Voter Apathy

I agree with "The Texas Talk". Voter turnout is abysmal in the United States, and worse yet, voter IQ is almost nonexistent. Our populace lacks basic knowledge about a majority of political issues prevalent today. This leads to two outcomes, both of which hurt our society. The first is that uninformed voters stay at home on election days, refusing to vote due to their lack of knowledge of the issues and candidates. Of course, as my colleague says, it would only take five or ten minutes a day to become more educated about political issues than most people. The other, possibly worse, outcome occurs when uninformed voters actually vote. While it is encouraging to see people vote, uninformed citizens often vote either randomly or based off of irrelevant factors such as name recognition. We need to encourage our peers to not only get out and vote, but also to become informed about the issues and candidates that affect our lives. I think "The Texas Talk" and I are in agreement on that point.

Please visit "The Texas Talk" for reference.

Prop 1 Passed

As we all know, election day has come and gone. Last Tuesday, Texans all over the state voted on a variety of candidates and issues both national and local. One such issue of particular importance to Austin was proposition 1. Prop 1 would authorize the city of Austin to issue $90 million worth of bonds to fund road and sidewalk improvements, as well as bike lanes and trails. Prop 1 passed on Tuesday by a fairly significant margin, but was nevertheless a contentious issue in the days leading up to the election. Prop 1 will help clear up congestion at some major problem areas that commuters have to deal with on a daily basis. It will also allow the city to take advantage of recession prices, meaning the actual construction projects will be cheaper than they normally would be. Opponents, however, argue that the proposition doesn't do enough to relieve congestion and fix deteriorating roads. They also oppose the so-called "quality of life" projects lumped into the bill, such as improvements to the trail around Lady Bird Lake, and claim these plans should be included in a second, separate proposition. Additionally, opponents say that Austin should not be borrowing during a period of economic downturn, especially with Texas facing a record budget deficit. These are all good points, but I continue to support Prop 1 for several reasons. Interest rates are very low right now, and the city can probably borrow the requisite amount cheaply compared to historical levels, making now an advantageous time to borrow. The bill will also create at least 200 jobs over two-to-three years, which is especially important given the high rate of unemployment plaguing the nation. The proposition is thus a stimulant for an economy facing difficult times. Furthermore, the bill will result in an improvement to Austin's infrastructure, which will benefit everyone. While improving a trail and improving a road are very different projects, they both enhance the overall quality of life for the citizens of Austin. I voted in favor of the proposition on Tuesday, and was glad to see the bill passed; as citizens of Austin, we will all benefit from the passing of Prop 1.

Response: Abdallah's Law

My colleague George Aguillon recently posted a commentary about Abdallah's Law, which is one bill that will be debated in the upcoming 82nd legislature. Abdallah's Law would allow DWI convictions from other states to be applied to sentencing in Texas. If a driver has a DWI conviction in another state that was ruled a misdemeanor, instead the ruling would be considered a felony in Texas and would affect the sentencing in a DWI case here (a DWI is a felony in Texas). Thus drivers with multiple DWIs in other states classified as misdemeanors would be facing their second, third, or fourth felony charge if convicted in Texas, rather than their first, and would be facing much more severe penalties. Furthermore, the law would set stricter punishments for more damaging DWI accidents; a driver that breaks another driver's leg in an accident would not receive as severe a sentence as a driver that outs another driver in a coma. The law would take a more serious stance against drunk driving in Texas.

I completely agree with George on the topic of Abdallah's Law. Drunk driving is an irresponsible and shameful act, especially when it results in damage to another person. It shouldn't matter where past infractions occurred; instead, the fact that an infraction has occurred at all should be enough to increase the severity of punishment. At the very least, the fact that a driver has been convicted of DWI in the past should be taken into consideration by the jury when deciding on sentencing. Driving a car anywhere is a dangerous act, but drivers with multiple DWI convictions (multiple can even be 10 or more) roaming the streets make it even more dangerous. As someone who has had friends involved in drunk driving accidents (as victims), I know how terrible and devastating accidents can be. People who drive drunk should have to learn from their mistakes. Letting them run to a different state with no past history of their offenses is just not right, and Abdallah's Law will hopefully be passed in the upcoming legislative session.

Additional Budget Woes

The most recent recession hurt nearly everybody in some way, whether large or small. But the financial crisis also hurt individual states, many of which now face daunting budget deficits. Unfortunately, Texas is now in the middle of one of the largest of the state budget crises. With recent estimates of the next two-year term's budget shortfall reaching $24-25 billion, Texas now has a proportionally larger deficit than California. Since the legislature must submit a balanced budget for each term, a deficit of this size will pose a significant problem after the November elections. The budget shortfall had been estimated at $18 billion a few weeks ago, but recent property price declines and Medicare payout increases have added several billion dollars more to the sum. I think the deficit is absurdly - and embarrassingly - large. It is bad enough our national debt has risen to over $10 trillion; our state at least should be able to remain in the black. With a shortfall of this size, mere fee increases and cuts in public employee salaries will not be enough. The government will have to eliminate entire departments, layoff thousands of workers, cut the salaries and benefits of many more, and trim spending. Employees and students at public universities could even be hurt, as state aid is withdrawn, grants are revoked, and teachers are laid off. The worst part of the situation is that, because of the imminent election, no politicians are even spending any time on this issue. The government needs to focus on the budget as soon as the election cycle is over. This whole problem could easily be resolved with minor tax increases, but in Texas, even a whisper implying an increase in taxes is enough to derail any politician's career. Consequently, the government needs to cut spending dramatically, increase fees in any way possible, and trim or shut down any public agencies. The changes will be hard, and many people will be hurt in the process; even these changes, however, still might not be enough.

