Homeless!

On Friday, September 21, 2012, on the blog “Bluebonnets and Barbed Wire”, in a commentary titled “Transient, Homeless & Solutions??” Randi Maze is critical about Austin police Chief Art Acevedo’s position on the homeless shelters that are in downtown Austin, which Acevedo recently voiced in an article on KXAN. Randi doesn’t agree with Acevedo’s position, or the idea of moving the homeless to another location, saying, “He wants the downtown shelters moved to another location....hmmm. Ok, let’s just move the problem and it won't be in our faces”. Randi is critical of Acevedo’s stance that it is an issue of crime, specifically crime being committed by the homeless, and asks if security will be increased wherever they are shipped off too. Randi also believes that the solution could be funding, and she provides a link to an article in the “Austin Business Journal” to support this.

 

Randi does a good job of stating her position on the plight of the homeless, and her commentary is informative. She provides a link to Chief Acevedo’s story that supports her position, and a link to a story about funding for the homeless in Miami, that gives a possible solution to reduce Austin's homeless problem.

 

I’m not in favor of moving homeless people as a solution to crime, as I don’t believe that most homeless people are criminals. In defense of Acevedo, he did state that it is a transient problem, and not a homeless problem. While this might be the case, and transients are homeless too, moving them doesn’t solve the problem. Acevedo also believes that some are running from the law. Well, criminals come in all shapes and sizes, and a quick ID check could determine that, and then perhaps that particular criminal element would be eliminated. Another thing is, if the recent high and mighty people who moved downtown don’t want to see homeless people in their neighborhood, than they should help them out of their situation, or move, or accept it. I don’t blame the homeless for being downtown, because that is probably where I’d go if I was homeless.

Dexter the Texter!

We know the guy, he is driving in the lane next to us, and sometimes he is driving in our lane. His head or eyes are looking down, with an occasional glance up to get his bearings. He is “Dexter the Texter”, and he is gunning for us. Dexter is engrossed in some meaningless conversation, when BAM! He rear-ends the car in front of him because he didn’t notice that traffic has stopped. This is all too real, and there isn’t enough that can be said about the dangers of texting and driving, just wait for the next headline related to it to understand what I’m talking about.

Austin already has a ban against texting and driving, but it is a constant battle for authorities. People still text and drive as if it is their God given right, and new drivers are hitting the road every day. The new drivers are young, and like most youngsters, they hate authority, plus texting is in their DNA, or it would appear that way. Representative Tom Craddick recently filed legislation to ban texting and driving throughout Texas. In an article titled, “Bill filed to ban texting while driving in Texas”, that is posted in the Houston Chronicle on November 12^th, 2012,  Craddick says "Driving around town or from Midland to Austin, I see so many drivers distracted by their phone," Craddick said after filing HB 63. "These drivers are taking their eyes off the road and jeopardizing the safety of themselves and others. Writing a text or checking your messages is not worth injuring yourself or someone else. I believe a ban on texting while driving will help save lives." Craddick makes some great points, how many times has someone caused or almost caused an accident because they were texting. Talking on a phone while driving is distracting enough, but when someone is texting while driving, their focus becomes fixed on the texting, and not the light that turns red, or the child who chases their ball into the street. Killing someone is a horrible way to learn a lesson, and a horrible way for someone to lose a loved one. So don’t be a Dexter, and put away the phone while driving, and Go to Distraction.gov for more information.

 

TXID or Not?

In a commentary on Sunday, November 4th, that is titled “Texas Voter ID Law”, and which is on the blog “The eyes of Texas are upon you”,  Josh Cox states his position on Voter ID laws in Texas. Josh says that Texas should have a voter ID law, and he agrees with Governor Perry’s claim that not having a voter ID law contributes to voter fraud. Furthermore, Josh doesn’t believe that illegal immigrants should have the right to vote unless they are citizens. Moreover, Josh stresses how important the right to vote is, and that Americans fought for this right, and that it is equally important to maintain the integrity of the voting process.

 

Josh makes great points, and I agree that the “United States” should have voter ID laws, in order to protect one of the most important rights afforded to U.S. citizens. There are plenty of opponents, of voter ID laws, who fear that U.S. citizens will be disenfranchised. However, the concerns with not identifying voters outweigh the opponents’ fears, and illegal voters are less likely to be informed about the issues at hand, and about America, and they are more susceptible to persuasion if they feel a candidate will be a champion for their cause. Besides, if someone isn’t smart enough to have an ID with them when they vote, then perhaps they aren’t smart enough to vote.

