Blog# 8: Let Undocumented Drivers Drive Legally

In her blog “Stage Seven: a Common Sense Bill” Helen comments on an article published in Texas Tribune that talks about a bill that will allow  immigrants to get driver’s permits after passing a driving test, going though background checks, submitting fingerprints and paying about $150 in fees.  In light of the ongoing immigration reform debate in Washington, I feel this is an important topic to comment on.

While Helen wrote in favour of the bill that would allow undocumented immigrants to legally register their vehicles and obtain auto insurance, there are few points she might have added to strengthen her support and refute opponents’ arguments.  For example, missing in her  blog from the Texas Tribune’s article is an important comments of Norm Adams, the Republican co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy, that how several local business are facing challenges because some of their undocumented employees not  able to renew their commercial driver’s licenses.  This bill will allow more legal and insured drivers in Texas highways and hence enhance the safely of our roads.

Helen didn’t mention that the amount of money that will be raised from the fines can be used to recruit more enforcement officers and increase highway safety.

Helene correctly pointed out that the bill will not encourages the illegal immigrants to come Texas because it is just a driving permit and couldn’t be used for federal identification purpose such as airport security. In this regard, I would like to add that illegal immigrants don’t come to a place just for the opportunities to drive legally. They come mostly for economic reasons such as better opportunities for employment, and also the opportunities to rejoin with their loved ones. So having the opportunities to drive legally will not play any role to increase the number of illegal immigrants in Texas.

In this context, it is worth mentioning the parallelism between driver’s permit to illegal immigrant and the ITIN number of IRS. Currently IRS provides undocumented immigrants an ITIN (Income Tax Identification Number) that can be used to pay Taxes without a SSN. The premise is that no other government agency can have access to that information and as a result this information cannot be used for deportation purpose. While it is difficult to know how much illegal immigration pay taxes through ITIN but a study shows that IRS collected $50 billion between 1996 and 2003 through ITIN filers. It is believed that a large number of them are undocumented immigrants. So if they can already legally pay taxes, then why not let them drive legally in Texas?

In conclusion, letting undocumented immigrants drive legally is not a question of immigration, it’s a question of safety.

Please Repeal Plastic Bags Ban in Austin

Beginning March 1^st the law of banning the single use plastic bag went into effect in Austin city limit and since then it made a measurable impact on our daily lives. I can’t see any logical point to this law and I completely disagree to it. As in my last blog, I commented against plastic bags ban and in this blog I want to make more points to justify my position against this ridiculous law.

Most of the proponents of plastic bags ban make a lot of statements against plastic bags which are not always true. Plastic bags are more environment friendly than one would think. Plastic bags require 70% less energy to manufacture than paper bags and produce half the amount of greenhouse gas emission in the process. One of the unsubstantiated statements of the proponents is “plastic is killing our oceans”. But there is no evidence to the statement. Also, banning plastic bags can not reduce the amount of plastic waste. A study conducted in 2008 found that that there was a slight increase of plastic waste after plastic bags were banned in 2007 in San Francisco. The city’s data showed that plastic bags amounted to just 0.64% of all lager waste and only 0.5% of all solid waste.

Also proponents say that in order to make plastic bags we are wasting our oil, making us more dependent on foreign oil. But the truth is plastic bags are the byproducts of NATURAL GAS, not OIL! So there is no connection that by banning plastic bags we would be less dependent on foreign oil.

Another argument against plastic bags is that “plastic bags are single use”. But 92% people say that they reuse plastic bags around the house for things like lining waste basket, keeping storage, toting dirty clothes or picking up after pets. If “single use” is the criteria to ban things, then why not ban all paper towels, diapers, toilet paper, and disposable plates and cups that cannot be recycled and take years to dispose?

In addition, reusable bags are unsanitary and can spread germs since most people do not wash the reusable bags. After San Francisco banned plastic bags in 2007, they found illnesses of food related bacteria increased substantially. A study by Jonathan Klick and Joshua Wright showed that food-borne illnesses in San Francisco increased 46% leading to 5.4 annual additional deaths after bag ban was put into effect. In this scenario, supporters suggest that we should wash reusable bags more often, but they forget the fact that washing reusable bags also undermines the environment. Washing reusable bags requires electricity and water, and it also emits polluted water to the environment.

