Re:Obama has bigger challenges

After reading a classmate's blog about the promises Obama has made to allow some 12 million illegal immigrants to become citizens, I am struck by a couple of things. First is that the author seems to think that most illegal immigrants are on welfare and do not have jobs. I bet that this is a false assumption. Most illegal immigrants are working longer hours, for less money then anyone else in this country. This cheaper labor benefits the most affluent people and businesses the most, but also affects everyday people as well. According to NPR 5 percent of the labor pool in the US is already made up by illegal workers. Second is that it is not the fault of the workers that employers hire them and then do not provide the same services that they would to a documented worker. The businesses do this on purpose, they save money by not having to pay a living wage, or provide health insurance. They are getting the benefits of the labor without the additional costs. It is those businesses that should be held accountable for the extra medicaid money that is spent caring of illegal immigrants and their children. If Obama did allow these working, contributing members of our society to finally become fully accepted and acknowledged we would as a whole be much better off.

Don't Worry Everythings Fine

After reading an article in the Texas Observer about the overcrowding and underfunding of Mental Health facilities in Texas I wanted to look further into the state of our MH Hospitals. What I found was simply outrageous. In an extensive article in the Dallas Morning News from January of this year I learned that not only are the hospitals overcrowded, they are poorly run, abusive, money making machines for private MH providers. These providers not only do a bad job of running the MH Hospitals they also make a lot of money doing it. One such company, TPI, has facilities across the nation, but a larger number in states, like Texas, that have low regulatory enforcement. The article states that these companies are assessed fines, or even given the threat to shut down, but in a process that takes the meeting out of the public scrutiny these fines are greatly reduced and the threat of closing the doors never materializes. It is convenient that one of the CEO's of this company is married to the former chief of staff of Gov. Rick Perry. This kind of misuse of power and influence is absolutely despicable. To take people that are suffering from MH related issues and use this suffering as a way to pad your bank account, or to be an elected public official who continually denies funding to an important piece of our social network is, in my opinion, a great example of the polluting of the human spirit by money and power. These kinds of stories make me ashamed to not be out there fighting everyday against the corporate lobbyists in our capital.

Chosing Sides

After reading fellow classmate Scott's blog post What side are we on?, there are a couple of things that stick out. First of all I would be surprised to find out that the number of independents are increasing relative to the number of Democrats or Republicans. It would have been nice to include a link to this information (if it exists). Secondly, I wonder if true independents would take kindly to being classified as "on the fence" about their political viewpoints. I know a number of independents who have much stronger political inclinations then most other folks I have talked to, Republican or Democrat. I definitely agree with Scott's analysis of people feeling disenchanted with their chosen party for any number of reasons, but I don't think that it is fair to say that they are simply answering that feeling with "becoming independent". There is an appropriate quote from the website of the Committee for Unified Independent Voters:

For CUIP, independents are not "swing voters" who exist to be wooed and swayed by one or the other major party. Independents have strongly held beliefs about how partisanship and ideological labeling are corrupting and constraining progress. Independents defy traditional political labels; what they share is support for the principle that radical structural reform of the electoral process and of government is the urgent political necessity of the day.

I think that most Independent voters hope change the entire bipartisan system that has dominated U. S. politics since its beginnings and give voters more options, and ability to vote on issues that are important to them.....whether or not this would be a good change is another debate for another time.

Where does all the money come from?

It seems to me that we are living in a society that is in some ways related to a response to a strong ideological shift during the Reconstruction Era. Texas politics have been in the business of keeping government weak and preventing out of control government spending. I understand why this would have happened, and the paths that we have followed since then, but I would hope that people would be ready to reconsider our path in order to better our state.

We are pro-business to a fault and have done everything in our power to promote and encourage the oil industry. This has made a lot of really wealthy people, which in turn has helped many of those people run for and be elected to public office. In reading articles about the upcoming gubernatorial race it is amazing how much money one has to have to take part in that level of government. There is Shami who intends to contribute 10 million dollars in his own money to vie for the democratic nomination in 2010. There is also Mark Katz who is one of the most famous businessmen in the Capital City and has plenty of money to burn on a campaign. If you are not a multimillionaire you are totally reliant on campaign contributions from businesses and other groups that are hoping to get their interests heard. This may be a stretch but I wonder how much of the pro-business mentality that was established by our ancestors has perpetuated itself through the absurd monetary necessities of elections.

