In Response to Tuition Raises

My fellow classmate, Megan Harlow wrote an interesting blog on the current tuition raises in Texas. She states that "due to the bad economy in the past years and harsh budget cuts, Texas Universities and Universities around the United States are raising their tuition rates up to 20% a year." This issue concerns a lot of parents and students who cannot afford to send their young adults to a University. An alternative to attending a University, numerous students attend community colleges, Jr. Colleges, join the military or they just work right out of high school until they can afford to take classes.

The sad part about raising tuition is that for those who cannot afford to attend college most likely will not be able to find a good job because it is nearly impossible to get a great job with benefits without a college degree. On the other hand, it is said that someone who graduates from a University has a better chance getting a job than someone who graduates from a community college. This is a sore subject for me because I will probably be one of those students. My family is not poor but I am not about to expect my parents to fork up a bunch of money for a University when I can take the classes at ACC. It is really quite upsetting that people look down upon those who graduate from community colleges. Is it their fault they could not afford to to go a University? I don't think so.

Megan suggests that we can avoid this by "teaching their children at a young age and cross their fingers and hope for their child to receive a full ride." I agree with her because really, the only way to go to a University is to get a full ride scholarship. She also makes a good point when she talks about bank accounts decreasing due to so many loans being given out to pay for tuition. If the only way we can go to school is by taking out loans, then the banks will soon run out of money which will result in no loans being awarded and students not being able to attend college. ACC has actually already changed their financial aid application and put restrictions on it to prevent just anyone from getting a loan.

I am not really sure what the government can do to fix this tuition crisis but they need to do something fast. I also think that employers need to change their standards when it goes to applications. Who is to say that someone who graduates from a community college can't do whatever a University student does? It makes me so mad because you pretty much learn the same things, the only difference is that it says "University" rather than "Community College" on your diploma. We have enough to worry about with the budget crisis, why do they want us students to suffer from tuition raises too?

Megan wrote a very nice article on this issue and I agree with her argument: "Texas is hurting from money but soon so will many prospective students." It is a chain effect, if students can't go to school, they can't get a good job, if employers hire only college graduates, they will not have many employees. I do agree that employers should hire college graduates because they do have more experience and education. I am just thinking about hospitals...If they have two application...one saying they graduated from UT and one saying they graduated from ACC, they will most likely chose the applicant from UT. All I'm saying is that I think it is wrong to choose someone based on the school. Both applicants have to take the nursing exam, I don't see the point.

Texas Unemployment Rate Drops in October

In the Texas Tribune, an article titled "Texas Unemployment Rate Drops in October" stated that according to statistics released 11/18/11 by the Texas Workforce Commission, the Texas unemployment rate dropped slightly this month, from 8.5 percent to 8.4 percent. This unemployment rate still remains lower than the national unemployment rate, which also dropped from 9.1 percent to 9.0 percent in October.


Even though we have this improvement, the Texas economy is actually doing worse than it was this time last year, and as the national economy had improved, the Texas economy has failed to keep up. In October 2010, when the national unemployment rate was at 9.7 percent, in Texas it was at 8.2 percent.


In October the Texas job creation surpassed growth in the workforce, and from September to October, the unemployment rate dropped in all the metropolitan regions except Tyler.


Tom Pauken, chairman of the workforce commission stated in a press release, "private employers continue to invest their capital in the growing Texas workforce. The private sector has added an impressive 286,200 jobs since October 2010, for a growth rate of 3.4 percent."


The leisure and hospitality industry, which consists of many low-paying jobs, gained the most jobs in October: 14,900. Education and health services added more than 6,000 jobs for the third consecutive month. The mining sector, which consists of jobs like oil and natural gas excavation, also continued to grow, adding 4,500 jobs. However, other production industries in Texas, such as construction and manufacturing, declined by 12,800 and 1,000 jobs respectively.


Since August, Texas lost government jobs. Texas government at the federal, state and local levels has shed a total of 31,500 jobs. This includes an additional 11,000 government jobs lost in October.


As the Texas population grows, so does the need for more jobs. As long as the government jobs are shrinking and the private sector jobs are increasing, I am thrilled about this slight decrease on the unemployment rate.


