Comment On Classmate's Blog

I read an editorial “Texas wants Clean Energy and Clean Oceans. What about Clean Money, Clean Elections?” which was written by Wes in his blog “TX Thinker.” I completely agree with him that Texas should put some limits on the campaign contributors in order to maintain the election clean. It is obvious that Texas government is in hands of the well-funded special interest groups and businessmen. Private interests play a big role in the policy process by controlling legislators (through lobbying and campaign contributions) and executive agencies (through influence on gubernatorial appointments and through the revolving door). As a result, Texas government lost it equal and fair public representation function. I also agree with him that we should introduce the Public funded campaign systems and regulate a maximum on each donation. In addition, the government may operate a public media to inform Texas residents about the important information such as who are the office candidates, what kinds of plans they have, and what they support or oppose. Hence, those new nominees could be familiar with constituents as same as the incumbents, so that everyone will have an equal chance to get election. Besides, the office runners could focus on their jobs without paying attention on campaign funding as well. Moreover, the greatest advantage is that the government will not be bias and controlled by some special groups, and everyone no matter their status will have a voice in politics.

The Strike of Capital Metro

Capital Metro workers gave a strike from last Wednesday to Friday. After 18 months of negotiations, Capital Metro and its transit union reached a tentative agreement on a four-year contract to end the work stoppage. This agreement includes a higher bonus payment ($1,200) than management had previously offered ($1,000), a compromise on health insurance (co-payments of $25 for doctor visits and annual deductibles), but also pay raises which is lower and slower than what union members rejected last month.

It is clear that the deal is less than what workers had hoped for from management. Given economic and political realities, it is not smart to call a strike at this time. The slumping economy, the failing gas prices, and a public distracted by presidential politics will give fewer sympathies to the strikers.

Before the strike, Austin City Councilmember and Capital Metro Board Member Mike Martinez had mediated a plan acceptable to the bus drivers. But his involvement was rebuffed by StarTran when general manager Terry Garcia Crews told the union in a letter, “I truly believe that the negotiation process should be kept between the negotiating committee members for ATU and StarTran while keeping Commissioner Clint Hart, Federal Mediator, involved in the process as well.” According to reports, ultimately Martinez, Councilmember Lee Leffingwell and State Senator Kirk Watson had a hand in getting both sides to come to an agreement. Thank God neither Martinez nor Watson swallowed the company line, and with the indispensable help of these “outsiders”, a deal got done.

The dispute was about how much profit the company wanted to keep versus what the employees feel was fair. It is hard to have an opinion on who was right or who was wrong during the strike. Although the transit strike may hurt many riders, I still have sympathy for those competent and professional drivers who are always putting passengers’ safety first. The ones we should blame are the rest of the Capital Metro Board, which distinguished itself largely by hiding under the table. The vacuum of their leadership is harmful to the community and harmful to the work force. it is probably too much to wish that one fine day Texas would come to its senses and support collective bargaining at state agencies, since the current law forbidding it is nothing more than a take-it-or-leave-it management bludgeon. That law enabled the union-busting foot-dragging by Cap Metro over the last 18 months, saving it wage money while the workers waited for a resolution.

The Judicial Races

The nine-member Texas Supreme Court is the state's highest civil court. It has been plagued by a backlog in recent years, taking more than four years after oral arguments in some cases to issue an opinion. And what used to be regarded as a lopsidedly "plaintiff's court" has now become regarded as an unbalanced "pro-business" court, a perception fueled by a legal study conducted by University of Texas School of Law professor David Anderson. It found that the court sided with defendants 87 percent of the time in 2004-05. Furthermore, the unfair and unbalanced court is reflected that the three Republican incumbents’ major contributors included defense-oriented law firms, insurers and other businesses and tort reform groups, according to Texans for Public Justice. Texans for Public Justice did not attempt to link individual contributions to lawsuit outcomes. But other studies have shown that the Supreme Court, since the Republican takeover, has sided with doctors, insurance companies and other corporate defendants in the vast majority of lawsuits brought by consumers.

Justices serve six-year terms. This year, three places on the court are on the ballot. It is the Democrats’ most ambitious effort in several years to recapture some seats. We should select some Democrats in order to help start restoring the balance. Here is an editorial The Judicial Races which was written by Paul Burka, a senior executive editor, political columnist, and blogger for Texas Monthly. Burka received a National Magazine Award for reporting excellence in 1985 and the American Bar Association's Silver Gavel Award.

