Comment on Colleague blog

I agree with colleague Mallasch and the amazing visual example of the “Bar Stool” in the blog titled: "Risks: Making Texas Economy Sustainable and Stable" this blog entry was straight, to the point and effective. My only addition would be to consider the other forms of revenue Texas COULD invest in to replace oil and factory farmed meat. Technology is golden with; Google, Amazon and Hulu are all creating a Texas style “Silicon Valley” and will continue to help Texas gain revenues, (https://www.forbes.com/sites/navathwal/2015/02/12/5-markets-poised-to-be-the-next-silicon-valley-for-real-estate/#1ac55511703e). So I would like to focus on the other two legs, Meat and Oil. Meat I do not feel we should give up on. Texas is known for its land and agriculture to the extent that we encourage residents to invest into farms by offering Tax breaks. But we need to follow the consumer and turn those farms and manufacturing plants into the clean desirable meat. Which mean we need to invest back into the farmer and farmers and update the technology as well as the techniques in the manufacturing’s plants.  There are even movements occurring as we speak that push for a “clean meat” source which is the ability to make meat without animal slaughter (http://www.gfi.org/clean-meat-the-clean-energy-of-food) … which I don’t know how I feel about that. The other leg, Oil has got to go. But what do we replace it with? My go to is the shiny green because of the profits other states have made off of it. 

Blog 7-- Texas should invest in Early Education

Texas should invest more into its children by funding statewide pre-K programs, which simulate regular school hours for students and parents. This may be an expensive endeavor but it is worth if it Texas wishes to get its education numbers up. As of late, Texas has ranked 43^rd out of the 50 states for education grades Pre-K to 12. (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/education/article/Texas-ranks-43rd-among-states-in-national-6750691.php) Texas has low success rate because we do not start our children off right, by having state-funded programs to ensure small classrooms and quality education from the beginning of a student’s start the state can turn these numbers around.  

            One benefit of a state-funded Pre-K program would be lengthened the hours of the time the students stay at school. Rather than half days the children will be expected to simulate regular 1^st through 12^th hours, meaning parents would not have to arrange for early mid day pick up of children under 6. Not only would this take some stress off the parents who may be trying to work full time but it will also prepare the children for the entire school day they are expected to complete. Of course in the Pre-K program, the students would have naps and breaks from the educational work, the concept is to get the children use to the idea of being on campus for so many hours at a time. This will help build the children’s stamina, which will help with focus later on in school.

Having a state-funded pre-K program will also allow students of lower income families to enter into Pre-K even if their parents cannot afford to send them to a private Pre-K. This option will level the playing field of education for families of all incomes. If families of all incomes can start their children off on the right foot it raises the chances of ending the cycle of poverty.

            State funded Pre-K programs have been successful in other states such as Michigan.  “According to the Brookings Institution, Michigan has the only state-funded preschool evaluation that follows students' paths from pre-K to high school graduation. Students participating in the Great Start Readiness Program outperformed their peers in comparison groups, demonstrating school success indicators during kindergarten, second grade, middle school and high school graduation.” (https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2017/02/27/texas-look-michigan-ways-address-early-childhood-education) If Texas follows Michigan’s example and give way to the budget tug-of-war and allow funds to be funneled towards full-time state funded Pre-K program Texas will see more successful children and more contributing members to society.

VI- Commentary

I agree with T the author of  "Sweet tea and Politics" blog and their article http://sweetteaandpolitics.blogspot.com about Texas minimum wage. The minimum wage in Texas has been the same since I started having to work full time and I have witnessed the consequences not only on the employee side but on the managers and employers side as well. The state not choosing to raise the minimum wage affects employers too, making it more difficult to attract qualified and worthwhile employees for positions where the minimum wage is the normal starting point.  Not only is it hard to attract qualified and worthwhile employers it is even harder to keep them with minimum wage. Often times employers find they hire someone who will work for a few weeks up to a couple of months and then never show up again. It’s a pattern of jumping from one minimum wage job to another and since they do not offer competitive pay employees look for other perks to keep them around like easy work, phone and break times, free stuff, and will often drop on a current employer without notice if another minimum wage job is available. There are pros to raising the minimum wage, not only attracting more qualified and all around better employees for employers but also an economic stimulus. Capitalism thrives off the cycle of money earned and money spent, if Texas was to increase the minimum wage that would give citizens of Texas more money to spend, money earned is money spent which will continue the growth of capitalism.  Once more, if we consider the group of individuals who are under the poverty line and enrolled in government programs to help them survive, raising the minimum wage would not only benefit the people surviving in poverty but in turn help the government programs spend less. If people have more money coming in from their employer to support themselves and their families they may become less depend on the government.

