MOPAC Toll Lanes Give Motorists Choices

The current type of toll roads around Austin seem to be their own road entirely, such as Texas 45. These tolls are avoidable, but they do make getting to your destination quicker. The problem with these type of toll roads is the lack of advertisement. If drivers already plan on avoiding toll roads, their routes deny them first-hand exposure of how enticing it would be to pay the toll. Mr. Ramirez points out another method Texas plans to implement for utilizing toll roads in Tolls won't stop the Traffic, So quit wasting Money!. The $200 million plan adds two toll lanes to MOPAC for 11 miles. With this method, it increases the advertisement for these toll lanes. Drivers will be sitting in traffic next to the bare toll lanes, seeing only toll-paying motorists and buses flying by them. This splits the driving population into three categories: those that can afford tolls, those that can't afford tolls, and those that will opt for taking the bus. If these new lanes were toll only or bus only, I would definitely be against this plan. The idea behind toll roads screams financial discrimination. It would be no different than placing tolls on elevators or escalators, with those that can't afford the toll taking the stairs. If it were bus-only lanes, it would be commuter discrimination. Those traveling far distances every day to-and-from their destinations would either have to sit in traffic or leave their car somewhere close to a bus stop. I'm not sure of the feasibility or practicality of the latter. The idea that paying motorists and buses will use these lanes makes the plan much more palatable.


Currently, Texas uses two methods to collect tolls. The first is an electronic transponder called the TxTag, which automatically makes a transaction whenever the vehicle passes through the toll. This works the same for TollTag and EZ TAG. The other method is a camera spots the vehicle license plate, and a bill is sent to the owner of the vehicle. There may still be toll booth operators somewhere in Texas, but the camera system and Tag system are phasing them out. Mr. Ramirez does make a good point about toll fee collection. What about those that don't pay the tolls? There is $27 million in unpaid tolls that motorists in Texas have accrued. This sounds more like an enforcement issue rather than an actual issue with the toll roads. If Texas doesn't crack down on collection, I foresee barriers at toll points where appropriate, and harsher penalties for negligence to pay. Currently, the largest penalty is $60 in addition to the original toll amount.


Toll roads may seem unfair, but they provide choice. Pay more to get to your destination quicker, or wait it out in traffic. Sure all the roads could be free, but eventually everyone would be stuck in traffic with less revenue for Texas to pay for more roads. Increasing taxes on gas would impact everyone, many of which may have little alternatives for how they get around, rich or poor. It discriminates against those that live further away from the city, which is also typically more affordable housing. Motorists may be trying to make use of personal and public transportation to meet their destination needs to already cut down on their monthly gas expenses. Higher gas prices reduce the number of luxury trips motorists make, such as going to the mall. This doesn't stop motorists from driving to work or to school, which are most likely the reasons why they are driving. A higher gas price means more expenses to most people, not a reduction in traffic. A gas tax is mandatory for motorists, toll lanes are not. Mr. Ramirez did spitball the idea of more public transportation. Well the buses that will be using the new toll lanes on MOPAC is public transportation. So this $200 million plan is expanding public transportation. There will be some people that see this, and opt for the bus instead of sitting in traffic. The plan is a hybrid measure to try and alleviate some traffic, earn some revenue, expand public transportation, and to see how the public reacts to it. If the public chooses to use more public transportation, then that's what Texas will build. This is a much better method than building only public transportation, and trying to force the population into using it.



Want to read about a state really wasting money? Read up on California's $68 billion (with a 'B') “high” speed rail project that begins by connecting nowhere to nowhere. Story from SFGate and from the L.A. Times.

Income Tax Her? I Hardly Knew Her

There are a plethora of sources in which Texas collects revenue. There are fees, fines, lottery proceeds, land income; and excise taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, and oil. Yet, these pale in comparison to the revenue collected from sales tax. Sales tax alone made up 39% of all state-generated revenue in FY 2013. The best part about the way Texas raises money, people choose to pay this tax instead of being forced to pay it.