I'm about to go a little crazy and perhaps off topic. This subject of unemployment has always made me pretty upset, just because I personally know family member who are struggling financially. Had so many people not stopped looking for work across the US, the unemployment rate would still be near 9.7%. Meanwhile, in Texas, the unemployment rate likely would have plummeted to under 5.5% had Texas not had to absorb so many economic refugees from other states. I have recently learned the whole idea of this unemployment rate. I learned that it reflects new people applying for unemployment, which means if you take that and reflect it upon the "job creation" or "new jobs" they cancel out and therefore unemployment is a lot higher than what most people think. A true unemployment rate includes those who have stopped looking for work + those on unemployment + those who haven't even applied for unemployment benefits yet.


 I understand that people get laid off and are out of work, however, I have a VERY hard time grasping the fact that people who just do not want to work can get unemployment. I have a family member who had several job opportunities and worked them for a couple weeks and just decided to quit and get on unemployment. I just have a hard time trust in people on unemployment. Even though it seems like a lot of work, all you have to do is say that you left your job for a "good cause" and based on that reason, that will determine whether or not you are eligible for unemployment benefits. Also, if your unemployment benefits run out, there are many other ways to apply for other benefits to receive government aid. It makes me kind of sick. Again, I understand those people who really do need the help and I completely support that, but for those who abuse the privilege, I have no sympathy for them, they need to go get a job.

Why Isn't Sex Education Taught in Schools?

I am responding to my colleague's blog post, "Sex Education in Schools" about why sex education is not being taught in Texas schools. Rebekah states that many other states are not teaching children about sex, but Texas is not. It was said that there is a feelings that by teaching kids about sex ed, we are basically giving them permission to have sex. Government officials think that sex education should be taught in the household not at school. Rebekah brought up the great point that the state complains about teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases but they do not do anything to try and prevent it.

She and I have a very similar view on this matter. I believe that sex education should be taught in schools. This article brought me back to the time when I was in middle school and we had to take a sex ed class. The videos and power point slides they show were so nasty that it kind of made you not want to have sex because of the vivid images they would show and learning about all the different diseases you can get. I think that kids most definitely need to be informed about all the consequences of sex.

Parents may think that teaching middle school students about sex is inappropriate because of their age but I actually think that is the best time to teach them. If you think about it, we are hearing more and more about middle school kids getting pregnant. Now this could be just because their parents aren't really caring about their kids enough to talk to them about sex. I think that a parent  who doesn't openly discuss the cautions and consequences of sex are not really parents, they need to care a little bit more about their kids.

Now I agree with Rebekah that if we teach students about sex, we are most certainly not giving them permission to have sex. On the other hand, kids are going to do what they want to do, regardless if they are taught. However, I do believe that if you teach them about sex, it will lower the amount of teen pregnancies in Texas. It might not completely stop the rate of pregnancies, but it will greatly decrease it.

On the money issue, I agree with Rebekah. It's like a chain effect; if you teach kids about sex, it will lower the pregnancy rate, which will save Texas money in the long run. The amount of money the state spends on abortion clinics, sexually transmitted disease treatments, etc would, in my opinion greatly go down. It will also save Texans money because we wouldn't be spending money on these things.

If the government wants something done about the teen pregnancy rate, they need to do something about it. They need to bring back sex education in schools so that your children will be able to learn all there is to learn about sex, what you can do to prevent it, and the consequences of having sex. Rebekah did a fantastic job addressing this issue and I wish that the government would feel the same way.

Use Common Sense, not lobby sense, on Prop 2

On October 25, 2011 an Agenda Wise article addressed the idea of this Proposition 2 plan which basically provides a credit line for water projects in Texas. On the previous day, Austin's KLBJ, TAB's Steve Minnick framed Prop 2 in terms, informing us that we need more water infrastructure if we expect to attract more businesses to the state. While this is true, the Prop 2 idea equates to us cutting off our nose and spite of our face, as one said.

Proposition 2 does not provide $6 billion for water projects, it provides a $6 billion credit line for water projects in Texas. Basically, this means that as soon as the water project is paid off, the amount that has been paid off can be used on another water project immediately without voter permission. This funding feature is called "Evergreen" and has only been used once before for veteran loans.

