practically script in the bill for the doctor to administer to the patient, and in the same breath rail against the chokehold federal government has on our health care system.”

            Jolink provides a copy of the bill (HB 15 by Sid Miller R-Erath), the bill analysis, and a copy of a letter to the Texas Senate State Affair’s Committee Chairman, Robert Duncan (R-Lubbock) from the Texas Medical Association, as support with facts and evidence for her blog.

            Ms. Jolinks blog is very successful; however, it does not convince me.  I believe all woman need to have a more informative appointment, which includes the sonogram, before the decision to have an abortion should be made.  It does not change my mind regarding my beliefs I held before reading this blog.

            The political significance of this argument is that Ms. Jolink believes republicans, especially men, is trying to legislate personal decision, which takes away the freedom of citizens.  The difference this argument does make to my understanding of the way the political world works, is it provides me with a more detailed understanding of what the new law will enforce and how the government is trying to take over more of our personal freedoms.  The new bill will affect who gets what scarce resources, and how they get them; because it states, the budgetary cost of the bill to the State of Texas, is zero dollars, and it is just assumed the DSHS will absorb the cost internally, which leads to the budget crisis we are in now.  The bill will affect who wins and who loses in the political process, because the people who did not vote for the bill, the losers, will be forced to go through these procedures.  

Austin School Board and Financial Exigency

            On Sunday, February 27, 2011, Tony Befi, an IBM executive, is vice chairman, education and talent development at the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce; published a commentary on the Austin American Statesman website called, “Befi: Austin school board should declare financial exigency."  Available globally; because on Sunday night, according to Befi, “Austin school trustees will consider declaring financial exigency, a legal declaration that allows the superintendent to eliminate jobs while minimizing exposure to lawsuits.  Financial exigency would enable the district to make dramatic budget cuts in the face of the expected shortfall in the state budget.”  It does not need to add anything, because it is full of items that attract and keep the audience.  First, the title grabbed my attention, I expected to get information that also would provide me someone else’s  point of view.  Second, he explains the relevance he has to the topic.  Also the current major pros and cons, followed by the future pros and cons, of the education system, if financial exigency is declared.  Finally, who will be affected, not only by declaring financial exigency, but any decision made.

            The commentary argues if the Austin school trustees effort, by declaring financial exigency, is effective in restructuring of the district.  This is based on the assumption the declaration would enable the district to make dramatic budget cuts, especially eliminate jobs, while minimizing itself to the exposure to lawsuits.  Values of working “towards an effective restructuring of the district,” are held by clearly defining the important terms as “the chamber urges the board to adopt a master facility plan.  Deeper alignment is needed between the strategic plan and employee goals/evaluations.  Greater focus is needed on improving high school graduation and college enrollment rates.”  The government needs to continue with the “spirit of partnership,” between the Superintendent Meria Carstarphen, school district staff, the board and even the community, to prioritize cost reductions and “continue with a positive board vote on exigency tonight.” 

            Supportive facts and evidence are provided throughout such as: who submitted and some of the ideas are: a strategic plan to reflect education goal rates, enable the superintendent to prioritize key programs, reduce central administrative positions by 30 percent, advance critical employee evaluations, a citizen panel to create the district’s first master facility plan, an increase in class sizes and finally staffing formulas for next fiscal year that are in line with comparable school districts.  I found it to be successful and convincing, because of the evidence and facts provided, the direct correlation Befi has to the subject, the connection the subject affects my everyday life, and I agree with the direction.

            The political significance is to inform that during “these challenging times force the entire community to focus on achieving our primary objectives of delivering a strong academic product and preparing our students for their future in our global community.  The affect of who gets what scarce resources, and how they get them has the potential of being eliminated.  The declaration can provide an even balance between the different students, schools, and school districts; but, making them look like the winners to many employees whom will be let go.  Thus, increasing unemployment rates as well as the need for unemployment benefits, if eligible.  The difference this commentary makes to my understanding of the way the political world works, is by providing  a more detailed and understandable explanation of why the state is making these changes, what other changes are possible and how they will be handled.  It also gives me hope that one day our all communities will be working together and more equal in the future for the evolution of the global community. 

State of the State

            The State of the State speech by Governor Rick Perry on 02/08/2011 has become a notorious topic between Texans statewide.  Taking office in 2000, his sixth State of the State speech provided attention to several familiar as well as new, but some unresolved topics.

            In the article, "In State of State speech, Perry touts Texas, downplays looming shortfall," found in the
Austin American Statesman; the writer, Jason Embry addresses the topics, in detail.  The article explains the different proposals to the current Texas economy, state budget, the federal government, education, and employment. 

            I believe this article and the articles related to it are important because, it brings in clear detail an explanation of the important issues in Texas.  It explains the facts of the specific topics.  By providing input from both parties, I was able to gain knowledge, not only regarding the monetary situations of each topic but, an idea of the timeframe and the possible positive and negative effects of the decisions made.  I now have a better understanding of what the future holds for not only others and me, but for the state of Texas as a whole.