Let's Give One to All

I read Vanessa's blog post called No More Excuses, Let Me Speak and I must say I disagree with about every point. Her blog is about "undocumented" individuals obtaining driver licenses. I looked up the term "undocumented" individual so we could all be clear. It says the following:

"The term undocumented immigrant refers to foreign nationals who are present in the United States without proper authorization. The more common and accurate term for these individuals is illegal alien. Without proper authorization from the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS), foreign nationals cannot enter the United States to work, establish residency or even visit."

I am aware that a Bill has been proposed and 3 states are already issuing driver licenses to illegal immigrants. But, Seriously? Does this not go against our entire immigration policy? Are we going to next revamp our entire system to accommodate "undocumented" people? I hope that any policy changes are to the benefit of the people that live here legally. So her blog goes on to say that this will put an end to people having an excuse for being the one to run in a hit and run accident. There are many excuses used for hit and runs. No driver license is just one of them. Next she talks about a driver license being a guarantee that a person will maintain vehicle insurance and registration. I believe not. Nor do I believe it would give anyone on either side of the debate peace of mind. People no longer emailing and texting while driving would give me more peace of mind personally. I was taught that having a license was not a right of passage but a privilege to be had if you were a responsible enough to have it. We had to go to driving school we had to pay for it. Vanessa says the 150 dollar fee is to expensive for these people to pay. I have one last question. If you cannot afford the 150 dollar fee, how can you expect to afford that car insurance the license is supposed to guarantee?

I read an article in the Huffington Post that said the "undocumented" people want their license to look exactly the same as everyone else's and have no distinguishing marks on it. Well, if you want the exact same thing, go become a citizen to obtain same rights and privileges.

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?

The Infamous Texas Death Penalty

For or against, everyone has an opinion and an argument of both sides of the proverbial barbed wire fence. One of the few things I like about Texas is the fact that it has the death penalty and is not afraid to use it. For me personally, I believe the hard core death row killers ought to experience the same death their victim’s endured, instead of a nice sleepy shot. I am positive that is a whole other blog.

What I want to discuss this time is the costs associated with the death penalty versus life sentences without parole and a new bill aimed at curtailing some of the expenses and possibly giving someone a better shot of not being wrongly convicted. Most people I know when asked, believe that it is bound to be cheaper to put an inmate to death rather than house and feed them for the rest of their lives. I have always thought the same as well, without considering the complete process the death penalty conviction involves. Several research sources have begun adding up the seemingly endless expenses that are occurring. Wow. It is adding up to be in upward of a million per case. Crazy, but due to allowable processes inmates are entitled to multiple appeals. Within that lies, paid expert witnesses, juries, prosecutors, paperwork processors, doctors, and consultants. The list is long and adds up very quick. So I read it costs 47.50 per day to house and feed an inmate. To make this even more real, a minimum wage employee makes 58.00 per 8 hour day before taxes. You do the math. With that said, I have no desire to feed, house and medicate a hard core, death penalty qualifying criminal for the rest of their lives. It seems so far to be a “no win” either way.

There is one bill in the works that finally makes some sense and seems to be aiming towards the right direction. The bill would require DNA testing before a death penalty trial begins. Not only does it have the potential to cut major expenses, it has the potential to help ensure we do not inadvertently sentence an innocent person. This could be huge since technology has advanced so far. May this help end the far too long processes, personnel and millions wastefully spent on someone that should suffer a similar fate as their victims instead of prolonging the time the inmate can kick back, be housed, fed and have access to health care. Some simple luxuries hard working people go without.

Hollywood In our Homes

Blue Dot Blues blogger MJ Samuelson, of Travis County Texas, February 25, 2013 blog is titled, "How Hollywood just won the political talking point war of the week". See the original blog here:  Hollywood to Texas and Beyond

Many people either grew up watching the Oscar awards or at a minimum know of it. They award each other, praise each other, and we watch intently each year. The author of this blog is not any different. He watches the Oscars simply for its entertainment value. He watches movies throughout the year to relax and take a break from our everyday world, he states he does politics for a living, and likes a reprieve  Like many of us he needs a break. Me personally, I watch it simply to see what they are wearing. I do not pay much attention to who actually wins the Oscar award or what any of them have to say.

