Ghost Voting

New voting technology is being installed in the Texas House of Representatives in response to public outcry about ghost voting. When the press reported that some lawmakers were casting votes for other lawmakers the public responded in horror. The new technology will be activated by fingerprints making sure that everybody casts there own vote. The fingerprint scanners will cost the tax payers $128,000.

The fingerprint voting will be on a voluntary basis. How is something on a voluntary basis going to stop ghost voting when the many of the lawmakers have no problem with ghost voting in the first place. The men and women that make our laws are only called to do so five month every two years. This is a very short amount of time to vote on some 6,000 plus bills. There is very little time for the representatives to preform their duty as representatives and complete all the other things inherent in politics (speaking with; lobbyists, constituents, the press.) The new machines seem to just be covering up the greater issue of the fact that the representatives need more time to do what is expected of them. Trying to cram so much politics, policy, and lawmaking into the small time they have would be difficult for anyone to do. Neither political party has calmed that the ghost voting has been abused or gone over the line.

It may be that the press embellished the story, or it may be the average Texan's distrustfulness of the government that caused the huge outcry for change. But it seems that we need to spend more time worrying about the bills being passed and the very Texas House of Representatives itself they we need to be worrying about how the Lawmakers do there jobs.

Comment on "When does quality of life end?"

I agree with the idea that the quality of life should be from birth to death. There are a lot of laws in place to protect children in daycares, why shouldn't the same be true for the elderly. Many of the elderly in nursing homes have about as much ability to take care of themselves as children. Some don't have the cognitive ability to report those who abuse them, like children. The measures taken to protect children should be in place to protect the elderly in nursing homes.

If the new laws work, they will undoubtedly prohibit many potential employees from getting the job. With the pool of potential employees shrinking and the need for nursing homes about to dramatically increase with the baby boomers becoming older, is there going to be enough people to take care of the elderly? I don't have the information to know what will disqualify the potential employee. Is it any crime that will get someone excluded or just violent crimes. What about a reformed ex-con with a family to feed, he has kept his job at a nursing home for years and has never even thought about committing another crime, will he lose his job? It is already quite hard for ex-cons to find a job. Is this new law going to make it safer for the elderly or harder for reformed ex cons.

I know that the world isn't black and white. The shades of gray are what get us into trouble. I hope that the writers of the law take the gray into consideration. It is often impossible to tell if people have changed but that doesn't mean they cant. I don't know if a middle road is possible, where good ex-cons can keep their jobs and the bad ones get fired, but its worth hoping for.

Developing in Austin

Austin voters recently voted on Proposition 2. If passed the proposition would amend the charter to prevent the city from providing financial incentives to developments. The city of Austin would no longer be allowed to offer monetary kickbacks to would be developers.

A cities ability to attract potential developers is what can make or break a city. The developers want the best for the businesses they are developing. If a city will offer the developer tax break incentives to the business the more likely the businesses will want to be there. If the city loses its ability to give tax breaks to developing business then it will be much harder to find a developer that will be willing to build in the area. Without constant development the city will stop growing.

If Prop 2 where to be passed the cites ability to grow will be greatly hindered. The taxes that the new business would have payed to fund the government will have to be made up by the tax payers. The proposition would also force the city to break contracts already made with developers in the middle of projects. The resulting lawsuits and legal fees would have to be absorbed by the tax payer.

Though I personally don't like the idea of bribing business to build in certain areas, I do understand the economic value in the practice. If Austin voters take this tool away from there city the consequences will be felt down to the microeconomic level. If the ability to attract developers to Austin is removed the tax payer will feel the hurt and will very shortly demand an explanation.

Texas Politics in the Presidential Race

It seems like everyone is paying attention to the presidential race this year. This is good news of course. The more people who are involved in politics the better. The more options that can be heard the more unbiased the results will be. What about the Texas government? With some many people focused on the presidential race, who is paying attention to what is happening in Texas? This editorial I found in the Dallas Morning News proves that someone knows what is going on. The author seems to be speaking to all of us that are wrapped up in the countries politics that we have forgotten our state.

With so many counties and politicians in Texas the author knows this can be confusing “Dizzying, yes, but these moving parts underscore why this election matters to Texas.” I had not realized how ignorant I was to Texas politics. The delicate balance held in the legislator can be tipped by a few counties. The most important counties in this race seem to be the large urban areas “If Harris County goes blue and Dallas County remains Democratic, a Democrat will have Texas' two largest urban bases from which to run. If Harris doesn't flip, Democrats will face a hard fight.” I’ve always viewed Texas as a Red state no questions. But it appears that my vote could help or hinder the Democrats from controlling the urban counties.

The author claims that too many Texans are not paying attention to Texas politics. I am ashamed to say that I am among them. I will attempt to heed this call and do my part in Texas politics as much if not more than I do for presidential politics.

Straight-ticket Voting

I am a new voter. So it is very appealing to me to walk into the booth and vote on the grounds of party. Even if I don’t know the candidates or the issues, at least I will be flying my flag. After searching for a while on a topic I felt passionate enough to write on, I found an editorial in The Dallas Morning News. The points raised in the article are so logical that I am ashamed to have ever considered straight-ticket voting. By voting just on party I may have voted for a candidate in some obscure office that may negatively affected me in some way. I could essentially be shooting myself in the foot. Issues are more important than parties. Many candidates only subscribe to a party to get the parties nomination. On one issue a candidate may be on the right and on another the left. Upon examining my own standing on issues it became evident that I, and I assume many others, are like that as well. Sometimes it is just better to go with the lesser of two evils, “Democratic voters might reflexively reject state Sen. Chris Harris, an irascible Republican who sometimes struggles to work with others in his own party. But a closer look at Melvin Willms, the unprepared Democratic challenger who could not name his state representative, should convince even left-leaning voters that they would be better represented by Mr. Harris.” For some offices it seems like party shouldn’t even matter at all. Judges for example should not have to run with parties. A judge’s personal beliefs on issues should not be able to affect whether the best judge wins. What is wrong and what is right by the law of the land is what a judge is supposed to know, and we should choose the Judge that is most fair and honest. “Voters who fall back on the straight-party option also will bypass legal heavyweights seeking judicial posts – jobs that have little to do with partisan politics.” The best thing a voter can do is to know who they are voting for before they enter the booth, no more or less. Don’t vote for someone just because you recognize the name or the party. If you don’t have an opinion on who should run an office, don’t make one up without knowing the issues.

81st Legislative Session

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A678059

What exactly the takes place at the Texas Legislative sessions has often confused me. Upon finding this article I gained some insight into what will take place at 81st session of the Texas Legislature. On the table for discussion this year is; how the state plans to deal with the damage from Hurricane Ike, how the fallout from the nations economy will affect Texas, and issues with the next governor election.

The next race for governor’s office isn’t until 2010. It seems a bit early to worry about that but it seems it will be a hot issue at the session this year. The article states, “Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison's potential resignation to run for governor could initiate a domino effect of jockeying and angling for higher office, leaving the session bereft of leadership.” After reading this I realized why the sessions would want to discuss this, without the leadership in place very little can be accomplished.

It seems that the issues of the margins tax and gas tax have been raised before and with little result. Senator Kirk Watson was quoted as saying, “Are we gonna fix some of the things we said we were gonna fix last time?” Apparently the sessions aren’t as fruitful as some members believe they should be. Now that I have read this article I can watch and see if the issues I care about are addressed, like hurricane damage and taxes, or if the session spends their time arguing about the problem of leadership that wont be relevant for a year.