Response to "The Blame Game"

Christopher Cormier at E.12th Political Musings for the Lone Star State recently published a post, "The Blame Game", weighing in on the immigration debate. I am in agreement when Christopher said "In a knee-jerk reaction to drug trafficking and the environment it creates, if we focus on illegal immigrants without addressing the ever-growing demand for illegal drugs from the American populace, we are taking limited police resources away from the very problem we fear." Like so many issues, this battle is on how to treat the symptoms without every addressing the problem.

The chance of the U.S. government of completely stopping people from illegally crossing the border is absolutely zero. It is simply impossible. We are just as likely to clean up the bodies of those who died in the attempt, than capture those in the act. Even the cost of what we are capable of doing is staggering. Yet so many people who are proponents of the Arizona Immigration Law (or those supporting two ongoing wars for that matter) are also conservatives and members of the TEA Party, who are protesting government spending. The cost to the government to hold, process, and deport the influx of illegal immigrants following the passing of this law is going to be astronomical. Not to mention the fact that law enforcement resources are going to be drained from pursuing perpetrators of crimes like murders, rapes, robberies, and assaults. Many argue that illegal immigrants take American jobs and benefits, without paying taxes. This of course ignores sales tax, as well as the fact that the extremely low wages they are being paid would likely prevent them from paying Federal Income taxes. Even if these workers were documented, that would likely remain unchanged. Are immigrants really "stealing" American jobs? Or are they simply supplanting the cheap labor of slaves and sharecroppers, performing the jobs that most Americans are unwilling to do? Have you ever lost out on a job to an illegal immigrant?

I think that few people would disagree the primary reason that people are crossing the border (at extreme risk) is economic opportunity. Therefore, it would seem the most logical and cost effective way to stem illegal immigration would be to simply pursue those who hire illegal immigrants. The rallying cry behind this law is that the government failing in its duty to stem this tide, yet little is mentioned in regard to those offering the incentive to come to the U.S. illegally in the first place. Clearly, if there were no jobs to be had, there would be no reason to cross the border. (Similarly, the drug violence on the border will never go away so long as there is a demand and profit to be made from illegal drugs.) Of course this ignores what Christopher described as business' "quasi-symbiotic relationship with the constant supply of immigrants." To that end, it would seem supporting an enforced documented guest worker program would be the best solution. This would allow businesses (and the U.S. economy) to benefit from the labor that is provided, while creating a valve on immigration. If the only way to get a job is through the program, it would dissuade workers from trying to work around the system. This would also offer protection for the workers while allowing the government to keep track of them and keep them within the system.

There seems to be a squaring off in America right now between those that blame our society's ills on the Government and those who blame Big Business. Immigration, health care reform, Wall Street regulation, nearly all the major headlines in the news today, are being used as evidence of how they are "hijacking" America. Texan's anger towards the U.S. government has lead to people refusing to participate in the census and may lead to the loss of a seat in the House. To simply declare the government or business the cause of all our problems is overly simplistic and it also denies individual responsibility to help create the society we want to live in. It is also naive to think that business is the source of all the good in America and government is the source of all the bad (or vice-versa.) As Christopher said, it's time to stop looking for scapegoats and start looking for actual solutions. And getting rid of everything you disagree with isn't one of them.

Response to Response to AZ Immigration Law

In response to My Texas Blog: Response to AZ Immigration Law

A few points -

"If you aren't illegal you should have nothing to hide" - So do you feel the Police should have the right to search you, your property, or monitor your phone calls and internet activities? Because if you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to hide? Where do you draw the line?

"If I were to leave the country I would need to have my "papers" on me, big deal, so how is this any different?" - It's different because the people being asked to carry papers are citizens, not visitors. You are assumed guilty until proven innocent.

"Legislators' knew people would immediately bring up race so it's already been built into the bill that a person cannot be questioned based on race." - Do you think an Anglo is going to have their citizenship questioned? Of course not, so therefore they won't be required to carry around citizenship papers. The law is going to require racial profiling by it's very nature.

"Americans have fought for every right we have, and Obama wants to give these rights to people who are bankrupting our schools, hospitals, prisons, and our welfare system." - The rights that Americans have fought for are not rights exclusive to American citizens. To quote Thomas Jefferson "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights...[insert Declaration of Independence & Bill of Rights]"

Good Job People!

How Much is Too Much?

On April 16, 2010 the Austin Chronicle published a story regarding a $34 million plan to redevelop the Waller Creek district. Furthermore, a separate project to build a tunnel through the area to shrink the flood plain is in the works. The plan envisions transforming the creek area into a centerpiece of Downtown, similar to the River Walk in San Antonio or Millennium Park in Chicago. Initially seeking to improve landscaping, lighting and trails, there are further proposals for promenades, restaurants and shops along the creek. While the idea of improving the Waller Creek area is generally a popular one with voters, the project has been stalled many times over the decades, primarily over questions of funding. While walking near that area recently, I considered that the cost of revitalizing Waller Creek area wouldn't be nearly so expensive if it hadn't been allowed to fall into such a state of disrepair over the decades.

This brought to my mind a recent program aired on PBS called "Liquid Assets". The program documented the importance and challenges of maintaining our water infrastructure. It profiled Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin who has been dubbed the "Sewer Mayor" for her efforts to improve the city's neglected water and sewer systems. It also brought to mind the recent I-35 Bridge Collapse in Minneapolis. Following the collapse, many stories ran investigating the safety of our nation's bridges, with reports of a high percentage of them being structurally deficient. While opinions about this issue were strong immediately following the collapse, it has once again been relegated to the background.

