Unfair Welfare

Fellow classmate Kelya writes about her experience with government welfare programs.

She talks about her own experiences working at a grocery store, with an irate couple relying on their food stamp card and mismanaging their resources, as well as many people using their food stamps to purchase large quantities of junk food. She goes on to say that the government should be more careful in choosing who to assist in order to avoid allowing lazy people to live off of welfare funds.

I tend to agree. It is not to our benefit, or to society's benefit as a whole, to essentially reward people for doing nothing. My own opinion on the matter is perhaps far more extreme, but I wouldn't be heartbroken to see welfare programs disappear entirely. To me, the most important thing is always the benefit of society as a whole. If some people can't support themselves, the government should not step in to prop them up. They can either stand on their own legs, or rely on the support of people who care about them. But if they can't do that, and if nobody cares about them, then they serve no benefit to society, and it shouldn't fall on us to support them.

It is a sad outlook to think about. I recognize that. But I truly believe that abolishing government welfare programs would be the greatest benefit to society as a whole, and because of that, it is the right thing to do.

Not So Intelligent

In March 2009, the Texas State Board of Education voted to adopt requirements that students examine "all sides of scientific evidence," among other things. While this sounds innocent enough, it arises from the ongoing evolution vs. creationism debate(or "Intelligent Design" as they call it now.) In reality, it serves as an attempt to create uncertainty among students about the theory of evolution, as well as open the door for creationist attacks on evolution in school textbooks.

This is a problem because it singles out and tampers with the theory of evolution for nonscientific reasons. I'm not saying it's a bad thing for evolution to be questioned. It's a good thing for the theory of evolution, just like any other scientific theory, to be examined, questioned, and revised if necessary to match conflicting proofs and stay aligned with empirical evidence. That is how science works, after all. But to require it be viewed under a magnifying glass of uncertainty on an ideological basis, rather than a scientific one, is absurd.

What can we do about it? For now, as Texas voters, we can participate in elections and make sure we're electing the right people to the State Board of Education in the first place. But the board has had a history of controversy, including a more recent revision of history textbooks that removes or alters some key figures in American history. Some argue that they're introducing a right-leaning bias, while others argue that they're removing a left-leaning bias that was already in place. While I don't pretend to have an informed opinion on that particular subject, it seems clear to me that, in the State Board of Education's present form, partisan debates will always enter the academic world. Sooner or later, the board needs to be revised or abolished. We need a better way to represent and regulate the academic interests of Texas.

Computerize!

Fellow classmate Dave writes about school textbooks and Governor Perry's proposal to abandon traditional textbooks in favor of computer technology. The post seems to wander a bit across multiple related topics, but he makes some good points and logical conclusions.

He starts by talking about Perry's proposal and the implications of it. With a transition to computer technology and eBooks, materials would be saved on the distribution of the textbooks themselves, but every student would require convenient access to their own laptops. He argues that it's a transition that we should eventually strive to make, but that at the current level of funding in place for schools, it would not be affordable. I tend to agree. I'd like to emphasize, however, the importance in implementing it in a way that's convenient for the students. If eBook access is in any way less convenient than a traditional textbook, then it's going to hinder education.

He then goes on to look at the unusually large prices of school textbooks. Clearly the books themselves aren't expensive to manufacture, so even with eBooks being more easily distributed, prices likely wouldn't drop. He argues that the high prices come as a necessity to the publishers in maintaining profits in an outdated business model.

While his post seems to wander a bit, it's clear that he took a very comprehensive look at the topic in order to come up with logical, reasoned conclusions, and it's well worth reading.

Taxes in Texas

Texas is one of the few states in the country with no state income tax. Instead, the state government gets its money through sales tax. Why is it that most states, as well as the federal government, turn to income tax? Why don't we? Well, actually, our approach seems better to me.

Taxes can serve two purposes: to generate revenue for the government, or to discourage certain types of spending. With income or sales tax, generating revenue is absolutely the focus, and the goal should be to avoid disrupting spending patterns as much as possible. The economy naturally wants to grow, and disruptions will hinder that.

How do the consequences of income and sales taxes differ? The most significant difference, perhaps, is that income taxes apply to investments while sales taxes do not. Income taxes therefore discourage investment, which I believe makes it a detriment to economic growth. Additionally, income taxes will tend to fluctuate more for a given individual; for example, if a wealthy person is temporarily unemployed, they will pay no taxes during that time, whereas that same person would continue to pay sales tax.

Sales tax seems far less disruptive to the economy, and I'm glad we've taken the right approach in Texas. So again, I ask: Why is it that income tax is so widely used in other states?

TexasFred on Health Care

We all know about the recent health care bill that was passed. TexasFred talks about the states opposing the legislation, why they should oppose it, and why we should support them. Not just in Texas, but across the nation.

The article is aimed at convincing the general population, the readers of his blog, to support the push by states against the health care bill. His main argument centers around a CNN poll that says that 59% of Americans oppose the bill. He argues that it is the responsibility of congress to enact the will of the people, and that the health care bill should not have been passed and should be repealed as soon as possible because it opposes the will of the people. He doesn't really explain what legal basis the states have for opposing the bill, but with the goal of convincing readers that some form of action should be taken, his argument is solid. He goes on to say that concerned citizens should contact their Attorney General to support the move against the bill.

Fred's argument is compelling. If the majority of Americans oppose the bill, and it gets passed anyway, then the government is clearly working against the will of the American people. If the national government will not fight to support the will of the people, then that responsibility falls on our states -- and it is the responsibility of the people to support them as well.

I'm Feeling Lucky

Google is looking to build and test high-speed fiber optic connections in a small number of trial locations across the United States. The Austin American Statesmen editorial board talks about why Austin should be chosen. The article is aimed at the general population of Austin, and the goal is to rally their support, because community support is one of the elements that will influence which cities are chosen.

The authors argue that Austin is a good choice because it's a high-tech city with a lot of infrastructure in place that would make the overall process easier, in addition to having a very strong community. At first glance this argument seems to sidestep the main goal of the article, discussing the advantages for Google rather than the advantages for the population of Austin, but it does serve to persuade the audience that Austin deserves to be chosen. This seems to be the central argument of the article. The authors also briefly discuss the benefits that Austin would receive by being chosen, which appeals more directly to the audience, but this argument seems to take somewhat of a back seat.

In conclusion, it is a well written article with well presented arguments. A bigger emphasis on the benefits for the audience probably would've been helpful, but the authors do a good job explaining why Austin deserves to be chosen, and in that sense, the article succeeds in rallying the support of the readers.

Jobs in Austin

The Austin American Statesman writes about the state of jobs and the economy in Austin. The author talks about jobs lost, as well as the new job opportunities coming in from Facebook and Yingli Green Energy Americas Inc.

Interestingly, while the country as a whole is suffering from somewhat of a recession, Austin seems to be standing strong. I think the article is well worth reading because the author talks not just about the state of jobs in Austin, but exactly why it is that Austin can stay afloat successfully in the middle of a recession. Take a look.