Please see for additional information:

Budget Shortfall Could be $25B

Paul Burka Balances Budget

Thoughts on Rick Perry

Karl-Thomas Musselman, a writer for the Burnt Orange Report, a blog about Texas politics and government, wrote an article on Sunday analyzing what he calls the "natural advantage" of Rick Perry. In it, Musselman argues that, in his opinion, Perry is the wrong candidate to support, and that Perry would be headed towards certain defeat in any other state for several reasons. Perry is facing a serious challenge in Bill White, who was previously mayor of America's fourth-largest city. Perry has had to defend himself from attacks by both Democrats and Republicans, an expensive task. Perry has also possibly been involved in several scandals, and has refused on some occasions to meet and talk to the media on a wide range of issues. Finally, Perry has been in public office for a quarter-century and thus epitomizes the "status quo" in government that many voters are fed up with. Nevertheless, the governor is still ahead of White in the polls. Musselman provides two reasons of why this is the case, two "natural advantages". The first is what he calls the "shrinking media", or the problem that fewer people are reading or seeking political news, which is leading to an uninformed voting base. The second advantage is the fact that many Texans view the Texas economy as "on track" or "headed in the right direction". This contentment, whether misguided or not, leads many to eschew change and support Perry. Unfortunately, it seems like Texans aren't in the mood for change right now, or are too ill informed to have any opinion at all.

Musselman makes several good points. Perry does have some major flaws as a candidate. Specifically, I am amazed, especially with the support the "Tea Party" is receiving in other states, that voters are content with the status quo. A politician who has been in public office for a quarter-century and governor for a decade, it could easily be argued that Perry has attained far too much power and influence. However, the author's views and beliefs do seem obvious from the editorial, and any reader can easily see the author's disgust with Perry. The article was probably aimed at a liberal audience, as it is a little too harsh to effectively convince moderates to support its view (it ignores the other side of the issue, and hardly references Bill White), and would probably anger conservatives. The author is a 25-year-old graduate of UT, which will probably turn some readers away due to the apparent lack of experience and credibility (although he does write for a well-respected blog). As a moderate, I found the article very interesting and somewhat convincing, although I was turned off a bit by the author's antagonistic tone aimed at Perry.

Guns on Campus

In Wednesday the 29^th’s Dallas Morning News, Arthur Markman, a psychologist and professor at the University of Texas, argued against allowing students or staff to carry concealed firearms on campus. After the shooting and other events on the UT campus on Tuesday, this topic has taken on increased relevance. Markman gives two main reasons in support of his opinion. First, he brings up the idea of abstraction. It is easy to think of armed suspects as the enemy in our minds, but in actuality it would probably be much more difficult to spot a shooter. In a shooting situation, there are large numbers of people running around, making it difficult to spot the armed suspect; furthermore, if other civilians are armed as well, someone might mistake an innocent bystander with a gun as the suspect. Markman's second reason is the tendency of many to choke under pressure. In a high pressure situation, people's working memory declines, making it harder to assess the situation and develop a coherent, sensible reaction. In addition, civilians with guns would probably not have a great deal of training in stressful situations, thus making an accident more likely. I agree with Markman's thesis for the same reasons. As we saw Tuesday, and learned from the tragic Virginia Tech shooting, the best way to deal with these situations is through preventive measures and proper training of the authorities. The several different law enforcement agencies in Austin had trained for this type of crisis and thus were able to handle it effectively. Furthermore, arming people that do not have the necessary training, especially under stressful situations, could very easily result in additional injuries or deaths. For these reasons, I do not support allowing guns on campus.

I believe the author is very credible. As a professor for UT, he must be intelligent and know his area of study well, and the fact that he is a psychologist adds to his credibility (especially since this editorial involves analysis of how people behave in certain circumstances). I think this article is aimed at anyone old enough to vote on the issue, as it attempts to persuade the reader that guns should not be allowed on campus. It might be more aimed at people that support guns on campus, since it gives several specific reasons attacking that stance. Overall, I thought the author was persuasive in his argument.

Impending Budget Crisis

As the upcoming election for Texas governor approaches, few politicians are even mentioning the widening state budget gap. Over the next two years, Texas will face a budget gap estimated to be as large as $21 billion, but candidates Rick Perry and Bill White usually avoid the topic altogether. Instead, the two speak mainly about eliminating waste and increasing efficiency without giving many specifics, in what some have labeled “politics of denial.” There are several different causes of the current budget woes. The recession’s lasting effects have kept revenue at subdued levels. The population of Texas should continue to grow at a swift pace, increasing the demand for expensive government-provided services. “Medical inflation” will continue through 2013. In addition, 80 percent of the budget is allocated to health care and education services, which are difficult to cut. These factors have led to a budgetary shortfall that next year could equal 12 percent of this year’s spending, a level higher than many other states. While both Perry and White have avoided the issue, it is important that Texans stay informed about the looming budgetary difficulties and encourage their representatives to do the same.

Please see the related article, which summarizes the budget situation as well as the candidates views on the matter. This subject is important because solving the budget crisis could affect tax rates, benefits, and other government services that we all use or enjoy.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/091210dntexbudgetdenial.2b74247.html