Overall, banning plastic bags in Austin is a ridiculous idea. In my opinion, rather than banning plastic bags Austin City Council should put more efforts in recycling plastic bags. In Texas, there is no real effort or investment in recycling plastic bags despite the fact that it takes less energy to recycle plastic bags. Study shows that it takes 91% less energy to recycle a pound of plastic than it does to recycle a pound of paper. Thus, the plastic bags ban in Austin should be repealed.

Comments on "Just Like A Texan" Blog

I agree with Helen’s point in "Just Like A Texan" blog that plastic bag ban in Austin is a ridiculous law from the Austin City Council. I am a supporter of green environment but I do not see any point how banning plastic bag only in Austin will save the environment when it is not banned outside Austin city limit such as in Cedar Park, Round Rock. As a result, it does not serve the intended purpose when People living in Austin can shop just outside the city limit with plastic bags. Besides, Helen mentioned that reusable bags are unsanitary and can spread germs because people do not often wash the reusable bags. There have been some studies that support this point. For example, after San Francisco passed America's “first-in-the-nation ban” on plastic bags in chain grocery stores and drugstores in 2007, a research by law professors Jonathan Klick and Joshua Wright of Wharton School Institute for Law and Economics found out that food-borne illnesses in San Francisco increased 46 percent leading to 5.4 annual additional deaths after the bag ban went into effect in 2007. The proponents of bag ban argue that plastic bags are not reusable but there is little truth to that. We reuse the plastics bags in our daily lives such as carrying stuffs, trash can liner in the bathrooms etc. Thus, the plastic bag ban in Austin should be repealed.

Texas SHOULD approve Medicaid Expansion

Medicaid expansion has been a hot topic since Texas said “NO” to Medicaid expansion. Medicaid expansion is nation’s health insurance program for law-income individuals and families under the Affordable Care Act which is set to begin in 2014. Under the original law, all U.S. citizens under 65 with family income up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level ($30,675 for a family of four in 2012) will qualify for Medicaid under the expansion. The Medicaid expansion is a joint state-federal government health insurance program in which federal government would pay 90 percent and a state would be required to pay 10 percent. But the Supreme Court upheld the Afforable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion in June 2012. Later the Supreme Court ruled that the Afforable Care Act allowed states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion part of the law, leaving each state’s the choice to participate or not to participate. Fourteen states including Texas announced their rejection to the Medicaid expansion. In Texas the opponents of the Medicaid expansion say that Texas can’t afford Medicaid expansion. They also point out that without the expansion, Medicaid is growing rapidly in Texas and the cost of Medicaid is already out of control.

In my opinion, Medicaid expansion is a good deal for two reasons:

1.      It will bolster economy in Texas

2.      It will reduce uninsured rate in Texas

Since the federal government will pay 90 percent of the cost, states would pay only 10 percent which is not a big expense for a state. Spending money through Medicaid expansion is kind of an economic stimulus in which government money will flow directly to local economy, supporting wages, employment, and consumer spending. Besides, having health insurance coverage enables people to lead healthier lives which in turn makes them more capable of paying their taxes, mortgages, student loans and other living expenses and hence will be good for economy. In addition, Medicaid expansion will add lots of jobs and reduce the cost of insurance premiums. For example, a study by university of Florida commissioned by the hospital association found that expanding Medicaid or finding alternatives that still bring in those federal dollars would create 49,949 jobs in the health-care industry alone in Florida.  Most importantly, expanding Medicaid will provide financial relief to the hospitals that care for uninsured people. Without the Medicaid expansion, hospitals will continue to have high uncompensated care costs, and they will not receive the federal dollars that could have offset these costs.

            In Texas, more than 6 million people including 1.2 million children are uninsured.  25 percent of Texas residents lack health insurance, compared with a national average of 17 percent. The main factors that contribute the Texas’ high number of uninsured are many Texas jobs without any health benefit and the presence of large immigrant population. May be, you and I are fortunate enough to have health insurance, but think about those 6 million Texan who can’t afford any health insurance and how uncertain their lives are. Medicaid expansion is a moral and fiscal imperative.

 Furthermore, opting out of the Medicaid expansion does not save the Texas tax payers’ money. Why is Texas rejecting the Medicaid expansion when Texans are paying for it anyway?

 Medicaid expansion will not only help Texas economy but also reduce number of uninsured Texans. Thus, it is the right thing to do.

Medicaid Expansion in Texas

“MedicaidMousetrap” by Craig Estes in Empower Texans is an article against Medicaid expansion in Texas. Craig Estes is a Republican member of the Texas Senate. In his post Craig implies that Medicaid expansion is same as mousetrap with cheese through “Texas is being lured by free federal dollars into expanding Medicaid”. In his point, Medicaid expansion is a bad idea for Texas and it should be rejected.

