Friday, May 11, 2012
American Taxes
On Friday, April 27, 2012, Ingrid wrote a post about taxes on her blog entitled "Where are your feet?" Ingrid writes that while regular hard working American citizens are working our tails off and still paying taxes, Hollywood movie stars, famous singers and actors, or people who are in the lime-light all the time somehow think that they are exempt from paying their taxes. Um, excuse me? No. I agree with Ingrid in saying that is NOT acceptable. Martha Stewart says she shouldn't have to pay $220,000 worth of taxes on her East Hampton mansion because she hardly spent time there? Un-freaking-acceptable. If you have the house, you should have to pay taxes just like everyone else. A celebrity is not exempt from paying taxes just because they are in the lime-light all the time. Our tax dollars go towards defense and international security assistance, Social Security, safety net programs,
interest on the national debt, benefits for federal retirees/veterans,
transportation, education, federal prisons and scientific medical research, so they are very good causes. Celebrities are human beings just like us, so they should have to follow the rules, just like we do.
Abortion: Should it be legal?
I believe that the decision in Roe v. Wade was a good one. Women should have a right to privacy up to a point. Dividing a woman's pregnancy into trimesters seems like a good way to decide when the woman's rights start to become less important than the baby's rights. In the first trimester a woman has a right to privacy and an abortion is legal. This seems fair to me. It is the woman's body and life so that makes the decision of whether or not to have the baby her decision and hers alone. In the second trimester it is up to each individual state on whether abortion is legal or not, but the baby starts to get more rights which is reasonable because the baby is being more and more developed. In the third trimester the baby's rights become more important than the mother's rights so it is illegal to have an abortion and I completely support that. It seems wrong to have an abortion when the baby is so close to being born. It is like killing a human life, which is equivalent to murder and it is cruel.
Frivolous Lawsuits
On Friday, March 30, 2012, Kyle Ghedi wrote a piece about frivolous lawsuits on his blog entitled "Whats up with the American Government?" In his commentary Kyle argues that too many people in the state of Texas are suing major companies for things that are not that important and definitely not worth so much money. In 2007 a man sued a dry-cleaning company for 65 million dollars for losing a pair of his pants. I completely agree that it is ridiculous. Sure, you're allowed to get mad, but the most you should do is ask for some compensation for your lost pants and be mad for a while, then get over it. Go to a different dry cleaner if it means that much to you. The dry cleaners apparently found the lost pants, but the man said they weren't his pants. They're just pants! Buy some new ones! They couldn't have cost more than a hundred dollars and this man sued for 65 million. I agree that cases like these are a waste of taxpayers' money. The only issue, as Kyle pointed out, is who is supposed to decide what is consitered frivolous and what is not?
Gay Marriage
Many citizens have different opinions on gay marriage. Some people think that is isn't right because it is a sin in their religion ("Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve") or that it would weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage. Others think that denying same sex couples the right to get married is a violation of their religious freedom and it is a form of minority diiscrimination.
I personally agree with those who believe that same sex couples have the right to get married and denying them that right is unconstitutional. Letting same sex couples get married does not hurt anyone in particular and it does not hurt society or the institution of marriage. It is a person's right to do what they want in this country as long as it doesn't violate any laws. Aren't people in this country supposed to be free? Free to speak their minds and free to get married to whomever they want to. Not that long ago we thought that it should be against the law for people to marry outside of their race. Now, as we look back we think that's crazy! I believe that we are going to look back at this time and think "What the heck. Why didn't we let same sex couples get married? How stupid." just like we think it was stupid for us to think that people shouldn't marry outside of their race. Same sex couples should be treated equally and fairly and that means they should have the right to get married. Man and woman, woman and woman, man and man, it doesn't matter. We should all have the right to marry whomever we want to marry. It should be about love, not politics.
I personally agree with those who believe that same sex couples have the right to get married and denying them that right is unconstitutional. Letting same sex couples get married does not hurt anyone in particular and it does not hurt society or the institution of marriage. It is a person's right to do what they want in this country as long as it doesn't violate any laws. Aren't people in this country supposed to be free? Free to speak their minds and free to get married to whomever they want to. Not that long ago we thought that it should be against the law for people to marry outside of their race. Now, as we look back we think that's crazy! I believe that we are going to look back at this time and think "What the heck. Why didn't we let same sex couples get married? How stupid." just like we think it was stupid for us to think that people shouldn't marry outside of their race. Same sex couples should be treated equally and fairly and that means they should have the right to get married. Man and woman, woman and woman, man and man, it doesn't matter. We should all have the right to marry whomever we want to marry. It should be about love, not politics.
Missouri Minimum Wage
On Wednesday, May 9, 2012, The Huffington Post posted a blog post called "Missouri Minimum Wage Hike: Backers Say They Have Enough Signitures To Qualify For Ballot" by Ariel Edwards-Levy. Ariel Edwards-Levy is a credible blogger for the Huffington Post. Her target audience is people who work minimum wage or people who don't want minimum wage to increase. Edwards-Levy puts forth two opposong views on the increase in minimum wage.
The people who back the proposal that would raise minimum wage by $1 which would make it $8.25 an hour in 2013 and require that tipped employees received 60 percent of the state minimum wage, as opposed to 50 percent. These people, including the director of Missouri Jobs with Justice, argue that "Everything is going up but the paycheck," and it is getting increasingly more difficult to pay bills on a minimum wage budget.