Texas Should....

“If you build it, they will come.” This quote from the 1989 Fantasy classic film Field of Dreams echoes through my mind every time the argument of legalization for marijuana arises.  “Building it” I would always imagine as the cool brightly lit grow house with rows emerald stalks with ruby and plum poofs blossoming upward. “They will come,” as in consumers, lots and lots of consumers and their money. Texas should most definitely legalize marijuana if not only for the tax revenue purposes but also the issue of civil liberties amongst its citizens. I would think this answer would be obvious especially after the examples that California and Washington have set.

            Legalizing marijuana will generate millions of dollars for federal and state tax. According to the tax, foundation cites (https://taxfoundation.org/marijuana-tax-legalization-federal-revenue/) Washington on average generates a revue of around 270 million a year. “Washington, after a slow start to bring the licensing system online, sales are now averaging over $2 million a day with revenue possibly reaching $270 million per year.” Texas legalizing marijuana means Texas will be able to tax marijuana and regulate marijuana just like the T.A.B.C does for alcohol. Texas “sin tax” is one of the highest-ranking taxes of its kind. Allowing the state to pull in around 937.6 million dollars from alcohol sales alone and seeing how the “sin tax” applies to tobacco, alcohol, and horse and dog racing adding marijuana to that list will only perpetuate the increase of revenue of the years, “tax revenue from tobacco, alcohol, and pari-mutuels (or betting, usually on horse racing, dog racing and jai-alai) provided by the State Government Tax Collections survey of the U.S. Census Bureau. Texas received more than $2.4 billion in 2012 tax revenue from those sources. That’s up from $2.38 billion in 2011 and the most of any state. However, when ranked by percentage of revenue, Texas is No. 4, with 4.97 percent of revenue coming from sin taxes.” (http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/morning_call/2013/07/texas-among-states-with-most-sin-tax.html). “Most of Texas’ sin tax revenue came from tobacco products — nearly $1.47 billion in 2012, down 8.4 percent from 2011. Another $937.6 million came from alcohol, an increase of 42 percent from last year.” (http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/morning_call/2013/07/texas-among-states-with-most-sin-tax.html). Assuming marijuana would fall under the classification of a “sin tax” for Texas, which seems only fitting, tax revenue from marijuana will most likely double that of the revues brought in from alcohol and tobacco sales. “It is estimated that the current size of the marijuana market nationally is $45 billion per year, approximately 0.28 percent of gross domestic product and comprising some 26 million pounds of marijuana consumed per year.” (https://taxfoundation.org/marijuana-tax-legalization-federal-revenue/). The data is there and it is clear that legalizing marijuana will, in fact, help Texas raise money for itself making it less dependent on the federal government.

            Legalizing marijuana is also a civil liberties issue. Many a convicted man, woman, and child who do not need to be wasting there days away in prison for possession of a natural herb. Texas should not make something illegal that the body naturally produces anyway. The resources wasted on “rehabilitating” those who do not really need it could be better spent on hospitals and half-way programs to help the mentally ill face their daily lives and help the recently reformed get off to better more hopefully and healthier starts. “Marijuana comprises more than half of all Texas drug arrests and 97% of those were for possession of 2 ounces or less.” (http://krwg.org/post/97-texas-marijuana-convictions-are-possession).  The men, women, and teenagers locked away for possession of marijuana could once again become contributing members of society and feed into the system, which keeps Texas powerful. They could own businesses and help people but instead, we have locked them up for smoking a plant. “There is a class of young people that are becoming unemployable and that is not good for the Texas economy. If you are trying to fill you have a work order on something and you have to hire a certain amount people and there is a restriction on drug convictions so now you can’t it makes it hard to fill that job. Is that the best way for us to run our policy if they are perfectly capable otherwise? Probably not.” Moody says.”’ (http://krwg.org/post/97-texas-marijuana-convictions-are-possession).

