Unemployment Programs Corrupted?

The blog article “Unemployment Benefits…No Problem” aptly highlights the pros and cons of Texas’ unemployment benefits program. It is not hard for the average Texan to sympathize with those who are unemployed as we all tighten our purse strings to make ends meet. Most Texans would not begrudge a hardworking citizen a little help when times are hard. However, it is a disgrace and unfortunate when people take advantage of the system as the blog notes. According to the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC), people receiving unemployment benefits must actively searching for full-time work, apply for positions and accept suitable work. The question is how is this enforced? As the blog article notes, people can apply for jobs all they want and not accept a single one and how would the TWC know? What is particularly disturbing is people can qualify for unemployment benefits up to 76 weeks, which is almost 2 years! There are jobs out there. They may not be ideal but they exist. Fortunately, the TWC allows for people to qualify for unemployment benefits while employed to act as a safety net. However, one wonders how many elect to work and receive assistance versus not working at all. While there is no doubt some people need assistance during these difficult economic times, the question is what kind of accountability is the TWC enforcing?

    

Having said all the above, I disagree with the blog article’s incitement for employers to hire people on a temporary basis. While I understand the motive, it helps no one in the end because it simply isn’t cost effective. The cost of employee turnover for someone earning $8/hr ranges from $3,500 to $25,000 annually per employee. Businesses’ goal is to make money and hiring someone temporarily is not cost effective. Furthermore, the success of businesses ensures the success and productivity of the national economy when taken as a whole. Therefore, hiring people temporarily could translate into further economic uncertainty and failure.

           

What is Texas doing now that they weren’t doing 3-4 years ago, which is resulting in an unacceptable unemployment rate?

Social Workers: Over Worked and Under Compensated

As the economy continues to lag and the population continues to grow social service needs will continue to rise. Social workers play a critical role in helping people on their path to autonomy and self-sufficiency, whether it’s due to unemployment, substance abuse or a mental illness. Two prominent values of the profession are service and social justice. Social workers strive to help those in need and to address social problems including poverty, discrimination and unemployment. Despite their high need (the profession is projected grow faster than all other professions on average, which illustrates the demand for social workers), social workers continue to be compensated and recruited less than other social service professionals, such as teachers and nurses.

Even with similar education requirements and job descriptions social workers continue to be paid less than teachers and nurses. This is clearly evident when comparing registered nurses with social workers. The minimum education for registered nurses is an associate degree, while social workers must have a bachelor degree. However, many social work positions require advanced education (e.g. Master degree) and advanced licensure (e.g. Licensed Clinical Social Worker). This is most commonly found among social work positions in schools and the health sector, which are some of the highest social service need areas. Therefore, despite increased educational and competency requirements, social workers are paid approximately $5,000 less than entry-level  secondary education teachers (10 month contract) and $4,000 less than registered nurses annually in Texas. This compounds the problem because evidence indicates this results in high turnover rates, insufficient experience and dissatisfaction within the social work profession. If the profession of social work is not adequately sustained and supported by society (e.g. financially competitive) then how will the nation’s vast social service needs be met? 

What happened to personal responsibility?

The blog article “Occupy…Your Time Better” discusses the local and national Occupy Wall Street movement. The primary argument of the article is Wall Street and the banking industry should not be responsible for the escalating cost of college and graduates’ subsequent college debt. The article is appropriately critical of the Daily Texan’s article “Occupy Austin trickles down to students.” While government regulations are sometimes necessary to protect society at large, personal responsibility remains central. Furthermore, the blog article critique’s the narrowed scope of the Daily Texan’s article. The overall goal of the Occupy Wall Street movement is lost in talk about Wall Street and banks’ responsibility to essentially pay-off college graduates’ debt.

The referenced Daily Texan article makes three erroneous or unsubstantiated claims: 1) college students were forced to take out excessive loans, 2) college costs have risen due to the increased borrowing power of college students and 3) Wall Street and banks should be responsible for graduates’ college debt. No one has been forced at gunpoint to take out a student loan. Yes, college costs are exorbitant but students have the responsibility to make mature and conscious choices. It may be in students’ financial interests to attend a cheaper college, start off at community college and transfer to a university, take advantage of federal loans instead of private loans and make wise college degree choices where jobs are in high demand (e.g. nursing degree). Additionally, there is no evidence the increased availability of student loans is directly related to the cost of college. Last, Wall Street and banks are no more responsible for students’ debt than I am for my neighbor’s debt. We all make decisions and in the end we must be responsible for them.

The Occupy Wall Street movement has successfully brought attention to the inequalities in our societies. However, some of the blame seems misplaced. Government is responsible for regulating industries but this has little to do with morality. Government cannot and should not regulate morality. Moreover, government is responsible for programs that assist the poor, which are clearly failing. Why is more effort not targeted at this? Additionally, the movement has yet to hold the government accountable for it’s spending. Thus, the blog article appropriately defines the movement as a blame game in a lot of ways, which was clearly depicted in the Daily Texan article. The Occupy Wall Street movement should spend more time attempting to elicit institutional and societal changes (e.g. improved primary education systems) that create an environment for success and prosperity instead of attacking people and industries that have been fortunate enough to prosper. Regulations should be enforced and loopholes should be closed but success should not be condemned. Life is not fair. 

