I agree with Helen’s comment about HB 3206, which would allow illegal immigrants a chance to get a permit to drive on Texas roads and have their vehicles insured.  This bill also states that the driving permit will be strictly for driving and it will not allow anyone the right to board planes, vote or have other rights and privileges that belong only to U.S. citizens. The person entitled to this permit will be fingerprinted, have a background check and pay a fee of about $150.00. I think that Texas’s roads would be definitely safer because the undocumented immigrants who will get driving permits would have to know the traffic laws, understand our roads signs in English and be forced to have insurance at all times. I have heard many stories about accidents where one of the people involved in the crash runs off because he or she is afraid of being caught without legal documentation and insurance.I believe this bill would prevent those kinds of situations.

 On the other hand, our police officers would have the fingerprints of this group of drivers and they would have the results of their background checks which will facilitate their job if they need to find or arrest any of these individuals. This bill doesn’t represent a change in their immigration status at all; it will only allow illegal immigrants the right to buy car’s insurance. This will also benefit the State in terms of finances after all. As Helen mentioned, “there are more than 1.6 million immigrants in the state of Texas and many of them drive”. If even a few of them decide to sign up for this, it will be worth it.

 

 

 

In one of my previous post, I talked about the perception of government’s authority among Hispanics in Texas. In order to better understand the influence of Latinos in future elections we should explore the steps that both political parties should take, in my modest opinion, to win over this rapidly increasing ethnic group. First, we must agree that a change in the eligible voter’s population doesn’t represent a change in likely voters. The number of new, non-white eligible voters in Texas may be very overwhelming, but not all those eligible voters truly go to the polls. This phenomenon makes us all question; what should Democrats do to get these voters excited enough to cast their vote on Election Day?? What should Republicans do to prevent Texas from going blue??

 One wild card may be an immigration reform. If Democrats can pass an immigration legislation that gives some undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship, millions of new minority voters might enter the electorate. If the Republicans remain firm in its existing position on immigration; Texas may be a Democratic bastion as early as 2030. Democrats could speed the rate at which Texas become ready for action if they could rush the rise of Hispanic turnout rates.  One could argue that Republicans have managed to keep Latinos from the ballot boxes by not giving them enough issues that would demand an urgent response from the Hispanic community. I firmly believe that Republicans cannot afford to lose Texas, especially if they don’t pick up something else that is evenly substantial. If Republicans lose Texas because of their immigration style or their negligence to issues affecting Latinos; they are not very likely to find success in other parts of the country where they are not already succeeding.

However, it’s not just immigration that has become a problem when trying to attract Latinos’ votes. The Texas legislature recently passed a law that requires voters to have a photo ID. Many Hispanics find that the requirement discriminates against minorities, who are less likely to have a driver's license and can have a rough time getting one. Those are just the main aspects each party should strongly consider as the first steps to take to appeal to the Hispanic population in Texas. The party that manages to do a better job and play the better cards in the next elections considering the interest of the Texas Hispanics will certainly have a fair advantage to win.

 

 

 

 

I absolutely agree with this post about the ban of plastic bagsin the city of Austin. As a proud resident of this city that has some of the best grocery stores in the country  and are the home base of Whole Foods market as an example; I find it pretty inconvenient to pay for a reusable bag whenever I forget to bring one to the grocery store. The problem would be a lot simpler if it was just a case of convenience we were discussing but this new law also represents an  added cost to many families for that trip to Walt-Mart or H.E.B as they now need to spend some extra dollars for bags in order to carry the groceries home. In many other cities where this law has been implemented  businesses have seen an increase in shoplifting as a consequence of the bag ban; costing grocery store thousands of dollars, a problem they didn’t have to deal with beforehand. As one could assume, it’s easier to hide  items in your reusable bag than it would be in an empty grocery cart.

There is also a health concern that  environmentalists have forgotten to address with these reusable bags. When you load your bag full of groceries  there can be something that falls off or leaks that may go unnoticed  when you empty your bag.  In a plastic bag, that’s not a big problem . Nevertheless, with a reusable bag even if you think you have wiped  it up with a paper towel ,there is very likely  to be some of those germs left over . This facilitates the spread and growth of bacteria that can contaminate the other items.

I also believe that forcing us  to use reusable bags takes away from our freedom as individuals to decide whether we want to use this plastic bags or not. It's a pretty  intrusive regulation, and not a good one. I have high hopes for it to get repealed in a near future.

 

How do minority groups in Texas perceive government’s authority and influence? Is it pure hindrance as Republicans portray it? Or is it the instrument aimed to provide the help and reforms Latinos urge so much? Republicans, who are characteristically conservative, defend the idea of not too much government’s intervention in local affairs. They see Uncle Sam as “the problem” no “the solution.” Nevertheless, this central republican idea is rapidly growing irrelevant to a very relevant constituency in Texas. Hispanics do not see Washington as an obstacle but as a helper.  During the most recent elections the biggest percent of the Hispanic vote has gone to the Democratic Party. This is due in part to the belief among Latinos that the Blue Party will favor more federal programs of assistance for minority families. This idea tends to win Democrats the Hispanics vote as it is surprisingly the economic factor the main concern among Latinos and not an immigration reform. Should Republicans change their tactics?  Would that mean to betray the ideology the party has been based on? Probably; because to imagine a liberal republican is like to imagine an aggie befriending a longhorn.

