Stage 8: Response to, "Unemployment...Arggg."

I must admit that I am a little horrified after reading Megan Ryan's blog post titled, "Unemployment...Arggg!" The reason why I'm horrified is not because I'm unaware of the of the U.S.' current unemployment rate but because I strongly disagree with the logic that she uses in her assessment of this topic.

Megan is quick to state that the high unemployment rate has become a problem for the U.S. since President Obama's administration took over the white house in 2008. There are countless data-mediums available via the internet, newspapers, and magazines that support the fact that the economy and unemployment rates have headed towards a negative direction since former President George W. Bush's administration (2000-2008).

Rather then just listing unemployment rate numbers and blaming individuals, we should first list reasons why the economy and unemployment rates are so bad. Though the economy and unemployment rates are closely linked to each other, I will try to separate them when listing why they are both heading the wrong direction.

Economy:

1. The United States has increasingly became more and more reliant on foreign oil since the 1980s. The huge demand and limited supply resulted in a rise in not only oil prices but of all products related to oil consumption such as food due to the increase in gas prices that it takes to transport food around the country. This rise in prices has steadily decrease the value of the american dollar (inflation) and its lack of value is simply more noticeable today then it was 10 years ago.

2. The terrorists attack on 9/11 was the tipping point into recession for the U.S. To combat this, President Bush decided to put faith into the American people by encouraging Congress to pass a bill that cut taxes and gave rebate checks for tax filers. This idea was at first very successful; in fact, the housing market included an economic boom and the economy was appearing like it was on the rise. However, rather than spend wisely and investing smarter, normal citizens and businesses were taking drastic risks and spending more than what they had. The economy began to dip again partially due to people and businesses inability to make wise decisions leading to a decrease in lending from banks and investors investing in American businesses. The tax cuts also affected the U.S negatively because the lack of revenue gained by the federal government meant that in order to balance the national deficit, the federal government would have to borrow more money and go into more debt.

3. President Obama tried to jump start the economy with a different method than President Bush but the central idea was the same, to put his faith in the American people. The President's stimulus plan ($800 billion "ish") was meant to jump start the economy by jump starting major American corporations like GM and encourage the hiring of American workers. Whether the stimulus has helped is highly debated and on a personal level, I think the truth requires more time. There are many reports that much of the stimulus money were used by the higher ups in the major corporations to pay for employee bonuses. Whether the Democrats knew this or not is a topic for a conspiracy blog. However, even if the stimulus is working, the current high energy prices and terrible housing markets are enough to keep the economy at stagnation.

Unemployment:

I have written way too much and so I will only list here the most important and most obvious reason why unemployment is so high in the U.S., outsourcing. Why would a company stay in the U.S. and lose money to high wage, benefit demands from unions, and strict regulations when they can simply move their factories to a low cost zone such as China or Mexico and pay a fraction of the cost that they would pay in the U.S. There aren't many ways for Governor Perry, President Obama, or Mitt Romney to lower unemployment if the number of jobs in the U.S. are decreasing gradually due to outsourcing. The only thing possible is to spend more money to create jobs such as high way projects and construction of public facilities or to give tax cuts to businesses that hire American workers. Obama can't spend more money because of  opposition from Congress and Romney and Perry wont do it because of their Republican nature. Of course they all can give tax cuts to corporations hiring Americans, but are these companies going to save more money from these tax cuts offered or from outsourcing to a much cheaper labor force?

Now to address Perry forming a board to lower the deficit. There is really only three ways to lower the budget deficit.

1. Many politicians advocate cut spending but what do they mean by that? Do they mean cut spending such as cut education funding, transportation services, medical funds(medicare/medicaid), civil services (police/firemen salaries), etc. If we put morals and responsibility aside, cut spending is an excellent method to lower the deficit.

2. Increase taxes.

3. Borrow Aladdin's magic lamp.

I would be shocked, utterly stupefied, if any politician in Texas would get elected into the governor's office running under any of those three ideas as their platform for balancing the budget. Everyone always says that they have a plan but it usually comes down to one of those three methods eventually.

I understand Megan's annoyance at the unemployment rate but I don't understand the rationality of criticism without construction. To simply criticize is to whine; if one is to criticize in a positive manner then it must be constructive criticism. State whats wrong but offer possible solutions; complaining does not help. 