Texas does not penalize employed individuals by taking part of their wage before they can spend it themselves. That's right, Texas doesn't have an income tax. It doesn't charge people a fee for earning their 9-5 paycheck. Instead, the state relies on consumerism to raise revenue. This means that you pay as much as you spend. Spend more, pay more; spend little, pay little. You are free to buy a VIZIO 70” 3D Smart LED HDTV for $2,000, or a LG 32” TV for $200; a Coach handbag for $300, or a Scarleton handbag for $30. Just know that there will be a minimum tax of 6.25% on those purchases (with up to an additional 2% local sales tax). It doesn't matter if you make $100,000 or $10,000, you decide how much you spend, and in turn, how much taxes you pay.

What's even better about this sales tax is tourists and travelers pay this tax whenever they purchase items, such as a souvenir from the Alamo. “Under the table” wage earners, such as some undocumented workers, drug dealers, and prostitutes that would otherwise not pay an income tax, pay the sales tax whenever they purchase items. The only downside to consumer-based taxation is that the poor and unemployed pay it. This is barely worth mentioning since a lot of basic necessities are exempt from this tax: groceries, medicine, baby products, and school supplies.

Another bonus to no income tax is not having to file a state tax return. Now if only there was some way the federal government could get on a consumer-based tax instead of an income-based tax. Oh wait, there is, the Fair Tax Act. If you believe that consumer-based taxation is a better alternative to to our current system, contact your Representative and Senators to tell them to support H.R. 25 and S. 122, respectively. If you don't, then contact your State Senator and Representative to tell them Texas should have a state income tax too since you love the federal income tax so much.

If you are in need of more convincing, comment on this post with any questions or concerns.

Intolerance of Church in State

The purpose of the separation of church and state is so one does not influence the other. This is vital for the governed, as well as the governing bodies, both secular and religious. Public funding of religion could result in government influencing what is preached and practiced. Conversely, religion could influence laws, such as gay rights and abortion. However, this does not mandate the exclusion of religious reference in public institutions such as schools or courthouses.

Little bit of background on the issue at hand. The Texas legislature passed a bill in 2007 revising the state pledge of allegiance to, “Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible.” This revisal was done to mirror the U.S. pledge of allegiance, which Congress added “under God” to in 1954.

As an atheist, I have experienced reference to religion quite a bit. Granted, I didn't grow up in Texas, but in California nobody ever forced me to reference religion. During the pledge of allegiance, I would pause while other students recited, “under God,” then resumed with “indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” The high school football coach would have us take a knee before games, give some motivational speech, then end it with a prayer. Sophomore year, terrorists flew planes into the twin towers, and we had a moment of silence for that. The oath of enlistment into the United States Armed Forces that I recited included, “So help me God,” which I may or may not have omitted. As an atheist, I never felt segregated by these, nor that my personal rights were violated. There was no evidence of the Church influencing the State either. I recognized these references to religion not as an assault on my beliefs, rather, as a custom in the society I lived in. Much in the same way as anyone should when experiencing another culture. This is what is referred to as “Tolerance.” The important aspects of tolerance are the freedom to not participate, and respecting the practice.

I'm not sure what kind of oppression Ms. Williams experienced during her class recitation of the Texas's pledge of allegiance or moment of silence, as expressed in her Not All Under God post. Would her teacher have disciplined her for omitting “under God?” If so, what were the repercussions? If any students were coerced to recite “under God,” then I can agree with Ms. Williams that there are some policy changes that are needed to guarantee the religious freedoms of the students. However, I do not agree that these practices need to be stripped from schools.

Ms. Williams mentioned that she got in “serious trouble for speaking during the moment of silence.” There are two cultural guidelines for a moment of silence, remain silent, and don't be disruptive. You don't have to pray, just tolerate the custom. Beyond that, a moment of silence can be utilized for a time of self-reflection, something even an atheist can do. The trouble Ms. Williams got in was hopefully for only being “rude” and “disrespectful,” and not for her lack of prayer. This is speculative of the reasons her teacher reprimanded her, not her actual intent when she spoke during the moment of silence.