What I think that we need to improve the politics in Texas is campaign finance reforms that would prevent businesses to buy the favors of elected officials, and to allow other, less affluent, citizens to participate in the higher levels of government. If there was publicly funded elections we could level the playing field and really get a chance to focus on the platforms of the candidates. This kind of legislation would be a hard fought battle as the people who were put in office by these contributors would probably not be excited to accept a more level playing field. Another thing that I really like about the idea of campaign finance reform is that it is bipartisan and would not negatively affect one party more then the other. I think it is something that would really help improve our state and lead us closer to a ideologically pure democratic system.

Hutchison to Stay in the Senate

I was interested in the political implecations of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison's decision to stay in her seat in the Senate, instead of resigning to fight full time for the GOP party nomination for governor. The blog In the Pink:Texas Monthly by Eileen Smith has a new post in which Ms. Smith humerously compares Sen. Hutchison to a school kid playing musical chairs that "totally cheats by kind of standing around his chair, guarding it, and sitting his ass down a little before the music stops." While this analogy creates a most humorous mental image, it is clear that there are some very real difference between journalism and blogging.

Determining Ms. Smith's audience is easy, she is definately writing for a liberal reader, and I would suspect a female liberal at that. It is also clear that Ms. Smith has little to no respect for Sen. Hutchison (or female conservatives in general) or her decision to stay in the Senate. It seems as if she is saying that the only reason that Sen. Hutchison would stay in the Senate is because she is losing confidence that she will win the Republican nomination, and doesn't want to be without a place in the Texas Republican Party. This is interesting because if you look for other news articles about the debated Senate seat, you will learn that there was a lot of pressure on Sen. Hutchison to stay in the Senate at least until after the November elections. If there had been a special election in November it is possible that Sen. Hutchenson would have been replaced by a Democrat, giving the Dems. the 60 seats that they would need for a filibuster. This of course would have been very bad news for the National Republican Party and I am sure that all blame would have been cast on Sen. Hutchison's decision to leave her seat.

There was nothing factually innaccurate about the In the Pink post. However, it was mostly opinion and I believe slightly misleading. There was no real evidence to support what Ms. Smith was saying, which is fine in this case because it was presented as her own opinion. I however disagree with her assessment. I would love to see a Democrat elected to the Senate for Texas, but I also know that the political game is played on many levels, and I would question that anyone as high up in the Party as Sen. Hutchison is was playing solely on her own accord.

Rein in the Rhetoric

I have always assumed that it is a wholly positive aspect of our political system that our officials are beholden to the beliefs and opinions of their constituents; that is the beauty of a representative democracy. I think I am seeing things a little differently since reading the editorial in the Austin American Statesman "Uphold the Texas Governor's Office & Rein in the Rhetoric." In this editorial, written by the Editorial Board of the Statesman, the authors insinuate that it is the long standing public support of the death penalty that encouraged Governor Perry to overlook new information in a death penalty appeal. The editorial states "Texas Governors and gubernatorial candidates, dealing with polls showing popular support for the death penalty, long have had no choice but to embrace it." The authors claim that Perry's appointments to the Texas Forensic Science Commission, his subsequent public proclamations of Willingham as a "monster", and his choice to ignore the new evidence presented by a fire expert, hired by the TFSC, Craig Beyler, are symptoms of this being a campaign season and Perry acting like a more like a candidate and less like an even-headed governor. This editorial seems geared towards proponents of the death penalty and to potential voters to call attention to the behavior of officials (and now incumbent candidates) during their campaigns. I wanted to know more about the case and was lucky to find in the comments by readers a link to and article in The New Yorker about the Wellingham case.

I have always been told that one important reason for having an representative democracy is that sometimes the masses are not always rational in their judgements, that a crowd is easily swayed by emotions and "rhetoric". The elected official is suppose to be the voice of reason, the level-headed thinker in the storm. I suppose that this role breaks down when the official is trying for re-election during their time in office, suddenly the freedom to think independently is gone when you are having to appeal to the general public. You have to do what they want, and people, unfortunately, are short-sighted and will remember the last thing that you did to excite or disappoint them.

I think that the editorial in the Statesman was well written, although the authors were definitely playing both sides of the field by not really coming straight out and saying what they thought about Perry's actions and instead only insinuating that his behavior was not up to par for that of a Governor. I enjoyed the article and it made me think about the downsides of representative democracy.

Constitutional Amendments

I would like to encourage everyone to read the latest blog in Texas Monthly's "The Burka Blog." This posting is meant to give readers a brief introduction to and an opinion about the upcoming proposed constitutional amendments. A post like this one is important to read because it not only gives a little factual information, but also an opinion that you can agree or disagree with, and maybe use to decide how you will vote. With increased voter apathy towards this kind of local elections, it is important to take an increased interest; the contract between the governed and the governing is being altered with or without your voice. Check out the proposed amendments at www.texasmonthly.com/blogs/burkablog/