Big Guns on Campus (parking lots)

     Reading over Tamera’s post the “Senate Bill 1907,” I would have to completely agree with her.  Along with agreeing with her position, I also think she did a really nice job of structuring her post.  Tamera gave a little background on what’s currently required for someone to get their concealed handgun license, gave a general description of the bill, showed what the Legislatures position was, and then posted her own opinion.  Her information was sweet and to the point.  She didn't add a whole lot of fluff and the post kept my attention.

     When reading her post, I thought it was interesting that the Legislature thought we should wait on passing gun legislation in wake of the Sandy Hook shooting.   If anything, this is a perfect example of why we need to put a bill like this into effect.  People that have earned the right, and have met the requirements to carry, should be allowed to carry a weapon where ever they please.  They are not the ones committing the crimes; they’ll be the ones who will stop things like the Sandy Hook shootings from happening.  Trying to rid the world of guns isn't going to fix anything.  Legislation only works on law abiding citizens, not criminals, they don’t follow laws, hence the title “criminal.”  This only removes weapons from the people trying to defend themselves, leaving them helpless and vulnerable to attacks.  It’s like the war on drugs, there’s never going to be an end to it.

This is "Fracking" Ridiculous

     The “Fracking” process is becoming very popular with oil and gas companies, and we are probably going to see even more of it here in Texas soon.  This is because Texas Legislation is in the works to help streamline the process that requires companies to get a permit before being allowed to use fracking.  If you don’t know what fracking is, it’s the latest and greatest way to poison your drinking water! Although, oil and gas companies will tell you it’s a technological breakthrough in drilling techniques to extract oil and gas from the ground.  There’s a lot of evidence out there that shows there are a lot of negative after effects of fracking on the environment.  The biggest concern is the contamination of drinking water.  

     Currently, there are no laws that govern fracking as it pertains to the safety of drinking water, but the new legislation is supposed to change that.  “Under the agreement, companies submit their fracking practices to an independent review. If a company is found to be using recycled water in most of its fracking operations, limiting the amount of gas it flares and taking other steps to reduce air and water pollution, it receives certification for having met the agreement’s environmental standards”(TheStatesman).  Some of the problems I see with this are that the permits will be given to an independent company for review instead of a government agency.  This could lead to corruption.  Not to say our government isn’t capable of corruption, but I feel there would be stricter regulations if the process were to go through the government.  Second, it destroys all the headway made by environmental agencies that are trying to get rid of this process.  The only reason Texas allows fracking is because it brings in revenue.  Oil companies like Shell and Chevron are trying to market this process as being safe for the environment, but I can’t see how pumping out tons of chemicals into the ground can be good to the environment.

     While this bill looks to be a step in the right direction, it’s actually a step back.  The bill does put some regulations in place that will help protect our drinking water, but the best policy to protect our drinking water and the environment would not to allow Fracking at all.  

     Some of the other concerns fracking brings are the effects it will have on small towns, and the amount of water the fracking process takes.  If you would like to read more about this, you can find it on the Statesman website.

     

Abusing the System Part 2

     This is a revision of my Blog 6 post, or my Blog 6 part two.  I’ve tried to post this in the comments section, but apparently it’s too long.This is my rebuttal to Doug Warzon's post "Now or Later" from his  blog The Texas Nationalist Mindset, and which originally started on his post, "No more Free Rides."  The original topic on hand is that drug testing will stop people that are abusing unemployment and Welfare benefits (i.e. the people buying lobster and porter house steaks).  Drug testing is only going to catch people that are abusing drugs, not the people abusing the system.  One really doesn’t have anything to do with the other. The only way to curve what people by would be to limit food stamps to purchase only certain foods that were on a list, a lot like how the WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) program works.  WIC recipients have a card they swipe when checking out and if the items they are purchasing are not on the list, then they are not paid for by WIC, they would then have to pay out of pocket for those items.

