More reaction to Austin City Consul

In a recent Texas Government blog post, Rahil voiced support for the Austin City Consul’s move to boycott Arizona in reaction to the recent immigration law passed there. I whole heartily disagree with this position. Arizona is a sovereign state and the citizens of Arizona have a right to pass any law they see fit to govern themselves. The law in question has not even been enacted yet. It is impossible to say what will or will not happen in the future. To say that preventing racial profiling is impossible is not a fair statement in my opinion. The citizens of Arizona know the problem they are dealing with and are taking action to remedy the problem. There may be a way to enforce this law without profiling or locking up anyone and everyone, I just don’t know. I don’t think it is fair for everyone else to judge before any action has taken place. I agree with Gov Perry’s position on the issue. I am against the law in its present form but I will not jump to judgment and will not condemn Arizona for trying to take care of their problems proactively.
Secondly, I don’t believe this falls into the purview of the city consul. The job of the city consul is to run the city of Austin. Not to try and send a purely political message to another state. The city of Austin has enough problems and should spend some time focusing on those problems. Maybe worrying about the “bike boulevard” or taking care of the homeless population. Instead the city consul would rather boycott another state which will only end up hurting Americans by cost the state jobs and revenue.
We should all take a deep breath, step back, and wait to see what the state actually does with this new law. Maybe it will be a big success and racial profiling will not be an issue. Maybe it will be a huge failure and be repealed. Either way, we should give Arizona the time and space to work it out before we jump in.

City Council to vote on Arizona Boycott

Austin Mayor Pro Tem Mike Martinez, along with Mayor Lee Leffingwell and City Council member Bill Spelman are set to introduce a resolution at the May13th to limit employee travel to and terminate business relationships with Arizona. In a statement, Mike Martinez said the reasons for this resolution are 1) not exposing city employees to a hostile environment and b) announce that our community stands opposed to racial discrimination. Martinez also added that the measure is not without precedent, citing “we’ve previously passed policies prohibiting the city from doing business with manufacturers who utilize sweatshop labor.” Mayor Leffingwell added “I’m supporting this resolution because I believe that we have a responsibility not only to protect our own employees, but also to speak out loudly against racial discrimination wherever it exists.”

It is my opinion that the city council should not be proposing a boycott like this. The Austin city council is charged with overseeing Austin’s business, not worrying about how other states handle their business. In a recent Rasmussen poll, 70% of Arizona voters favor the new law. Why is the city council trying to tell the residents of another state how to run their state? The statements of Mike Martinez and Lee Leffingwell show their biases in this issue. Mike Martinez stated he did not want to expose city employees to a hostile environment. What makes him think the environment will be hostile? Are the police stationed on the corner, accosting everyone who walks by? Will they breakdown doors and interrupt dinner to check on immigration status? Mayor Leffingwell stated it he has a responsibility to speak out against racial discrimination. While it is true we all have a moral responsibility to put an end to discrimination and injustice, the Mayor also has responsibility to residents of Austin. It is not the responsibility of the city residents to shoulder the burden associated with a boycott to satisfy the political agenda of a few. A boycott can have huge repercussions for the city and can ultimately backfire.

In the end, this law has not even been enacted yet. We don’t know how the law enforcement agencies of Arizona will react. We don’t know how the environment in Arizona will change. By acting before knowing, the city is putting itself in a bad position. Let ask the city council to act like adults and gather information and make an informed decision. Not just jump on the bandwagon that cities like San Francisco and Washington D.C. seem to be driving.

An Immigration law for Texas

In continuation of my first immigration posting, here is a way we can take the best parts of Arizona's new law and make it work for us. We may not get all the way to immigration reform, but we can at least get on the right track.

There has been a lot in the news over the past few weeks about Arizona’s new immigration law. The new law allows law enforcement to stop and inquire about the legal status of anyone at anytime. Personally, I am not a fan of the new law. I think it goes a little too far and has the potential to allow the police to stop and question anyone they please. I am usually not a fan of the slippery slope argument, but in this case it makes sense. What I do think is that we should stay out of it. States like California have no business saying what other states can or cannot do within their borders. According to recent polls conducted by Gallup, more Americans favor the law than oppose it anyway.

