Guilty Until Proven Innocent

           A commentary on Dominic's post entitled "The Jury's Out" from the blog "TX: Affairs of the State." To start off, I believe this was a great subject to write about. I've always wondered what the consequences when you wrongfully accuse a person. Also, what does the court system do when they were wrong when locking up an innocent person.
            
           It disgust me when a prosecutor will go this far to unfairly win a case. For someone with this authority to practice unethical procedures to gain an unfair advantage is clearly pathetic. I can't believe Ken Anderson was given the right to pass judgement on others after an act like this. Prosecutor misconduct is a serious problem and its barely being noticed. I'm glad that Texas has adopted a convection review committee for those who may be wrongfully imprisoned. Preventatives such as this will help prevent wrongful death penalties and wrongful imprisonment. The disclosure laws should help with withholding evidence that should be presented to pursue an ethical outcome. The goal of the courts should be that of proving of innocence as much as proving of guilt.

         This article was informative and meaningful. I believe that Texas should take this further though. The prosecutor should be held personally responsible for a wrongful imprisonment since they cannot be sued in a civil case. Accountability should level the playing field for defendants. I've read of states who award the falsely convicted with money but lets face it, there's no returning those lost years. The proper preventatives must be implemented to stop this unfair justice.

A Boy Named Sued

                     
             I was wondering what to complain about this week and came across a little known thing called "arbitration." This ambiguous phrase is a very important factor when signing any type of contract. In this argument, I'm speaking of forced arbitration. Arbitration, in general, waives the rights of consumers or employees to settle a dispute in a civil court. On top of that, people are being stripped of their rights to sue as a class. What does this have to do with Texas? Any state that claims to be "business" friendly, will be using this practice one way or another.

             First off, one of my main concerns about arbitration is the ignorance that surrounds it. Why is that? The less you know the better for the business. You're thinking, "I've never seen any arbitration", and that's my point exactly. 64% of consumers don't have any recollection of seeing any arbitration. Even if they saw some sort of paper work, they were ill informed. If you have a credit card, bank account, cell phone, or even cable and Internet, you were more than likely subjected to an arbitration clause. Surveys show, 75% of most companies have some sort of arbitration. Now when I say ignorance, I mean that for the business as well. Most associates or representatives that work for these companies don't have the slightest idea of what an arbitration is. In some cases, employees aren't properly trained or informed. If you were to see the paper work, you could swear it was a separate contract itself. Pay close attention next time your signing a contract. Forced arbitration gives the consumer an ultimatum, give up your right or don't receive services.

             So what does this mean for consumers? The consumer is having his rights to sue a company  for any disputes in a traditional court and are unable to form a class action lawsuit. In a nutshell, the consumer must take action in a mediation that is payed for by the company whom you are suing. The consumer must face an arbitrator who is hired by the company. His job is to act as a judge in the case. The catch is, the arbitrator is paid by the company you are suing as well. So who do you think the arbitrator is going to side with? More than 90% of arbitrators side with the company. This leaves barely any room for accountability in the business. Also, arbitration can be backwards justice. In some cases, the company is allowed to sue you but not vise versa. 79% of consumers expect to sue a company is there's any disputes. That's going to be a rude awakening, especially for the every day Texan.

            In conclusion, the consumer is denied his rights to fix a situation, which in turns makes it difficult to regulate proper ethics. More education for employees and full disclaimer would level out the playing field. The company should offer an opt out at all times. I understand that arbitration was set up to be efficient and low costing, but it really just puts the consumer at the company's mercy with policies like these.

Sanger Management

    A commentary on David Werner's editorial.So, Texas does it again huh? We should adopt the slogan "The Anti-Funding State." This makes you wonder where all the money goes. This was a great article and very informative. I wasn't aware that planned parenthood depended on the state for half its funding. I'm sure you weren't surprised, like myself, to find that this over conservative state would reject such funding, but that's the simple way out. Let me state that I am for Planned Parenthood funding. Problem is, I understand the opposition to this subject. First and foremost, Planned Parenthood is finding it hard to separate from the social politics that were made popular by founder Margaret Sanger. Sanger believed in eugenics. Eugenics is the process of eliminating those who are found unfit by denying access to reproduce. This was her way of social cleansing. This multiplied by the 3 percent abortion service is enough to spark controversy and "conspiracies." Does Texas believe in this connection? I'd say maybe, that and the 3 percent abortion service is enough to set off the religious extremist . It's sad seeing a program that benefits so many women be hit like this. As long as they offer that 3 percent service they will always be under scrutiny by the Christian Republicans in any state.

S.S. Education

        In my first original editorial, Ive decided to focus on a sinking ship called education. It stumps me on how one of the most populous states in the country has some of the lowest rankings in education. Texas has a mass amount of people, you can figure that funding from taxes is abundant. Could it be misuse of funding? Is it terrible leadership? And foremost, who should be held accountable?

       While searching further in the subject, I was shocked to find out that Texas ranked 50th in percent of the population with high school diplomas. A quarter of Texans are walking around without a diploma. I can sit and wonder how difficult it is to find employment without the basic high school diploma. Texas is #6 in the nation in student growth. This will lead to even more uneducated adults in the future if rates stay the same. We have some people graduating at least. If you call 68% graduation rate successful. 68% wouldn't even pass an exam in my shoes, why should Texas be let off so easy? Also, with an insult to injury, Texas is ranked nearly last when it comes to verbal and math SAT scores. The test scores opinions are usually subjected to the teachers. Lets just blame the teachers and everything will eventually play out. Ask yourself this, what kind of teachers do you attract being ranked 33 in the nation in teacher salaries. All the good teachers are obviously going to go where the money is.