Governor Perry is a business man and Texas is a business state. The fact that Texas' unemployment rate is one of the lowest in the country is not something to be taken for granted. Sure, things can be better but the approach must be steady and logical. President Obama does have great ideas and they stem from Roosevelt's New Deal plan in spending our way out of a depression/recession. President Obama also wants to use Robin Hood to unfairly help the less fortunate by taxing the wealthy more. None of these methods here are popular with everyone but they all have one intention, to save the U.S.' economy.

Overall, the idea here is to pick a logical and well formed approach to fix the economy and lower unemployment. Whether it be cut spending, increase spending, raising taxes, or lowering taxes, we need to pick a plan and stick with it. The economy is not something that you can fix within a few years. The plan put into motion must be nourished and well supported. Yes we will have to work hard, yes there will be sacrifices, yes we wont all like it, yes we will suffer, yes we will become desperate, but we must carry on. You cannot plant a tree today and expect apples tomorrow. People today are way too quick to give up, start blaming each other, and look for another way out. By going a different direction than the one right now, we are simply going back to where we started. We may have not all elected President Obama and we have not all supported his spending plans, but as citizens under a representative voting democracy, the people, through Congress have spoken and the plans are in motion. Rather than bickering and blaming figureheads after the matter, we should focus our energy on where the plan may take us and how to better support the track that it has and will take. We must remember that many benefits yielded from the actions of leaders do not become visible until many years after they have retired. We must do our part and not repeat the mistakes of the past such as the irresponsible behavior in the early 2000s after Bush's tax cuts and the greed exhibited by businesses after receiving Obama's stimulus money. We the people make the United States great but we can also make it awful. The responsibilities lie with us and if we are to blame others, we must not forget about ourselves.

Stage 7: Work Visas for Proven Workers

As the battlefront for illegal immigration, Texas is currently taking extreme measures to guard its borders and weed out illegal immigrants currently residing in the state. However, if Texas was ever to be completely successful in removing all these immigrants, an important question comes into mind in that who will replace the workforce that Texans ran out of town?

Obviously, America is the land of opportunity and with the current unemployment rate, the thought of an insufficient workforce seems unlikely. However, removing a proven workforce in favor of an inexperience and even possibly unwilling new work force will have a detrimental effect on the Texas economy. According to the article, "How much did illegal immigrants contribute to Texas’ economic boom?" from the Washington Post, illegal and legal immigrants make up 20% of the Texas workforce. In fact, the immigrant's positive effect on the economy is more apparent by the numbers reported by the Texas comptroller. The Washington Post article states, "Texas state comptroller, a Republican, released a study showing that illegal immigrants produced more in state revenues than they received in state services in the previous year: “Undocumented immigrants produced $1.58 billion in state revenues, which exceeded the $1.16 billion in state services they received."" Giovanni Perri, an economist at the University of California, Davis, found in his research that ilegal and legal immigrants have a short term negative impact on the economy but a positive long term impact."Immigration unambiguously improves employment, productivity, and income” for native workers as well and shows no evidence of depressing wages," said Perri.

Let me make myself clear, I am in no way in support of illegal immigration. I believe that there is a due process that all Texas citizens are entitled to. Citizens and permanent residents who pay taxes and contribute to the well being of the state deserve to benefit from the services that the state provides. 

However, the statistic numbers stated earlier in my post cannot be denied. The benefits from the current immigrant workforce is greater than the negative impact. Thus my goal here is to propose an idea that can increase the benefits that the state receives from immigrant workers while keeping the amount of services provided (cost) by the state at its current level or even possibly lowering the cost.

I recommend that when Texas identifies a person as an illegal immigrant, that Texas evaluates the person's current status and grants he or she a work permit based on their productivity and contribution to the Texas economy. I also advise that Texas revise some of its work permit renewal rules. As of right now, a person with a permit cannot simply renew their permit but must go through the initial process all over again and pay all the fees required. For me, this is a very short sighted tax that can uproot a hardworking legal family that contributes positively to the economy. There is even a ban on applicants requesting an unskilled (labor, low-wage jobs) worker permit. Though these "unskilled" jobs are not "difficult", who and how many people in America are willing to do these "unskilled" jobs? 

Overall, Texas should continue its war on illegal immigration but it must not slash and burn all in its sight. Extreme measures like the Arizon immigration laws should be considered with caution. We must be calm and collective and fair to the immigrant workers that exhibit the same great hard working Texas spirit that Texans have. The word Texas means friends and we should always be willing to accept new friends who are willing to do their part and pull their weight. I feel that Texas can always use productive workers to help our economy grow. The war on illegal immigration should be against those who promote violence, drugs, and laziness. Those who are here illegally and provide no positive contribution to society while devouring the resources that Texas' communities work hard to provide should be deported. I only request that we take a closer examination to differentiate those who affect us negatively from those that affect us positively.  

