John Olson's commentary "Dexter the Texter" is right on the money and should be common sense to Texas lawmakers.
John Olson's blog from November 27, 2012, addresses a common problem that everyone, except for probably our great grandfather, is aware of:  texting and driving.  Mr. Olson's blog should be commended for including appropriate links to current articles addressing the issue and state government plans to extend a texting ban across Texas. 

But that will not go far enough.  A ban on cell phone use for phone calls, gps navigation, and texting should be passed state wide with stiff fines that are incrementally increased with each successive ticket.  This allows law enforcement to make an easy judgement call and write a citation.  If your phone is in your hand while driving then no more excuses that you were making a phone call as opposed to texting. 

I have been working as a paramedic across central Texas for nine years and the incidence of creative excuses have increased.  When I am transferring care to a helicopter flight crew to fly a patient with bilateral femur fractures to University Hospital of Brackenridge, it is hard to believe the driver of the vehicle at fault who states:  "Oh, I knocked my soda over" or "I looked down to change my CD" or "A dog ran out into the street".  The sheriff's department, State Troopers, and EMS personnel on scene are pretty sure what really happened:  "If it quacks like a duck, then it was probably a duck texting."

LOL.

There it is.  On my left.  The on-ramp to the toll road 130.  Hmm...Like a dealer hooking a junkie,  the toll road has been  free for two weeks.  It's the same strategy.  Hook a person mentally, emotionally, and physically and they'll pay for something they THINK they need.   But I stand strong and keep to the right and patiently drive north on the slower 183 access road.  But I know I won't always be so resolute.  I'll get tired or have extra money in my checking account, and then bam, I'll be riding that asphalt crack pipe all the way home.

So will more and more urban Texans.  As construction costs have increased and cars get better gas economy, or for that matter, don't use gas at all in the case of electric vehicles, the state tax on fuel that puts money in TxDot's coffers for road construction becomes less and less.  The urban regions of Texas are having to look for alternate means to fund road construction in order to decrease congestion and increase traffic flow. 

In a state where lawmakers risk defeat by proposing new taxes, Texas has instead turned to private enterprise who will build toll roads for profit.  An excellent article on toll roads from the Texas Tribune quotes Senator John Carona, Republican, Dallas, as saying, "The day will surely come when, if you want to get from point A to point B, you’re not going to have a choice but to get on a toll road.  Well then, suddenly, a toll is just another tax. Let’s not kid one another.” 

Indeed.  If Texas does not raise taxes to maintain its current roads  and  to build new roads for it's increasing urban population, then Texas roads will be in the hands of private enterprise.  Why don't our Texas leaders do their job?  Should we give our leaders' jobs to private companies as well?  For now, we as drivers and consumers of raw asphalt have choices: when to go to work or leave work to avoid traffic, alternate routes maintained by the state that are "free", (what a concept right?), or to only use a toll road when in a hurry.  What will the future hold?  Is it going to cost me 20 dollars just to go to HEB one day because lawmakers yesterday punted the responsibility of road finance to private for profit companies? 

The blog Blue Blooded in a Sea of Red, by Katy Armstrong, featured a well written post from November 02, 2012, titled "Cookies and Ice Cream for Education.   I would like to comment on it here in my own blog.


          "Cookies and Ice Cream for Education" blogs about a simple model thought up by Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry's ice cream fame.  Nothing profound here in Mr. Cohen's presentation or, for that matter, in Mrs. Armstrong's blog.  But it works well and is effective in communicating and presenting information that is otherwise not pleasing to the palate nor good for the digestion.  Oh, bad blogger!!!  I promise no more food analogies. 
          The main thrust of the blog referenced is to let an Oreo cookie  represent 10 billion dollars in spending.  If forty cookies goes towards defense and only three and half cookies to education, then, essentially, we see that the Cookie Monster is our nation's military spending.  A cookie or two more for education and great forward progress could be achieved in preparing to fight a different kind of battle.  Primarily preparing the future generations of our nation and Texas to be competitive in a changing global economic market.
          Mrs. Armstrong then cleverly moves from the attention getter she borrowed from Ben Cohen to bring up current educational issues within Texas.  These include the recent budget cuts which have resulted in 600 school districts suing the state of Texas to get back the program money that was cut. 
          In conclusion, I like the blog because it gets our attention with an analogy anybody can understand.  Also, there are embedded links within the blog which make it convenient to go straight to sources and further information.  All in all a job well done. 
          


