There has been a lot of debate surrounding our state's border security over the past few years. Recently, Texas Governor Gregg Abbott signed House Bill 11 into a law which has added even more fuel to the fire towards the border security debate. This bill, a massive move by lawmakers during the 84th Legislature, ramps up security measures along the border by bolstering the ranks of state police, increases threat detection technology, and further establishes intelligence operations along the Texas-Mexico border. Personally, I believe that this was the right move by Governor Abbott because it shows Texas taking initiative on an issue in which the Federal government fails to realize is actually affecting the entire country.
Why is this a good measure to take? Well, for starters, our state has a tremendous amount of illegal immigrants that are causing a myriad of issues and concerns for Texas citizens. These illegal immigrants are increasing crime rates among all of the Texas cities that they live in. They are creating an unsafe environment for our children, our families, and for ourselves. With more than 25,000 illegal immigrants continuing to come migrate across our state's border each and every month (by the way - this is an increasing number), this issue goes from a local border region issue to a state-wide issue to a national issue quite rapidly. Sure, these illegals are providing basic jobs for our communities, but they are also stealing jobs from our nation's citizens who actually contribute to the unemployment rates around the country. Lastly, many of these illegal immigrants participate in both drug trafficking and sex trafficking, both which are highly illegal and wrong. If you don't believe me, I can assure you that this is definitely happening. In the matter of fact, I-35 which runs from the Texas Border all the way up to Minnesota, is number one on the list for national highways with the most sex trafficking and drug smuggling activity. Preventing these illegals from crossing the Texas-Mexico border will increase safety levels, will serve to assist more legal citizens obtain jobs, and will also cut down on unwanted and illegal trafficking that is currently taking place.
Many who have followed the Texas Legislature's attempts to stop this ongoing threat remain opposed the signing of House Bill 11. These individuals claim that this movement will be just another failed attempt to secure our border, that it will cost the state a large amount of money (the bill is slated to cost around $310 million), and that its efforts will inevitably be useless. I can understand the legitimacy and the point that they are trying to convey in their argument - that this is all a big waste of our state's time and money. However, I strongly believe that continued action is needed on our border due to the lack of attention and action that is being given to us from a federal level.
When asked about two unsuccessful legislative proposals involving illegal immigrants in the past including in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrants and the banning of sanctuary cities, Governor Abbott responded with how focused he was to solve the border issue specifically. Abbott exclaimed, "The issues exist in the first place because we have a failed federal government that has refused to address the issues to tackle those problems. Those are national, federal-based issues that we demand the United States federal government address and solve. Texas is doing what it can do by passing this border security plan."
Even if these attempts by House Bill 11 to secure the Texas-Mexico border are not the "most perfect" of solutions, I am proud of our Governor stepping up to the challenge and doing his best to secure it. I believe that it is about time that the federal government should wake up from the border security coma that it is currently in and start to help out too.
Thursday, August 6, 2015
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
Say Goodbye to the Death Penalty
One of my classmates, Don, has written about how the death penalty in Texas has declined over the past few years on his blog, Gone to Texas [Government]. Don supports the idea of Texas doing away with the death penalty for reasons including lack of justice, inaccurate convictions, and life in prison without parole being an acceptable option for these individuals.
Don, I agree with you 100% on your notion to end the death penalty in the state of Texas. Even though I have a tendency to follow traditional values and social conservatism ideology, I believe that changes are in order for our state's future. There are so many different reasons as to why a life-sentence without parole serves as the better option with these cases.
As you mentioned, the death penalty puts lives at risk. We live in a country in which there is an imperfect justice system. Innocent individuals do receive false convictions, there is no doubt about it. Since judges, prosecutors, and jurors all run the risk of making the incorrect decision regarding an individual charged with a serious crime, why should we give them the ultimatum of death?
Furthermore, there are plenty of other reasons as to why the death penalty should be abolished. Research and statistics show that individuals who murder whites end up receiving the death penalty more often than individuals who murder African-Americans. The Death penalty costs us a large amount of tax money. Usually, those receiving the death penalty are of the minority class, and have poor defense attorneys to begin with. Also, capital punishment under the death penalty does not serve the community well by deterring these serious crimes.
I could go on and on about the negatives associated with the death penalty. However, I will conclude by saying that even though the death penalty may seem like the most just way to many, I think there is a better option for us. Instead of giving these criminals a "quick and easy way out", I think a life sentence without parole serves to punish them appropriately. Instead of the death penalty, let these murders reflect on their actions for the rest of their lives behind bars.
Don, I agree with you 100% on your notion to end the death penalty in the state of Texas. Even though I have a tendency to follow traditional values and social conservatism ideology, I believe that changes are in order for our state's future. There are so many different reasons as to why a life-sentence without parole serves as the better option with these cases.