 

Josh supports his position with quotations from Governor Rick Perry, and the Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, which are made in the article “Reaction to rejection of Texas voter ID law”, that is posted on 08/30/2012, on the blog “Texas Capitol Report”. He provides a link to the site's main page, but not specifically to the article, which could be confusing. Overall, Josh does a good job of stating the problems with not having voter ID laws.

Mass Transportation is the Future NOW!

I love my car, and I love the freedom of the open road to go wherever I want, whenever I want, but have you driven through Austin lately during rush hour? Four days a week, I drive down South Mopac in the morning, and sit in traffic. I do allot of things such as sing, or listen to talk radio, or watch my fellow commuters (they are pretty entertaining), and I think. What I think of the most is why isn’t there a commuter train running down the middle of Mopac, and if Austin had a decent mass transit system, how many of these car jockey’s would use it? I for one would, but it has to be convenient, affordable, safe, clean, and consistent.

Private transportation as we know it has an expiration date. Gasoline supplies can’t and won’t last forever. Eventually, oil will run out, and then what? Without a solution to this problem soon, we could all be riding bicycles, or skateboards, or walking everywhere (at least we’d be fit). Anyone who spends time in Europe and experiences the transit system there will discover that we are in the dark ages when it comes to mass transit. So, we must become more aware of our public transportation needs and options now, before it’s too late.

Austin does have a light rail system, and I have ridden the train from Cedar Park to downtown Austin a couple of times just for kicks. But it is too light, and it doesn’t cover enough areas or the correct areas to really be practical for the masses. For one, stops need to be in high density retail or business areas. For example, the stop in Cedar Park is in an area with no businesses within easy walking distance of it. It should be somewhere closer to maybe the Lakeline Mall, or along 183. And, there is another stop on McNeil road, which should have been near or at the Domain shopping area. The problem is that we waited too long to build a rail system, so it is very expensive and all of the prime spots are gone, so we have no choice but to build them away from everything, and it’s only going to get worse. For more on this subject, check out this article by Lyndon Henry, “Austin, Texas: City's Urban Rail Plan NeedsMajor Overhaul”, posted on the website “LightRailNow!”. It is all about how Austin is missing the boat (or train), when it comes to rail commute.

The costs of building a realistic mass transit system are great, and will get greater as time passes, but the really scary question is “What Are We Going to Do When the Oil Runs Out”?  It doesn’t even have to run out, it just has to be on the decline, which it is. In the article “Has the World Already Passed “Peak Oil?”, Mason Inman of National Geographic News says this about peak oil., “The year 2006 may be remembered for civil strife in Iraq, the nuclear weapon testing threat by North Korea, and the genocide in Darfur, but now it appears that another world event was occurring at the same time ...  that’s the year that the world’s conventional oil production likely reached its peak …”.

So, we do need to plan for the future now. Cities will become more populated, private vehicle usage and drive times will increase due to congestion, and vehicle operating costs will increase. And, the investment expense of realistic mass transit isn’t too much knowing that it is going to get more expensive in the future.

What do you think?

Does America Want Another Cup of Joe?

On Thursday, Oct. 11^th, 2012, on The TexasFred Blog, in a post titled, “My Take on the Joe Biden– Paul Ryan Vice Presidential Debate” TexasFred says that, “Joe Biden was argumentative, rude, he interrupted, he was a disruptive force and he had an ally in Martha Raddatz.” And TexasFred states that, “Joe is just being Joe.” TexasFred says the reason Biden plays the joker and acts clownish with his body and facial expressions is because Joe has no credible response to any of the questions given to him, which does nothing to gain anybody’s confidence in him, should he one day become our President. Additionally, TexasFred believes that Biden has an ally in the moderator, Martha Raddatz. Not only is Ryan debating Biden, but Raddatz as well saying, “When Ryan was making a telling point Raddatz would interrupt, question Ryan herself, actually challenge him or change the topic and move back to Biden."

According to TexasFred, Ryan did a good job, but he kept letting Biden talk over him, saying,“Paul Ryan was trying very hard to use facts and figures but he was allowing Joe Biden to interrupt.” And, TexasFred thinks Ryan is too nice, because he allows the interruptions and challenges, even from Martha Raddatz. He credits Ryan for being professional, and for not getting into any heated arguments with Biden. Above all, TexasFred applauds Ryan’s performance, and while he doesn’t believe Ryan helped Romney that much, he feels that Biden hurt Obama.

