The Death Penalty - A Social Responsibility

After reading a classmates blog regarding the death penalty I was inspired to gather some information to paint a slightly different picture. The blog was primarily anti-death penalty as the author believes that the death row inmates could be innocent. She also stated that the death penalty is “not our best option and it’s not our most humane option.” She asks us as a society to “turn the other cheek and believe in kindness, hope and love.”

I found a quote from Professor John McAdams of Marquette University that exactly described my feeling on the subject, "If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."

My classmate speaks of rehabilitation and to then “set them free on the world again.” Currently 56% of violent felons are repeat offenders and 61% of all felons are repeat offenders. How can we possibly consider rehabilitating someone that has committed murder? We are not taking the chance that another robbery will happen; we are taking a chance that another innocent person will be murdered. We are socially irresponsible if we allow these types of criminals back on the street. Additionally, we are socially irresponsible to keep these people in prison where they can cause harm to other inmates. Our society is based on rules to keep people safe. Every able person knows that killing someone is against those rules. Everyone knows that there is a consequence. These people sentenced to death row knew what they were doing. They knew the consequence to their actions. I say, if you make it clear that the consequence to murdering someone is the death sentence then let the burden of guilt be placed on the murderer for killing an innocent person as well as themselves.

Unemployment Benefits... No Problem

With the depressed economic situation we are currently in, there has been a lot of focus on unemployment rates. How many people are unemployed last month versus this month… What is the state of Texas’s unemployment rate versus another state. What are not so often talked about are the circumstances in which people qualify for unemployment.

When considering the benefits of paying unemployment I see the importance of helping people out that were laid off from work. These are hard times and people that have worked hard deserve help when hard times knock at their door. What I don’t agree with is how easily we qualify people to receive unemployment benefits. For instance, if an employer has a project they could use some extra help on, the solution would hopefully be to give someone a job. Unfortunately, this option is becoming less appealing to employers as hiring someone, even on a temporary basis, now entitles that person to unemployment benefits. So instead of spreading some of the money to people that are unemployed, employers might seek a different solution when extra help is needed. They may offer over time to employees they have currently working for them. One of the steps the Texas government could take in reducing unemployment would be to make it easier and more cost effective for employers to hire temporary employees.

Another downfall to the unemployment program is that people just have to look for a job to maintain their benefits. In my current position I have seen many people come through my office door asking for an application so that I can fill out a form that says they were “looking” for a job. The unfortunate thing I keep seeing is that these people don’t actually want a job. When asked if they would come in for an interview, they say no, they just want me to fill out the paperwork. So by making unemployment benefits so easily attainable and so easy to keep, we are reducing funds that could be helping the honest hard working person that actually hit a bit of bad luck in the job market. I believe our government should take a long hard look at the unemployment benefit structure and seriously consider revising it.

Personal Income Tax in Texas... Not the Solution

After reading a co-students article regarding her belief that the State of Texas should impose a state income tax I decided to do a little research of my own. I read an article that stated, “The Texas tax system transfers a higher share of income from the private to the public sector over time as income rises." My co-student’s main reasoning for imposing a state income tax is that she believes our system is regressive and that the state is not collecting enough money to support its citizens. After reading some facts and viewpoints of others I don’t agree with her opinion.

Texas has a high sales tax rate. Additionally, Texas has the second highest tax rate on properties. The money that is collected from the property taxes funds our educational system. My co-student claimed that a state income tax would “provide a better education” for its citizens. It seems to me that we are already supplying our state with the necessary funds for a “better” educational system. I believe the flaw that we should be fighting with our government about is what they are in fact doing with the money that they have been supplied. Just throwing more money at the problem is not a solution. That would be like giving a drug addict more drugs. We need to hold our government accountable to the promises that they make. More everyday citizens need to stand together and insist that “our” money be spent on the things we deem important… like education and health benefits.

Funding the Enemy

For some time I have worked for a local Austin screen printing company that has specialized in University of Texas licensed apparel. Last year, VF Corporation, proposed an offer to the University of Texas to get exclusive rights for selling adult t-shirts. VF secured this “monopoly” after writing a large check for advance royalties to the school. The ripple effect has now begun and many Austin companies and families are suffering from this decision. Several local companies went out of business when this deal was signed. Many Austin citizens lost their jobs. VF, like most large corporations, brings their product in from out of the country. As a re-cap, the University of Texas gave exclusive rights to a large corporation that essentially put many local citizens out of work, while giving more business to people out of the country. Why..... Money.

