Congestion in Austin

Our local government has proven over the past few years that it is incapable of a solution to traffic in Austin. Austin is the 4th most congested city in the nation, and the fastest growing as well. The obvious elephant in the room is that Austin's roads cannot fit all of the cars that are here and are moving here. The city needs a plan.
One of the solutions that they have been trying to implement is an above ground rail system. This extension was shut down by the public, due to the inefficiency and lack of riders of the current train system. The metro bus system has begun to improve with the speed buses that are said to adjust lights so that they can travel through the city faster. Unfortunately, I-35, Mopac, 183, and 360 are all more congested than ever.
So what can be done to fix the issue? Building highway 130 to alleviate traffic on I-35 turned out to not reduce traffic, as the road was too inconvenient and truck drivers worried about the high speeds endangering their trucks. Wild ideas have been thrown out by the public, such as digging under the city to make a pass-through highway or installing a large subway system. One can dream. Others have claimed that a fix would be to adjust behavior by adding incentives for ride-sharing or staggered business starting hours.
Whatever the fix may be, the city needs to make this issue a high priority or the problem may become un-fixable. This problem needs to be solved while Austin is just the 11th largest city and not the 10th or 9th.

Minimum Wage

        The blog post on "Concepts of Texas Politics" makes an argument against raising Texas or Federal minimum wage. Raising minimum wage is an incredibly important issue for anyone who wasn't born with a silver spoon or has fallen on hard times. The idea that any American can work hard and achieve a house with a fence in the suburbs with 2.3 kids is an antiquity that does not exist in modern America. The fact is that many Americans do not have the option or ability to go to college or apply to many jobs with more required qualifications than Wal-Mart.
       That being said, these jobs at best may pay a few cents an hour over $7.25 as mandated by the government. Based on a 40 hour work week (which is generous, considering that many companies are cutting hours so that they will not have to provide benefits due to the Affordable Care Act), this means that these Americans are making roughly $14,500 per year. In modern American, that is simply not enough money to survive alone, let alone support a family. Assuming that a family could eat for $50 a week (optimistic), that leaves the family with $11,900. Median rent in the US is roughly $900 a month ($10,800 a year). How does this person get to work? Not with a car, as that is now out of the range of affordability. It's simply not possible to make minimum wage without needing government assistance.
       Saying that allowing people to have a wage that would allow them to eat would hurt the economy is asinine. The economy in the US is hurting specifically from a low wage. Many large corporations take advantage of this cheap labor knowing that the US government will subsidize their labor. Currently, Wal-Mart is costing the US government approximately $6.2 billion in food stamps, Medicaid, and public housing. Most small businesses already pay their employees more fairly because the business owners are not as far separated from their employees. Raising the wage would not be a detriment to the economy, just to the top income earners of the US. Based on return on investment of the economy and where Wal-Mart stands, they could afford to pay their employees 50% more without hurting their stock, according to Stanford finance professor. There are many examples of companies, both large and small that are extremely successful while paying their employees generously. There are also many examples of companies that treat laborers as this post would suggest (disposable) that have failed spectacularly.
       Finally, the argument that the government should pay attention to the businesses that lobby them when making a decision about a livable wage goes against the principles the US was founded upon. If big business had they option, they would pay their employees as little as absolutely possible, and we would revert to social structures of the industrial revolution, or the poverty levels of China. The government is supposed to speak for the people in their district, and mandating companies to pay their employees a fair wage is one of the ways representatives should help their constituents.
The largest problem with the entire debate in America is calling it a minimum wage. It is a livable wage.
Post in Response to Concepts of Texas Politics Opinion Article "Minimum Wage Raise"