2011 Proposed Texas Constitutional Amendments

With the upcoming November 8 ballot fast approaching it is imperative Texans familiarize themselves with the ten proposed amendments. This post will focus on three of the ten amendments to the Texas constitution. While the process is tedious, the Texas constitution requires all amendments be submitted to the public for approval or rejection. While special elections usually result in poor voter turnout and thus, a low ratification rate for new constitutional amendments, today's economy and state of politics requires Texans be more active in the political process this November. The following summarize Propositions 1, 3 and 6:

Proposition 1: Exemption from property taxation, all or in part, for spouses of 100 percent or totally disabled veterans.  

This amendment recognizes the sacrifices veterans and their spouses make by preventing them from being taxed out of their homes. Thus, supporters say this amendment will provide peace of mind to veterans. Tax exemption does not apply to spouses who remarry. 

Verdict: This blogger proposes voting for Proposition 1.

Proposition 3: Issuance of general obligation bonds of the State of Texas to finance student loans.

Recently, the availability of federally subsidized student loans has diminished. The Hinson-Hazelwood program provides low-interest, fixed-rate student loans and has a history of low-default. The state has never had to contribute funds to support this student loan program due to its self-supporting nature. As the adage goes, knowledge is power. Moreover, U.S. Census Bureau statistics highlight the financial importance of obtaining a post-secondary education. Financial stability and solvency is near and dear to citizens’ hearts and concerns at this time.

Verdict: This blogger proposes voting for Proposition 3.

Proposition 6: Empowerment of the General Land Office to distribute revenue from the permanent school fund to the available school fund.

This amendment would allow the General Land Office to essentially liquidate permanent assets that would otherwise be invested to generate ongoing growth. Traditionally, interest from the permanent school fund's investments help financially support the available school fund. Proponents to this amendment emphasis the short-term benefit and shortsightedness of the amendment. Supports say the amendment will infuse the available school fund with revenue, which will have a direct impact on public schools. However, today's property taxes, which help finance public schools, are one-third of what they were in 2005. Does the public want the General Land Office's hands in the permanent investments that help finance public schools and their growth?

Verdict: This blogger votes against Proposition 6.

The more informed the public is the more likely they will be politically involved and potentially vote on the November 8 ballot. This is particularly important in Texas where citizens often become apathetic with the onerous constitutional amendment process, which in part results in low voter turnout. Texans need to do their homework and further research the proposed constitutional amendments to gain a more accurate and encompassing working knowledge of what the future of public education and the economy will look like in Texas. 

For further information on the November 8 ballot constitutional amendments or related topics refer to the following:

The Star-Telegram's article "Water propositions deserve voter support" and "Changing the Texas Constitution (again)."

The Texas Legislative Council’s “Analyses of Proposed Constitutional Amendments."

The UPROAR's "Budget Cuts on Texas Education."

Hispanics' Influence in the 2010 Presidential Race

            The commentary “Willful ignorance: the GOP’s Hispanic problem” discusses the Republican Party’s barrier to the Hispanic vote in the upcoming presidential election. The commentary’s author, Paul Burka, cites the Public Policy Polling’s findings, which indicate despite President Obama’s decreased support by Hispanic constituents, he is still likely to lead two of the GOP’s potential candidates, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry. Burka goes on to highlight the key reasons Perry is likely to remain unsupported by the Texas Hispanic population: 1) budget cuts which impact CHIP, Medicaid and education 2) support for Voter I.D. policy and 3) support for sanctuary cities policy.

            The commentary’s audience is the readership of the Texas Monthly, which is the main outlet for the blog. Additionally, the BurkaBlog tends to be more left-leaning. Thus, the audience is likely to be more liberal politically. 

The article is credible in that Texas Monthly is considered “one of the nation’s premier regional magazines” per Lee Nichols with The Austin Chronicle. Additionally, Burka is the Senior Executive Editor of the blog, which illustrates legitimacy by way of professional expertise. Burka’s expertise and thus, credibility, is further exhibited by his presence as a panelist on “Legislative Blogrolling” at the College of Liberal Arts of The University of Texas at Austin.

Burka’s logic seems sound. Evidence indicates the Hispanic population in Texas will be the majority in 2020 (Keith & Haag, 2011). Therefore, elected officials are likely to reflect the changing demographics, whether as increased Hispanic elected officials or increased elected Democrats, which Hispanics tend to support more than Republicans. However, the Pew Hispanic Center conducted a national survey following the 2008 presidential election indicating the economy is the most important issue facing the Obama administration (Keith & Haag, 2011). This indicates Obama may have a run for his money in the upcoming presidential election despite Burka’s claims, especially since other demographic populations will be influential. Nonetheless, Burka points out Perry has failed to meet the expectations of Hispanics in regards to health care and education, and the aforementioned survey indicates these issues closely follow the importance of the economy.