In his article, I agree with him on recommending Jefferson, Houston, and Yanez for Texas Supreme Court. Wallace Jefferson has done well enough to earn a second term, and I agree with Mr. Burka that Wainwright and Johnson have not done anything to merit a return trip to the bench. Someone may argues that the court left more cases pending than ever before, and Jefferson has done nothing about it. Of course, there are some bad judges on both of the State’s high courts, but it does not mean we should throw them all out. Besides, how much power does the Chief Justice have to make his fellow justices do work? A member of the court since 2001 and chief justice since 2004, Justice Jefferson has made the court more transparent by posting oral arguments, filings and opinions online. Democratic challenger Sam Houston has built solid reputation defending clients against lawsuits and would bring some new ideas to the court. However, the incumbent Republican Dale Wainwright wrote just four signed opinions in the last full year. Although there may be complex reasons for the delays, voters could not tolerate the long backlogs anymore. Yanez is the Democratic challenger who is active and well-respected in the state and national legal circles. She promises to bring a fresh perspective to the unanimous high court.

A Sympathy Card Again

Here, I found an editorial which was written by the editorial board of Austin American Statesman. They were trying to motivate people to cave at the latest “teachers won’t get paid” strategy of the advocates of the AISD tax increase proposition.

Austin school district tax increase: Voters should approve pay raises for teachers

Education is critically important for everyone. I agree that we should give teachers rewards for their duties and efforts. However, this time, I will not vote tax increase, because AISD is just playing a sympathy card again.
There are several things we should consider more wisely before we spend more.

First, will the money go to teacher pay increases? Remember the bond election everyone voted for to build new facilities? The Board forgot to mention no money was included for M&O of those new facilities. How could people trust them? Of course, teachers should be adequately compensated, but the district needs to tighten its belt first. It is not the tax payers’ responsibilities to solve everything and have no say or control.

Second, as the tax rates increases year after year, why we still have the failed schools such as Johnston High who cannot even rise to state standards? Teaching is one of the hardest jobs. I do not blame the failure on teachers. Actually, the state “standards” are part of the underlying problem. Children are not getting educated, and teachers are not teaching the basics any more. They are teaching students to pass a test that does not accurately measure youths’ skills and abilities. Many great teachers get frustrated with the winner/loser system, and some complacent “baby sitters” stick in the classrooms, benefiting from this misleading system. We need to look harder at redefining what it means to be successful. After we correct the educational system and let it get back to teach the basics, the good teachers and bad teachers will be make out clearly. As a result, we will have better graduation rates, better testing scores, and better teachers. Thus, everyone will strongly agree to give teachers pay raise and tax to the hilt to support them.

Moreover, we should also change our tax system. Not only the poverty owners but all of the residents should pay the school tax. The economy is getting worse right now, many homeowners are so eager to hold down their house and so afraid of any raise in their property tax. This is insane that the school district and the Statesman want Austin homeowners to pass a tax increase that would have $2 of every $3 of that increase go to some other school district in the state ostensibly to help pay their teachers. It is obviously unfair to the homeowners. This issue will be never past until our government changes the method of tax collection.

Hence, vote “no” until the AISD and government improves something first.

As the population of the ethnic minority increases, the politics will also changes

When the Wall Street crisis broken out, almost the whole nation turned attention on economic issue and neglected others such as immigration. However, it does not mean that those issues were solved. The Census showed that the between 1990 and 2000, Texas’s population growth was the result of natural increase (49.7 percent) and immigration from other states and from other nations (50.3 percent). Especially in the states as Texas, as Hispanics become the principal ethnic group and Anglos lose their majority status, politics and government will be influenced dramatically. In Texas, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by a two-to-one margin in party identification among Hispanic voters. Moreover, not only Hispanics but also other racial groups such as Asian Americans are coming to the United States by immigration. If Republicans keep advocating for restricting immigration, they will not only lose this presidential election but future. I recommend this commentary which supports the above belief and wish politicians could realize this fact: “Hispanics turn cold shoulder to McCain” http://www.mysanantonio.com/Politico_Hispanics_turn_cold_shoulder_to_McCain.html