No matter the reason people have for watching this event, Hollywood has managed to inundate this show, making it a personal political venue. Why? Maybe, because they can? Maybe because the viewers allow it? The author of this blog looks forward to the antics of Hollywood's infamous, not their political views. I am unsure why the actors and actresses political views matter in the first place. Hopefully the star-gazed, UNEDUCATED voters in our state are not swayed simply by someone that makes a living portraying someone or something they are not. I am sure no politicians pretend to be something they are not. Could the influence of Hollywood ever change us from a red state to a blue state? I overheard that conversation recently at work and that is why this blog interested me as a reader. Two of my favorite quotes in this blog are, "leave your politics at the door and wear a fabulous dress", and "Not everything has to be political". Well I guess the appearance of Michelle Obama squashes that one. That can be a whole other blog post itself. Seriously what do the Oscars have to do with her, except maybe Hollywood helped put her in her big White house? If in fact they did help put her in the White house, what influence do they have on the voters in our state?

The intended audience of this blog could be all of us. Those of us that want to be entertained for a few hours. Democrat or Republican, I have never known either to watch the Oscars for its political enlightenment. Everything has a time and a place. I agree.

In conclusion, what two topics have many of been told our whole lives? Avoid talking about politics and religion in certain settings. Maybe Hollywood could adopt that policy as well.

Congrats, We Look Stupid...

"Perry's California slam is all business-business as usual" by Peggy Fikac an Express-News columnist is hysterical. Perry's California

It begins with a comparison between Texas Governor Perry aka. Gov Goodhair vs. California Governor Brown aka Gov Gandalf. So Gov. Perry spent 24,000 dollars in an attempt to persuade California businesses to move to Texas. Ok great, I do understand working to build your states economy. Although it seems like Gov. Perry's attempts have become somewhat of a joke. Gov. Brown said, and are you ready for this one... "Perry's attempt was not a burp. It's barely a fart". Now in searching the credibility of this piece, I found many articles with the same quote. It definitely got its time in the spotlight. The author, had many great quotes from other politicians, columnists, newspapers and business people.  The late columnist, Molly Ivans said about Texas, "it's a low-tax, low-service state- so shoot us. The only depressing part is that, unlike Mississippi, we can afford to do better. We just don't". Of course, as one would expect, California had its opinions as well. I found another quote from another article I could not resist sharing as it seems to coincide with the topic here. 

“Check out a state that ranks dead last in the percent of its population with high school diplomas. Come check out a state that is last in mental health expenditures and workers’ compensation coverage. Come check out a state that ranks first in the number of executions, first in the number of uninsured, first in the amount of carbon dioxide emitted and first in the amount of toxic chemicals released into water," the editorial board wrote in the paper. Check this corresponding article

Now that is priceless. If we cannot fix these things in our state for the people already here, other then the tax thing, what else do we have to offer? Football? I think Perry needs to come to the table with a bit more then he arrived with. People will read this article because they are followers of Perry's antics. Others will read it simply for a good laugh.

Ultimately, the whole thing is beginning to to look like a giant contest to see which state or which governor is bigger or better. Can they get past the hair and benefit both states. The author gave examples of both sides of the fence, but I definitely believe she showed us that Texas looks unprepared to take on California.

Misplaced Priorities

Everyone has their own set of priorities. Everyone almost always has an opinion about whether or not a persons priorities are headed the proper direction or if they are misguided. Day after day, across the country we watch, read and listen to our elected officials. We typically hope they are spending their days working for us, for the betterment of our state or country. We hope they are not wasting their time, effort and our tax dollars in the process. So I ran across this article in the Dallas Morning News as well as the Texas Tribune that absolutely made me laugh and shake my head. I thought to myself, "Really?! Is this seriously what we elect our State Representative to do?" I thought let's not focus our efforts on education, economy, or the welfare of the state. Texas claims to be far and above the rest, correct? So in Texas let us do this:                                                     HB 778
                                           Bill Proposed by State Representative  
                                                               Ryan Guillen 
This newly proposed bill would require UT and Texas A&M to play each other in a football game annually. Again I say, "Seriously?" I go on to read further, not only does this bill propose they play annually, it proposes a penalty and restrictions on athletic scholarships if there is non-compliance by either institution. Now I personally love a good rivalry game as much as the next person, i.e. the Red River Shootout. Since I am from Oklahoma, you can guess I am not wearing orange. As fun is this game is for both states, in the event it were to end, I would gladly move on and hope that our elected Representatives spend that extra time proposing and passing bills that protect our kids at school, and people at their work place. That list can go on and on. This article displays a misguided priority by State Representative Guillen, in my opinion. He said, "I think the people of Texas want a game, and we're trying to give them one." I can only hope the people of Texas set higher priorities and standards for this state, come election time. I recommend taking a moment to read these articles to see what Texas priorities are these days.