         

Cheech and Chong Texas Government or How Rick Perry Got the Munchies

Texas should be more like California and institute a state income tax!  Ha, got your attention.  Lower your weapon, easy does it, I was just kidding.  The question remains:  How should Texas deal with balancing its budget?  This includes expenditures for running the three branches of the state government as well as funding the state's five major programs of education, health and human services, transportation, public safety and corrections, and employee benefits. 

Currently, Texas revenue comes from sales tax, property taxes, and taxes on vehicle sales, motor fuels, and other sources, including what is commonly known as the "sin tax" which is levied on alcohol and cigarettes for instance.  Another important source of income, one third of Texas' total in fact, comes to the state in matching funds and grants from the federal government.  Finally, flat fees for professional licenses, hunting licenses, and driver's licenses raise a considerable sum, as well as fines and penalties.

I believe Texas should decriminalize marijuana and model a state program after Colorado's successful medical marijuana bill that was signed into law by Colorado Governor Bill Ritter.  Not only is Colorado taxing and regulating marijuana in order to raise much needed revenue, but portions of state government are pushing to legalize recreational use and possession in this year's elections in what is commonly known as "Amendment 64."  Supporters of the amendment and the medical use bill site the vast sums of money that could be allocated elsewhere that is being spent on criminalizing marijuana.  Other proponents in law enforcement realize that the War on Drug is not working and a new approach is needed.  Governments around the world are facing bankruptcy and top financial analysts that predicted the financial crisis of 2008 are warning that our states are next.

Texas could save and redistribute billions of dollars by decriminalizing marijuana.  Money spent on enforcement, prosecution, and jailing, could be allocated toward Texas' five major programs of education, health and human services, transportation, public safety and corrections, and employee benefits. Furthermore, billions would be raised in taxing and regulating marijuana sales.  Finally, as some Colorado authorities have stated, some power and control that gangs and cartels brandish would be diminished due to one major source of their economic illegal activity being taken over by government itself.  This could eliminate some of the violence in our border cities.

Texas and it's citizens could demonstrate their fundamental belief in the Texan Creed, principally individualism and the liberty and self-reliance of a state that takes its state budget and debt seriously.  What could be more libertarian and "Texas" than the state defying current federal laws that oppose marijuana legalization?  What could be more republican than minimizing the role of the federal government in Texas politics?  What could be more democratic than using money toward education and health rather than incarceration and ineffective prevention? 

Texas Monthly's Paul Burka is banging his head on his keyboard once again in his October 16, 2012 blog in which he wonders why UT is asking for increased property taxes to fund its new medical school in Austin. 


In this short two paragraph blog, Paul Burka explains that UT is asking for a Travis County property tax increase that would cost $107.40 for each average homeowner to help fund the building of its medical school.  Burka questions why UT has to lean on the tax payers of Austin when UT has a rich endowment and "megadonors".  He also concludes that UT should initiate fund raising combined with loans based on the model used in Dallas when Parkland Memorial Hospital was renovated.  Finally, he thinks the voters of Austin are not likely to approve such a tax hike. 

The audience of this blog is the reader of Texas Monthly and those that specifically follow Paul Burka.  Because Burka teaches at UT it can be argued that his audience is also the administration, the professors, the students, and the decision makers of UT policy.  I believe the intent is to create discussion amongst central Texans not only in internet responses to the actual post, but also to initiate conversation about this issue face to face between friends, family, and other social circles of our Austin community.

 Burka's credibility is established.  A quick search of his bio on Texas Monthly states that he has a degree in history and graduated from the University of Texas School of Law and served for five years as an attorney for the Texas legislature.  He also is a frequent guest commentator on many of the national news networks.  Clearly, his opinion is valued in issues pertaining to the state of Texas where his experience has earned him high regard.  Interestingly, he teaches at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at UT Austin.  Thus, while employed by UT he apparently doesn't mince his words but uses his intellectual ability even, in this case, to question the institution that signs his paycheck.  I believe this adds strength to his blog, especially in this particular issue.

Reading the fifty-five responses following the above post is not only informative but activates your mind by stimulating the intellectual process in a way that a regular objective newspaper article or story  does not.  Additionally, Paul Burka chimes in and keeps the debate going with solid points.  One drawback of public responses to a blog, unfortunately, is that you really can't take anything said to be completely factual.  The "live" aspect of a blog's responses may reflect opinions and viewpoints in a "real-time" manner but the reader really should take everything said with a grain of salt.  Web logs and their public responses do not, as far as I know, have an editor or the same rules that govern traditional journalism.  So really, a blog is truly an editorial piece and its responses are the opinions of the persons who read it.