Guns on Campus

Guns are a hot ticket item for anyone in America. Either for or against guns, the people of the United States have some strong opinions on the matter. Some people think that every citizen should be packing at least a handgun while others would want to do away with guns all together. But some people think that students should carry guns... Don't misinterpret me, I think guns are awesome, I've shot my fair share of boar in the Texas hill country, I'm applying for a CHL soon, but guns should not be on campus. Period. There is a reason for university police. The argument that a student will stop a rampage on campus is absurd. No one in a college setting is trained to diffuse a dangerous situation in the way that an officer of the law would. One bullet flies from the attacker and twenty kids start blasting off rounds: now who is the main killer? Which are murderers and which are defenders? The situation will only end poorly with more guns involved. In addition, there was recently a gun situation that was diffused by a student with no weapons at Seattle University. So guns are not necessary for extreme situations. There is a time for a place for everything and that place is usually college, but not when the thing is a gun in a young man or woman's hand. If you want to stop violence look to mental health issues and socio-economic disenfranchisement, not more violence.

                In his post on the blog “Big Jolly Politics,” Ronald Kimmons calls out the left for their support of homosexual marriage while condemning polygamy as being hypocritical. He argues against Princeton professor Stephen Macedo who made the case against polygamy but for homosexual marriage. Kimmons argues that the rise of legal homosexual marriage will bring a plight on the country, and that the same problems would arise should polygamy be legalized. He goes on to say that the same argument that the left uses for gay marriage could be extended to polygamy and the left is hypocritical to not apply the same rational for both.

                I wholeheartedly disagree with Kimmons. His argument is comparing apples to oranges and saying anyone who thinks that both are not apples is wrong. The existence of marriage as a government certificate is not the same as a religious based union. Benefits from marriage exist in tax benefits and visitation rights in hospitals to name a few. The fact that two people want to unionize their relationship to gain benefits from long term cooperation is not the same as a social structure outlined by reinforcement of historical values.

Kimmons is also under the impression that because men are attracted to more than one person, then that means that they naturally will desire to be in a polygamous relationship which echoes a gay person to desire someone of the same sex. The two are completely separate logical steps. Finally, the fact that legalizing gay marriage will somehow harm children is completely unfounded in any research from a credible source. Kimmons should understand the toxicity of bigotry. History is moving forward.

The Utter Hypocrisy of Leftist Opposition to Plural Marriage July 24,2015 Ronald Kimmons Big Jolly Politics

Republican's Effect on Texas

In his article, “Republican leadership is responsible formany improvements in Texas,” Daniel Hung of the University of Texas argues that Republicans have left the state better than when they took power. He brings up several main points first of which is that the economic boom in Texas is not only the abundance of resources such as oil, but due to careful planning by the government to incentivizing industry in Texas. In addition, he states that Texas has massive job growth and has proven time and time again that it is on the fast track to being the most economically successful state. However, the author fails to mention that through this economic growth, Texas continues to sit at the bottom of the list for income inequality. Being ranked 43rdin income inequality provides evidence that perhaps the economic boom Texas is experiencing does not affect all Texans, but may leave some out in the rain. He mentions as a quick addendum that there are a few problems left to fix, however, does not feel that these are important enough to warrant a discussion as to whether these policies should factor into the “prosperity” of the state. There are a plethora of social failures that come as a direct effect of republican economic policies that the party fails to fix through legislature. While I agree with the author that the economy in Texas is bright, there is an ugly side of the party that is moving backwards in social policy.

“Republican leadership is responsible for many improvements in Texas” Daily Texan. Daniel Hung, 2015.

An interesting article from the Texas Tribune appeared today about the gap between the two parties in Texas. A study conducted by a Rice political scientist shows the divide clearly. What the scientist, Mark Jones, found was that there is no middle ground or crossing of parties at all. The most conservative democrat and the most liberal republican are vastly separated ideologically. This trend not only exists in the U.S. house for Texas representatives, but in the Texas Senate and the Texas House as well. There are no democrats more conservative than the most liberal republican, and vice versa. The author of the article, Ross Ramsey, blames district line drawing; redistricting to keep party’s power in specific districts only furthers the issue of more extreme positions for both parties. What the article fails to provide is an opinion for what the growing divide will mean for Texas. That opinion is up to the reader; so read the article and decide for yourself if this gap is a problem for our state.

Analysis: The Center Did Not Hold, Texas Tribune, Ross Ramsey