Dude: I am, therefore I think

It's kind of funny-i'd almost forgotten that this existed. The above blogs are political in tone because.....i made this blog for a politics class. And now it looks like i can use it for whatever i want....so I will :).

So, how to introduce myself? Well, I'm 25, married, and living in Texas. I'm studying to be an accountant-so i can bore myself and others to death for the rest of my natural life. I want to work for either the IRS or FBI (i don't fear the man; i envy his dental plan). I have two loves: my wife and anime. (well, i like more as well, but two just sounds cooler, doesn't it? :))

So.....yeah. There you go. I'll be using this to post whatever random thoughts i have (especially now that i have a droid :)) or where i'll rant and rave and........you get the idea.

Immigration....huh?

Here's an interesting take on the border fence (and by nature, illegal immigration) issue.

And here's my response.

I disagree with the idea that making a border fence along the Southern border of the United States will somehow "magically" solve the illegal immigration issue. It won't. Here's why, (from a quote from an unnamed politician)

You show me a 50-foot wall and I'll show you a 51-foot ladder at the border.

Building a large fence at the border is not the answer; what the United States needs is comprehensive immigration reform. The way it stands now, people from Mexico who wanted to be able to immigrate into the United States would be able to do so....if they'd filed their paperwork in January of 2001. That's if you wanted to bring your unmarried son or daughter over; as soon as they were born, you'd have to file the paperwork, and they still would just be getting a number. Anyone want to hazard a guess as to why they don't?

Unfortunantly (and, by the way, there is no way of knowing whether or not those 20 to 40 "Mexicans" you see in front of the Home Depot are illegal immigrants, or just people who have a very low education level-or who might have been born here but have family in South America) this has become an "Us vs. Them" debate. And sites like this don't help much. One of the claims by this site is that "Such fences in Israel have curbed terrorist attacks by 85%!". Of course, Isreal does have a much smaller landmass (U.S.: 3,794,066 sq mi: Israel: 8,522 sq mi) and the most illegals aren't planning terrorist attacks-the 9/11 hijackers were here on valid US visas. They were not illegal immigrants. Besides, if we're going to fence in the entire country, why not the border between Canada? It's a larger border, and has more people crossing that one than between the US and Mexico.

Illegal immigrants, when they do come to the US, tend to be in better health than natives. (scroll down to the heath portion). Yes, teen births by hispanic women are higher than any other demographic; but that's not just in Texas, that's in the United States overall. There is also evidence to show that illegal immigrents have lower crime statistics than the United States as a whole. And illegal immigrants pay taxes; those who have fake Social Security numbers pay income taxes to the IRS, just like anyone else. It's not like they're not paying anything to use the benefits-well, they don't get the benefits from the taxes they're paying (and since Texas doesn't have a progressive income tax-or any income tax-not paying income taxes in Texas is not their fault). Not to mention that an "illegal immigrant" isn't just someone coming to the United States from Mexico; it can also be defined as someone who overstayed thier valid visa (such as an exchange student). How's a fence with Mexico going to stop them?

In closing, the answer isn't building a fence; the answer is fixing a system that is broken. If we had a system that worked, and there was a danger of leaving the borders without a fence, then I'd understand the rationale behind it. But we're a far cry from that.

Let someone else pay for it....

All states have programs they need to fund and services they need to provide. From Medicaid to Schools, from Hospitals to Roads, all need money. Where does this money come from? It comes from taxes and other sources of revenue in the state. All states in the United States use a combination of three sources to get a majority of their revenue; sales taxes, property taxes, and income tax. Some states, like California, use all three. Others, like Texas, just use two; sales tax and property tax.

So what's the difference? Why does it matter that Texas has one of the most regressive tax systems in the country? It matters due to the fact that because the tax system is regressive, poorer people actually shoulder more of the burden of the cost of services. Texas is actually one of the "terrible ten" -one of the states with the most regressive tax rates in the country. And it suffers from not having an additional taxation system besides sales taxes and property taxes; most of Texas's schools and hospitals are woefully underfunded. Texas is leading the nation in the amount of children without heath insurance; has more subprime morgage loans that anyone else in the country; and is second in the nation for the gap between the rich and the poor. It has some of the lowest scores in people below the poverty level, who have food insecurity, and malnourishe ment, and has some of the lowest in heath care professionals per capita. Texas should be a better state than this-and it can. With a progressive income tax, it could adequately fund it's programs; it could get it's students out of the educational cellar by giving them the tools they need to succeed.

But despite the deplorable state the state's programs are in, the legislature passed an amendment to the constitution that severly limited the capacity in which texas could pass a state income tax, and also use it; to use it, they'd have to reduce property taxes (which California did, and now is causing their budget all kinds of problems).