TexasFred’s intended audience is his conservative followers. Perception is the key here, and one’s perception of which candidate won this debate depends on their party alignment. Democrats recognize Biden’s buffoonish behavior, but they like it and expect it from him (“Joe being Joe”). Republicans, such as TexasFred, also recognize Biden’s buffoonery, but they criticize him for being a Joker when the country is in such serious trouble. I watched the debate, and I believe that TexasFred’s assessment is spot on and credible. I don’t think one has to be a republican to recognize that while Ryan is professional in his presentation and knowledgeable with his facts; Biden acts like he is better suited to be making balloon animals at a kid’s birthday party. And, although Ryan allows Biden to talk over him, it could be Biden’s inferior intelligence revealing itself, as compared to Ryan’s. Biden is like the bully who is having an argument with someone smarter than him, and just can’t seem to think of the right words to say, so he resorts to telling his opponent where to shove something, or simply punches him. Perhaps the saying, “In a Battle of Wits, You’re an Unarmed Man”, applies to Joe Biden in situations like this.

What do you think? 

The Tax Man Cometh!

In a post on Sunday, Sept. 30, 2012, from the Opinion section of Statesman.com titled, "Lavine: Don’t abandon Texas property tax", Dick Lavine of the Center for Public Priorities Policy, argues against doing away with the current property tax program, and replacing it with a sales tax program. He says that placing the tax burden solely on a sales tax program would be too extreme, and would require at least a rate of 18%. Additionally, he states that it would damage the community’s relationship with the schools, because the schools currently look to property taxes for their revenue. He also claims that we might see taxes on many items that we are not accustomed to being taxed on, such as food and utilities. Furthermore, Lavine argues that by switching to a sales tax system, the tax burden would be higher for those making less than $125,000 a year.

Lavine’s target audience is low to moderate income households, and those households earning less than $125,000, and he says that these households would see an overall increase in their tax burden. Lavine has a valid argument, because homeowners carry the lion share of the burden when it comes to taxes, and simply erasing their contribution overnight in exchange for a sales tax might be disastrous. Think about renters who may not directly pay property taxes; however the tax on the property they rent is factored into their price to rent that property. Introducing a sales tax would definitely increase their tax burden; possibly disastrously since their landlord is not likely to lower their rent equal to his decrease in property taxes. We can look at a modest example on the other end of the spectrum for a comparison. According to the Travis county Appraisal District, the 2011 total tax rate is approximately 2.4%. Take a homeowner who lives in a $250,000 house in Austin. The homeowner’s tax burden is $6,000 a year. Based on the proposed sales tax rate of 18%, the increase is 11.75% above the current sales tax rate of 6.25%. They are already paying 6.25% in sales tax, so they would only suffer the 11.75% increase in new sales taxes. Based on the 11.75% increase, this homeowner would have to spend approximately $51,000, in order to equal the $6,000 he was paying in property taxes. This household may spend $51,000 per year on consumables, but not likely, so they would see their tax burden go down significantly. This is just a $250,000 house, so one can see how the divide would grow as the property values increase.

Since homeowners currently pay the school and city taxes, they are most likely the ones to decide on issues regarding the taxes which affect the schools, but renters have kids too. A good solution might be to keep the current property tax system for now, and implement a small sales tax to supplement property taxes. Over time, the divide between the two tax sources could be balanced out, and both homeowners and renters can be a part of the decision process regarding school taxes, and neither side would be robbed or become fat in the wallet overnight.

What do you think?

Property Rights Trampled by iPhone!

In the article, “Keystone XL developer can run oil pipeline across northeast Texas farm, judge rules”, that is posted on the Blog, "Lone Star Strong",  the debate over property rights continues. A county judge makes a ruling (via iPhone) that condemns some private land in Paris, Texas, and states that TransCanada is a common carrier, thus giving them eminent domain over the land in order to build the pipeline on it. The landowner is appealing the decision with the state.

This article is a must read because it has to deal with the Bill of Rights, and specifically the Fifth Amendment. This is a tough one though, on one hand we want to respect ones property rights, and on the other hand, we need solutions to high fuel prices; plus this project would employ many people. We import most of our oil from Canada, and it would be more efficient to transfer it for refining, via this pipeline. We want to be fair with respect to property rights, and the article doesn’t say how much money the landowner is being offered for the property in question, but the landowner wants to keep the property, so it sounds like this landowner may be getting treated unfairly.

 

What do you think?