Ms. Williams writes of the respect that will be gained if “under God” and the moment of silence are removed. She fails to mention the loss of respect that will also occur from those that support their practice. Further respect will be lost since the state legislature will be seen as weak since giving into this issue will set precedence for purging the rest of government of god. No more swearing on the Bible in court. Any depiction of Lady Justice removed since she is based on a goddess. Stripping courthouses of any portrayal of the ten commandments. No pre-session prayers by any body of government. “In God We Trust” stripped from the U.S. dollar. No more manger scenes in front of firehouses. The demonization of the phrase, “Merry Christmas.” Happen these practices become excluded naturally through more and more omitting their practice, then it would be a shift in culture that I would completely support. Yet, this active purge is that of intolerance. This isn't the same as the civil rights movement or the gay rights movement. Those movements spread the message of tolerance, opening up more rights to individuals. The removal of “under God” and the moment of silence oppress the opportunity for those that wish to practice them. With that, it seems Ms. Williams seeks to victimize those that practice Christianity in the state of Texas instead of practicing tolerance.

Nowhere does it say that “under God” exclusively refers to the Judeo-Christian god. This is crucial in understanding that “under God” does not violate the 1^st Amendment since it is such a general phrasing that it cannot be in respect to an establishment of religion. Not all religions have god(s), but those that do need not feel excluded by this phrase. If your god is the flying spaghetti monster, then “God” is a truncated title for your deity.

The words “under God” do not offend me because I don't allow them to offend me. I use a moment of silence to reflect on myself or an event. Perhaps if Ms. Williams had the same perspective, then she wouldn't have been victimized by these practices.

Not All Under God was published by Savannah Williams on Tall Texas Talk November 4, 2013

This is supplemental to the critique:
If you want your case to be as strong as possible, proofread your work. Spelling and grammar errors distract readers, and makes the writer look lazy. They leave the reader wondering how serious the writer is if they won't even take the time to edit their own work. This is an obvious negative impact on the merit and credibility of the writing. Composing with a word processing program that has spellcheck is an easy way to eliminate most errors.  

Regulating our Rights

Freedom is everything, but without a degree of regulation, these freedoms that we enjoy can be abused. You could say that regulating our rights promotes security, safety, and integrity of those that exercise their freedoms. These regulations come in the form of preventative and reactionary enforcement. They also come from different levels of enforcement, ranging from national laws to civil laws.

The freedom of speech is crucial, but can be used maliciously to encourage others to rebel and cause anarchy. To keep the right to free speech as free as possible, people are allowed to say what they want, but could face adverse consequences depending on what they say.

The right to bear arms is regulated more strictly than that of speech. There are preventative regulations such as age limits, photo ID verification, and background checks. These are meant to reduce the possibility of someone obtaining a firearm that would use it in a malicious manner, without completely stripping the rights of eligible individuals to bear arms. To further regulate, reactionary laws are imposed to deter such actions. Some argue that there aren't enough firearm regulations, which is another topic best saved for a separate post.

So what does regulating our rights have to do with Texas? Well Texas legislation led to the passing of a law in 2011 that imposed a regulation on our right to vote. This preventative regulation came in the form of voter ID. This comes as added enforcement to the current preventative regulations of age, citizenship, residency, mental competency, and felony convictions. So why is there so much opposition to voter ID that only increases the integrity of the Texas voting system?

The opposition to this Texas voter ID law centers around claims of discriminating against poor people and hourly workers. Policies that disenfranchise eligible voters is a serious concern that deserves proper consideration. Do the Texas Republicans want to increase the integrity of the state's voting system, or suppress a demographic that tends to vote Democratic?

Not all poor Texans are on TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) or SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), but those that are require an ID to prove residency and citizenship. In order to work in Texas, and America for that manner, employers are supposed to comply with the Employment Eligibility Verification (I-9) Form in accordance with the The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 . It requires that an individual for employment present to the employer or the recruiter or referrer for a fee documentation establishing his or her identity and employment authorization as per §274a.2 Verification of identity and employment authorization of Form I-9 Statutes and Regulations. All that gobbledygook means that if poor people and hourly workers had the documentation to establish their identity for benefits and employment, then they have documentation to acquire a poll-accepted ID. Now that doesn't prove that all voting-eligible Texans have poll-accepted IDs. The case often made is that the source documents, such as a replacement birth certificate or social security card, are expensive.  This may be true, but the voter ID law was passed two years ago. How much time do Texans need to comply new regulation?  Penny-pinching for compliance is probably not at the top of the list for Texans though.