Texans deserve a government that works for them; that can actually fund their schools, hospitals, and take care of their disabled. Texas is supposed to be the best state in the United States; its time that it started taking the measures to live up to that name. That is why Texas needs a progressive income tax in addition to the taxes already in place. To ensure that every resident of Texas, both young and old, get the education and care they deserve.

Weird vs. Wealthy

Here's an interesting blog post on why people should shop local:

And my response:

I agree with your post in some respects and disagree in others.

I do think that local buisnesses are an important part of what makes Austin unique. Even though i moved here from San Diego a few years ago, i can tell you with certainty that there are no Book People in San Diego. (excuse the pun :)) There is no Salt Lick, no Epochs, no Thundercloud Subs, and no Hula Hut. Local buisnesses are part of what makes Austin different than other cities. (and let me tell you, I miss Ichi-ban from San Diego, too).

That being said...i don't think all big buisness is the enemy. I will concede (easily) that Wal-mart is the posterchild for irresponsible buisness. But what about buisnesses like Costco? Starbucks? Dell? These are companies that are just trying to make a buck; they care about their employees. Costco has the best medical benefits in the retail industry; the company pays for 95% of the costs. It's average wage is also around $17. Is this far less than local buisness? Also, Starbucks has a few things going for it: 1) it's consistency. Whenever you order something in one starbucks, it almost always tastes like the exact same drink in the Starbucks across town. 2) it's cleaner. Epoch is a neat place to hang, but i don't get the same feeling of cleanliness (though you may call it sterility-different strokes, i suppose) than i do at Starbucks.
I do agree that retail jobs pay less than manufacturing, though i don't know if that can entirely attributed to big corporations. It's probably more the fault of the American consumer wanting more junk for cheap. (and if you go to jibjab.com, they do a pretty interesting take on that-all in song, of course) I will say that it is difficult to find anything that is made in the USA anymore-it's all in Korea, Tawain, or China.

I guess what i'm trying to say is that, while some corporations are as bad as you think they are, others aren't. And also, people have a choice whether or not to shop at Barnes and Noble or Book People; personally, i choose whichever has a bigger manga section (which, if the section at Barnes and Noble is any clue, is probably Book People). People have a choice of whether or not to support local buisness or not, and it's up to those buisnesses to give their customers something they can't get at a chain: whether it be friendly service (you'd be suprised at how "happy" some of those people at Wal-Mart can be...yeah right), knowledge about their product, or a superior product, there has to be a reason for someone to shop there-not just because it's a local buisness.

Bigger isn't always better

Apparently Texans aren't so enamoured with the "Everything's Bigger in Texas" philosophy as i'd thought. Sure, Texans like big steaks, like big cars, and like to think of themselves as the biggest state in the US. (only in land size) But where they're not the biggest? On educating thier children. What? That can't be possible? With the state that has UT-Austin, Texas A&M, and Tech? Well, apparently the only things Texans like in small quantities are SAT scores. Texas is an astounding #49 in SAT verbal scores and #46 in SAT math scores. Out of the 50 states in the US. I know some children have difficulty testing, but come on Texas! You're supposed to be the best!

Well, it's ok. I mean, you have the highest amount of people in school. You have the highest amount of schools open. I mean, you have to have the highest amount of people graduating....no, wait. You don't. Texas is ranked #50 out of 50 states for having people over 25 with a high school diploma. (the number is 78.3% of people over 25). Oh well. It's not like that other 21.7% of Texans will actually need that diploma anyway, right? I mean, it's not like it'll effect their ability to get a job, and to earn higher wages. Then again.....maybe having a diploma is a good thing. In reality, high school graduates generally earn almost $15,000 more annually in 2004 than people who haven't graduated from high school. Does $15,000 make a difference? I think so.

Well, take comfort Texans. One thing about your school system has gotten bigger; the amount that people have to pay. The tuition for public universities increased 61.4%. Yes, you now have to pay 1.5 times the money you did before just to go to the same school! It doesn't get any better if you went to a Community College: their tuition went up 51.3%. Well...Texans always say bigger is better...maybe this time, bigger tuition for the same amount of schooling isn't the best thing.

But wait! The higher education is worth the price! Texas has the best colleges in the nation! Well....no. Not really. In reality, UC Berkeley is ranked #1. Where does Texas weigh in? Not until #15. California has three schools in the top 10. (UCSD, UC Berkely, and UCLA). The only ranked colleges? UT-Austin and Texas A&M. (A&M is 24th) So...not only are the colleges more expensive, but only two in the entire state are ranked in the top 100 in the nation? Well, at least they're good values...well, two of them anyway. Rice and Texas A&M make it onto the list. Behind Stanford, Harvard, MIT and CIT. Oh well....at least Texas is consistent.

