Education in Texas

Texas is known to be, for lack a better word, a "dumb" state.  It is almost impossible to defend Texas when it comes to K-12 education.  Texas ranks in the bottom half on almost all educational charts in the United States.  Not only do our low test scores and lack of adults striving for higher education reflect negatively on Texas, but it really does show when it comes to income and poverty percentage.  The worst thing about low levels of education among adults is that it has a huge affect on the number of children growing up in poverty type household.  86% of children growing up in a low income house are from parents who don't even have a high school degree.  It is obvious that the lower the education of the parents, the higher the likelihood of the child to follow the same path and continue to sink Texas to the lower end of the spectrum when it comes to nation wide education standings.  We as a society need to figure out a solution to this problem, whether it be providing more motivation to finish school and achieve higher levels of education or possibly providing welfare opportunities only to people who have completed high school.  I don't know the exact solution, but there is a definite cause for us to be concerned of this ongoing trend.  A majority of the responsibility falls on the citizens of Texas, but we should also be working on a way to motivate the people who lack the responsibility to do their part so that  Texas can begin to move in a positive direction on the education ladder.  If the education levels in Texas continue to stay the same, we cannot expect to grow as a society.  We must find a solution for these problems and change the way things are being done if we truly want Texas to be educationally viewed as anything more than an mediocre state.

Things to consider when legalizing pot

While I am in agreement with legalizing marijuana, I believe there are a few ramifications we as a society would have to consider before just going out and legalizing it.  Some things to consider would be how to prevent/test for people driving under the influence and if there would be a legal limit, like .08 alcohol, to drive under.  There are plenty ways to test for marijuana, urine test, blood test, saliva test, etc., but each of these will show inaccurate readings if you are trying to decipher whether someone has just used it in the past hour or so.  For example, a saliva test, which would be the quickest way to test for a police officer on the side of the road, can show if the person has smoked marijuana in the past 12-24 hours.  There has to be a way that can be tested on the spot and with accuracy, similar to a breathalyzer, which would show whether the person was currently under the influence of marijuana.  Another thing to consider would be the possible increased amount of traffic accidents that could be related to marijuana use.  As we know not all drivers are as responsible as they should be and plenty drive while under the influence of alcohol, and ,while I know smoking pot does tend to make one a little lazier than normal, it is still obvious there will be plenty of people who will decide to drive while influenced.  This would lead to a great deal of scrutiny towards the new law of legalizing marijuana.  Once again, I want to confirm that I would be in 100% favor of legalizing marijuana, but I do believe the average supporter, as well as the opposer, should realize there are many hurdles we would have to face and figure out a solution to before we could legalize it.

Sales tax vs income tax

From my first job as a ranch hand on a ranch in my small home town making only $6 an hour to my most recent job as an electronic technician at Southwest Research Institute making $15 an hour, I have always dreaded seeing the deductions on each of my paychecks.  It has been something that I have always questioned since receiving a paycheck and I feel that a lower income tax and raised sales tax would not only help me to actually see where my money is going, but it would also provide some state funds.  Before totally rejecting this, let me put a few ideas out there to think about.  There is nothing that frustrates me more than to see people who make a great deal of money doing illegal business or working illegally, and have absolutely zero dollars taxed out of their income.  Wouldn't it make since to create a way that no matter what form of income one were to make, with the exception to legal low income persons, that they would still have to pay taxes just like the regular working citizen?  What legal working citizen likes to see their income just decimated by the Texas government income tax while seeing someone next to them making just as much or more and not getting taxed a cent?  I think it would be a great idea to consider and, provided there be an efficient way to go about doing it, I would be totally for it.

Democrats were tight with their money

Looking through the Burnt Orange Report website, I stumbled upon an article that I found to be quite shocking and provided an overwhelming difference between the Democratic and Republican campaigns this year in Texas.  The most eye popping number in this blog is $26,000 to $100,000.  These numbers are the average amount of financial assistance the incumbent Democrats provided candidates to that of the Republicans, respectively.  With a difference of nearly 3 times as much money as the Democrats, it is not just by a stroke of luck that the Republican party had a better campaign and election results than the Democrats.  I completely agree with the writer of this blog, David Mauro, in saying the Democrats could have won more seats had they only been provided more support from their incumbent colleagues.  Through this blog, Mauro is directly speaking of and towards the incumbent Democrats and is relaying the message to Democrats around the state.  I feel Mauro wants to provide the appropriate awareness of the direct effect $75,000 per candidate can have on an election.  The Democrats in office only have themselves to blame for such a lack of willingness to provide adequate funding to their colleagues running for office.  It is the responsibility of each party member to do their share in assisting their fellow colleagues in the endeavor to become State Representatives, and the Democrats totally bombed that idea during this past election.  Mauro's provides a great deal of numbers and evidence to back up his statement, and while rather short in presentation of the idea, I feel he provides a great perspective of a reason the elections were extremely one sided.

http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/10975/texas-democrats-were-reluctant-to-share-campaign-cash

Drunk driving loophole

This Statesman article is aimed to show the lack of laws that get passed by the Texas Legislature that actually serve their intended purpose.  The example the author chose to use in this article was a law passed in 2001, which was supposed to make the penalty for drunk driver much more severe.  According to the law, if a person refuses to take a alcohol breath test they could face a 180 day suspended license and if they fail the test they get a 90 day revocation.  Although on the surface the law seems tough, there are many ways to get around it.  Lawyers and their clients will get occupational licenses for the drunk driving suspect to avoid the suspended license charges.  Some of which I am sure are warranted, but, according to this article, there are many judges that provide these drivers with an occupational license solely based on the word of the defendant.  I feel the author's main audience would be the Texas Legislature itself and the general public.  The writer wants to provide some insight of the problem to the public and also wants the Texas Legislature to realize that many of the laws they pass are easily manipulated or loopholed in order to prevent the defendant from getting the punishment that was intended.  I agree with his dispute, but I think his use of only one lawyer throughout his argument makes it feel a bit weaker than it could have been.  When the author introduces his points throughout the article, he could have used more sources to support his claim.  Only having used one quote in his defense shows me that the writer either had the lack of ability to find more sources or the lack of sources that there were to be found for his defense.


http://www.statesman.com/opinion/loopholes-big-enough-to-drive-through-1050051.html