Someone tell me why

In response to "If you can't fix the problem, feed it", I could not agree more or put this article in better words. I believe that it is harder to become an American citizen than it has to be and it gives people who aren't American more incentive to go against the law to have a chance in our country. If the process to become an American citizen was easier, then there wouldn't be such a problem or controversy over people crossing the border or coming over illegally, lots of issues would be solved by just making the process easier. If immigration status didn't matter to get a driver's license, then why is it so hard to actually become a citizen? You would think to help both issues that the government would find a compromise to allow immigrants to obtain a driver's license if they are able to prove that they are in the process of becoming a citizen. I believe this would be a great solution instead of just being lazy and bypassing the system. And I agree with the statement " Making it a better deal for someone to break the law is ridiculous. We need to fix the problem and allow people who want to work come and work and start paying taxes." Why would anyone want to do it the right way when they can get what they want cheaper and easier where they don't have to obey the law? I could not agree more with this article and I believe that the government should look into how their rulings will come across to Texan citizens, as it will affect our daily life if this bill is passed. 

Senate Bill 376 - help resolve hunger issues in Texas among children

The poverty among families with children in Texas is substantially increasing. This means that children are becoming more malnourished which deprives their brain of important energy needed to learn during school.  Offering free breakfasts to all interested students in low-income areas, not just to those who qualify under federal guidelines, is a program that some state legislators are trying to expand to schools in poor neighborhoods across Texas. Under the School Breakfast Program, which began in 1966, children whose household income below 185 percent of the federal poverty line are eligible for a low-cost school breakfast; those below 130 percent receive free breakfasts. The federal government reimburses the school for each meal served. The breakfast program, and a similar one for lunches, is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Senate Bill 376 would require schools to offer free breakfast to all students at public schools where 80 percent of the student body qualifies for free or reduced price meals. Research has shown that students who eat breakfast are better able to concentrate and do better in school. An estimate of the impact of the bill says that this bill could ensure a morning meal for as many as 731,000 children. Senator Lucio says “It has been shown that providing access to nutritious food increases students' concentration, and reduces students' absences and discipline problems." Celia Cole, CEO of Texas Food Bank Network, comments that with Senate Bill 376 “Children have better test scores, better attendance, better behavior. So, in addition to being a great tool for fighting hunger and ensuring that kids get the nutrition they need to stay healthy and learn, it’s a proven education policy to boost academic achievement.”

Passage of Senate Bill 376 would cost neither the state nor school districts additional money. In fact, under this bill, because schools are receiving additional funding per meal and are serving more meals, the program becomes more cost effective for schools. Now passed out of the Senate Committee on Education, the bill moves to the full Senate for consideration. This bill should be passed, as it would help lower hunger in poverty stricken areas and it would increase the mental health of children who would otherwise be struggling in school to focus and strive to do their best.

Sonogram Law

The Sonogram Law: critique

First of all this article is a very controversial topic. Since I am in nursing school, we have learned a lot about abortions and the embryonic development and why the Sonogram Law was passed. I also have personal experience with the effect of this law as my aunt recently went through this process.  Here is a little info about abortions: The baby’s heart starts beating 18 days after conception. This is before most women even know they are pregnant. The baby is now a person with a heartbeat (old people have heart beats and they are considered a person so why shouldn’t babies?). The sonogram helps the mom to be 100% informed of her options and what her options will do, which is a doctor’s job (to 100% inform a patient of their options and the consequences of their options). Second, most women don’t know what they are seeing on a sonogram so it is nice to have explained what is on there.

