Citizenship for Immigrants

In the blog post titled Immigration on the Texas, A State Of It's Own blog, the author agrees that it is good that people who seek a better life come to the U.S. but she does not agree they are doing it the right way and she also states that the mistake that immigrants make is not filing for there citizenship.


Unfortunately it's not as easy for all immigrants to just apply for citizenship. Many immigrants do not qualify for citizenship, because they come here illegally and they come here illegally because the U.S. does not easily approve visas to those who want to come here the right way.


Also not all immigrants get paid under the table. The Social Security administration estimates that 75% of illegal immigrants are on formal payrolls and get paychecks. A lot of illegal immigrants who currently obtain jobs in the U.S. are required to have a social security number, so what they do is provide fake social security numbers. By providing a fake social illegal immigrants get federal and local income taxes, social security and Medicare taxes taken out of their paychecks; and they also contribute by paying sales taxes. 


They do not choose to run and hide, trust me if they could do it the right way and just get their citizenship they would, it's not that easy to gain citizenship here in the U.S. right now. I definitely do think that more steps should be taken to fix the huge problem with immigration. 

The Texas Budget Compact, is it really helping the future of Texas?

 Gov. Rick Perry is at it again with his ideas of not touching the Rainy day Fund and refusing to increase taxes to help out the budget crisis. On Monday April 16^th Governor Rick Perry announced his five part Texas Budget Compact to lawmakers. Gov. Rick Perry said, “It is imperative we remain committed to the sound conservative values that have made Texas the prosperous state it is today, and take steps to advance us even further.” The Texas Budget Compact is composed of five very conservative principles: practice truth in budgeting, supporting a constitutional limit of spending to the growth of population and inflation, oppose any new taxes or tax increases, preserve a strong Rainy Day Fund, and cut unnecessary and duplicative government program and agencies. Perry said this  “will lead to a stronger Texas.”

Conservatives took this very well. Conservative groups like Texans for Fiscal Responsibility and Americans for Prosperity are almost ecstatic about the Governors proposal. AFP director Peggy Venable said, “The most important promise in this compact is that it limits government growth to the growth of population and inflation, and that’s just good common sense."

I think basically Perry’s proposal is summarizing that he wishes to continue budget cuts in schools and cut even more government programs that help low income families. Texas Democratic Party Chair, Boyd Richie said about the proposal "Perry is calling on his fellow Republicans to commit to permanently underfunding public education and human services. He’s leading Texas into a race for the bottom that jeopardizes the future of both our children and our parents,"

Texas schools are already suffering from the budget cuts and with a proposal like this there is almost no hope for public education. Rita Haecker, president of the Texas State Teachers Association said, "Instead of sitting on billions of taxpayer dollars left idling in the Rainy Day Fund, which is flush and growing, the governor and the legislature should be using part of that money to preserve and ensure a strong future for the public schools.”

So just who exactly will be benefiting from this Budget Compact? Certainly not children, parents, schools, health care professionals, seniors, and low-income families. So how will this be helping our future?  During a statement Senator Kirk Watson said about Perry that "Perhaps he hasn't listened to the teachers, parents and children who've suffered as a result of bad budget practices and the perpetual lack of budget transparency. Or he hasn't heard from the health care professionals across Texas who are struggling under this budget, or the seniors, children and low-income Texans who were targeted by it," said Watson.

I believe that this proposal will hurt more people than help them. There are so many Texans out there who can’t afford healthcare and rely on these programs that Perry is planning to cut.  There are overcrowded classrooms, teachers loosing there jobs, and now there’s going to be kids who will lose health services because and Gov. Perry still doesn’t want to touch the rainy day fund? And Perry says that this plan will help the future of Texas? 

Is the smoking ban really common sense?

In a recent blog post by Lone Star Gazette, titled Smoking Ban In Texas: Common Sense, the author, Brandy argues that Texas should pass a state wide smoking ban.

Her argument is that it should be common sense to ban smoking all throughout Texas "Smoking, not only smells bad and lingers in your hair and clothing, it also is very bad for your health.”  Although this might be true, many might disagree. A lot of smokers don’t mind the smell and certainly don’t care that its bad for them so it may be common sense to some but to others its not. I don’t think you can justify common sense as the reason to depriving someone of their personal rights. I think everyone knows that smoking is bad and despite this people still smoke, and they deserve that right to choose for themselves if they want to continue to smoke or not.

