Stage 8 blog

Smoking vs. Airport Security?

It’s true that smoking kills far more people yearly than do terrorist attacks, but compared to airport security, it's apples and oranges. Yes second hand smoke is harmful to all of us. I can remember the days every restaurant had a smoking and non-smoking section separated by an invisible line where everyone got exposed to the smoke. Those days have changed though, and smokers are now segregated away from the main population almost everywhere you go. You won’t even find smokers in bars in Austin anymore. It’s much easier now to avoid places with smokers because they simply aren’t nearly as popular anymore. I am not a smoker, never have been, but I was exposed to plenty of second hand smoke as a child, with both parents smoking. But as times changed and the dangers were realized, my parents realized their smoking was the likely cause of my childhood allergies and breathing problems, they took it outside, and my mom eventually quit. The bottom line is smoking is dangerous to us all through second hand smoke, but is easily avoidable. Therefore the only people being harmed are the smokers, and I don’t think the majority of America wants to put our efforts into protecting them from their own foolish choices. Airline security affects us all and isn’t under our control, and although I’d like to see the government out of it, and see it under the airlines control, it does need our focus more so than protecting people from themselves.

Taking liberties with the Bill of Rights

With the holidays among us, we are in prime time for traveling. Those of us who may choose to fly are in for some new, questionable security measures this season. Just in time for Thanksgiving travel, the TSA has introduced new screening methods that involve your choice of an x-ray screen that can see through your clothing, or a full-body pat down. No problem, it’s all in the name of your safety, and if you don’t like it you can always leave and drive. Not quite. According to an article in the blog Socialism is not the Answer there are new rules, if you start the screening process, but for some reason you decide you do not want to go through with the screening, and would rather leave, you are now subject to detainment and up to an $11,000 fine. I understand the logic behind requiring people to be subject to search in order to fly, although I do feel that should be a mandate that comes from the airlines rather than the government, but I do not think requiring people to submit to a search even if they choose not to fly is constitutionally legal. For the TSA to believe that someone leaving the airport is reason enough to detain someone. Although it comes as no surprise that the government would attempt to play on the fears of the public in order to take more liberties than they are allowed, it is still amazing that they would attempt to perform an unlawful search when the Bill of Rights contains an amendment that protects from such actions.

More political correctness

Interesting how a name change is supposed to solve the problem. It seems like a waste of time to change all the wording to make the aggressors feel better. What happened to calling a spade a spade? Now we have a new set of politically correct terminology. God forbid we offend people who could care less and will always have a bad opinion of us anyway. I just don't see how the rhetoric changes anything or solves any problems.

Austin's poorest spend 45% of income on electricity?

In an article printed by the Austin American Statesman, they claim Austin’s poorest 5% spend 45% of their income in electricity. Honestly? I would like to see the numbers on this. I know that I personally spend about $1800 a year on electricity, or $150 a month on average. In order for that to total 45% of my income, I would have to make less than $350 a month, or $4000 a year. That’s total household income. My house is fairly average, all electric, three bedrooms, two baths, and I have a roommate living with me who is not nearly as conscious about the power bill as I am. My house is by no means large, 1500 square feet, but I would assume it is larger then the city’s poorest. So my question is are there really households in Austin making less than $4000 a year? And that is assuming they use the same amount of electricity I do in a presumably smaller apartment. There is no way this is an accurate study. Using my numbers, which are by no means scientific, that leaves $2200 a year for any other expenses ($4000 x 55% that is left after the electric bill) or $183 a month. There is no way some one can survive on that alone, or be earning as much as they can. A part time job at minimum wage would earn you $7800 a year. If a newspaper is going to publish an article that is supposed to oppose a rate increase for electricity, they should give access to the data so people can see what “Austin’s poorest” are earning and spending on electricity. Also I would suggest figuring out who is going to cover the deficit in the electric utility’s budget if we tell them they cannot increase rates.

Trillion. WIth a "T"

According to an article on The Drudge Report, courtesy of Yahoo News, the United States budget deficit for the recently ended fiscal year reached $1.3 trillion. The current fiscal year, which started October 1, is projected to be $1.4 trillion in the red. It has been 10 years since the country had a balanced budget, with no repeat in the foreseeable future. I am curious what the governments plan is for sustainability when the total debt is over $13.5 trillion according to usdebtclock.org, that is nearly $44,000 per citizen or $122,000 per taxpayer. That means my personal share of the national debt is worth almost as much as my house. Politicians from both parties are out of control with spending. According to the author, both parties claim the high deficit is a problem, however neither are doing anything about it. Democrats are blaming it on an inherited problem, yet still voting for big spending, and Republicans are trying to solve it with spending cuts only, and strictly opposed to any tax increase. Although the thought of paying any more in taxes than I already do sounds about as appealing as a root canal, I am not sure the budget can be balanced by cutting spending alone, when was the last time the federal budget actually decreased? I would guess the last time there was any substantial decrease in government spending would be in the years following WWII, but it was probably still a substantial increase to the pre war period. Everyone knows if you as a person consistently spend more than you make, year after year, your finances will collapse in short order. For some reason our representatives think that if we collectively spend more than we make, year after year, we can continue on and not be concerned about the consequences. I would like to think that in 2012 the number one issue leading into the election will be how to deal with the deficit, but raising taxes and cutting government spending don’t get as many votes as promising the world, so I am skeptical.  

 

Cutting funding to for profit schools

In the article I have chosen, Margaret Spelling makes an argument against federal government regulation targeted at for profit schools. Mrs. Spelling makes the argument, that in a time of down economy, and higher tuition costs, we should be promoting higher education in all forms, not making it harder to achieve. I agree with the view in this article. Government regulation rarely turns out to be beneficial, and I believe this will be no different. If a school can meet accreditation standards, whether state funded, or for profit, it should be regarded as a legitimate option for people to go to, and eligible for student aid. If the government is going to deny them legitimacy based on a for-profit status, what is the point of accreditation boards? These schools have programs more geared towards vocational training. Something ignored by usually found in community colleges. If they can offer competitive, or in some cases better programs at competitive prices to local community colleges, how could that be a bad thing? Not every one is fortunate enough, or cut out to attend a university for a four-year degree. The government already regulated financial aid to cut the private sector out of student loans, a mistake in my opinion, and now there are not as many options to pay for these types of schools. For an administration that seems to promote secondary education, their actions are speaking louder than words. 

Constitution Day 2010

In 2004 Congress passed a law declaring September 17 Constitution Day. In honor of Constitution Day, Republicans introduced a new, novel proposal to the House. They want all new bills passed to site their legality in accordance with the constitution. I think this is a great idea and I would love to see it go through. I think this is worth reading because the power of the government comes from the constitution, so why should we not have to cite where in the constitution the federal government is allowed that power? When our country was founded, it was done so to severely limit the power of the federal government, something that needs to be kept in check. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.” I think this bill would be a great way to honor our roots on Constitution Day.