            Legalizing marijuana would get Texas financial situation squared away, much like it has done for the other states which have legalized the substance but it would also help Texas economy by releasing recklessly convicted citizen and allowing them too contribute to Texas businesses and way of life.

What's Up DOC?!

Christopher Moriates, author for the Daily Texan discusses the problems with health care in his editorial called "Doctors, Patients Need to Talk About Care Costs" It is fascinating to me that Christopher Moriates is, in fact, a Doctor at UT’s Dell Medical Center, to me, this says he is the right man to write and talk about this issue. He is very credible in making his arguments because he is in the industry. His intended audience is for doctors and patients alike.

Moriates claims that the health care system needs to change not just how insurance is done but also how doctors are informed. He believes that because of the noble choice to not inform doctors of how much procedures cost, in hopes that the cost will not cloud the medical judgment needed to get a patient the right kind of help, doctors often end up adding more unnecessary costs to their patient’s medical expensesDoctors, Patients Need to Talk About Care Costs. “Medical schools and residency training programs have traditionally shied away from teaching costs. For the most part, costs remain hidden even from many practicing physicians. Some would argue this is for good reason, since doctors should be making decisions based on medical need without clouding that judgment with considerations of potential costs. That intention is noble, but in practice, it often leads to doctors inadvertently saddling patients with expensive medical bills. Doctors and patients both need to better communicate about this problem and work together to find solutions if the financial burden would be too much.” Moriates believes better-informed doctors and better communication with patients will decrease the national medical debt.

Paying for health care is one of the top concerns of American families today. “One reason for this concern is more Americans than ever are on high-deductible health plans. This means even seemingly simple medical decisions could result in substantial out-of-pocket costs for patients.” Moriates states that with a system like this more and more Americans end up in debt from medical bills and costs and as a result of this do not seek further needed care. He introduces the term “Financial Toxicity” which is when an American may have the life saved but the life-saving procedure cleans out their life-saving the account. “Oncologists have begun to understand this problem, coining it “financial toxicity” and considering it an unintended consequence of their treatments. Just like other side effects of chemotherapy, such as losing one’s hair, this does not mean it is always avoidable, but at least by recognizing the issue, these doctors and patients can be more aware of the situation and can work on trying to navigate the problem together.”

I liked this article because Moriates didn’t just talk about the problem with the medical costs and how doctors are and should be held responsible for knowing the cost of a procedure and working with a patient to ensure tackling the medical procedure will not put anyone in debt but he also offers some solutions. “A number of new tools are also emerging to make this easier for patients and physicians. One free website and application provides local searches to find the lowest-cost pharmacy for your specific prescriptions. When considering medical tests or procedures such as an MRI or knee surgery, there are a handful of options currently available for the public to research prices. Healthcare Bluebook and Guroo are two websites that claim to provide a search of prices within your area and to help you determine a ‘fair price.’”

This was a fascinating read, which I was able to relate to having to pay my own insurance and medical bills. It makes me want to sit my doctor down make him read this article and then say: “so give it to me straight, doc, where can I save?”

Dave Mann’s editorial in Texas Monthly, "Right Aid" is a spitfire piece of writing full of touching Texas memories and some of Texas potential shortcomings. Mann discusses Abbott’s decision to close off the acceptance of Syrian Refugees last fall. I believe Mann’s intended audience are those of us who grew up in Texas. He starts the editorial off with a touching story of a Texas stranger helping him in a time of need, it was a story I have heard often growing up in Texas. A deer causes a car accident and everyone who drives by pulls over despite the potential risk to make sure the crashed party or parties are okay and getting help. Mann relates his life-saving moment to many of those escaping the Syrian war seeking refuge in Texas and why it is the Texas thing to open the borders back up and help those in need, despite the potential risk. I think Mann established his creditability with his opening story. By relating his personal story to the idea of allowing Syrian’s back into Texas he is showing his intended audience that yes the concern for terrorism needs to be accepted and valued but not over the need and importance of charitable acts by man. “I understand the concern about terrorism, but no act of charity is without some potential for danger. The man in the truck certainly didn’t have to stop that night, and his decision to pull over wasn’t without risk. We were alone together on a dark highway, and he had no idea who I was. I could have been intent on kidnapping, robbing, or killing him; he had no way to know I wasn’t dangerous. That didn’t deter him, though. He saw someone in need of his help, and he offered it.”