In the third paragraph it is said “why does the state think it is their right to tell any woman what they want to do with their own bodies or tell doctors who are intelligent, certified and qualified who are there to help women make sound decisions on medical treatment/care?”. The state isn’t telling women what they want to do the woman has the choice to opt for the abortion or not after seeing the sonogram. And some doctors are not intelligent or qualified, in medical school they give everyone their certificate, those who barely passed with all C’s and made the passing grade on their board exams and the students who made straight A’s. Just because they have their certificate does not mean they are qualified or educated in that area. And also to be able to make sound decisions a woman has to know ALL the information about her choices, this is just enforcing that. On the note that some families make a very hard decision to end a pregnancy because they learn the child will not make it to full term, my mother was told I had a 90% chance of having downs syndrome or another very crippling disease. When I was born I was completely healthy with no complications. The test that they do to see if the baby will have a disease or defect has a 50% or greater chance of being wrong. No one knows if the baby will come to full term until the baby is actually born or is miscarried. If someone does not want to care for a baby, they don’t have to, they can always give it up for adoption, which is what my aunt did.

“Typically when a woman goes in to have an abortion she is already pretty clear on what she is going in there to do”. Wrong. Many women go into abortions because they are pressured, they don’t go in there understanding that their baby is going to be ripped apart limb by limb or burned with sulfuric acid. Many of the women who go in to have abortions aren’t even women. Most of them are girls who accidentally got pregnant and are scared to have a baby. Second of all, hearing someone’s heartbeat is the most peaceful sound one can hear it is the most reassuring sound a family member can hear. Hearing someone’s heart beat that is close to you and is about to die is reassuring is it not? What about someone who is living? It’s still reassuring. Third, the procedure is not invasive. They rub jelly on your stomach and run a little computer thing over the jelly. It’s about as uninvasive as it gets, way less invasive than the actual abortion where they reach inside you and inject your baby with acid that burns them or tears their limbs off. 

The government is not telling women they can or can’t have an abortion; they are just making sure the woman is informed of her options. They are not telling the doctors how to do the abortion or what medicines to give the woman they are putting an extra step in place before the woman goes through with the abortion. Women need to understand that if they don’t want to get pregnant the only way to ensure that is through abstinence. Otherwise you take the risk of getting pregnant and if you don’t want to have to deal with the sonogram issue then just don’t get pregnant. It’s simple. Also, how have they made it impossible for women to seek medical attention who are either low income or without insurance? Almost 50% of people are on government insurance which means that they can get a lot of things paid for. And you can get financial plans and lots of options for paying for an abortion. So they haven’t made it almost impossible, where did you even see that?

To conclude, this law has been put into place because of good reasons. It should be kept in place. 

Please don't make my buy ANOTHER reusable bag because I forgot mine

A big issue in Austin today is the ban on retailers providing customers with plastic bags. There are mixed feelings as to if this ban is necessary, or if it is just another way of the government trying to take away our rights.  According to NACS, “retailers must only provide plastic bags thicker than 4 millimeters, paper bags made with 40% recycled content or reusable cloth bags”. Many customers have been surprised with the change and leave stores with loose groceries in their shopping carts and cars.

The ban has not been a good decision so far and should be repealed immediately. If not repealed then major changes need to be made to the ban. An issue that is concerning to some citizens is that the city of Austin wants us to use reusable bags, but they won’t supply them for free. People are already going to the store because they are purchasing products; they don’t want to have to now pay to buy bags to carry their products in. NACS says, “Walmart now charges 10 cents for paper bags with handles and 50 cents for reusable bags. At H-E-B, the first bag is now free, while additional bags cost 25 cents each”.

Shouldn’t individual citizens be able to decide if they want to use plastic bags or not? Isn’t it our right to decide that for ourselves? From The Austin American Statesman, Republican state Rep. Drew Springer declared “the ban a violation of every Texan’s basic right to carry home groceries and whatnot in a plastic bag”. He recently filed House Bill 2416 “The Shopping Bag Freedom Act”. Springer’s argument does not only come from the concern for citizen’s rights, but also concern for their health. Springer states, “Austin’s ban not only tramples on freedom but also threatens the public’s health, since bag bans force shoppers to rely on reusable bags, which they rarely wash. Dirty bags mean nasty and potentially deadly bacterial growth”.