However; I think the Democrats are somehow taking for granted the Hispanic vote in Texas. Democrats should recruit more Hispanic candidates because many Hispanics sense the party does not care enough about electing more Hispanic officials and having more representation in the local government. As the Latino population continues its accelerated growth in Texas there is definitely more room for the Democrats to play the field. Recent surveys show that second and third generation of U.S born Latinos tend to think more liberally and support the legalization of abortion and gay marriage to mention a few examples. As the years go by this new generation will consequently think differently; they may stick with their parents’ favorite party or they may not. It’s a matter of a few decades and hopefully the Republicans will focus more on reforms intended to support this growing ethnic group instead of blaming Washington and every “faulty federal program.”

 The editorial “Is Straus more powerful than Craddick?” found in the political blog “Voice in the Wilderness” since last Sunday March 18^th, discusses the latest gambling legislations in Texas. The author, Paul Burka analyzes how neither racetracks nor casinos can agree on a fair strategy to bring gambling to our state. Mr. Burka exposes the billion dollars Texas loses to border state casinos in Oklahoma, New Mexico and Louisiana because we cannot offer a competitive market. According to the writer, Texas has recently allowed the presence of slot machines at racetracks. Unfortunately, there are many more amenities that come with full-scale casinos such as: shows, food, lodging, shopping, etc. that cannot be substituted with a few video lottery terminals. Mr. Burka proposes that the state of Texas should auction off licenses for full scale casinos as a viable solution that will lead to more economic development. This will surely put some good money in the state treasury and will create momentum for destination resorts. The author makes some good arguments to defend the legalization of gambling in Texas. He definitely makes a good point explaining the positive economic impact of such institutions. His main support comes from the fact that all of our border states have casinos; meanwhile Texas runs behind and loses quite a few well-needed billions. These states are using Texans’ money to fund their programs and it sounds like they have been pretty smart about it. On the other hand, I think Mr. Burka does not consider opposing arguments enough in order to sound more convincing. He talks about the probable benefits of having casinos in our land but he ignores that most plans that rely upon taking more money out of poor people's pockets is going to leave you poor as well. He ignores the vice gambling creates and the possibility of bankrupt for many.  Burka also attacks current Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives, Joe Straus. He argues that Straus is the greatest beneficiary from the failure of gambling legislation. This last argument is not backed up with any solid evidence or any other facts, which leaves the reader wondering about the real intention or purpose of such a serious accusation. Overall, Burka makes a general good point; which is the potential big revenues Texas will have if we legalize gambling. Nevertheless, he doesn’t consider Pros and Cons on the issue and his commentary is brief and dubious sometimes.

 

No more dollars for unused prison bunks

 

A recent article titled “Money misspent on prisons is money better spent elsewhere" was published by the Editorial Board of the Austin American-Statesman on February 11, 2013. This article exposes the 123 million dollars spent by Texas to lease beds from private prison companies. It summarizes that a current decline of the crime rates in the state along with a different approach to reform offenders have caused about 10,000 bunks to go unused in the state prison system. However, Texas still pays 3.1 billion dollars per year to maintain these facilities. As many expect the crime rates to continually decrease within the next few years, we question the reasons why we destine such a large amount of money on unused cells. The article cites John Whitmire of Houston, chairman of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee who explains, “We need to use taxpayers’ money to fight crime, on the public safety priorities of this state, rather than just on bricks and mortar that in some cases we don’t need.” A pretty reasonable statement as that money could definitely benefit in the fight against drug cartels so present in states neighbors to Mexico as Texas; just to mention one example. Others argue that closing a penitentiary means cutting jobs and it may have a very negative impact on the State economic development. Nevertheless, using so much money to keep prisons open doesn’t sound like an argument strong enough to justify not using this tax money in other programs that will help more our economy.  Public Education, Health Care and Public Safety are three major departments that will greatly benefit from some extra funds. To consider alternatives like shrinking the prison system or organizing its staff more smartly are good ideas to start saving some funds. The article offers some expert opinions on the subject and it also provides important ciphers. I believe the Austin American-Statesman’s team makes a pretty solid and well-supported argument addressing this situation. After all we want to see our money wisely spent on programs that will protect our homes on a more effective manner.  

 On the February issue of Texas Monthly this year, it was published an article titled "What nobody says about Austin".

 Who hasn’t heard the “Keep Austin weird" phrase? We are quick to say we live in a very progressive, liberal place that differs from all the other Texas cities; but do we really?  Austin is certainly a unique case in Texas and its prominent educational institutions make us all proud to call Austin the city we live in. However, there is a darker side to the story. If one does some research on the political representation of minorities in the Austin City Council, one could be very surprised. During the last 40 years, ”half the city council members and fifteen of seventeen mayors have been from four zip codes west of I-35, an area that is home to just a 10 % of the city’s population.” To date, Gus Garcia has been the only Hispanic mayor Austin has known throughout history. This physical division occurs along the Interstate-35. This highway divides the West area as home to a more exclusive, accommodated white class; and the East area as home to a more diverse class, with a majority of Blacks and Hispanics.  This phenomenon has its origins back in the early 1900’s, when a city plan proposed concentrating all services for black residents—parks, libraries, schools—on the East side of the city. It may be too strong of a statement to consider Austin as a segregated city. Maybe this day and age it is more socioeconomic reasons than race. Low income families typically means minority, doesn’t always, but reality generally is that way. Nevertheless, it would be a little ignorant to forget that urban areas where the City Council is elected on an at-large basis are pretty good examples of cities that don’t want minorities to have representation. Frankly, I believe that Austin falls short to celebrate multiculturalism. It sounds more like a group of white people sitting around talking about diversity.