      Furthermore, funding for education is slowly declining as we speak. From what Ive been reading, Governor Perry has made budget cuts very well known. Governor Perry has also been known to under fund education. Thousands who are employed by the education system stand to lose their jobs. This scares me for the fact that, Texas has an average student population growth of about 11 percent a year. Texas having this much of a growth should have teacher growth at the priority of its list. The more students per classroom has shown lower test scores. This has lead to believe the students aren't receiving the individual attention that is required to fully educate.

      Another one of my concerns is, what's a high school graduation success rate when higher education is also a mess? Students attending colleges in Texas has increased throughout the years, which is great, but the cost of education has climbed right along with it. The average tuition fees have increased by 50 percent compared to 12 years ago. With this comes a decrease in help when it comes to federal funding. This is putting students in a bigger bind. Limited funding is forcing students to get student loans which puts them into debt. This leads me to believe that this debt could scare future students from attending college. Some students believe its more logical altogether to just skip high school or college and go straight into the work force. This could be the source of low graduation rates in Texas.

Let's take a hike to Tax Mountain

        In my recent search for a blog, I fell upon a site called "EmpowerTexans". I came across an article written by Dustin Matocha. I typically avoid Republican publications but I figured that I would expand my mind a bit and give the right wing writers a chance. What caught my eye was an article titled "Tax Hikes When You Least Expect Them." Clearly the author's target audience are the tax payers, conservatives, and voters. The question is, what tax hikes?

        The author is expressing concern on the Tax Ratification Elections. What in the world is that? That is exactly the problem he is addressing. Tax Ratification Elections, also know as TRE's, are elections held for school districts that are contemplating an increase on property tax. You think to yourself, well it's for education so it can't be that bad. I am all for max budgeting for education, but the problem is how they are purposing these taxes. According to the article, school boards are only required to hold elections 30 to 90 days after they adopt the new tax rate. So in turn, school districts take advantage of this legal window. School districts are selecting dates for elections on days that voters are least likely to expect them. I believe the author has a valid argument, if the evidence is accurate, because only 3 out of 42 school districts are holding TRE's on November 6th. This is a date that the majority of the voters are showing up. Texas has a 50 to 60% turnout for presidential elections, as for a 10% turnout for local elections. If the voters were more informed in the TRE's, I'm sure we would see a larger turnout next time TRE's are held.

        I believe the author made a good point. He also surprised me that I was actually interested in such a conservative article. In all, the purpose of this article is to reform Tax Ratification Elections to where it's fair for the voters who are going to paying these taxes. Also, to set up an official date for when these elections be held.

The Budget HoeDown

My recent search for an editorial had led me to the Dallas Daily Newspaper. There I came across an editorial named "Texas Budget Gimmickry", where you can view here http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20121002-editorial-texas-budget-gimmickry.ece. The underlying argument I believe is questioning the legitimacy of Governor Rick Perry's Budget Compact. Perry's budget plan has 5 main credentials which are: Truth in budgeting, constitutional limit spending, oppose any new taxes or increases in taxes, preserve a strong Rainy Day fund and cut unnecessary and duplicate government programs. All these are which strong believes in most conservative values.

          The author raises a fair question for his target audience which I believe to the more liberal and concerned tax payers. I can see why he would bring a question of legitimacy because budget specialists have testified that people with advanced degrees have trouble tracking funds in a budget, let alone the average tax payer or legislator. What does this say to me? Perry's plan could just be a shot in the dark and actually hurt us by being too conservative. Perry's plan is to restrict constitutional spending would push cost to local governments while not investing properly to set up a stable economic future. This in turn will force local governments to tax more to fill in the gaps. Texas Democratic Caucasus has called this plan "fiscally irresponsible".

          Another issue the author raised was where the cuts were going to be made. Two sectors that were pointed out are the public schooling system and highway funding. The integrity in the cut backs is being challenged because of the siphoning of taxes from the special purposes fund to the general fund. The general fund is the budget that pays for the expenses and payrolls of government officials. Officials are being paid with money that was intended to solve problems in certain specific sectors. For example, $1 billion of the highway fund was used for other services, forcing North Texas to build major highways with toll financing. Taxes and fees from fuel should be funding these projects. Constitutional limit of spending to the growth of population and inflation would under shoot necessary educational funding for new and unaccounted students. This in turn will force local government again to raise taxes to fill in the holes.

          This is an agreeable argument in my opinion. Perry believes he can fix the budget without raising taxes is a paradox to me. I understand that you can help by cutting spending but make sure they are the proper cuts. Some of the agencies he’s planning on cutting are already in a financial down slope. Perry praises that education is a priority when it comes to funding but continues to restrict funding; classic show of promise and dismiss. We continue to see bonuses and raises for law makers with a revolving system of failure to fix hardly any financial discrepancies. The author makes his argument acceptable but with further research I fully understood his stand point.

Perry Vs. The Uninsured

           According to The Statesman, Protesters gathered outside Governor Perry’s office Friday afternoon. The protesters were there to contest his decision to reject federal health funding provided by The Affordable Health Act. Uninsured Texans were angry at the refusal of $13 billion in federal funding. This in fact, would expand health coverage for up to 2.3 million hardworking Texans. Perry believes the Texas Medicaid system is broken and providing more aid for millions of Texans would financially ruin the state. One of the two reasons why I believe this article is important is because one in four Texans are uninsured. That turns out to be as much as 6 million people. This statistic puts Texas as the highest rate of uninsured people in the nation. Some argued that it was illogical and cruel to reject the funding in an already ill equipped health system. The other reason why I believe this was important is even with the rejection of the Affordable Care Act funding, Texans will still pay for it. While other states will be receiving government funding, we will be left with the bill. The worst part is we won’t be eligible for the help that we will be providing for others because of the refusal to cooperate with government funding.