I believe that the plastic bag ban should be repealed. Now I don’t know if the ban will be repealed or kept, but the government should look into the fact that they are requiring us citizens to do something we may not want to do which takes away our freedom. Also, they need to realize what using reusable bags will do for our health. 

Health care and gun control? Please tell me our country hasn't gone this corrupt

In If Obamacare is Upheld, written by James Johnson, the issue of individual mandating of health insurance and gun ownership is discussed. Johnson says “There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees a citizen the right to health care. In contrast, the Second Amendment guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.” These two sentences are the basis for the entire article, which discusses how Obama is doing the opposite of what he should, which is not mandate that every citizen should have to purchase healthcare, but to allow everyone to own a gun. Johnson says, “Murder fell in Chicago by 14%, robberies using guns fell by 25% and assaults using guns fell by 37%”; these percentages were given after Supreme Court’s Heller decision affirming Second Amendment rights.  

Johnson believes that “if the government can make us buy health care insurance against our will, there is nothing to stop them from mandating purchase of a firearm.” Johnson’s argument is clear and is backed by evidence in the Constitution and also with accurate statistics. I agree with all the statements that Johnson has made so far: citizens of the US should not be mandated to purchase health care insurance but that our right to bear arms and own a gun should be kept. 

Cut Federal Spending Responsibly

The Editorial Board of the Austin American Statesman recently wrote the article Cut federal spending responsibly to the citizens of Texas in response to the fiscal crisis and budget cuts that are about to take place by the Federal Government. The Editorial Board claims that sequestration is a harmful way to put the nation’s fiscal house in order. Sequestration is the “name for $85 billion in automatic across-the-board budget cuts scheduled to take effect March 1”, and is the plan that President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats and Republicans came up with to cut domestic and defense spending. The Editorial Board informed Texans of how the negative impact of sequestration could potential cost the Arm bases Fort Hood and Fort Bliss 30,000 employees and $180 million in pay. Fort Hood’s share of reductions could total to $291 million. According to the Editorial Board, the sequester would also put tens of thousands of non-defense-related Texan jobs at risk. The hit to public education in response to the sequester could reach $517 million.

The Editorial Board’s logic is sound; it is backed up by a multitude of research that is 100% relatable to the article. They give real life examples of how the sequestration and budget cuts will affect the lives of Texan citizens. The argument was presented very well and allowed the reader to be informed and make their own opinion instead of trying to force their opinion down our throats.  I agree with the Editorial Board on a few things: that our federal government should rethink the budget cuts and how they will affect each state, and that the government should try to find our state jobs instead of taking them away. The numbers in this article are hard to ignore and the impact of the budget cuts will be quite significant on Texas.

Liquor Stores Open on Sundays

For many years, liquor stores could legally be open on Sundays from noon to 9 pm. In the article Bills Would Let Liquor Stores Open on Sundays on www.texastribune.org, author Elena Schneider informs citizens of State Sen. Juan Hinojosa and Rep. Senfronia Thompson decision to file companion bills that would eliminate state laws limiting liquor sales on Sundays and also extend Monday – Thursday sales from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. The bills would supposedly generate $7.4 million in revenue. The legislation would not require liquor stores to open on Sundays, but the competition would force all stores to be open. Surprisingly, the opponents against the bills are liquor stores themselves. David Jabour who is president of Twin Liquors in Austin states “We won’t generate enough sales to handle the change”. Main supporters who are mostly alcohol distributors argue that “sales and tax revenue boost would make up for any other costs”. The author notes that similar bills have come before the Legislature in the last three sessions, but none have made it out of committee.

The impact on the small business liquor stores in Texas is why this article is important. Citizens should be informed of the consequences (good or bad) that come with having liquor stores open all day on Sundays. If the bills are passed, many liquor stores may be forced to close because not enough revenue is being generated, or the outcome could generate millions as the alcohol distributors suggest. I personally believe that the liquor stores themselves would know whether or not if being open longer on Sundays would generate more revenue than the distributors.