             One thing I disagree with, is the preposition the Republican party is willfully ignoring demographics because there are other factors at play. First, while minorities are likely to be the majority when considered in combination, Anglos remain the predominant race when considered alone. Therefore, while it is unfair to ignore any race simply because they are a minority, it is strategic to focus on the majority for electorate purposes. Additionally, business interests are the most prevalent among the legislative agenda and most corporations are owned and run by Anglo Americans. Therefore, I would argue politicians are just playing politics when it comes to what policies they support in an effort to garner the most votes. In contrast, I agree with Burka on the importance of diversifying political campaigns and policies in order to parallel a growing diverse population. Additionally, while Hispanics tend to be more left-leaning, a number of Hispanics are non-partisan or have no affiliation with a specific party. This is important because political strategy indicates it is most efficient to persuade non-affiliated voters than those who are steadfast in their political affiliation. Thus, it would behoove the Republican presidential nominees, specifically Perry, to strengthen their appeal to the Hispanic population. 

Austin Poverty Rate: A Demand for Change?

             In the Austin American Statesman's editorial “Bumper-stickers policy no way to fight poverty,” the author challenges the notion poverty is caused by unemployment. Instead, the author proposes poverty is a matter of underemployment. The author goes on to confront the belief Austin has survived the recession unscathed, when in fact, Austin leads the state in the rate of poverty. The author credits some of the local economic hardships to the cuts in government jobs. Per the author, this leads to a ripple affect impacting the economy negatively  (e.g. increased service demands, particularly social services, yet limited manpower). The author insights policymakers to produce change (e.g. improved education, training, job creation, and economically diverse housing) that will mitigate poverty and increase prosperity. 

            The author’s main audience appears to be policymakers. This seems flawed because in the end it is the public who elect policymakers, and since the status quo predominantly remains unchallenged, as exhibited by Governor Perry’s re-election time and again, it seems most appropriate to persuade the community to demand change. On some level the author does this by referring to “anyone who read a newspaper, watched a television report or read a blog,” which implies the general public cannot claim ignorance to the economic climate of Austin.

Despite the above, much of the author’s content is appears credible. Evidence from the US Census Bureau provides comparable findings to the poverty rate of 19.2% quoted in the editorial. However, the US Census Bureau findings reported data from 2010 and the numbers diverge by 0.8% (18.4% per the US Census Bureau). Granted, the difference is statistically significant, however, the rate of poverty is severe nonetheless. One thing the author’s findings do not reveal is the breakdown of poverty by work experience. While I agree having a job does not mean someone is earning a living wage, the status of employment (e.g. full-time, part-time or unemployed) is significant. According to city-data.com the majority of individuals and families living in poverty were employed part-time or unemployed. The question then becomes is their employment status primarily a reflection of job availability or lack of motivation?

Overall, I agree with the editorial’s message. The local poverty rate is not only morally troubling but also alarming due to the negative implications it has on society (e.g. monetary costs, the potential correlation to crime, and long-term economic prosperity). If the only goal of the editorial is to educate and persuade the public poverty a serious issue, then I feel it was successful. However, if the goal was to produce change I question the author’s success. The author provides no specific examples of how the general population can propagate change. Instead, the author refers to generally accepted means to improve the economy (e.g. job creation, education, etc.). Without specifics it seems difficult for the public to lobby for change, they don’t know where to begin. It seems more appropriate for the author to target specific policies (e.g. taxes) and their impact on poverty instead of poverty in and of itself. 

Tax increase, fair or foul?

The Austin American Statesman’s Editorial “No such thing as ‘minimal’ tax hike”

is aptly named. It uses City Manager Marc Ott’s $2.8 billion budget proposal as a backdrop for discussing Austin residents’ annual taxes, which are anything but inexpensive per Rodolf Gonzales. Gonzales beseeches the City Council members to truthfully divulge the extent and rate of residences’ annual taxes and accordingly, to consider them when proposing tax hikes. Currently, Austin residences annual taxes include property taxes, city taxes (e.g. for local school districts), utility fees and taxes that pay for city employees’ salary, including raises. Gonzales concludes, what appears to be a superficial tax hike in reality has a significant impact on people’s total taxes. Considering the hardship a “minimal” tax hike would have on Austin residence, some of which are unemployed and struggling in today’s economy, Gonzales proposes postponement of the anticipated “2 percent across-the-board pay raises for regular city employees, the mayor and council members.” This would significantly reduce the tax burden for Austin residences.

            This editorial is important because it illustrates the need to be educated and involved in local government. Additionally, the editorial’s lesson, minimal is sometimes considerable, translates to other topics as well.