Banning something because its “bad” hasn’t always worked. Alcohol for example is bad for you and can be very damaging to your health, and there are no attempts of banning alcohol today. Why? Because they already tried it and it completely failed. Prohibition became an amendment to the constitution and it failed because people were finding ways to do it anyway and it caused more problems than solving them.

“Everyone knows second hand smoke causes cancer so why would Texas continue to allow this to continue?" The government makes a lot of money on taxing cigarettes, if they ban it completely people are still going to find ways to obtain cigarettes and none of that money will go to them but to people who are selling it illegally.

I think there should be accommodations for smokers and non-smokers; there should be designated smoking areas, bars that do allow smoking and non-smoking bars. Not everyones views on smoking is the same, and people who do smoke shouldn't be denied the right to be able to. 

Gov. Rick Perry's Actions Do Not Meet His Words

Just what are Governor Rick Perry’s Priorities? In 2006 Gov. Rick Perry said “Education is our future, and my highest priority.” Well, his priorities have obviously changed. Another big priority of Perry’s campaign was to “create more jobs.” And what is Perry doing? Exactly the opposite.

 In the summer of 2011 Rick Perry signed off on $4 billion in cuts to Texas education in the 2012 and 2013 budgets.  Because of this it is estimated that 49,000 teachers may be laid off and 43,000 college students will lose almost all or some of the financial aid that they receive. His actions definitely do not match his words.

 In 2012 Gov. some Democrats concerned with the issue hoped that a special session would be called to restore some of the $4 billion cuts from public schools. On Feb. 21, 2012 Perry said that he would not call a special session to address education funding.

"I appreciate all of the legislators' input, but I would be stunned if there is an outcry from the people of this state or, for that matter, a majority of the members of the Legislature that want to come back in here and have a special session when I don't think we need one," Perry said.

Due to Perry’s decision of $4 billion in cuts, this has forced school districts to charge fees on certain school programs and services for students and families. Not only that, this has created classrooms to be overcrowded making it harder for children to learn and have the teachers on on one attention. Also affected by this are Universities, which are considering raising the tuition fee for students to keep up with these budget cuts.

It seems as if Perry is making it harder for people to want to continue their education. Bill Hammond who is a former GOP state lawmaker says that “If we don’t have an educated workforce, the jobs will leave,” “We are not meeting the needs of the future.”

Governor Rick Perry rather make education cuts, than to raise taxes a little. In the 80s governor Bill Clements was faced with a similar situation where cuts needed to be made but he did not cut education spending, he instead raised taxes and investments in public schools; which is what Perry needs to do. Currently Texas faces at least four lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the public school finance system.

In a state where we now place 47th nationally in what it pays for each student's education, I think it is important that we focus more on how much we should be spending on education. The state’s population is growing, and at a fast rate, so how is cutting back on how much is spent on education going to keep up with this growing population. Governor Rick Perry needs to focus on what’s most important, Texas education and its future.  

TxDOT & City of Austin Pedal More Waste

In a recent article TxDOT & City of Austin Pedal More Waste, written by Dustin Matocha in the Empower Texans Blog he describes the ideas of the Austin City Council as "moronic".  According to the article the Texas Department of Transportation and the City Council of Austin are creating a plan to create more bike-lane bridges in Austin which will also help reduce traffic congestion. Matocha tries to prove a point by criticizing and name calling. 

"There’s something downright moronic that the Austin City Council does or proposes every week, but this one ranks up there with some of their all-time dumb ideas..." said Matocha. 

Matocha's argument is that the City council should spend tax money on more important things like the providing more 911 operators which the Austin Police Department claims they need. He believes it is wasteful spending and emphasizes on how much money will be spent on this plan to create a "bike-share" program in downtown. 

According to Nadia M. Barrera the Bicycle/Pedestrian Project Coordinator of the Neighborhood Connectivity Division in Austin says, "the project seeks to improve connectivity and access for bikes and pedestriants within the Loop 360/Mopac interchange, and to provide connectivity over Barton Creek. Prop. 12 funding is slated for congestion relief.  Since the southbound shoulder will be converted to a travel lane (carrying approximately 2,000 cars an hour), a bicycle and pedestrian facility must be built to accommodate non-motorized traffic. We know that (especially on the weekends) hundreds of cyclists use this corridor to travel southbound."