According to and April 21 report in the Statesman, Austin is facing a $28 million budget shortfall. A combination of lower sales tax revenue and a drop in property values has lead to the likelihood of an increase in property taxes. Obviously this is unpopular with homeowners, especially after an increase just last year. It is important to consider however, that this is not so much an increase in taxes paid, but rather an attempt to recoup tax dollars lost due to the recession.

Texas is one of only seven states that doesn't collect State income taxes. The State and Local Tax burden in Texas has been historically one of the lowest in the country with Texas ranking 43rd in 2008, behind states like Alaska, Nevada, and Wyoming. One should note that these states have far lower population densities than Texas and considerably less infrastructure to maintain. A majority of Nevada's income comes from taxation of gaming, with over 85% of the population living in Las Vegas and Reno. A majority of the State of Alaska's income comes from taxation of the oil industry and Federal subsidies. In fact, Alaska collects such a surplus of funds, it pays out dividends to it's residents.

It seems that many Texans take their political model from the idea of a classic Texas rancher, who just wants to lead a self-sustaining life outside of the reach of government. This may be reasonable attitude for someone who lives in Guerra (population - 8), but it is not a very realistic model for someone living in Houston (population 2.2 million.) Almost 90% of Texans live in urban areas. Every day you drive Texas roads. You expect reliable service from local Police and Fire departments. You expect clean water and sanitation. You want your children to receive a quality public education. You might run around Town Lake, swim at Barton Springs, or check out a book from the library. The idea of living your life outside of government and taxes is a fine one, but you can't expect to reap the benefits of the things it provides and not have to pay the cost. You may not agree with the need for all of these things, but they do add to the over all quality of life in Austin, whether you use them or not. All these things cost money. Often the expense is exacerbated by the refusal of the public to pay the cost of upkeep (as the in case with Atlanta's sewers.) This causes the cost to rise exponentially, like the late fees on a credit card. Don't get me wrong, I don't like paying taxes either. But I do see them as necessary. You will get no argument from me that we need to reduce wasteful spending in the Government. There is no doubt that improvements in handling tax dollars can be made. But we also need to we need to consider what we are paying for and the value that has in our lives.

Slate - Don't ignore the Tea Party's toxic take on History

Well Said

(Skip the first 3 sections) - The Austin Chronicle - Days of Blame

Response to "Are all Texan children college bound?"

Chantell at Citizens Actions Toward The Government brings up some interesting points regarding education in her post "Are all Texan children college bound?" The falling graduation rates in the United States, and specifically Texas, are alarming. So is the fact that the U.S. is slipping in worldwide education rankings. Do we want to create a separate curriculum for students not pursuing post-secondary education? Is it better to graduate students by a lower standard rather than have them drop out?

It is common in other countries (such as Japan, Switzerland, or Korea for example) to have different secondary programs for students based on interest or ability. The examples I've chosen are considered to have some of the best educational systems in the world. So I think Chantell's question as to whether or not each student needs to follow the college bound curriculum carries a lot of weight. However, the standards for all students in these other countries are still very high and students are expected to put in significant effort. In the U.S., expectations are far lower, yet the dropout rate is much higher. Perhaps this demonstrates that the issue isn't the difficulty of the curriculum, but the expectations we as a society have on students and the cultural value we place on education. If we lower the standards to get more kids through the system and provide them with a minimal level of education, it will also lower the value of a diploma. It also won't change the fact that these children are being undereducated.

As our economy shifts from an industrial to a technological base, so shift our educational needs. We can't (nor should we want to) compete with countries like China or India in manufacturing. These are developing economies, with a much lower wage structure than ours. As a developed nation, our jobs need to be innovating and creating the products those countries manufacture. We can't afford to let the world pass us by in these areas. Additionally, a strong parallel exists between a nation's quality of life and it's education. Beyond the economic benefits, levels of education also affect societal problems (crime rates and teen pregnancy for example.)

Many question whether TAKS and the No Child Left Behind Act are the most effective way to raise our schools' standards. The arguments against these programs are legitimate, but I think it's important to remember that the reason these programs exist in the first place is to reestablish skill levels that our schools have been failing to meet. When trying to reach universal proficiency, what level of proficiency is expected? Chantell argues that we need to bring back the minimum plan so that "so that all children, regardless of their academic abilities will have the chance to graduate with pride." Pride is something we feel when we earn something, not when something is given to us. The whole point of education isn't to make students lives more difficult in the short term, but to make their lives easier in the long term. I understand her reasons and respect her argument, but I think we need to be very careful when lowering our academic standards. While I agree that bringing back the minimum plan may address some immediate concerns, I'd hate to see us headed in the wrong direction.

Like so many problems, there is no simple solution to this issue. We as a nation need to reevaluate our education system. We need to understand that the only way to remain the most economically powerful country in the world is to make education a priority. That doesn't just mean pushing children to excel in their studies, but also improving systems to support students dealing with issues like poverty and pregnancy, insuring that they don't slip through the cracks. It means increasing school budgets instead of trying to make our educators make do with less. It also means increasing the wages of teachers and finding ways to make the field more competitive.

Regardless of the standards we set or how we measure them, we can't expect the state of education to improve as we consistently try to find ways to spend as little as possible on it. Clearly, Texas has a long way to go.