     Drug testing for unemployment benefits sounds good in theory, but it just isn’t going to work. The numbers Doug mentions in his rebuttal, “According to TWC (Texas Work Force Commission) stats on pre-employment drug screening fails, the new bill (SB21) would estimate a savings of 13 Million over a five-year period…” are inflated and unproven.  The stats for employment drug screening fails are for everyone in the state that goes through TWC, not just the ones collecting unemployment benefits.  Not everyone who’s unemployed can file for unemployment, only people that have been laid off, or let go by no fault of their own are eligible for unemployment, but Senator Tommy Williams is using the total amount of people seeking work through TWC as the total number of people seeking unemployment benefits.  Even Senator Wendy Davis knows that the statistics aren’t correct, “You know very well that those statistics don’t exist … because the law has not been passed”(NYTimes). Furthermore, the 13 million over a five-year period is questionable, and based on the numbers that Florida has received, extremely inflated.  Lets talk about Florida for a minute since Doug uses it in his argument.

     Doug says, “In Florida, people who receive welfare benefits must pay for their own drug tests.”  This is only partially true.  While Florida did require (They are no longer doing it because a judge has put a temporary ban on the law. you can read more here.) individuals to pay for their own drug tests, he failed to mention that the state reimburses the individual after results come back negative.  Since July, 7,030 people have passed the drug screening, and out of that, only 32 have failed (Miami Herald).  That equates to 0.4% of the people who take the test fail.  As a result of these low numbers, Florida is actually loosing money, rather than saving unemployment benefits.  It cost Florida taxpayers $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, and that led to a state net loss of $45,780 (MiamiHerald).  This is a perfect example of why drug testing is not going to save the state any money, nor is it going to stop people from abusing the system. This is the result of a state basing a problem on a trivial idea rather than fact.  Moreover, it’s irrelevant that the state pays for unemployment after 26 weeks because 0.4% isn’t going to even put a dent in those numbers.

     Like I stated before, there are people out there abusing the system, and there are people that use benefits and also use drugs, but the numbers do not warrant implementing a costly drug program.  Not only will the costs eventually be passed down to the taxpayers, but it also makes it more difficult for the people who actually need the benefits to receive them.  Some might say, “it’s only $40 for a drug test...” but when someone can’t afford to buy groceries for their children, or put a few dollars in the gas tank to get to work (that is if they’re lucky enough to have a car), $40 is a lot of money, even if they’re going to get reimbursed.  Depending on how long it takes to reimburse them could be the difference between eating and not eating.  They should set it up to where you only pay for it if you fail the test, that would take the burden off the upfront costs and still have the same affect, but this is besides the point.  Back to the “original” post, none of this is going to stop people from buying lobster and steak with food stamps, or save taxpayers money regardless of what “numbers” they predict (Florida’s a perfect example). 

Abusing the System

     The idea that many welfare recipients are abusing the system is more of a stereotype than an actual problem.  Of course there are people out there that abuse the system, but implementing drug testing as part of the solution isn't going to fix the problem—it’s only going to cost the tax payers more money. 

      Doug’s post on "No more Free rides" suggests that drug tests used as part of the screening process for unemployment and welfare programs will save the state/ tax payers lots of money by weeding out all the “druggies” that use these programs.  The problem with this is that unemployment benefits are not paid by taxpayers; it’s paid by the employers (i.e. the company that laid that person off) through taxes that the employer pays to the government.  So, having someone do a drug test to get unemployment benefits that they have already earned, and which taxpayers didn't provide, is only costing taxpayers money, because now they have to pay for all the drug tests.   Doug also mentions, “most companies perform background checks, pre-employment drug screening…” this is exactly what we should do, which is  to leave the drug testing up to the companies hiring the individuals that were laid off, and not the State government. 

     That leaves welfare recipients.  Would drug testing people who receive aid in Texas result in lowering the cost of welfare programs?  The short answer is no.  This idea that individuals on welfare are poor, good for nothing, druggie, lazy, government fund sucking people is far from the truth.  It’s a stereotype.  And although there can be some truth to stereotypes, the percentage of people fitting this description is quite low. There’s an article in the Austin Chronicle that talks about this bill and some of the information is very interesting.   The number of people on TANF in Texas is around 114,000 people, which is about 0.4% of Texas’ population, and of that, 85% of them are children.  So, now looking at the numbers and the fact that unemployment benefits are paid by the employer, are there any legitimate reasons to start a drug screening process?

     While it is sad that there are people out there that abuse the system, and how I would love nothing more than for them to receive justice, drug testing hundreds of thousands of people, which would cost taxpayers millions of dollars, is not the answer.  The money saved by the very small number of people that might test “positive” on a drug test is in no way going to counteract the costs of implementing a drug screening program.  Though, it would be good to catch the people that are abusing the system, it’s not worth the price tag; not to mention that it would only weed out the abusers that used drugs.

