How Much Are You Willing To Pay?

The cost of getting a decent education and job (in the future) is getting worse every year, an issue my colleague has recently recognized in one of her blog posts.  Overall, I think my fellow student, Kiran Azad, is spot-on in her position on the issue.  One of the few parts I disagree with is her claim that “no one actually talks about the actual problem, which is the cost of education.”  I’m no expert, but from experience I can tell that people, especially college students or parents of said students, do talk about the increasing cost of education.  Quite a few people I’ve come across tend to complain about the issue in general, and I don’t think it’s just my acquaintances that have these complaints.

The other disagreement I have is with her notion that “the problems seem to rise and there is no solution.” That’s not a very optimistic outlook on the situation considering she is one of the many people affected by the rising costs.  I can think of a couple of potential solutions off the top of my head.  One solution is that the higher education facilities simply lower their cost.  Another could be a group of people (most likely college students) raising awareness of this issue, potentially getting our elected officials to change how much tax money is given to higher education, allowing the schools to lower student costs.  The latter solution may only make a difference locally, though.

I appreciate the fact that she points out how the cost of education is causing the graduation rate to drop.  Although I imagine that this is correct, it would be more convincing and leave a bigger impact on me if she had provided her statement with some sort of evidence of this lowering graduation rate.  I also agree with her idea that students should chose a community college to get their basic courses out of the way at a cheaper cost, then transfer to a university to graduate.  After all, that’s the path I chose to take. But what will happen to the cost of Community College if everyone starts enrolling there?  If there were a dramatic increase in applicants at a community college, that college would have to hire more professors and make room for the increase in students.  These things cost money, and where are they going to get that money?  Once again, the student is the one penalized.  Unfortunately, this is an issue many are trying to overcome.  Eventually something will change, for better or worse.  

Is Texas Turning Public School Students Into Puppets?

            Controversy over public education in Texas is a long-standing issue that has changed with the additions of details over time, like the “Race to the Top” refusal.  Yes, the issue of Texas’ public education has been talked to death, but the ever-changing state of school funding and “accountability” testing continues to draw attention.  As one of the lowest ranking states in education, Texas is struggling to preserve its own curriculum rather than adopting the national common core curriculum.  The problem with this is that the proposed standards can’t compete with the national standards, or even the standards of other states.

            Going back to 2010, a year after the “Race to the Top” incentive was proposed, Rick Perry refused to compete.  The goal of the Race to the Top program was to get the states to compete for a grant that would go to that states’ education reform and innovation.  The competitive grants could have brought $750 million to Texas.  Who in their right mind would refuse that amount of money going to a good cause such as public education?  Apparently Perry believed he was preventing “federal takeover of public schools” by refusing the opportunity.

            Even the Texas Education Agency Commissioner, who is handpicked by Perry, has spoken out against the Texas education system.  Recently stepping down from his position as Commissioner, Robert Scott criticizes our standardized testing, saying that is has transformed into a “perversion of its original intent.”  Texas’ standardized testing, which supposed to measure the states so-called “Accountability”, ends up burdening the schools instead of helping them progress.  Whether it’s the TAKS or the STAAR, we are relying too much on and setting the stakes too high for standardized tests.  Do you really want entire education system dependent on one test?  What will become of Texas’ public education?  Will the values of traditional inquisitive education be forgotten in an attempt to make Texas school children’s education quantifiable?

            Another heated topic tying into the quality of public education is the decision made by lawmakers to cut $5 billion from public schools, resulting in a loss of more than 25,000 employees for Texas schools since the education budget was cut.  Perry’s “Texas Budget Compact” was strategically introduced on Tax Day, as if Texans weren’t dealing with enough.  Although he regards his proposals as a means to help Texas, he asks legislators to “oppose any and all new taxes or tax increases, preserve the Rainy Day Fund, and cut wasteful and redundant government programs and agencies.”  My issue with his statement is the part about cutting wasteful and redundant government programs.  That part of the proposition would be great if carried out successfully, but where is Perry cutting from?  In regards to his actions of educational budget cutting, it seems that he considers public education as a wasteful government agency.  Last time I checked, the future of Texas isn’t exactly “wasteful.”  For better or for worse, Texas school districts reacted to the budget cut in a big way.  More than half of the school districts are suing the state of Texas, in four different lawsuits, questioning if the state has given enough money to schools.  A fifth lawsuit was filed questioning how the state spends the money given to schools.  Still, there are some school districts that remain uninvolved in the lawsuits, either because of lack of resources or because they fear the outcome will be worse than their current situation.  Whatever the outcome may be, Texas citizens, lawmakers, and officials alike will have a lot on their hands concerning the Texas education system.