The intended audience of his post is obviously conservatives or Republicans.

In his first point Craig says that “Texas can’t afford Medicaid expansion and if Medicaid growth is left unrestrained it will literally squeeze judges, police and professors out of the Texas budget”. I don’t agree with point, since federal government would pay 90 percent of the Medicaid expansion and state would pay only 10 percent, it’s not a big expense for the state. On the other hand, spending money through Medicaid is kind of an economic stimulus in which federal money flows directly into local economy supporting wages, employment, consumer spending, and state tax revenue. Therefore, saying no to Medicaid expansion means saying no to the economic growth of the state.

In his second point, Craig says that Federal governments’ funds for the Medicaid expansion is not free; it is basically coming from the taxpayers. So if it is coming from the taxpayers then why Texas is rejecting to take the money where the Texans are paying for it anyway?!!

In his third point he says that Medicaid expansion would also increase massive Medicaid fraud. In my opinion fraud can happen in any place and fraud should not deter the potential benefits that Medicaid expansion will have in Texas. Rather than complaining about fraud, Texas should put more resources to prevent Medicaid fraud. Also Medicaid expansion will provide financial relief to the hospitals and doctors who provide charity care for uninsured people.

In addition, he also fails to mention that having health insurance coverage makes people healthier physically, psychologically and financially which is good for the economy. The more people are insured the better they will lead healthier lives and in turn the more they will be capable of paying their taxes.

Therefore, Craig’s argument against Medicaid expansion is weak. I think in his argument Craig cherry-picked the downside of the Medicaid expansion; but the upside of the Medicaid expansion outweighs the downside by a huge margin.

Single sex school is not the solution

The Austin American Statesman published an opinion titled “Plan for single sex schoolsin East Austin is another pricey experiment” on February 2, 2013. The writer of the editorial is critical about the Austin school trustees who voted to approve single-sex schools for Pearce and Garcia middle schools. In this editorial, the writer’s intended audiences are the parents, taxpayer, and homeowner of Pearce and Garcia. The writer claims that the trustees’ votes were not based on solid research, financial feasibility or models with a proven track record of success. According to the editorial, Pearce and Garcia has been rated academically unacceptable by the state in three of the past four years and the trustees considered that single-sex school would be the best practices for educating these unban minority students in Pearce and Garcia. The writer claims that the trustees approved attendance-zoned single-sex schools without having solid evidence that “those models have successfully affected academic performance of minority students in urban districts”. Instead they focused on the insignificant point that wearing uniforms or studying in single-sex environment offer fewer distractions.

I think the writer makes a valid point that single-sex school is not a solution to improve the academic performance of the urban minority students. Although I think the writer fails to mention the root cause of the poor performance of the students from these areas. In reality, most of the urban minority families don’t put value to their children’s education. Also the writer did not mention about the disadvantages of single-sex schools which is, single-sex schools  promote gender stereotype and  limit students abilities to successfully interact with members of opposite sex.

The point I fully agree with the writer is that single sex-schools are more expensive to run than co-ed schools because it requires separate campuses for both genders.

In conclusion, single-sex school is not a solution to improve urban minority areas’ education. What  they need to do is to get the parents motivate about the importance of their children’s education and also make sure to recruit skilled teachers in those schools.

Do We Still need "Blue Laws"?

The article that I found interesting on the Texas Tribune is that two bills filed in this Texas legislation session could allow 10 more hours of shopping time by letting liquor stores stay open on Sundays and would also extend liquor sales one hour by allowing sales from 9 AM to 10 PM through Monday to Thursday. This bill would abolish Texas’ “blue laws” which bans buying hard liquor on Sundays. Blue laws were introduced and followed by the Puritans in 17^th century to make sure people were attending church. But in 19^th to 20^th century most of the states abolished blue laws because it violated people’s rights to religious freedoms. But 14 states still have blue laws and it is surprising that Texas is one of them. Why do we still have blue laws in these 14 states? Are they trying to increase Church-goers with this law? So what’s the difference between Sunday and other days, if any one wants to drink on Sunday, they will buy it on other days. On the other hand, allowing the sales of liquor on Sundays, Texas can earn $7.4 million every year, new jobs will be created, and consumers will be benefited. I think this article is important to read, because if this law passes it will benefit both the economy and the consumers. 

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/02/07/drink-bills-would-abolish-sunday-liquor-store-ban/