Stage 6: Response to Texas' War on Women

I found Alec's Texas Blog's post on July 27, 2012 titled, "Texas' War on Women," to be very passionate due to her personal affiliation with the group of women that are affected by Texas choosing to cut funding for Planned Parenthood programs. Texas has long been a pro-life state due to its strong conservative ties. Alec shows her understanding of Texas' political culture when she says, "I understand that this is, for the most part, a far right, Conservative Christian state. I knew that when I moved here." However, she makes a very good arguement when she says, "But denying tens of thousands of women the ability to seek medical care simply because those providers may or may not have an association with an abortion clinic is ridiculous to me." It really is a travesty that such matters that affect thousands of women in Texas are being decided by people who do not face the same difficulties. I agree with Alec that Christian groups are inconsiderate when they would rather cut the programs that provide lower income women health benefits like cancer screenings, birth control, and health exams to promote their own political agendas. Alec provides good evidence for her point of view. Her evidence has striking statistic numbers such as 130,000 women being affected by these cuts. Alec makes a good point in that she and other lower income women deserve the necessary health care that women need. By cutting the funding for these health programs, conservative Christians are sending a negative message that only women who are financially stable deserve to be healthy. Overall, I found Alec's post to be very insightful and sincere on her feelings towards these health cuts targeting low income women. She provides sufficient evidence supporting her claims and makes logical arguments. Though I am a male, I can still understand the frustration and feeling of isolation that Texas law makers are inflicting on these women. 

Stage 5: Why Old People Should Not Drive

Its almost everyday that a car accident is reported on the local news. According to a ranking list of the top leading causes of death in Texas (2008) from the Texas Department of Public Safety website, auto accidents is #4. 


Of course, the causes for these accidents vary from many things like drunk driving, weather, and cell phone use. Recently, Texas laws have cracked down on drunk driving and cell phone use while weather reports were made to be more easily accessible for travelers. 


However, there is another possible way to improve transportation safety, but it is not as "polite" to state openly. That is, elderly people who are incapable of operating an automobile safely, should not be on public roads that the community shares. 


There are accidents in Texas every year due to the elderly making mistakes because of their lack of awareness and ability to react. USATODAY provides a great graphic on how aging affects the ability to drive, and among the reasons included are the elderly tending to have a slower reaction time, their vision is blurry without proper aid, and their joint pains and arthritis can make necessary driving motions painful. 


However, there are always exceptions to any group. I dare not say all the elderly should be prohibited from driving on public roads but instead I motion for the license cancellation of only the elderly who are incapable of safely driving. 


So how do we determine those that are capable and those that are not. Currently in Texas, there is a Katie's Law that requires drivers driver license applicants over the age of 79 to apply in person. The law also requires that those over 79 must renew their license every 6 years in person and must pass vision exams during renewal. Commercial drivers over 85 must renew every 2 years and take the necessary exams. 


Though this is a good attempt, it isn't completely effective. For people over 79, a lot can change within 6 years. A possible amendment is instead of a 6 year renewal rate, these elderly drivers should be required to renew annually along with taking the necessary exams annually. Also, age 79 is quite old and the human senses do begin to deteriorate long before that for many people. It would be more appropriate to move the required age of 79 to a younger age such as 65. The exact age should be determined by researchers with more knowledge on the human body than myself, but the idea is the same; 79 is really too old. 


Although the elderly are not the only group of drivers with a high tendency to not drive safely (in fact teen drivers have a much higher auto-accident rate), the prevention of unnecessary accidents caused by this group is completely possible with more frequent exams. By eliminating drivers that cannot physically and mentally operate safely, we are effectively decreasing the amount of accidents, and are taking positive steps to making Texas roads a little safer.