Changing The Legal Age Limit

My classmate, Jason Ebeling, wrote a post about raising the legal drinking age to 25, titled “Legal Drinking Age 21 or 25?”  He proves a valid point that some 21-year-olds are too irresponsible to be drinking, sometimes getting themselves and others killed.  What bothers me is that people against 21-year-olds legally drinking tend to provide their argument with horror stories of young people dying due directly or indirectly to alcohol.  What do you think normally happens when young people drink?  If it’s a story like the one Ebeling wrote about, you might believe too much of what you hear from the media.  Most of the time young people drink, situations similar to what happens when their older counterparts drink occur, with a little less maturity. 

I liked that Ebeling tied the issue to personal experience in his post.  It showed he can somewhat relate to a younger and older audience.  Regarding the age limit of alcoholic consumption though, unless you’ve had a life-altering experience in between the time you’re 21 and 25 (such as Ebeling having a child), you probably aren’t going to change or mature all that much.

I also noticed that in Ebeling’s blog post, he only had one reason for the legal drinking age to be raised to 25, which was that at 21, people are too irresponsible to handle alcohol.  Although I am against the age limit being raised, I would have provided at least one other valid reason for raising the age limit, such as how alcohol can affect a still-developing 21-year-old body.

The age for legal alcoholic consumption is a hot topic that may be changed in our near future in Texas.  It is one that the young will be more likely to participate in, which is just what some political observes have been asking for, right?  For now, those “irresponsible” 21-24 year olds who are not a “functioning part of society” will just have to continue “[getting] drunk and then get laid.”

Republicans Use Private Issue As Just Another Political Move

Recently, one of my favorite attention-getting disasters, Governor Rick Perry, must have been unsatisfied with his failed GOP campaign fiasco and decided to take a stance against a program actually benefitting Texas.  The only reasons I can come up with for his ridiculous claims of government overreach is that he wanted to get back in the action and go against the Obama administration.  I don’t know what he expects to accomplish with his bold claims of funding the Women’s Health Program without federal help, doesn’t he realize the only people taking him seriously anymore are crazed super-conservatives.

             If Texas plans on ever overcoming the damage done by its republican politicians concerning federal funding for Women’s Health Program (WHP) through Medicaid, our elected officials need to abandon their stance on barring women’s health care providers that are in any way affiliated with abortion providers from receiving funding.  Perry and other lawmakers have put in to motion something I worry cannot be undone.  Perry defends his position on defunding women’s health providers associated with abortion clinics with the state law prohibiting taxes from going to organizations that promote abortion.  The federal government, through Medicaid, will not fund a state program that violates federal law.  This particular law prohibits states from discriminating against qualified providers.  The main target of Perry’s issue is Planned Parenthood.  What blows Perry’s argument to nothing is the fact that not one of the 11 Planned Parenthood clinics, once funded but now closed due to budget cuts, provided abortion care.  What these combined 11 clinics did provide in there last year were 20,565 clients health exams, including: 13,184 cervical cancer screenings, 14,163 breast cancer screenings, and 33,974 sexually transmitted infection screenings/treatments.  And Rick Perry publically boasts the state’s targeting of Planned Parenthood.  The people responsible for this budget cut anticipated it to cripple Planned Parenthood, ending the “abortion industry.” 

            Unfortunately, defunding family-planning clinics will likely backfire on the Republicans.  With an increase of closing clinics, more women will be left without health care.  Other losses likely to occur are an increased number of unplanned Medicaid-paid births, an increased number of cancers detected in later stages of disease, increase in abortions, higher rates of STD’s, more children forced to be a part of the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and all resulting in costing us more money that we don’t have.  If the Republicans hadn’t been so shortsighted, they’d realized the budget cut wont benefit anyone, putting an unnecessary burden on all of Texas.

            Even if Governor Perry and the rest of the Republican party’s argument for standing up to “Washington bureaucracy because it’s the right thing to do” were accurate, Perry still used this issue for marketing preparations for a potential presidential run (which didn’t work out, did it?).  Perry, Greg Abbott, and the rest of those taking a similar stand don’t genuinely care about women’s health care, as do the women it actually affects.  This is just another building block for campaigning to them.  

Troublesome Texas Voting

            Upon quickly skimming some blog posts from In The Pink Texas I knew it I could appreciate the style of writing Eileen Smith uses.  Aside from it being a political satire blog, hilariously critical humor filled the posts.  After weeding out some of the trivial post, I found one titled “Southern Discomfort” that was a bit short but still a good read.  The reader I imagine she has in mind can be one of many types, but ultimately has to be able to take a joke.  Initially I thought of the majority of her audience being Texan (because this post specifically effects Texan voters) but then read the article “Justice Department Bars Texas Voter ID Law” that she linked to her post.  The article states that, like Texas, other states are pressing new voter ID laws.  Another party of viewer Smith might aim for are those who criticize or just enjoy humor at the expense of Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry.  Tying in to the critics and Texans are the liberal-leaning readers and those that are just critical of the whole Republican party (who isn’t anymore?).  Smith might even be trying to cover all of her bases, making sure to add a witty disclaimer at the end as not to offend any Hispanic readers.