Gunless Cowboys

     My wife just completed her CHL (concealed handgun license) class today and it made me think about how Texas doesn’t allow “open carry,” or visibly carry a firearm in public.  In fact, there’s only 7 states left that don’t allow it these days and Texas is one of them, sharing this spot light with liberal states like California.  Since Texas is one of the most pro second amendment states out there, I found it odd that they still haven’t passed a bill in support of open carry, so I decided to do a little research.  Supposedly there’s a bill in the works right now to allow Texas to become an “open carry” state, but it would only allow people with concealed handgun licenses to open carry, which to me, defeats the purpose.   I just recently moved from the state of Virginia, and their “open carry” law allows anyone who owns a gun to open carry, which I completely agree with.  What’s the point in owning a gun if you can’t carry it with you to protect yourself? 

     Some people would argue that carrying a gun in plane sight is like showing all you cards at a poker game, while others look at it as a deterrent, scaring attackers away just from the sight of the weapon.  Either way, if it were allowed, at least you would have the option to carry if you wanted to.  Even the Texas’s constitution states that, “Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.”  I’m not sure how concealing guns from “view” prevents crimes, if anything it should be the other way around.  If someone was going to try to steal a person’s wallet, and they had a choice between a guy with a gun, and an unarmed person, they would choose the latter.  Hopefully Texas will pass the “open carry” law and allow it to apply to everyone, until then I guess Texas will have gunless cowboys.

Protect Who?

Dustin Matocha of Empower Texans writes about several bills that were filed this session that look to protect public interest, but might have a secondary purpose.  Matocha explains how these bills are for  “public safety,” and most were written by republicans.  This seems out of place since they are the ones that typically are for a free market, and these new bills would hurt small businesses.  Matocha uses several examples of these bills to support his case.  The first is SB 311 by Senator John Carona.  This bill would require all roofing contractors to obtain a license from the stated by passing a test, providing proof of liability insurance, undergo criminal background checks, along with paying fees.  This would put a lot of strain on small to medium-sized roofing companies, possibly putting them out of business.  This is a good argument.  Why would a Republican be for government regulations on small businesses?  This to me doesn’t make sense and should raise some red flags, which is what Matocha is addressing. He also mentions several other bills, like one that would require cat and dog dealers to be licensed with the state and require mandatory veterinary examinations, and another that would require “rainwater harvesting” to become a licensed plumber.  While I don’t disagree with some of these regulations, I’m also not a republican. I can see how they would hurt businesses and this leads me to believe that there’s an ulterior motive for these bills.  The senators that wrote these bills have special interests in these areas, and are not looking out for the public, just there own pocket.  Matocha does a good job of giving examples to support his ideas.  After reading his post I would have to say I would agree with what he has to say, but I also agree with some (not all) of the bills he mentioned.

Texas School Funding Myth

Here's an article from the Statesman by Jason Stanford. The article is about Texas’ inadequate funding for public schools.  Stanford cuts through the “Bull” and gives us a clear picture of what the current state of our educational funding looks like.  His target audience is parents, grandparents, soon-to-be parents, and anyone who will vote to change the current system in place that funds our children’s educational future.

Jason Stanford is a Democratic Political consultant and opposition researcher based here in Austin. He’s served as 2006 Democratic gubernatorial candidate Chris Bell's campaign manager and chief spokesman.  He is also the head of Stanford Research.  His political background and use of stats and figures in his article make his argument seem credible. A good example of this is when Stanford is talking about the contract Texas signed with Pearson, “The legislature raised the financial and academic stakes by signing a $468 million contract with Pearson for the STAAR test and then slashed school funding by $5.4 billion…” Stanford also uses good analogies like: “Dietz’s ruling was the least surprising revelation since Jodie Foster came out of her not-so-secret closet at the Golden Globes.”  Comments like these make the article fun to read and it gives the article sarcastic tone that you would expect from someone who is frustrated with the current school-funding situation.  Stanford’s choice of words and straightforward language makes the article very easy to understand, which is essential when trying to get the majority of the public to see a certain point of view.  This article was enlightening and a pleasure to read.