Stage 8

Vanessa’s post on April 26th on “Undocumented citizens” aka immigrants is a very substantial topic to address.  Vanessa address's the concerns of uninsured motorists, and in my opinion I have no sympathy for immigrants. They do not pay taxes, and they do not pay for health insurance, hints to why my premiums are so high. Which all Americans are subject to pay, especially everyone with a social security card or Drivers License.  The IRS will eventually come for you, but if your not legal, then their is no way of tracking these "illegal aliens , and thanks to Obama the laws were weakened.  

It seems that the Government always waits around and sits until there is an issue or problem that results in lives lost, or if it effects the Governments pocket book. For example after 9/11/2001, the Patriot Act was passed that allows the government to interact and intervene in our privacy without a search warrant.  Lets do something about the issue before it escalates into something that will hurt the economy or violate more of American citizen rights. No rightful American should have to suffer due to a lack of ignorance of Congress or the Obama Administration it does effect us some way, we will be seeing great changes in the next few years that will emphasize on immigration. With Governor Rick Perry is striving to strengthen our borders and keep the illegals out to prevent them from manipulating the current system that American citizens abide by.

            However, I did consider how you spoke your opinion, and it does reveal both sides of the issue.  Yes it will stimulate the economy, but they are here illegal if they don’t have proper documentation. Also they are probably not going to get insurance therefore not participate in the program, which would track there real identity. Giving them a driver’s license won’t solve the problem.

Are Texas Prosecutors Reliable?

Are Texas Prosecutors Reliable?

In the article “Texas Prosecutors No Longer Unassailable”, was published April 26 2013 in The Texas Tribune. Refers to all the controversy that has been an issue with Texas prosecutors. Recently Rosemary Lehmberg received a DWI this past week, a former district attorney is facing charges related to sending an innocent man to jail. Another prosecutor is fighting contempt of court charges after refusing to testify in a prosecutorial misconduct inquiry. Travis County is the seat of the state government, and its district attorney has the duty of prosecuting state officials accused of violating ethics and finance laws. In my opinion, how can we trust the state’s officials if they can’t do act responsible enough outside of work, as District attorney they have incredible power, and how are you supposed to trust there judgment or verdict if they can’t keep them selves in line. Lehmberg is 63 years old and still shows no mercy for the law. Who knows how many times she drinks and drives, this time she got caught and she should face the penalties.  She should resign in consequence to her actions; the public is furious and will be able to trust her judgments. This is a huge political argument, and we shall see what happens, because of her position as District Attorney she will probably receive a slap on the wrist, I doubt she will do time. According to the author Ross Ramsey, Lehmberg was moderately intoxicated with bloodshot, watery and glassy eyes. According to the deputy, Lehmberg appeared “excited,” “insulting,” “cocky,” yet “cooperative.” Her childish actions reflect her credibility serving as a state official. She should resign, but she does not intend to.

 

Now or Later?

Now or Later?

            Screening for drugs while collecting Unemployment benefits is by far the most reasonable solution to weed out those not putting effort in seeking employment, and collecting a free paycheck. It is known that over 80% of employers require a pre-employment drug screening with the addition to random screening through out the employees duration with the company. Forrest is led to believe that Unemployment and Welfare Drug Abusers is “more of a stereotype than an actual problem”.

            Senator Tommy Williams addressed the Economic Development Committee on March 13th 2013 to require drug testing for those that are receiving Unemployment benefits by the Texas Workforce Commission.  According to TWC stats on pre-employment drug screening fails, the new bill (SB21) would estimate a savings of 13 Million over a five-year period. Provided by TWC, this analysis estimates administrative costs of $501,942 in fiscal year 2014 and $168,503 in fiscal years 2015-2018 which includes an additional 3.4 Full-Time-Equivalent positions each fiscal year to implement the provisions of the bill. Such laws have passed in Arizona, Indiana, Missouri and other states. In Florida, people who receive welfare benefits must pay for their own drug tests. Currently about 20 states prohibit unemployment payments for people who have lost a job because of drug use. More than a dozen states do not allow welfare benefits for someone convicted of a drug felony.

            Now, as you might ask what does this have to do with Tax payers, or those who do not receive benefits. Well as Forrest mentioned that Unemployment Benefits “ are not paid by taxpayers; it’s paid by the employers”. Thus, is partly true. At the moment, employers pay a state tax for each employee. The money pays for state-issued unemployment checks – the first 26 weeks of them, anyway. After the 26 weeks is exhausted Obama implemented a federal extension to those collecting Unemployment. Currently, companies pay their federal unemployment tax on the first $7,000 of each employee’s salary. That rate has been the same since 1983. Once the benefits are exhausted from a company, money is then borrowed from Uncle Sam. Not only does the federal extension put a burden on the system, high unemployment rates work in the same way. Borrowing money is not interest free, and states will require a raised tax to implement the costs. Who do you think will pay for these costs? Just because unemployment rates go up doesn’t mean they will automatically tax the employer to budget costs.