The disturbing part of this story is that the State of Texas funds the University of Texas. It seems to me that there is something wrong with our local government if they will fund a school that puts its citizens out of business. Unemployment rates are increasing. If our government would spend more time managing the funds that they allocate we might not be in such a recession. If our state would not support entities that take jobs away from Americans, forcing many to file for unemployment there would not be such a large drain on our financial resources. The financial problems we are facing are not just because we are in a recession, but because we are not considering the consequences of our actions. The University of Texas signed the contract with VF for the monetary instant gratification. I doubt they even thought of the long term effects this would have on the citizens living in their own community. Shame on The University of Texas and shame on the government for allowing this to happen.

The Big Bad Payday Loan

On the local blog “Burnt Orange Report” an article was posted about the much needed reforms to the payday laws in Texas. Though the article was recently posted on October 13, 2011, cause for concern regarding the current payday laws has been headlining news columns for quite some time. The author of this blog interviewed State Representative Eddie Rodriguez regarding his opinion on the matter. Mr. Rodriguez has been an advocate for payday law reform. Mr. Rodriguez says “there’s a reason why they [payday loan establishments] are sprouting up like a lot of mushrooms after a rain, and that’s because they are so lucrative.” Essentially Mr. Rodriguez believes that these companies are taking advantage of the situation and since there are no real restrictions in place some companies make an excess of 300% in interest. Wow! That’s a lot. The author appears to be in favor of changing our current laws. He did a great job supporting his view by interviewing Mr. Rodriguez. This lends credibility to his article and leads the reader to agree with the viewpoints stated. The author also cites several facts regarding the problems associated with our current laws. He notes that a loan of $1000 could end up costing $3500 when unpaid installments are continuously rolled over into the loan. Though the facts are quite impressive, I think the blog would have been better had the author played more on the emotional side of human nature. For instance, he could have talked about the dire economic situation our country is currently in and the cold-hearted nature of these companies for exploiting the average working person’s tough financial situation. I appreciate the facts that were presented, but this article would have been more compelling had the emotional element been added.

Bumper Sticker's Are No Way to Fight Poverty

I must admit, the title of the editorial I selected is really what drew me in: "Bumper-sticker policy no way to fight poverty." I believe the author intended this article to be read by those living in lower to middle income households. After reading through the information provided by the editorial board of the Statesman I was somewhat shocked. I, myself come from a middle-lower income household based on the standards listed in this article. As I related this article to my current situation and those of many friends and family things become a little clearer. I had always gone under the assumption that the reason for my financial stress was simply that I needed to be more financial savvy, more frugal. I think those things are key factors in making a financial situation better, however, after reading this article I have to agree that some of the solution should be coming from our government. If we are going to continue increasing the prices of our base necessities, wages should also be increased. Unfortunately, I do not know of many business owners that will happily pay their minimum wage employees an extra dollar an hour because they see gas prices rise. It has been my experience that rising costs of goods adversely affect the average American worker. Business owners are also feeling the tightening of the purse strings when prices increase. Their minds become more consumed with how they can reduce expenses, not increasing employee wages.

In the article it talks of the government poverty line being $22,000 for a family of four. Travis County has 19.2% of its population not hitting that mark. Knowing these figures motivated me to do a little research. There was an article in the NY Times that stated "though [minimum wage] rose to $7.25 an hour in 2009... the minimum wage is still lower than it was 30 years ago, after accounting for inflation. Today's minimum wage amounts to about $1.50 an hour less than it did in 1968. I was shocked to read that. Many of the minimum wage jobs are so necessary to our everyday lives. The fact that we are paying our employees less than 30 years ago is absolutely disheartening. It is no wonder that our country is in such a recession. If people can barely afford to eat, they surely won't be spending money they don't have to. Money not spent in our consumer market just makes our economic plight worse. I think this article put it very clear, a bumper sticker saying "I fight poverty, I work" is no way to really fight poverty.

WATER...Texas is Lacking

Water, or lack thereof, has been a hot topic of conversation for many months now. Restrictions have become stricter as this problem increases. Several months ago I read a few articles that discussed the severe drought that Texas is facing. Unfortunately, the outlook is increasingly grim. The LCRA controls much of our water supply. Earlier agreements made by the LCRA with the rice farmers in Matagorda, Wharton and Colorado counties entitles certain portions of water from the Colorado River to the farmers. As the drought continues, the LCRA is looking to make even higher restrictions, including cutting back on the amount of water that is supplied to the rice farmers. Some claim our low water levels are due to the agreement with the rice farmers. The LCRA has developed a plan that may cut off the water to the farmers in January if the lake levels drop below certain levels.

I read this article and could not help but think, why haven’t we addressed this problem sooner? This drought has become so severe that a simple windstorm causes thousands of acres to go up in flames. This hardly seems like a fair price to pay to keep the rice farms watered. This drought is the worst we have seen since the 1950’s - I think this is a case in which Texas could have been “better.”
Check this out