Steve Minnick said the state of Texas needs to spend $231 billion on water infrastructure over the next 48 years.Mathematically speaking, that is requiring almost $5 billion each year until the year 2060; seems a little too high. The article says that if the people who do these projects can convince us every year for the next 40 years that we need another $5 billion project, then we must really need it, but it would be quite stupid to say "yes" to all 48 $5 billion water projects in advance just because the lobbying arm of the people who will get these contracts has told us we need to spend this kind of money.

My thoughts are a bit conflicting, I'm kind of on the fence. Considering the drought we are in, Texas desperately needs to start making significant progress enacting the state water plan. Maybe the left over money from the water projects could be used for situations like this when we really need water, so I guess it could be beneficial to us if they really use the money to help us. As the population grows, the need for water also grows. Think about this, what is our future going to be like if we do not invest now in water supplies?

Investing in the water projects could be a good idea, on the flip side, the amount of money they are wanting to use for these projects is ridiculous (at least to me). Unless I knew that these water projects were legit and they were going to improve our state, I don't think I would want to contribute a dime. In the article it said that the amount that has been paid can be used on another water project immediately WITHOUT voter permission. I don't know about you but if I was giving money for these projects, I better know exactly what it is going for and who is to say that the left over money isn't going for other things besides water projects; $6 billion dollars is a lot of money to me. In the long wrong, Proposition 2 could be a good idea but I don't think it should require nearly the amount of money they are asking for. Although, I am not fully educated on exactly how much these water projects should cost versus how much they are going to cost.

Keeping May Elections Cost Austin Taxpayers

       An Empower Texans article written by WasteWatch on October 11, 2011 concerns the issue of the May elections costing Austin taxpayers. WasteWatch is suggesting that the Austin City Council does not care about reducing costs or increasing voter turn out. They apparently voted to keep their elections in May despite the amount of money it would save the taxpayers. The city would spend about $2 million by keeping the elections in May 2012, compared to the $900,000 they would spend by moving it to November 2012.
      
       The huge controversy was about how the council made this decision knowing it would be forced to cover the extra cost from a reserve fund and only $791,000 was budgeted for a May 2012 election. The voters were concerned with this because to them, keeping the elections in May shows that the city council is unresponsive to voter concerns. A poll released a week before this blog was posted shows that 75% of likely Austin voters support moving the elections to November.
      
       The Austin ISD Board of Trustees decided to move their elections to November, probably after feeling the disappointment of Austin voters regarding their city officials. The school board President Mark Williams stated: "This will substantially increase voter turnout and significantly reduce cost for the district. There's benefits in increasing access to voters, and part of a public school district is public involvement." WasteWatch was saying what does that say about the Austin City Council when even Austin ISD realizes this decision is a no-brainer? The Austin City Council was not thinking in the interest of taxpayers or increasing the electoral participation.
     
       The author's intended audience is all the taxpayers. Waste Watch has posted numerous blogs and is very knowledgeable on Government waste. I do not really see the effects of taxes for me just because I hardly know what is going on. I just know that taxes come out of my paycheck and you pay taxes on everything. Ignorant, maybe, but I do agree with this blog because we as taxpayers want to feel secure in supporting out Austin City Council, but when they do not take our concerns to heart it is very difficult to feel secure. People talk about how our state is so in debt, well if that was really a concern then why wouldn't you want to do everything you could to save money?

A bold ban on hiring smokers

 Health care providers are all about preventing smoking but Baylor Health Care System is taking actual steps. An article from the Dallas Morning News Newspaper announces that starting January 1, Baylor will no longer fire smokers at its North Texas facilities. They have pushed a stop-smoking program for staff members, and current employees. This idea for a ban in hiring smokers has been the most controversial step that Baylor has taken. Some of the questions being asked are why are smokers being targeted? Why would Baylor not want smokers but they will hire obese applicants?

Last year the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported that half of all long-term smokers, especially those who started as adolescents, will eventually die from their tobacco use. The use of tobacco is the leading cause of death in the country that can be prevented. Dr. Donald Berwick, head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services focused on that point during an interview. He stated that persuading people to stop smoking is a top priority of federal campaign to empower Americans to make lifestyle changes to prevent disease from taking affect.

