In response to Jordan Puckett's Income Tax post.

I understand Mr. Puckett's claims that the sales tax operates completely on the amount of money you spend, the so called "tax on consumerism", however I feel he has failed to address the true effect and fiscal disparity the sales tax incurs.  While it is true that the sales tax is a simpler method of extracting money from the population, it is not a "fair tax" at all.  Mr. Puckett claims that mention the effects of the tax on the poor is "barely worth mentioning" considering many items are exempt from the sales tax.  However he failed to mention a few key points.  While a fair tax that is proportional across all levels sounds fair and wise, it is extremely misleading.  Using the word fair is simply a means for the very wealthy to trick voters into thinking they are getting a good deal.  A fair tax victimizes the poor by forcing them to actually pay more proportionally.  Let's say that you have a family earning 10 dollars a month and a family earning 100 dollars a month.  Now let's say that both families buy clothing and a computer and it costs 2 dollars, tax included.  Those 2 dollars consist of 20% of the poorer families income, while the richer family is paying 2% of their income. This leaves the poorer family with 8 dollars to pay rent, buy a car, pay for gas, buy non-essentials, and pay utility bills.  Now of course one could argue that the richer family would buy more luxury goods, perhaps a luxury tax would be involved, but in terms of the sales tax/consumption the richer family would have to spend ten times as much as the poorer family in order to be "fairly" taxed.  While it is mentioned that many items such as groceries and baby products are exempt from the sales tax, many items that are crucial to surviving in the 21st century such as computers and the internet.
In terms of my personal beliefs, I find it hard to believe that millionaires and billionaires will pay the same with a sales tax, as opposed to an income tax.  Perhaps a  better solution would be implementing a higher income tax for the mega wealthy, and instituting a fair tax instead of an income tax on the middle class.
Essentially I don't think that a "fair tax" is nearly as fair as it sounds, and while the income tax is a beast not easily tamed, at least it forces the wealthy to pay a small part their fair share.  I encourage you to read about regressive taxes in order to understand my hesitation with a fair tax.

       When viewing the Texas Government at face value, one might find it chaotic, messy, a relic of an older era.  In all of those observations they would be correct, and yet there is a method to the madness.  The area that I would like to focus on is the Legislature and the positives, and negatives of our system.

         The Texas Legislature is in session every other year, and this does create some problems.  This holdover from the agricultural age no longer reflects the fast and furious urban lifestyle that many Texans live.  In the last one hundred years Texas has shifted from a primarily rural and agricultural community into a large, sprawling urban state.  With massive influxes of immigrants, job seekers, and other population shifts it seems that our current legislature cannot effectively govern our state with such rapid changes occurring.  One need only observe our legislature at the end of the session to observe the chaos and rushing that is required to do the job semi-correctly.  Some people take issue with house members and voting in place of their comrades, claiming that the representatives must cast their own vote.  They complain that it is undemocratic for our legislators to not be present for every vote, and yet all this is contradictory.  In order for our Legislature to function properly, it must become a full-time body, not a part-time body that barely makes up for the ever changing Texan situation. 

        In the place of a full time legislature, Texas seems to have more functional departments that operate more or less independently, however this is not the way it should be. While the department heads are more or less elected, they hold power much stronger than the legislature in the sense that they are accountable to almost no one.  Without a strong legislature providing strong guidance to these departments, the government becomes more and more of a sort of plutocratic-oligarchy.  Therefore the legislators should meet more often, and have increased power in order to more effectively govern the state.

       Essentially Texas is no longer an agricultural state, and this change should be reflected within out government.  While it is true that many of our departments operate very well within our state, making up for the legislature's short comings, it is a travesty that our primary legislative body does not operate to it's full efficiency and that state elected officials hold more clout.

Plastic Bag Ban. Good or Bad?

On November 4, 2013  I responded to Ivitte Hernandez's post in favor of the Austin plastic bag ban.