Stage 4: Blog Critique

There was an interesting post from the conservative blog, EMPOWERTEXANS, called Worthless Wentworth, by Michael Quinn Sullivan. Sullivan accuses State Senator Jeff Wentworth of lieing to keep his chair. According to the post, Wentworth has accused his opponent, Donna Campbell, of supporting higher taxes. Sullivan completely disagrees and even calls the accusations crazy. "That’s crazy on its face," writes Sullivan. The author reports that Campbell is known as a staunch, common sense conservative who has signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge with her constituents. Unlike Campbell, Wentworth has not signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. Sullivan also calls Wentworth one of the worst rated GOP legislators on fiscal responsibilities. Sullivan reports that Wentworth got his accusation on Campbell from lobbyist Bryan Eppstein and that the reason why Campbell is for higher taxes is because of her support. "They allege nonsensically that we’re pushing for higher taxes because we support reducing/eliminating the property tax, writes Sullivan. This is indeed confusing and has many loose ends. Sullivan's conclusion of the whole confusing manner is that Wentworth and his lobbyists are lying as a way to support their previous lies. Sullivan then reports that now-defeated State Representative Vicki Truitt made outlandish lies when he lost his reelectuion. There is also State Representative Chuck Hopson who is using the same lie to fend off his conservative opponent. The one thing that all these officials have besides the same lie is that they all have the same consultant as Wentworth, Bryan Eppstein. Sullivan also reports that Wentworth has used his office to seek high paying positions at Texas A&M and Texas State. Sullivan ends the post by calling Wentworth a "Big-Government shill" who is desperate to evade his record in the Texas Senate and is again here trying to hide his own record. The author's purpose in this post is to inform conservative readers of Wentworth's history and the trends of the lies connected to Bryan Epstein. The post does contain a lot of dirt only on Wentworth but the ultimate goal here is not to support Campbell, but to get reader's attention and throw Wentworth out of office. The evidence provided here is note worthy because of Epstein's history with losing politicians who made last ditch efforts to hold on to their chairs. Although the post will make me more aware of Wentworth and take a deeper look into these accusations, I am not completely sold and will have to get a second opinion on the matter. Overall the article was very good and the interpretations were logical with valid support provided.

Stage 3: Texas Education

One of the most important functions of a state government is to provide an education for its young people. Annual tests were created in order to make sure that schools and students are meeting Texas' standards. First there was the TABS, then TEAMS, then TAAS, then TAKS, and finally now there is the STAAR. Like its predecessor, the STAAR test is intended for students to take throughout grade school; students must pass their grade's required tests in order to pass onto the next grade. However, compared to its predecessors, the STAAR test is much more demanding and much more difficult. According to an editorial from the Austin American Statesman, Testing is good, but STAAR may not be, the current STAAR test may not be an improvement for testing in Texas. Many people claim that the test is too difficult but then there are others such as Representative Mark Strama who wonder if it was the schools that failed to prepare the student. "Is it a function of the instrument? That's one answer. Is it a function of student attainment? That's a different answer." said Strama during a hearing. The author of the article provides information that even though passing rates were high, such as 87% for biology, the results are not entirely impressive because a student only needed to correctly answer 40% of the questions asked to pass the test. However, these is also alarming results such as only 55% of students passing the writing exam. The author fears that if students are unable to pass their annual tests because of difficulty, they will continue to struggle and fall behind even more in later years. The article lists some possible solutions such as moving the tests later into the year (May) so that students will have more time to prepare. Ultimately, the author isn't completely disregarding the STAAR test but is simply showing concerns over the test's first results. Overall this editorial was well written because the author had a logical argument that there should be concern over the STAAR test and was able to provide clear statistical evidence for their argument. This article provides a reasonable position that should be looked at by parents as well as law makers and educators. Although the STAAR test was just in its first year and the low results may be because of this, we must wonder if the problem really is the test or is it our school's inability to properly educate students. To make sure that our state does not fall behind others in education, Texas' lawmakers must be careful when considering the future of annual state exams. 

Stage 2: Article introduction and colleague’s blogs

According to a news report from the Austin American Statesman, http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/politics/entries/2012/07/17/president_obama_to_make_fundra.html?cxntfid=blogs_postcards , President Obama is scheduled is be in the Austin Music Hall for a fundraiser event. Amongst the groups that he will meet is the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender). It was very recent that Obama announced that he was pro-gay marriages and by meeting with the LGBT, it shows that he is serious on taking that platform with his campaign. Another interesting point on his visit to Austin is that Texas has traditionally been a Republican state. This means that Texas’ electoral votes will most likely go to Obama’s opponents but the fact that he will still visit Texas shows that he is really trying to appeal to people’s interest everywhere, not just in swing states like Ohio. The article is also worth noting for those of us who live in or plan on going downtown today. Many roads will be blocked and security will be at high levels. Thus, simply avoid downtown today if you do not want to be stuck in traffic. However for those who wish to see the President, today is your best chance.