What has the government, political parties, and other organizations done to help people comply with the new law? Has anybody bussed ID-less voters to locations so as to acquire poll accepted IDs? The state offers free voting IDs to those that can prove inability to pay for one.  This seems to be a country where groups sprout up to help those in need, but there seems to be none in this case. Instead, we get editorials on how silly the law voter ID law is. The next Texas vote, November 5^th, is a general election on constitutional amendments. Historically, very few voters turn up for this type of election, so the same is expected this year. There is a whole year before the next major election, giving a total of three years for people to get proper IDs, and for people to help others get proper IDs. The actions of the people will determine whether they allow themselves and their fellow Texans to be disenfranchised come election time next year. That is unless Democrats oppose the whole concept of voter ID for the sole purpose of maintaining an increased possibility of voter fraud. After all, the LBJ ballot box 13 incident did work in their favor.

New voters are constantly added to the registry since they actively register. So what about voters that are no longer eligible due to moving or death? Nobody actively unregisters, so what happens? The Texas voter registry is updated every couple of years, so those voters remain in the registry until the update occurs. So personation, somebody voting for another person, could occur without any indication of fraud. But those that have moved on, in either case, are not the only ones susceptible to this fraud. Voter turnout in Texas has not exceeded 60% of registered voters since 1984. That means 40% of registered voters, or roughly 5.6 million Texans as of 2012, routinely chose to not cast their vote. That was and is their freedom to do so, but it also opens them up to have their vote stolen with no way of anyone knowing. How would someone get caught doing this if they didn't have to show a photo ID? Why not make a day of it by finding out who some of the inactive voters are, and driving to multiple polling locations to cast multiple ballots? You want proof that it happens? I want proof that it doesn't happen.

Voter ID does nothing to prevent absentee voting fraud. So that will probably continue to be exploited until new regulations for it are passed by the Texas legislation.  For now, Texans may not have to show ID when ridiculing Governor Perry, but they sure do have to when purchasing firearms and poll voting, as well as the myriad of other actions that require photo ID.

Controlling Parties Hate Non-Partisan Elections

Christopher Paxton slams Texas Democratic politicians for doing the only thing they can do to influence Texas politics in his blog, The Non-Partisan Blues. That is by running in non-partisan elections. Democrats are hard pressed to win statewide office anytime soon. So they are reduced to running for positions like city council. I commend Paxton's effort to raise awareness amongst conservative Republicans. It is the Republican party's fault if they allow the Democrats to win these seats anyways. They are the current party in power, and allowing Democrats to run unopposed or under the 'guise as “conservative” shows a negligence in the party's effort to fight for these positions. Voting along party lines doesn't guarantee the best candidate to represent the voters that put them in office. So the concept of non-partisan elections sort of levels the playing field for the candidates. Paxton does make a point that understanding the candidates' political affiliation does reveal their ideology. The point being that a Democrat could label themselves as conservative because they didn't vote for any tax increases. However, this falls short of a conservative Republican that votes to reduce/eliminate wasteful spending, giving way to the possibility of reducing taxes. Unfortunately, these races yield little voter turnout, so not much work is done to vet the candidates for the voters.


Paxton tries to demonize the “radical” liberal agenda by bringing up the plastic bag “bag-bans” and “tree-protection” ordinances that have been passed by liberal city councils. Those don't necessarily sound like bad legislation, just annoying if you forget to bring your bags to the store, or want to cut down a tree in your yard to put in a pool or something. They do limit the freedom of businesses providing plastic bags if they want to, as well as limiting what people can do with their own property. But those limitations on freedom are often overlooked when people think of overflowing landfills and rampant deforestation. He even goes after anti-free enterprise policies such as rent controls, and “living-wage” laws as part of the liberal agenda. He is right about this, but doesn't explain the negative economical impacts that rent control and living-wages can have. This is due to his target audience being conservative Republicans that will agree with him regardless of whether they understand the argument as to why these liberal policies are bad. Paxton illustrates this perfectly by instructing all Midland voters to defeat John James on November 5^th. Hopefully the voters that turn out will be casting an educated vote, regardless of whom they vote for.