As you mentioned, the death penalty puts lives at risk. We live in a country in which there is an imperfect justice system. Innocent individuals do receive false convictions, there is no doubt about it. Since judges, prosecutors, and jurors all run the risk of making the incorrect decision regarding an individual charged with a serious crime, why should we give them the ultimatum of death?
Furthermore, there are plenty of other reasons as to why the death penalty should be abolished. Research and statistics show that individuals who murder whites end up receiving the death penalty more often than individuals who murder African-Americans. The Death penalty costs us a large amount of tax money. Usually, those receiving the death penalty are of the minority class, and have poor defense attorneys to begin with. Also, capital punishment under the death penalty does not serve the community well by deterring these serious crimes.
I could go on and on about the negatives associated with the death penalty. However, I will conclude by saying that even though the death penalty may seem like the most just way to many, I think there is a better option for us. Instead of giving these criminals a "quick and easy way out", I think a life sentence without parole serves to punish them appropriately. Instead of the death penalty, let these murders reflect on their actions for the rest of their lives behind bars.
Tuesday, July 28, 2015
Texas Triangle Train System
Three of the largest cities within Texas include Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio. Connecting these cities are three of the largest, most populated highway systems in Texas including I-10, I-45, and I-35. Many individuals routinely travel between these large cities in our state, making these roads very important to us for our transportation.
What if we could reduce both the travel time and travel cost of these trips by three times? The answer to this question could lie in the form of a high-speed railway system, connecting all of our large cities within the "Texas Triangle".
There is no doubt that the funding for such a large project will require a tremendous amount of capital, resources, workforce, and time. Such a project will also require tremendous planning and organization. Despite these obstacles, the support and backing of the project can go one of two ways.
One option is for the Texas Legislature to pass a bill that will fund the creation of a Texas public railway system - with federal government grants and Texas government subsidies helping out with the costs. The other option is for one of Texas's pro-business, privately-held companies to fund this project. Raising capital from investors may be a challenge at first, but there is surely a market with an appealing return on investment if the project is done correctly.
Even though the individual rates for passengers will be low, there will be a large base of customers along the railway system that will generate a high amount of revenue. The train could stop between the larger "hubs" and pick up passengers from cities such as Austin, Waco, San Marcus, Corsicana, The Woodlands, and many others. If public, taxes could be charged for using the railways system. There could even be a premium, higher-rate "first class section" for those who prefer riding in luxury.
The opposition to such a system lies within the Texas landowners, small local communities, and airline systems. Many claim that there is no reason to connect these cities because of our elaborate highway system already in place. Others claim that such a railroad is irrelevant because smaller Texas cities do not depend on the larger ones. I stand to disagree. Many of these smaller cities in between our large Texas cities do rely on the larger cities around them for their anchoring economies, travelers passing through their cities, and also for the many attractions that they have to offer.
Texas can benefit in more ways than one by implementing a high-speed railway system connecting our large cities. Much like the success of Japanese railways, French railways, Eastern United States railways, and many other "bullet trains", this Texas-Trifecta railway system can follow suit. As technology progresses and new forms of transportation become available, it becomes necessary for Texas to adapt and grow with the dynamic, changing landscape around us.
What if we could reduce both the travel time and travel cost of these trips by three times? The answer to this question could lie in the form of a high-speed railway system, connecting all of our large cities within the "Texas Triangle".
There is no doubt that the funding for such a large project will require a tremendous amount of capital, resources, workforce, and time. Such a project will also require tremendous planning and organization. Despite these obstacles, the support and backing of the project can go one of two ways.
One option is for the Texas Legislature to pass a bill that will fund the creation of a Texas public railway system - with federal government grants and Texas government subsidies helping out with the costs. The other option is for one of Texas's pro-business, privately-held companies to fund this project. Raising capital from investors may be a challenge at first, but there is surely a market with an appealing return on investment if the project is done correctly.
Even though the individual rates for passengers will be low, there will be a large base of customers along the railway system that will generate a high amount of revenue. The train could stop between the larger "hubs" and pick up passengers from cities such as Austin, Waco, San Marcus, Corsicana, The Woodlands, and many others. If public, taxes could be charged for using the railways system. There could even be a premium, higher-rate "first class section" for those who prefer riding in luxury.
The opposition to such a system lies within the Texas landowners, small local communities, and airline systems. Many claim that there is no reason to connect these cities because of our elaborate highway system already in place. Others claim that such a railroad is irrelevant because smaller Texas cities do not depend on the larger ones. I stand to disagree. Many of these smaller cities in between our large Texas cities do rely on the larger cities around them for their anchoring economies, travelers passing through their cities, and also for the many attractions that they have to offer.
