Another Red River Dispute

Texas and Oklahoma are at it again. This time no sports are related. It is over water. A few decades ago, four states, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana signed a compact about water sources known as the Red River Compact. As we all know, most of the past compacts, laws and agreements this one being no different are vaguely worded. Thus leaving it wide open for interpretation and the good ol' lawsuit. As usual, Texas believes that it is entitled and has been battling Oklahoma through the court system. To date, Texas has lost in District Court as well as the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals. Off to the Supreme Court we go. This vague compact does not clarify whether or not Texas has the right to cross borders to obtain the water they want for Tarrant County or basically the Ft. Worth area. On the other hand, Oklahoma laws govern the use of water within the states borders. So Texas says Oklahoma has excess water. Ok great! That in my opinion should be up to them to decide how and what they choose to do with it. I wonder if Texas had excess resources, can Oklahoma sue and take it or force Texas to sell it? Would the state of Texas take that one all the way to the Supreme Court? I believe so, One great quote from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg says, "This clause, the one you rely on, (talking about Texas lawyers) is kind of sketchy, isn't it? Doesn't say how they're going to get it, if they are going to pay for it. There's a lot to be filled in." Though I must say my favorite part of the articles I have read so far is the weigh in from the Obama administration. It is a completely useless point. They say they agree with Texas on the point of whether or not Texas should be able to get shares of Oklahoma's excess water. Yet, they take no position on whether or not Texas should ultimately get the water. So, it seems as usual that the states find themselves in the age old predicament. How can we take this without violating that. A final decision is set for late June.

"Abusing the System", by Forrest H. on his blog site, Longhorn Politics, is an article written by him about welfare and unemployment recipients as being more of a stereotype rather than abusers of the system. Unfortunately, it seems there must be enough abusers to even relate this to a stereotype. He says that drug testing is not going to fix the problem. I agree to a point, no one single thing is going to fix the mess we have created that was initially designed to help those in need. I believe drug testing is a fabulous idea. I have to take a drug test for my job, which in turn pays taxes in various forms that finances many of these programs. I do not see the reason why a potential recipient of these benefits cannot be required to pass a drug test as well. Now, as I read his blog post I see that welfare and unemployment are far too intertwined. These are separate programs designed to assist two different situations. Both of which I will address shortly. When the big question arises about who might fund or pay for these drug tests, I say the person applying for benefits should. An example of similar situation is that the Attorney General charges me a fee for garnishing child support from my ex husband and deducts it automatically from my benefits. So why not institute a similar fee?

I would like to talk about the differences between welfare and unemployment. Unemployment is taxed come time to file. Welfare is not. Unemployment has no asset restrictions. Welfare has them. Unemployment does not take into account how many mouths you must feed in your household. Unemployment has no medical benefits, no dental benefits and my all time favorite: if you schedule in advance welfare will pick you up, drive you to your dentist, doctor or pharmacy. Wow now that's something unemployment won't do. You're on your own there. Now granted both arrive in the form of basically as cash, be it a check, voucher, credit type card or simply as cash. The system as it is now, leaves the doors wide open for abuse. Can you see it as well? And this one, in some states if you claim no residence and are what they call a "couch dweller" you qualify for welfare. I so do not see the possibility for strong abuse there. Nor can I imagine someone trading the debit card to someone with cash. I believe with that said, it's not very difficult to bypass the stereotype and shoot for the abuse of the system being quite high and very plausible.

So yes, much stricter guide lines and screenings must be put in place to keep some sort of decency in a system designed to help those truly in need. Both should remain short term assistance programs. Possibly, at the time of renewal, the recipient screens yet again. I will have to if I change jobs in a year.

But lastly I would like to tell you something I read that some places are considering implementing. I think it's a really great idea. Community service of some sort. Why not give back to the community that is giving to you?