 Those who receive paychecks and buy groceries are all subject to pay taxes. It all comes down to my original point, If you can't pass a drug test, then you typically can't get employed, and I would argue you're not actively looking for employment. Therefore defeating the purpose of collecting benefits and would actively determine who is seeking employment.

As of Today- April 9^th 2013, Arkansas Senate agrees to Drug Test those who are receiving Unemployment benefits. I think we will see a pattern in the near future, it is also one of Governor Rick Perry’s matter of contention to address.

Reference:

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/fiscalnotes/html/SB00021I.htm

No more Free rides

With unemployment rates at 6.3% In Texas, and more tax’s taken out of the working citizens paycheck I can speak on the behalf of all of us, we are tired of giving out handouts to the un-needed. Unemployment benefits come from an employer-paid program that provides temporary help for qualified workers who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. Of course one can’t predict if they are receiving a lay off and have to receive unemployment benefits to pay the bills. It is a nuisance to the working citizen to hear or witness someone collecting benefits and being a druggie. Texas lawmakers are considering a bill to require drug testing for people who receive these benefits. Is this ethical?

Absolutely it is. In todays society most companies perform background checks, pre-employment drug screening, and some require a credit check. If one is collecting Federal funds from the State, it should be a requirement to take a drug test and possibly random tests while receiving benefits. Of course it would cost the State additional funds to extract the tests, but it would narrow out the inconsiderate citizens that abuse the program. If one can’t pass a drug test on while receiving benefits, how are they supposed to pass pre-employment drug screening to obtain a job?

In my opinion we are giving out too many “handouts” to the people that abuse the system. I’ve included a picture above to conclude my point on abusing funds. A friend of a friend found a receipt in the parking lot that was from a grocery store, and the individual that was on welfare (food stamps) bought porterhouse steaks and Lobsters and used there “Debt Food Stamps” card to pay for it all. It’s obvious that they aren't buying the bare essentials and are doing well on our tax funds. The Taxpayers pay for these programs and too many people are “riding for free” without any requirements. The key factor is the requirement that people receiving benefits are actively seeking employment and that job seeking is verifiable. It is very interesting to know that Liberals want to limit the ounces in my soda can, or how many bullets I can buy, but cannot admit to unemployment drug testing would be in their best interest. Hopefully Texas will pass the “drug testing” requirement for Government benefits, whether it is for a lay off or welfare. I mean 36% of your paycheck is due to taxes. If we have to pay them, lets make sure our money is not being given to the drug addicts.

Blog Stage 4

Blog Stage 4

Texting While Driving ban passes the House Committee

Karen Brooks Harper wrote an editorial on March 5th in the Dallas News Blog (Trail Blazer) contradicting texting while driving. As we all know texting and driving is just as bad as drinking and driving. A proposed ban is was set in front of the Texas House committee March 5th. There are different aspects to this, Governor Rick Perry is expected to veto the bill again as he did two years ago, as he states, “texting and driving is reckless and irresponsible”, but disagrees with the fact to micromanage the behavior of adults. According to the author, 39 states have banned texting while driving. Twenty-five Texas cities also have passed local texting bans. This article is indeed presented towards the citizens of Texas, as it will affect them. A study done by the Highway Loss Data Institute, which analyzes insurance loss statistics, compared insurance claims in four states before and after each had passed a texting-while-driving ban. The institute found a slight increase in collision claims after texting bans were passed.

According to the authors credentials Governor Rick Perry statement, “texting and driving is reckless and irresponsible”, is correct as well as the studies done by the Institute, if you choose to text and drive you will be penalized. If you don’t text and drive you will go on with you’re daily lives.  Everyone is capable of making their own judgments, and the laws are meant to serve a purpose. Even though it is a law to drink and drive, people still do it on a daily basis, it will never change. I think if we had this law passed, it would only encourage citizens to try and hide it, which takes more time off the road. We always hear of a family member or a friend that was involved in a car accident and sometime led to a fatalities, if the law pass’s we can discipline those that choose to text and drive. There has to be some sort of penalty for someone to recognize a law, whether it is there pocket book or intuition they will make a change. First citation is $100, and there after is $200, this includes reading or actually texting, as well as laptops, and electronic devices. As for the ban, there will have to be some kind of “judgment call” between the office and citizen. Standing up in court, most likely it will be the officer that wins. So do you’re self a favor and don’t text and drive!