Texas can benefit in more ways than one by implementing a high-speed railway system connecting our large cities. Much like the success of Japanese railways, French railways, Eastern United States railways, and many other "bullet trains", this Texas-Trifecta railway system can follow suit. As technology progresses and new forms of transportation become available, it becomes necessary for Texas to adapt and grow with the dynamic, changing landscape around us.
Friday, July 24, 2015
Medicaid in Texas? No Thanks.
Michael Quinn Sullivan, president and CEO of Empower Texans, has recently blogged about how the Affordable Care Act Medicaid Expansion was turned away by Texas legislators. Mr. Sullivan is an experienced blogger, former newspaper reporter, and one-time Capital Hill staffer.
Medicaid is a government designed program intended to provide medical insurance coverage for individuals who can't otherwise afford medical insurance (families with low income and limited resources) and is backed by the Obama administration. Texas, a heavy republican and conservative oriented state, showed its true colors by refusing to expand the program's roles and its associated costs moving forward.
The Obama administration designed this initiative so that the federal government would cover the costs of the Medicaid program expansion up until 2016, and then afterwards the financial responsibility would be left to the state governments. On top of this, once locked into the expansion program, states will have no ability to modify the program's guidelines even though the federal government plans to assume no costs.
Although many Texas democrats and liberals are voicing their concern and disagreement among this decision made by our legislators, due to their Pro-Medicaid and Medicare support, there is evidence conveying that the conservatives have made the right call about this program.
First, allegations have been made that growing Medicaid programs around the country have been plagued with fraud and corruption from the very beginning. Second, more than a dozen states that have adopted this expansion of Medicaid have encountered severe fiscal strain (ironically thinking they were receiving free money from the Obama administration). Third, and arguably the worst outcome, is the research that has been conducted which shows Medicaid patients receiving worse health outcomes when compared to those not utilizing the program. An Oregon study found no difference in health outcomes between Medicaid and non-insured patients.
Why do liberals continue to support this program even with these staggering results? Why is a program designed to help the non-insured actually causing them to receive worse health outcomes? How is a program that is designed to help states' fiscal situation and provide free money actually costing them a fortune? Why is all this hype about medicaid even still present?
These are all questions that I would love to hear answered. I am fully on board with the conservatives who helped stop this corrupt health insurance program scam from affecting our state.
Michael Quinn Sullivan, Saying 'No' to ObamaCare Medicaid Expansion Was Good for Texans, http://www.empowertexans.com/features/saying-no-to-obamacare-medicaid-expansion-was-good-for-texans/, July 19, 2015
Medicaid is a government designed program intended to provide medical insurance coverage for individuals who can't otherwise afford medical insurance (families with low income and limited resources) and is backed by the Obama administration. Texas, a heavy republican and conservative oriented state, showed its true colors by refusing to expand the program's roles and its associated costs moving forward.
The Obama administration designed this initiative so that the federal government would cover the costs of the Medicaid program expansion up until 2016, and then afterwards the financial responsibility would be left to the state governments. On top of this, once locked into the expansion program, states will have no ability to modify the program's guidelines even though the federal government plans to assume no costs.
Although many Texas democrats and liberals are voicing their concern and disagreement among this decision made by our legislators, due to their Pro-Medicaid and Medicare support, there is evidence conveying that the conservatives have made the right call about this program.
First, allegations have been made that growing Medicaid programs around the country have been plagued with fraud and corruption from the very beginning. Second, more than a dozen states that have adopted this expansion of Medicaid have encountered severe fiscal strain (ironically thinking they were receiving free money from the Obama administration). Third, and arguably the worst outcome, is the research that has been conducted which shows Medicaid patients receiving worse health outcomes when compared to those not utilizing the program. An Oregon study found no difference in health outcomes between Medicaid and non-insured patients.
Why do liberals continue to support this program even with these staggering results? Why is a program designed to help the non-insured actually causing them to receive worse health outcomes? How is a program that is designed to help states' fiscal situation and provide free money actually costing them a fortune? Why is all this hype about medicaid even still present?
These are all questions that I would love to hear answered. I am fully on board with the conservatives who helped stop this corrupt health insurance program scam from affecting our state.
Michael Quinn Sullivan, Saying 'No' to ObamaCare Medicaid Expansion Was Good for Texans, http://www.empowertexans.com/features/saying-no-to-obamacare-medicaid-expansion-was-good-for-texans/, July 19, 2015
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
Are Faster Roads Safer Roads?
Stephen Boyles, an assistant professor in Transportation Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin, states that speed limits should be raised around the state of Texas, along with the rest of the nation, for a variety of reasons including safety.
