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.