With a few tweaks, a similar law can be implemented here in Texas that could help curb our immigration problems. I don’t think that law enforcement should have the right to stop anyone at anytime for any reason and inquire about the legal status. However, we have to stop tip toeing around the issue. Since when did it become a crime to ask if someone is committing a crime? We have to remember that illegal aliens are, by definition, breaking the law. Law enforcement should have the right to find out if a person, anyone for that matter, is breaking the laws of our state and nation.

I propose we give our states law enforcement agencies the power and the mandate to inquire about the legal status of anyone arrested in the commission of a crime. If a person is arrested for any reason, their legal status should be obtained and appropriate action taken. If said person is found to be here illegally, and if found guilty of the crime he or she was arrested for, he or she will be subject to deportation. There is no reason we should allow illegal alien CRIMINALS to live and work in our state. We have enough problems as is. If the person being arrested is found not guilty, they will be fined for being here illegally and released. By making this question a mandate for everyone who is arrested, you can eliminate the racial profiling argument. It is no more profiling than asking about sex or age when arrested.

Austin Engery Plans Expansion

A recent post in Texas Gov Interpreted by Josh addressed Austin Energy's plan to expand into renewable resources such as wind and solar. I definitely agree with the proposition that the city residents should have more say in how the city runs its power company. Austin energy has a monopoly on electricity in Austin and can charge what whatever they see fit. Without proper competition, there is nothing to keep them in line and look out for the consumers. It is a good idea to make a move toward renewable energy for the future. However, if this is a priority for the city or state government, the government should make some money available to Austin Energy for its experiment in this manner. Raising energy costs by 50% is very impactful to everyday citizens and would be harmful to the economy.
The way I see it is there are two options. First, the city should put it out to a vote. The vote would be on whether the city should appropriate funds to expand Austin Energy. The second option would be selling bonds to pay for the new expansion. If the Austin Energy can cut costs in the long run by using wind and solar, they should be able to pay off bonds in the long term.
If the city government is not willing to pay and the citizens are not willing to fund via bonds, then the plan should not go forward.

A proposal for illegal immigration

Few issues in Texas are as hotly debated as Immigration. The Migration Policy Institute estimates there are more than 1,000,000 undocumented immigrates living in Texas, second only to California. The numbers have been increasing steadily for years. Illegal immigrates are not just coming from Mexico. They are moving south from Oklahoma and east from Arizona. Recently these two states passed tough new laws that make it much more difficult for illegal immigrants to live and work there. Oklahoma’s law makes it illegal to transport, harbor, or hire illegal immigrants. Arizona’s new law will suspend the business license of any company who hires illegal immigrants. Texas has no such law, making it a safe haven for illegals, an expensive safe haven. According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, Texas spends $4.7 Billion annually for the education, medical care, and incarceration of illegal immigrants. If the taxes paid by illegal immigrants are subtracted the number falls to a lowly $3.7 billion annually. This equates to about $725 per native born Texas resident annually.

These numbers are astonishing but what do we do about them? We can’t round up every illegal immigrant in the state and drop them off at the border but on the other hand, we can grant everyone immunity and citizenship either. We need a middle ground that most of us can agree on.

My plan will involve three steps, each one incremental implemented over a period of time. The first step would be to try and stop or slow down the influx of illegal immigrants coming into Texas today. To do this we need to adapt tougher measures on businesses and individuals who hire illegal immigrants. The “sanctuary” polices of Houston, Austin, and San Antonio will have to go. We need to let everyone know we are no longer a safe haven for illegal immigrants. Legislation will have to be passed to fine those knowingly hire illegal immigrants. All illegal immigrants currently working will be “grandfathered” in and will not be affected.

Step two is to get an accurate count of who is here and what they are doing. The state will offer temporary immunity for illegal immigrants to come forward and be counted. Forms will be posted at every state post office or city government building for them to register. Each and every application will be investigated. Anyone found with a criminal record will be automatically denied. Those who have been working, obeying our laws, and providing a living for themselves and their families will be approved. All approved applications will be granted a work permit and be allowed to stay, providing they continue to obey the law and pay taxes.

Step three is to get tough. Once the temporary period is over, no more applications will be accepted. Any illegal immigrant found who has not completed an application will be subject to immediate deportation. This highlights the reason the “sanctuary” polices will have to go.

Once word gets out that Texas is not a place to be illegally, our immigration problems will start to dwindle.