Boyles reaches out to the common Texas driver in this commentary listed on mySA. This "common driver" is one that enjoys the road trips between our cities, is used to the slowpokes and the speed-demons that share our roads, and is also used to the presence of our state's law enforcement commonly using radar-detectors to try and catch us speeding. Boyles explains that the primary need for a increase in speed limit is not because of public desire, but rather for public safety.
As engineers continue to design safer vehicles and build better roads, it seems necessary that our laws should adjust accordingly with the progress and improvements we have made. Many drivers routinely drive faster than current posted speed limits, even with legislative attempts to slow us down. Yet despite this, mostly all of us have dealt with dangerous situations in which drivers have been driving too slow, threatening the safety of the rest of the traffic around them.
As an avid and active Texas driver, I agree with Boyles's recommendations to raise the speed limit in Texas and around the rest of our nation. I believe that by giving drivers more responsibility, we will become safer drivers and more respectful towards our government and lawmakers.
There is plenty of research and statistics that suggest that the German Autobahn, a no-speed-limit highway system spanning the entire country, is the safest road system in the world. Furthermore, organizations such as the Federal Highway Administration, the National Cooperative Research Program, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers support the idea that speed limits should be set at the 85th percentile of traffic speed. That is - only one in seven drivers should be surpassing this speed limit. This implementation of the "85th percentile rule" yields high safety results.
Since much of Texas ideology is associated with the needs of the greater public, otherwise known as populism, I believe that Boyles's suggestion of increasing state and federal speed limits is spot-on and should be implemented. There seems to be plenty of support for pro-speed limit increase including higher safety, higher public satisfaction, and higher respect for the laws that govern us to simply dismiss this qualified engineer's thoughts.
Stephen Boyles, Roads better, cars safer - raise the speed limit, http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/commentary/article/Roads-better-cars-safer-raise-the-speed-limit-6391226.php, July 19, 2015
Boyles reaches out to the common Texas driver in this commentary listed on mySA. This "common driver" is one that enjoys the road trips between our cities, is used to the slowpokes and the speed-demons that share our roads, and is also used to the presence of our state's law enforcement commonly using radar-detectors to try and catch us speeding. Boyles explains that the primary need for a increase in speed limit is not because of public desire, but rather for public safety.
As engineers continue to design safer vehicles and build better roads, it seems necessary that our laws should adjust accordingly with the progress and improvements we have made. Many drivers routinely drive faster than current posted speed limits, even with legislative attempts to slow us down. Yet despite this, mostly all of us have dealt with dangerous situations in which drivers have been driving too slow, threatening the safety of the rest of the traffic around them.
As an avid and active Texas driver, I agree with Boyles's recommendations to raise the speed limit in Texas and around the rest of our nation. I believe that by giving drivers more responsibility, we will become safer drivers and more respectful towards our government and lawmakers.
There is plenty of research and statistics that suggest that the German Autobahn, a no-speed-limit highway system spanning the entire country, is the safest road system in the world. Furthermore, organizations such as the Federal Highway Administration, the National Cooperative Research Program, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers support the idea that speed limits should be set at the 85th percentile of traffic speed. That is - only one in seven drivers should be surpassing this speed limit. This implementation of the "85th percentile rule" yields high safety results.
Since much of Texas ideology is associated with the needs of the greater public, otherwise known as populism, I believe that Boyles's suggestion of increasing state and federal speed limits is spot-on and should be implemented. There seems to be plenty of support for pro-speed limit increase including higher safety, higher public satisfaction, and higher respect for the laws that govern us to simply dismiss this qualified engineer's thoughts.
Stephen Boyles, Roads better, cars safer - raise the speed limit, http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/commentary/article/Roads-better-cars-safer-raise-the-speed-limit-6391226.php, July 19, 2015
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
Senate Bill 11 - "Campus Carry" Applies to All of Us
Recently, Senate Bill 11 was passed within the Texas Senate. This bill, otherwise known as the "campus carry" bill, allows students, faculty, and other members of Texas college and university systems to legally carry a concealed handgun while on campus grounds. Students will be eligible to carry concealed handguns at the majority of these institutions starting August 2016. The bill will go into effect for Junior colleges beginning August 2017. Private educational institutions have the right exclude this bill completely, if desired. In order to be able to carry on campus, students, faculty, and other institution members must complete and pass the required concealed handgun training courses and receive their accredited concealed handgun license. Many individuals, politicians and students alike, disagree with the implementation of Senate Bill 11 and believe that this will only cause more dangerous scenarios. This is an interesting article that applies to all of us as students, and may change the way we perceive our safety when walking around campus in the near future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)