I personally thought the plastic ban was a very positive thing. Plastic takes thousands of years to degrade, and even with the strictest recycling policies it would be impossible to recycle every plastic bag. Additionally, in terms of grocery shopping, there is no need for plastics bags. Reusable canvas bags can be brought to the store with minimal effort, not to mention you would actually spend less money in the long term since you are no longer buying bags everyday. 
In terms of the government "raising taxes" in order to pay for cotton and paper bags, I can really on see this as a positive. Would you rather see mounds of plastic bags in town lake, downtown, and zilker. Or pay a couple dollars more and have a cleaner city. In regards to "plastic bags do not destroy the environment before they are even sold", plastic is actually petroleum based therefore the production of plastic does propagate pollution inducing practices. While paper bags do require trees, trees are a renewable resource, unlike oil. 
Essentially my questions are, does the inconvenience of not having plastic bags really outweigh the positives of less pollution. I also don't understand the relation between higher taxes and paper/cotton bags. It seems to me that the budget could easily incorporate the price of plastic bags into paper/cotton.

Today I would like to speak to the issue of fracking.  First off, what is fracking? Fracking can be defined as "the forcing open of fissures in subterranean rocks by introducing liquids at high pressure, especially for oil and gas".  Fracking is a technique that was developed and used for the first time in 1949, but was not commercially used on a large scale until quite recently.  It is estimated that sixty percent of all natural gas and oil production now comes from hydraulic fracking, with over one million wells being opened in the United States alone.  Texas, as on of the leaders in oil and natural gas production in the States, has a vested interest in seeing fracking expand. However, as with all new technologies, there are kinks that need to be ironed out.
In my opinion fracking heralds a new age of natural gas production and cleaner energy, as natural gas is a much safer alternative to coal.  Coal is one of the most polluting fossil fuels to burn but is also more efficient than natural gas, with an energy conversion rate of about 35%.  While natural gas powered electricity produces less CO2 than coal, many environmentalists have measured that fracking sites leak a significant amount of methane.  Methane is a green house gas much like C02, however it is twenty times more absorbent than C02.  Environmentalists have used this information to claim that the lessened pollution of natural gas compared to coal does not make up for the leaked methane produced by fracking.  However I don't think that is the primary issue.

Environmentalists would stop all fracking work, forcing us to rely on  a combination of coal and some eco-friendly alternative sources.  The simple fact is that even if fracking does release methane, it can be fixed.  Fracking is not a process set in stone, it is an ongoing test to produce oil and gas and safely and efficiently as possible.  Therefore it serves no purpose to stand in the way of fracking, it's going to happen either way, the best course of action is to make sure it is done as safely as possible.

 Essentially environmentalists and the companies that engage in fracking should engage in a conversation about fracking, instead of remaining rigidly inflexible.

In his blog entry titled Jerry Patterson Wants You to Bring Your Guns to the Alamo, Paul Burka writes upon the recent call to arms by Jerry Patterson for owners of so called "long guns" to converge on the Alamo as a demonstration of the right to bear arms.  Paul Burka himself is an avid admirer of guns, having been the Deadeye Dick at his high school, obtaining a score of 236 out of 250 on an accuracy test.  However, as a private citizen he does not own any personal weapons.  Despite his skill with firearms, he still believes that it is insane how overly protective of their guns many people are.  While he is aware that most gun owners are average people like himself, he claims that there are many people who are legitimately afraid of a day when the government will attempt to take away their personal guns.  Recently  at the rally at the Alamo, long gun owners(guns with long barrels ex. shotguns) attempted to push the limits of gun laws by publicly displaying loaded firearms.  They were incited by Jerry Patterson, currently the commissioner of the General Land Office, and current candidate for Lt. Governor.  Patterson's aim for the rally was to make the public aware of a "peaceful right we fear losing", however Burka believes that there is absolutely no chance the 2nd amendment will ever be removed.  
Clearly Burka is writing towards a moderate audience of people who perhaps own guns, but do not particularly harbor any paranoia about the government. He points out that it is possible to be a gun lover without resorting to armed demonstration. Indeed, I fully agree with Burka, people are far too paranoid about their right to bear arms, especially in a state such as Texas.  The majority of the population probably does not own guns, and it is absurd to think that every citizen needs a personal arsenal in their home.  The carry of long guns also shows a disrespect to those who perhaps do not feel safe around guns.  While it's fine to argue for the right to have long guns in your car on your gun rack, walking down sixth street with a loaded shotgun is a much more serious issue.  We are only human after all, and what good can come of open carrying weapons that can accidentally discharge and kill?