People who oppose the minimum wage increase argue that it is harmful and would hurt employment numbers, especially for teenaged workers. Making minimum wage higher would in turn make the amount of jobs available decrease.
I can see both sides, but because I am a teenager with little work experience I woudl not like it if the minimum wage increase hurt my chances of getting a job. I would propose a compromise of maybe a fifty cent raise and meet somewhere in the middle.
The people who back the proposal that would raise minimum wage by $1 which would make it $8.25 an hour in 2013 and require that tipped employees received 60 percent of the state minimum wage, as opposed to 50 percent. These people, including the director of Missouri Jobs with Justice, argue that "Everything is going up but the paycheck," and it is getting increasingly more difficult to pay bills on a minimum wage budget.
People who oppose the minimum wage increase argue that it is harmful and would hurt employment numbers, especially for teenaged workers. Making minimum wage higher would in turn make the amount of jobs available decrease.
I can see both sides, but because I am a teenager with little work experience I woudl not like it if the minimum wage increase hurt my chances of getting a job. I would propose a compromise of maybe a fifty cent raise and meet somewhere in the middle.
Perry's Proposal
On Sunday, April 29, 2012, the Austin American Statesman published a commentary called "Perry's idea would help stabilize, trim the fat," written by Chuck DeVore, a local contributor and former state legislator. DeVore's intended audience is people who live in Texas and, more specifically, Texas lawmakers. DeVore is arguing that Governor Rick Perry's proposal of the Texas Budget Compact is the right way to go to fix the state's current and future budget problems. He uses emotional and logical appeals to persuade Texas citizens to vote for Perry's proposal by saying that the money will come out of their pockets, and to persuade Texas lawmakers that Perry's proposal is the right one to follow.
DeVore concludes by saying "As a former state legislator, I've seen what happens when responsible budgeting is ignored—and it's not pretty. Texas lawmakers once again have the opportunity to rise to the challenge and provide an example of fiscal discipline that the rest of America would be wise to follow."
I agree with DeVore, Perry's proposal sounds like it has the potential to fix the state's current and future budget problems even though it may be hard.
DeVore concludes by saying "As a former state legislator, I've seen what happens when responsible budgeting is ignored—and it's not pretty. Texas lawmakers once again have the opportunity to rise to the challenge and provide an example of fiscal discipline that the rest of America would be wise to follow."
I agree with DeVore, Perry's proposal sounds like it has the potential to fix the state's current and future budget problems even though it may be hard.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Texas Juvenile Justice Department
On Thursday, May 10, 2012, the Austin American Statesman published an editorial titled "Calling in juvenile justice cavalry." Governor Rick Perry has called in Jay Kimbrough, a highly qualified and trusted man that the editorial jokes as being equivalent to the cavalry. His job is to bring safety and security to the agencies youth lock-ups, and they think he's the right man for the job. They say they need Kimbrough's services only temporarily for as long as it takes to make things right. Lawmakers are going to make changes regarding the troubles with the juvenile justice system when they meet early next year, but something has to be done now, and they believe (they need to believe) that Kimbrough will bring immediate results.
They thought that the issues that made them rethink how the state deals with youth offenders had been resolved after a series of scandals that were reported in 2007, but they were wrong. All sorts of awful things were happening in these facilities; sexual abuse of inmates, hiring of guards and supervisors with questionable records, and efforts within the agency to keep the abuse quiet were just some of the things going on. People in charge were fired, arrested, and forced to resign. Things were changing left and right. There were reforms that led to almost half of the state's youth lockups to be closed and brought about the state adopted community-based rehab programs. These reforms led to the merger which created the Texas Juvenile Justice Department.
Few lockups were kept open for youths who had committed more serious crimes, but there were reports of a campus under the control of youth gang members, supervisors dressing more like gang members than state employees, the facilities not maintaining the legislatively mandated 12-to-1 offender-to-staff ratio, and supervisors not properly checking on bullying.
They're hoping that Kimbrough is the right man for the job of separating those who are more dangerous and should be better watched from those who just need a little push in the right direction, as well as insisting that staff members act more professionally.
This editorial is worth reading because it provides a solution to a serious problem that is going on in Texas right now that you might not have known about. I know I didn't, and I am now informed.
They thought that the issues that made them rethink how the state deals with youth offenders had been resolved after a series of scandals that were reported in 2007, but they were wrong. All sorts of awful things were happening in these facilities; sexual abuse of inmates, hiring of guards and supervisors with questionable records, and efforts within the agency to keep the abuse quiet were just some of the things going on. People in charge were fired, arrested, and forced to resign. Things were changing left and right. There were reforms that led to almost half of the state's youth lockups to be closed and brought about the state adopted community-based rehab programs. These reforms led to the merger which created the Texas Juvenile Justice Department.
Few lockups were kept open for youths who had committed more serious crimes, but there were reports of a campus under the control of youth gang members, supervisors dressing more like gang members than state employees, the facilities not maintaining the legislatively mandated 12-to-1 offender-to-staff ratio, and supervisors not properly checking on bullying.
They're hoping that Kimbrough is the right man for the job of separating those who are more dangerous and should be better watched from those who just need a little push in the right direction, as well as insisting that staff members act more professionally.
This editorial is worth reading because it provides a solution to a serious problem that is going on in Texas right now that you might not have known about. I know I didn't, and I am now informed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)