The Non-Partisan Blues was published on Empower Texans on October 19, 2013.


Real quick, this expands on why rent control and living wage laws could be bad, so any counter-arguments are not covered. Rent controls restrict the free-market exercise of leasers to adjust their pricing to account for any increase in cost such as: increased taxes, inflation, and overhead. This would most likely result in cutting overhead costs such as maintenance, services, and staff. “Living-wage” laws increase wages for workers in jobs that don't pay enough for them to live on. The point that's overlooked is where the money comes from to pay the employees. A wage increase costs a business the additional wage as well as any payroll taxes that come with the wage increase. There are several ways a business could accommodate the increase in cost per employee. They could raise the cost of their goods and services, which would drive down sales, but may or may not increase revenue. They could fire employees, but that would result in those going from low wage to no-wage, and possibly increase the workload of the remaining employees. They could cut upper-management salaries and benefits/perks, which could result in these individuals seeking employment anywhere that pays more. This would leave these positions to be filled by people willing to work for less than market value. Probably wouldn't be as qualified as their predecessors, but hey, what could go wrong?

Voter ID: Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don't

The editorial Shakedown for silly voter ID law argues against the Texas voter ID mandate, as the title may suggest. The argument centers around the notion of discrimination and the lack of evidence of voter fraud. The discrimination argument focuses on “unfair hardship on poor people and hourly workers, some of whom face a 250-mile round trip to reach a driver’s license office.” The fraud focuses on claims of “rampant election-day voter impersonation.”


The writer neglects to reflect on how much time has passed since the voter ID law was enacted in 2011. Texas is going out of its way now to deploy mobile stations and extending driver’s license offices to include Saturdays in order for people to acquire the proper ID. Some may say this is too late for the constitutional amendment vote. How about arguing that it's early for the next congressional election a year from now? Unless Texas officials were physically stopping people from acquiring proper identification, I don't see how people that do vote couldn't comply with the law. People have had two years. Being a new resident of the Lone Star State, I was able to get my state drivers license literally as soon as I pursued getting it. Instead of the writer whining about the mandate, I would like to hear from them what actions people have taken to help others comply with the two year old law. Surely the droves of ID-less individuals are being helped by political campaigns or grass root volunteers. Some fund raising must have occurred to pay for buses to commute them to the nearest driver's license office or the like. Or is it possible that the writer is just blowing the issue out of proportion?


What makes the article worse is the tone the writer choses to use to demean and ridicule the voter ID law and the Texas legislature, instead of offering a logical argument against the law. Calling the voter ID law “the nastiest, most politically divisive debates in years” gives no merit to an argument. Regardless of how the law came to be, it is still the law. If people don't want to comply with it, they understand the consequences. Also, claiming that county-issued voter registration cards are “tried-and-true” does not make it so. Voter fraud is hard to detect, let alone prove. Unfortunately, the writer diminishes the value of their argument with all the unnecessary adjectives that distract rather than inform.

Shakedown for silly voter ID law article was published on the Dallas Morning News site on September 25, 2013.

A Democrat Running With Gun, Control That Is

Keep this question in mind: would you feel safer, ambivalent or concerned?  State Senator Wendy Davis may enter the race for Texas Governor.  Her platform would include legislation allowing college students to carry guns in their cars on campus. She would also support legislation for stricter control of gun sales at gun shows; whereby private gun sales would only occur through licensed gun dealers with proper background checks.  So would you feel safer, ambivalent or concerned if you and fellow students could carry guns in their cars on campus? Read Guns Could Be Issue in Governor's Race to find out more about Wendy Davis and her opponent, Greg Abbott, on their gun control stance.  You may not be a gun owner, but ask yourself how you would react to an active shooter on campus. Also, how would like your peers to react?