           In his op-ed What it Takes from Texas Monthly, Robert Draper speaks on the issue off Wendy Davis' announcement for her inclusion of the gubernatorial race.  Draper seems to be of the opinion that Davis is not some random celebrity/politician that is running off of her recent filibuster fame.  He claims that she is a genuine candidate that seeks out true change in Texan Government, as opposed to her opponent Greg Abbot who is simply a Perry crony.  He claims that her ideals are more in line with mainstream conservatism because of her recent speeches on the tax loophole issue than actual republicans in office. Davis' recent opposition to the Obama Administrations anti-merger declaration for American Airlines and U.S airways has given her an issue that demonstrates her pro-Texas business policies, and proves that point.  Draper however, fears that she will simply be caste as a liberal "abortion barbie" or simply a flag bearer for the dead Democratic Party in Texas.  However, he also remains hopeful, since Davis was able to beat out the sixteen year incumbent in the Texas Legislature in a majority conservative district, it seems she may last.  Unfortunately, says Draper, she has one very important issue to confront.  What does it mean to be  a Texas Democrat? This definition seems to be the real deciding point on whether or not she will be successful.  Ultimately Draper thinks that Davis stands a real chance, as she is candidate that pulled herself from a low-income trailer park childhood, to Harvard Law School and a political career.  He believes she is the embodiment of the "pull yourself up by your boot straps" idea, and thus stands head and shoulder above the other candidates, and may allow Democrats to retake Texas.
          I completely agree with Draper, I too believe that Davis could revitalize and re-brand the Democratic party of Texas.  However, I think that the Democratic party of Texas will have to change significantly in terms of their affiliation to the Larger Democratic Part of the United States in order to woo the conservative votes.  I think that abortion, nepotism, and tax loopholes are some of the most important issues confronting Texans, and I am one hundred percent behind Davis' on all three of those issues.

The article UT Scientists Measure Methane Emissions From Fracking speaks of a recent study done by the University of Texas, along with a few other research institutions, about the emission of methane gas from natural gas wells in Texas.  Contrary to popular belief that CO2 is the primary cause of global warming, methane gas is actually one of the leading causes, thus the relevancy of the study.  The controversy that sparked the study was differences between the EPA's methane estimates of wells and the Oil and Gas company estimates.  The study is one of the first of it's kind, measuring emissions at the well itself, as many previous studies have measured the emissions at several points of production with varying results.   The study in question found that the process of actually creating the wells and beginning to pump is actually far cleaner than the EPA estimated, however the continual use of the wells was emitting significantly more methane than predicted by the EPA.  Essentially the regulation of wells seems to be sub-par as much of the post setup methane can be attributed to leaks, however it proves that fracking isn't nearly as harmful to setup as people would believe.  Another flaw being that the study only investigated natural gas wells, whereas oil wells have worse emissions.
The study is contested however, as some nonprofits, such as the Public Accountability, claim that leading scientists in the study did not disclose their relationship to large Oil and Gas companies and therefore the study should be taken with a grain of salt, or not believed at all.  The influence of the Gas companies has always been a source of disagreement for these studies, however researchers claim that the money they provide is key to securing the livelihood of the studies, and that the companies have no say on how the research will be interpreted.
Essentially the article gave the impression that fracking for natural gas is safe enough to continue with in terms of methane emissions, but does need some work when it comes to production leaks.