            When it comes to credibility, blogs are hit or miss.  Anyone can spew his or her political views through a blog.  To her credit, popular news outlets, such as the Dallas Morning News and the Austin Chronicle, praised Eileen Smith. Additionally, She does paraphrase and quote from an article on the Washington Post, showing she did some research.  Other than that though, her blog is meant as political satire, clearly stated at the top, and isn’t something to stress over, even with its current political issues. 

            Smith lathers on the sarcasm while making a point to show how ridiculous and transparent the Republicans (Rick Perry’s) efforts are at justifying a new Voter ID law.  The quote Smith used from the Washington Post quoting Rick Perry’s views on “pervasive federal overreach” is enough to identify Perry’s ridiculous stance.  Because of Perry’s train wreck of a campaign, the reader probably wont have a hard time believing that he is shielding a personal agenda behind the façade of a fraudulent voting concern.

            I can’t help but to agree with Smith, that Perry’s failed attempt at changing voting requirements seems to discriminate towards minorities, particularly Hispanics.  Some voters either can’t afford a license/passport or have no need for one.  Keeping those people from voting wouldn’t be reasonable.  Whatever your stance on the issue, Smith mocks both the Republicans and Hispanics, balancing them out and resulting in a humorous yet not overly offensive commentary.  

A New Plan For Austin City Council?

The article, “Single-member districts won’t make Austin a better place” written by Terrell Blodgett, is a prime subject for critically analyzing, as the title itself screams that it’s loaded with one-sided opinions.  This article can be found at the Austin American Statesman’s website, but originally appeared in a newsletter posted by Group Solutions RJW.  Though the name may not be well-known, Blodgett gains credibility on the issue through his career, Mike Hogg Professor Emeritus in Urban Management at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. 

The intended audience of this article seems to generally be Austinites who are involved (or at least vote) in government.  To attract this sort of audience, the author has to, and does, show how it will personally affect their lives.  This affects the content of the commentary by making it one-sided.  Blodgett doesn’t seem to present all of the facts in the matter of single-member districts versus our current system.  He might have found evidence or statistics that only support his claim, and nothing else.

It is not overly apparent what Blodgett’s point of view is relating to politics, but he seems to be somewhat liberal-leaning.  With that, his basic argument is that Austin shouldn’t adopt single-member districts for Austin City Council.  According to Blodgett, single-member districts are where there would be 11 council members, one exclusively representing a particular district.  He believes that we should continue with our current 7-member council that represents Austin as a whole.  Blodgett is relying on the assumption that if Austin adopts this new plan, the quality of representation will decrease, which he bases on Austin’s satisfaction in representation surveys compared to other cities surveys that have single-member districts.  Blodgett implies that he believes they should work together on a common goal, not divide themselves between districts with different goals.

The article appears to be supported with statistics and facts, but these facts are all one-sided and could have been misconstrued.  Unfortunately the article cuts off rather abruptly, giving little obvious conclusion.  What I have gathered from this article though, is that Austin shouldn’t be divided in such a way.  Until now, I hadn’t really given the Austin City Council too much thought.

Summing up the articles meaning, Blodgett believes single-member districts will give less, if no, representation.  If you want results, the citizens of Austin should vote to stay with our current system.

Is Texas Drying Up?

The article “As Texas Town Runs Dry, Fate of Others in Question,” posted on Texas Tribune, is one of the many recent articles concerning the drought in Texas.  The full story was originally published at StateImpact Texas under the title of “Could Other Texas Towns Run Dry Like Spicewood Beach?”  The drought in Texas seems to be the topic of the year, as it should be.  One of my previous professors emphasized “water is Texas’ most valuable resource right now.”  He couldn’t have put it a better way.  Our lack of water is such an important issue right now, as it not only affects our living conditions but also the growth of the state.

            Spicewood Beach recently “ran dry” without warning and is now forced to ship in their water, even though it is located on the shore of Central Texas’ largest reservoir.  The distinction between well water and surface-level water, such as lakes, are poorly defined.  The wells seem to lose water as the lake levels recede in some cases.  If the connection between the two can be identified, other areas of Texas could potentially prevent situations similar to Spicewood Beach’s.  Other reservoirs are not expected to go dry in the near future, but it is still important to prepare such an event.