By this time, if it's not already obvious, something needs to be done about the education system in Texas. The first thing would be to try to get more kids graduating from high school. Even if they never go onto college, having a workforce with at least a high school education is much better than having one with no education at all. Another thing Texas needs to do is to try to get the tuition it's schools charge under control. Having tuition go up over 50% in 4 years isn't just high-it's ludicrious. "But where will the money come from?" you ask? "Why can't they just get by with what they have?" Well....here's an idea. Income Tax. Texas has none. Wait-i know what you're going to say. "You just want to take my hard earned money." Well...yes. And pay for things that go for the common good. Unless you'd rather Texas stay permanantly in the basement with the lowest percentage of people over 25 with high school diplomas. But hey, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

My Kool-Aid? Right.....

Wow....it's amazing what happens when journalistic integrity goes out the window. Oh wait-they're not journalists, are they?
In an article from Urban Grounds, the website (which actually doesn't link to any news organization-it just links to another blog...way to go firsthand reporting) claims that the Obama campaign unfairly kicked out three "major newspapers" that endorsed McCain, and went on to wonder "is this the kind of thing that would happen during an Obama administration?" (right....cause it's not like Bush ever restricted the press's access to him) The three newspapers? The Washington Post, New York Post, and Dallas Morning News. Pretty scary, huh? Three big newspapers kicked off the airplane that all endorsed McCain?
(link here)


Not exactly. Go to the link they provide (here) and you'll find that it's the Washington Times, not the Washington Post. Difference? oh, about 570,922 readers. The New York Post (which is owned by Rupert Murdoch of the Fox News persuasion) has a readership of 724,728 which admittedly is pretty big....unless you look at the New York Times readership (which we're counting as weekday readers, not weekend) is 1,077,256. Wow-it sounds like the Obama campaign just wanted the largest newspapers of the cities on it's plane...not a scandal. The Dallas Morning News, reaching 368,313 probably has the bad fortune of not being in a battleground state. And where did i pick up these nefarious numbers? Umm...wikipedia. Oh, and by the way...even though the New York Post has around 700,000 readers, it's the 3rd largest paper in New York...behind the Times and Daily News. Ooops.
links:
1) Washington Post
2) Washington Times
3) New York Times
4) New York Post
5) Dallas Morning News

Yeah...this blog is definately aimed at conservatives. The author doesn't call Obama by his name-he calls him the "Chosen One". (who knows? maybe he's been watching a bit too much Matrix in his spare time) I wonder if he calls McCain "My Hero"? Who knows. Even if he's trying to smear Obama (which, yeah he is) he could at least try to get one or two credible arguments together. And the way he makes it sound, they will not be able to see Obama for the rest of the entirety of his campaign. Yes, the last...4 days. Since Obama's been campaigning for about a year and a half now, it doesn't seem that big a deal, does it? Maybe he needs some new arguments. You know, ones that don't sound like Republican talking points. But that's what happens in Reality. And as we all know, Reality has a well known liberal bias.

Do we value education?

It's a fact; almost no one likes paying taxes. But we need some way to pay for teachers, policement, and other services that we enjoy. The Austin American Statesman recently did an article on AISD Prop 1, which will raise the property taxes on houses in order to increase the pay for Austin's teachers. (link here: http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/10/16/1016schooltaxes_edit.html)
The editorial boards' intended audience are the registered voters of Austin who will be voting on this ballot measure. It is credible, since it is the editorial board of one of the biggest papers in Austin. The argument is sound as well, since they make the point that other school districts are hiring Austin teachers due to the lower pay in Austin. They make the point with figures, including showing how much of the property tax goes to the state, and how much goes to the Ausitn ISD.

I think that paying teachers more is a good thing, and that if the Austin ISD needs to raise taxes in order to pay teachers enough to keep them in the school, then that's what the voters need to do. The right teacher can make an otherwise mundane subject and make it interesting; conversly, an atrocious teacher can take a subject that might be interesting and turn it into the worst subject ever. Since the our future is our children, we need to make sure that they're able to compete with not only children in other states, but also with people around the world. Why can't the school just give the teachers a raise with the money they have, you may ask? Well, the school district has already done a lot to keep within their budgets. They kept it at the bare neccesities, such as maintaining class sizes, operating new schools, and adding programs for gifted and at-risk students. Their budget for the next year was only 1.4% higher than last years; the only way they could do that was to cut spending in areas. They want to increase the tax rate by 3.9 cents per $100 of valuation on houses.

By why should we pay more taxes? After all, property values are rising, which means that the school district should be getting more money, right? Wrong. The district is legally required to send most of the new money to the state under Texas' school financing law. The example the board gives is this; of a house costing $233,324, they would pay $252 more because home values went up. Of that, the Austin district gets to keep $35. The rest goes to the state. And its not like there is no competition for good teachers; Austin's teachers are getting hired out to other districts.

Teachers are integral in pushing students and getting them to discover their potential. Shouldn't we want the best? Do we want to only have the teachers that the other districts don't want? The castoffs? I think the students of Austin deserve better. And hopefully, if the teachers get a raise, they'll get it.