Baylor is not the only institution in putting this "no smokers" hiring policy. Memorial Hermann Hospital in Houston and the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio have already done this same thing with minimal negative response and no lawsuits so far. This article states a good point saying that we are pretty much all talk when it comes to how important preventive health care is, but when it comes down to it, we are quick to put convenience or political correctness ahead of the hard choices that true health care requires.

The article provides the audience some facts and statistics about smoking; Smoking-related diseases claim an estimated 443,000 American lives every year. For every person who dies, 20 more people suffer from at least one serious smoking-related illness. Smoking cost the United States more than $193 billion in 2004, including $97 billion in lost productivity and $96 billion in direct health expenses. If you do the math, that's $4,260 per adult smoker. A few diseases caused by smoking include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary heart disease, stroke, cataract, etc.

I think everyone should read this because if this idea of smokers not being able to be employed becomes more popular, then people need to know in advance so they can determine what action they want to take. Either quit smoking, or have a hard time getting a job. The intended audience is probably the Baylor students and faculty members, as well as anyone applying to work with Baylor University. Dr. Donald Berwick is credible because he is head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. He believes that we should do everything we can to prevent people from smoking. I do agree with him because I am not a huge fan of smoking to begin with. There are many reasons why I think this idea of banning smoking in the work place is a good idea. Let's talk about faculty members working for any school; the rule is that you have to be a certain distance away from the school in order to smoke. I know of a teacher that has to get in her car and drive around the neighborhood in order to get her smoke in which could potentially lead to loss of productivity because smokers are taking frequent "smoke breaks." When that teacher comes back to work, unless they know how to get the stench out, they probably smell like smoke which looks very unprofessional, especially for a school. Now let's talk about the money side of the situation. The insurance rates for people who smoke are much higher than those who do not because they are at a higher risk. The article did not specify but that may be another reason why Baylor wants to eliminate employees who smoke. Maybe they wanted to lower their insurance rates. Looking at the other side, people do have the right to do whatever they want and as my boyfriend has said, "people don't like someone telling them what they can and cannot do, especially when it comes to smoking or drinking. Doing so could open a huge can of worms." My last thought is, if you smoke and you know that whatever job you are applying for isn't going to allow people who smoke to work for them then why did you apply there? Go somewhere else.

Can Texas Use the Rainy Day Fund to Fight Wildfires?

       The recent wildfires have caused many people to lose their homes and even worse, their loved ones. Sometime this year announced in the Texas Tribune, Gov. Rick Perry tried to argue against using the Rainy Day Fund for the huge budget shortfall for the 2012-2013 biennium. After the earthquake and tsunami destroyed parts of Japan in March, Rick Perry stated that that was the kind of unexpected natural disasters that could possibly hit Texas and that is a reason not to tap into the state's savings account. What we  learned, however, is that the Rainy Day Fund can't even be used in that situation unless it was agreed upon in the Texas Legislature by a two-thirds majority of the state House and Senate during a legislative session.        Money comes from the state and federal government to cover crazy natural disasters that may come our way. That money can come from a list of resources including the Disaster Contingency Fund, which contains about $49 million, or the Rainy Day Fund, which should contain around $6.4 billion come August 2013. On September 9, the White House granted a limited disaster declaration to provide individual assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency for those who lost their homes or property because of the horrible fires in Bastrop County.
       When asked about using the Rainy Day Fund, Lucy Nashed, a spokeswoman for the governor's office stated that we are very early into the fiscal year and we have no idea what might happen in the next two years and that there are alternative ways to get money for these wildfires like the disaster contingency fund. The last words about this issue were that the Rainy Day Fund is not to be used as an emergency fund until the 83rd Legislature convenes in January 2013 or unless the governor calls a special session before then.
       I thought this article is worth reading because this is what's going on in our state and for some of us, in our city. There are a lot of questions regarding what is being done about these wildfires and what money we can use to contain them. This massive drought has caused many people to wonder how we are going to get the water to put out the fires along with the funding. The money has to come somewhere for Texas to see a relief.