            Mann takes on the argument of terrorism coming to the US posing as a refugee by completely discrediting it. “It’s highly unlikely that an ISIS terrorist would come to the U.S. posing as a refugee. How unlikely? A report from the Cato Institute, a libertarian-leaning think tank, noted that between 1975 and 2015, about 3.25 million refugees entered the country and only 20 (or 0.00062 percent) were charged with terrorism. There were three successful attacks—killing 3 Americans over four decades—but there have been none in the past fifteen years. The odds of any single American’s dying in a terrorist attack perpetrated by a refugee in a given year are approximately 1 in 3.4 billion. You’re much more likely to die on a roller coaster (1 in 300 million).” I like hoe Mann uses the example of being more likely to die from a roller coaster than a terrorist posing as a refugee, it really shows how Abbot and other politicians have just been using a fear campaign to control the Texas boarders.  Mann continues to make a great argument by pointing out the demonizing refugees also holds its own share of risk. Meaning painting an image to the public that every refugee is posing as a terrorist in itself has some risk. “It cynically stokes fear of a threat that barely exists and may make life even harder for Syrian refugees already here. They’re more likely to face discrimination and suspicion; some of their neighbors, classmates, and co-workers may view them as terrorists. It’s easy to see how rhetoric like Abbott’s can contribute to the alienation of American Muslims, the very people best positioned to alert authorities to homegrown Islamic extremists, which, as we saw in San Bernardino and Orlando, are the much more likely source of terrorism. In that sense, denigrating refugees could make us less safe.” Mann persists on pointing out that most importantly the refusal to be charitable to a neighbor in need could potentially change the way we Texans treat each other as well, eventually growing more and more suspicious about each other evolving into a state who does not pull over to help a neighbor in need. I agree with Mann, this would not want to be a state I would want to live in. Texans ability to be selfless and charitable is one of the reasons I am proud to be Texan raised.

In the Texas Observer’s article “In the age of trump, the First All-Latino Sci-Fi Anthology Hits too Close to Home”  author Roberto Ontiveros introduced and describes an anthology written and produced purely by Latino Americans in Texas. The publishing house is located in San Antonio, Wings Press and is a prime example of how small business in Texas can thrive. In the article, Ontiveros introduces a few stories and describes what makes them fascinating. He also takes the opportunity to point out how the isolationism from the Texas exceptionality one character displays in of one of the stories is very similar to what we are recently seeing with Trump and his “Brand” coming into office.  Ontiveros did an excellent job outlining and introducing the stories to the point of peaking One’s interest. Being a Texan I feel I should seek this book out for my coffee table.

I also think this article displays even further proof that the population demographic in Texas is shifting from a predominately Anglo population to a more Hispanic and Latino population.  I like how Ontiveros embraces the facts that this entire piece of work in all its glory and creativity is 100% Latino.  I am most intrigued by “Flying under the Texas Radar with Paco and Los Freetails” a comic short in the anthology, from his description of the piece provides a great example of Texas Exceptionalism because the main character is exiled from the planet for “Not being Texan Enough” and “a future in which Texas has become a corporation run by a billionaire politician/entrepreneur named Billy-Bob Paolozzi. Cultural criticism and sarcasm are verboten and words are not so much banned as made palatable. Some Spanish, for instance, is acceptable, but not without the proper Texas twang.” Ontiveros extends the metaphor even further to make comparisons to our Presidential situation, “The piece, which jokes its way through to isolationism’s terrible, logical end, would be frightening even if we didn’t have a president who was also his own brand. But we do, so it’s terrifying.”

Ontiveros does an excellent job of introducing the anthology and creating enough intrigued to make One want to seek out the book for purchase. Not only is the Sci-Fi Anthology a success for Latinos and Hispanics of Texas but it is also a success for small Texas business.