Passing the cost of health care onto you.

A recent posting in The Right Standard discusses the effect of the new health care reform bill on small business, more specifically, cafes, bistros, and other small restaurants. The posting is based on another posting by Fox News’ Claudia Cowan. In her (and The Right Standard’s) posting, she discuss the “employer mandates” which the new health care legislation will place on small businesses. The new law will require small businesses to provide some form of health insurance or face penalties for non-compliance. It is the argument of the author that the reason many of these small businesses don’t offer health insurance today is they simply do not bring in enough revenue. If the government in turn, requires them to shell out money to provided even the most basic of health care to their employees, the businesses will have no choice but to either raise their prices or shut the doors altogether.

To back up this point, the post refers to the city of San Francisco, CA which has had the same type of mandates in place for over a year now and has been met with mixed reviews. The San Francisco ordinance requires all businesses with over 20 employees to provide health insurance. The post says that, due to increase in costs, the city of San Francisco has lost over 200 restaurants in the last four years.

The post on The Right Standard is not geared to one particular audience, but rather at anyone who is opposed to the health care bill. By focusing on one issue of the bill, he is trying to shed a negative light on the entire bill by saying it will kill small business. The author of the post on the Right Standard is unknown so it is hard to judge his creditability; however Claudia Cowan is a well known and well respected journalist in California. The evidence in the posting is rather compelling, losing over two hundred restaurants in four years is a big number and means quite a few people lost their jobs. However, the posting doesn’t quote any sources or studies to verify the numbers. Let’s assume the number is true for the purpose of this. If true, the logic behind the post is sound. Often times, states are used as a test ground for policies. If they work on a state level, they have a good chance of working on a national level. The same can be said for cities within states. If the policy of requiring small businesses to provide health insurance has already cost the city of San Francisco 200 restaurants, the national policy would cost the nation a lot more.

Austin American Statesman endorses Mrs. Chavez-Thompson

The editorial board of the Austin American Statesman has clearly endorsed Mrs. Linda Chavez-Thompson for the democratic nomination for Lt. Governor. The article states the decision is based on which of the three candidates can do the most for the democratic ticket this November. Mrs. Chavez-Thompson is running against former Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle and Austin deli owner Marc Katz. None of the three candidates has very much legislative experience. In fact, Mrs. Chavez-Thompson and Mr. Katz have none. Mr. Earle did serve as the House Representative for the Travis county district from 1973 – 1977 before being elected as the Travis county District Attorney in 1976. The article did not state whether this was in the U.S. or state House, however a little investigation revealed it was at the State House level.

The lack of legislative experience aside, the Austin American Statesman’s editorial board believes Mrs. Chavez-Thompson is the best candidate based on her “admirable life story.” At 10 years old, Mrs. Chavez-Thompson was working in a west Texas cotton field for 10 cents per hour. The article states, “[s]he dropped out of school in the ninth grade — never to return — to help support her family.” We’ll come back to this statement a little later. From there, she became a secretary for a Lubbock laborers union where she would eventually work her way up to Executive Vice-President of the AFL-CIO, from which she retired in 2007.

The Statesman’s board believes that her upbringing and ultimate success will give her first hand knowledge of the state’s everyday citizens and hardships faced by them.

The article falls short on evidence to back up its claim for Mrs. Chavez-Thompson. While it true, her upbringing will bring a point of view most likely lost on the other candidates, the article freely admits (in a roundabout way) her current proposals are not up to par, stating “If nominated, we look for her to come up with a more impressive list of proposals than she is now offering.” Why would you hope that someone would come up with more impressive proposals later rather than what her and the other candidates are offering now? The article also states she is concerned with the deregulation of tuition in our state’s universities. It fails to mention why a women so concerned with education would not find the time in her long and successful career to never even complete high school. As mentioned above, the articles states she dropped out of school in the ninth grade, “never to return” to support her family. As a side point, I found the order of phrases in that sentence interesting. I think it is interesting that the put the words “never to return” in the middle of the sentence as opposed to the end where it would have more impact, just my opinion.

In the end, I don’t feel the Statesman gave me enough information to make an informed decision on the matter. Having a tough childhood and still being successful is admirable and deserves recognition but I don’t believe it qualifies someone to hold, arguably, the most powerful position in our state government.