There are many cyclist in downtown who are very concerned with this issue, and would consider this a main priority. I believe he makes a good point but there are many issues that the city council must deal with, and this is one of them.

Although Matocha gives examples of how much money this will cost tax payers I think he approached this the wrong way. In my opinion his article seems very childish and unconvincing due to his immature criticism of the Austin City Council. Some of his arguments seemed very ignorant and not well supported for example he said that cyclists "don't even pay the gas tax that's helping to pay for their new bridges" , which I think is very untrue many cyclists do own cars and biking isn't their only means of transportation meaning they do pay the gas tax.

What to do with Perry's fundraising leftovers? Governor has options

In a recent editorial written by the editorial board of Statesman,  'What to do with Perry's fundraising leftovers?' they state their opinion on what Perry should consider doing with the leftover money from his presidential campaign. According to the editorial board Perry should consider donating the money to charity. 


If Perry is rejected to form his PAC then he is asking if he can send the money to his Texas campaign fund and use it for another run for governor. They fear that if Perry is rejected of transferring the money into a PAC he will end up using it to pay himself a salary, when that money could go to a charity. By forming a super PAC Perry can have the option of not running for the re-election in 2014 as long as he's using money raised beyond the amount he shifts from his campaign he can use that money to his advantage.Although Perry has not yet been approved to use that money to start his PAC the editorial board believe that it is most likely he will be approved with evidence that the FEC has allowed past campaigns to switch money over to PACs.In reality the editorial board isn't arguing that Perry should be denied of using the money for a PAC but asking that he consider spending the money more efficiently. 

The editorial is targeting an audience that is most likely not supporters of Perry or that in some way dislike him. If someone that is a firm believer and supporter of Perry would be bothered by this article because forming a PAC would be beneficial to Perry in a political aspect.  “Not only could he stay relevant nationally, but he also could stay employed after he leaves office and continue to nicely supplement his state pension at the same time”. This article by the editorial board is making sure to let people know Perry has other options. They are portraying him as selfish in a way, and are clearly against what he wants to do with the leftover money. They make sure to point out that other past politicians have used their money to donate to charities. “If Perry needs the example of a fellow politician to follow, here's one: Former Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter left office last year after deciding not run for re-election. He has since given about $300,000 left in his state campaign fund to charitable and nonprofit groups, including $10,000 to the San Antonio-based Sisters of the Holy Spirit and Mary Immaculate, which helps AIDS orphans.”

Perry should consider donating the money to charities. Although it would be beneficial to him to use it to keep him in the limelight and possibly run for re election in 2014, it would be better he donate the money for a better cause. Perry can easily raise money in the future to help form a PAC another way, but by donating the left over presidential campaign money to a charity not only would he be helping out others but essentially making himself look good. The editorial board suggests he give his leftover campaign money to the Friends of the Governor's Mansion, the nonprofit that supports one of the most historic houses in Texas considering he’s been staying in one. They also suggest that he donate to Texas' state parks that are hurting and are accepting donations from citizens to help them stay open, and then sarcastically they say ”There's always the Boy Scouts. We all know how dear that organization is to the governor's heart.”

Texas gets B minus grade on website transparency ranking

Texas Watchdog published an article, Texas gets B minus grade on website transparency, regarding the transparency value of the information Texas state and local government agencies post online. The grade of B minus was given by The Sunshine Review. The Sunshine Review, a non-profit is "about state and local government transparency, engaged citizens, and holding government officials accountable. The Sunshine Review wiki collects and shares information about state and local transparency using a 10-point Transparency Checklist to evaluate 6,000 state and local government websites." So what does receiving a B minus mean exactly? According to the Sunshine Review “Anything less than an ‘A’ is a disservice to Texas citizens. Texans deserve a government that discloses vital information about everything from the quality of their children’s schools to how much they pay in taxes.” The government websites were ranked based on a checklist consisting of: how well they offered citizens information about budgets, meetings, lobbying, audits, contracts, public records and taxes. It's very important for our local government to provide this type of information to the people, and when it doesn't it sort of makes people question the government. It's very disappointing to hear that our state has received a B minus when it comes to releasing this type of information, are they possibly trying to hide something or why are we not being informed about state budgets, meetings, public records, taxes, etc.