I agree with the author's opinion stated in the above referenced blog.  It seems clear to me that UT should take a defined and active role in financing its own medical school in Austin.  As a property owner myself in Travis County within city limits, I already bear the burden of a high property tax rate.  I understand this is an inherent problem within Texas because of the absence of a state income tax.  However, as some respondees have pointed out, helping to bear the cost of a medical school will actually help central Texas and increase the number of doctors which will in turn increase the ability of central Texas to care for its poor and indigent, as well as provide quality health care for those that are better off.  So, the question is: am I willing to give ten more dollars a month to "enable" UT and thus provide, looking at the big picture, health care to more central Texans?

My answer is yes.  After all, I spend ten bucks in the blink of an eye at Starbucks each week, so why not spend ten dollars helping to improve the future of health care.  But, I believe UT needs to set a cap on the funds it needs and model its plan, as Paul Burka suggests, on that of Dallas' Parkland Memorial Hospital. 

In this October 03, 2012, editorial by the Houston Chronicle staff writers entitled, "NRG makes a breathtakingly bad proposal", the regional power company is criticized for proposing to build a new power plant that would pollute and worsen Houston's air quality by utilizing "cap and trade" energy credits from the Dallas area.

 NRG wants to buy pollution credits from a Dallas energy company under the Texas cap and trade system.  This system allows companies that emit low levels of pollution to sell their energy credits for being "clean" to companies that cannot meet the standards and are "dirty".  NRG has applied to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to allow this trade so it can build a power plant in the Houston area that will emit 53 tons of pollution into the local air each year. 

The Houston Chronicle editorial maintains the position that NRG is attempting to manipulate the current air quality rules at the expense of local Houston residents who already reside in one of the smoggiest cities in the nation. 

In evaluating this short editorial piece, I have used the assignment's guidelines and also the suggestions and CLUE mnemonic in the critical thinking handout provided for our Texas government course.  Considering the source, I did some brief digging around on the internet and see that The Houston Chronicle has been finalists in the Pulitzer Prize which convinces me that their journalists are fair and credible.  Additionally, The Houston Chronicle supported Barack Obama in the last presidential election which to me puts the paper on the liberal side of the political fence which typically, like democrats, support the environment.  Thus, this editorial makes sense. 

The audience is the Houston resident who must breathe the air.  The editorial I think is clearly also letting NRG know that the newspaper is keeping an eye on them and will do their journalistic best in trying to keep the public informed. This is so, a quick review of the Chronicle's past articles reveals many objective news pieces and editorials on NRG and Texas. 

I agree with this editorial.  Without having to put on my "Einstein Hat" I can just use common sense and see that the NRG proposal is for the benefit of NRG and no one else.  NRG is a large company with a huge intellectual resource pool, so I must assume they already know that building a new power plant under the current cap and trade rules in the Houston market would be expensive.  Thus, they want to buy Dallas's clean air credits.  Why not just spend the money on doing the right thing and build a power plant that meets local clean air requirements? 

While many newspapers, including The Houston Chronicle, have been implicated in pushing agendas that are questionable, I believe that our newspapers are watchdogs of people, politicians, and companies that would otherwise prosper through unethical and illegal actions. 

Part of me feels guilty for being so uninformed, but another part of me wonders if my best friend who avidly reads his local paper and Newsweek, could be considered a better person, a better citizen, or more intellectually developed?  Or does he  just merely have different things to talk about over a beer with his friends?

     Texas is the still the leader in the nation when it comes to the uninsured state citizen.  But when it comes to treating inmates with viral diseases such as hepatitis C, now prisoners are getting better health care than the average hardworking person.  The underlying message, and I digress, is commit a crime and get a health package that most of us can't afford. 
      Currently, 2.8 million dollars is spent annually treating hepatitis C in our prison system but that figure is set to jump to as high as 13 million because two new standard treatments with more expensive medicine are set to begin soon.  Hepatitis C spreads through use of infected tattoo needles, IV drug needles, and of course unprotected inmate sex.  While there are rules against these behaviors, the spread of the disease is on the rise. 
     Statewide penitentiary prevention is in place in the form of inmates trying to educate their own population but success has been minimal to moderate.  Policy changes are being explored but no legislative member or official has had the courage to admit that the most cost effective plan is to provide tattooing needles, syringes, and condoms to the prison population.  Officials say from one corner of their mouth that it's all about reducing the spread of this disease in prison in order to save society when prisoners are released, but they seemingly refuse to offer any practical solution.  Until cost effective plans are introduced, the state and its citizens will keep flipping the bill.

In this Texas Tribune article, by Brandi Grissom, the high cost of inmate health and hepatitis C and its implication to the tax payer is reported upon.