Commentary on “Another Drunk Driving TX Official Caught”

Since her initial arrest and booking on April 12^th, 2013, Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg has pleaded guilty to the DWI charge.  Lehmberg has served the full sentence, which was actually shortened in half due to the “good behavior” law, and is expected to be released from jail this week.  But how does this alarming incident reflect on the Texas justice system and our faith in elected officials?

I fully agree with your post that Lehmberg has failed the public and jeopardized our trust for elected officials.  As a powerful D.A., she has prosecuted many offenders of the same crime she committed, which comes off as completely hypocritical.  We expect that the officials we elect will act appropriately and we hold them to the same standards as the rest of the public.  That being said, we constantly see exceptions to this standard.  She knew that her action of getting behind the wheel while intoxicated was illegal, yet she chose to do it regardless.  Many people with power often bypass restrictions and the penalties they receive are much smaller than they would normally be.  This preferential treatment needs to end in order to restore public trust.

Although she has refused to resign, Lehmberg has taken all the necessary steps to rebound from this mistake.  She has made a public apology, she has served her jail sentence, which was about average for the crime that was committed, and she has paid all of the necessary fines.  Additionally, she made a statement saying that she will not be seeking re-election, most likely a wise decision.  I think that her cooperation in this process is beneficial, but ultimately it will be some time until she regains the support and trust she originally had. 

Austin MetroRail-A Solution for the Future

The population of Austin doubles almost every 20 years, and along with this influx of people comes traffic and sustainability concerns.  Currently, Austin finds itself the 25th-most congested city in the nation, the most congested city with 500,000 to 1 million residents, while the local government is dragging its heals to implement an efficient and adequate system to handle this congestion. The Texas state and local government need allocate additional funding and resources to expand and revamp the MetroRail system.  

A growing body of transportation research concludes that cities cannot concentrate on roads alone as a means of controlling traffic congestion and must work toward a combined approach of better transit such as light rail.  Not only will it reduce traffic congestion, but also by implementing and expanding light rail, there will be a significant drop in greenhouse gas emissions, a huge environmental concern.  According to a recent study, there are additional benefits of implementing light rail in urban areas.  These benefits include an increase in assessed home values as well as a reduction in crime along a new light rail corridor. 

Currently, the Austin MetroRail system is facing some challenges when it comes to expansion and efficiency.  The MetroRail system of the Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (CMTA) was officially launched on 22 March 2010, yet this current urban rail layout needs an overhaul.  The most congested areas of the city do not directly have rail accessibility. This is in part due to the city planning, and in part due to the limitations enacted by the local government.  In response to a recent government mandated expulsion of Capital Metro’s transit service from its Capitol stop, Dave Dobbs, Executive Director of The Texas Association for Public Transportation states that "destroying Austin's most vital downtown transit junction may send significant numbers of transit-riding state employees back to their cars and increase traffic on our roads.”

The funding for public transit has been continually decreasing, and laws are being passed that cripples the expansion of this system.  Although, it is important to note that some of this is the result of the federal government. This has emanated from the Bush administration's Department of Transportation and its agencies dealing with public transport, especially the Federal Transit Administration and Federal Railroad Administration. 

Ultimately, there needs to be public transportation progress in Austin.  More funding must be allocated to reshape and expand the MetroRail system to provide for more passengers at more locations.  Rail on it’s own is not a solution, but instead, it is part of an integrated mobility system to benefit the City of Austin.

Union Rights-A Response

In reponse to a classmate's post on union rights, collective bargaining and the "Right to Work" law.  See this article and response.

Union rights is a heated topic for me being from Wisconsin, where there was a recent debate over collective bargaining rights. Wisconsin was the very first state to provide collect bargaining rights in 1959, yet a year ago, there was an imminent threat to strict public employees of these rights. I truly believe in the effectiveness of unions and the rights that go with them, especially since my mother worked for the public school system for over 30 years and the union fought hard to represent her through her battle for disability benefits. According to the Wall Street Journal, by 2010, 36.2% of public workers were in unions compared to 6.9% in the private sector. This significant increase in the number of union workers and collective bargaining rights directly correlated with the increase in state and local government jobs. The growth in state and local government jobs was double the rate of population growth. Although this This clearly shows the effectiveness of unions in providing and securing jobs.

I believe that Jessa has some very valid concerns with the option of the "Right to Work." This potential to choose whether or not to pay union dues as a member seems very inefficient. The unions were created to support and represent the workers, and by only having some members contribute to the dues while all workers reap the benefits is not appropriate. As Jessa states, I think that continuing to allow "Right to Work" law could ultimately weaken the union and the foothold they currently possess, as well as compromise the integrity of the union and the safety of the workers in that union.

A Well Running Dry

It comes as no surprise that Texas is facing a substantial battle with Mother Nature over water accessibility, given its rapidly growing metropolitan population, its harsh arid climate, and the effects of global warming that are penetrating our planet.  Our current water conservation efforts are not adequate enough.  Texas needs to implement tighter restrictions on water usage in order to provide security for the future of the state.               

Texas government needs to allocate a greater number of resources to maintaining and preserving water levels.  The state needs to invest in aquifer storage and recovery systems, especially in counties where there is an imminent threat of drought.  There also needs to be more aggressive conservation measures implemented which aim to reduce both indoor and outdoor water use and expand the use of recycled water.  According to estimates from the Texas Water Development Board, 40 percent of all municipal water use is outdoors and half of that is lost to runoff from the excessive watering of lawns. Additionally, the general public needs to be better educated and informed on the severity of the issue.  It must be emphasized that the restricted use of water during drought is not long-term water conservation, but instead, it is a temporary response to a condition of drought.  We need to find long-term solutions to this problem.         

The effects of drought have already cost the state of Texas billions of dollars.  The reported agricultural losses due to drought-induced fires in 2011 were $7.2 billion.  The reported cattle sector losses in 2011 were $3.23 billion.  Finally, the reported cotton production losses were $2.2 billion.  The state would be able to proactively prevent losses as extreme as these by allocating a fraction of the money to drought management techniques.  Now is the time to tighten and enforce water conservation regulations in the state of Texas, to set an example for other states, before it is too late.

Guns in College Classrooms Bill

The blog post by John Woods analyzing the newly introduced “Guns in College Classrooms” bill highlights the extremely disconcerting process of legislation.  This piece of legislation, introduced by chairman Joe Pickett, a Democrat from El Paso, TX, will ultimately force colleges and universities to allow students to carry assault weapons in classrooms.  What is even more outlandish than the bill proposal itself is the fact that the hearing for the bill is happening during spring break, a time when most students are either out of the state or not politically and or socially engaged on campus. The author argues that this shows an extreme lack in judgment on the behalf of the bill proponents and an unfair policy process in general.  He also argues that this type of divisive scheduling, specifically scheduling hearings during school recesses, has happened in the past.  It is an unsustainable and non-democratic method of passing pieces of legislation that otherwise might not be passed.

The author’s intended audience is the general public, but he resonates especially with students who attend colleges and universities in the state of Texas.  His prerogative and passion behind this blog post is apparent from the beginning of the post.  He lost his girlfriend during the Virginia Tech massacre six years ago, and gun control is a very heated issue for him.  The author communicates and advocates for various organizations such as the Virginia Tech Review Panel and Gun-Free Schools of Texas.  He is also supporting other political solutions such as universal background checks in place of the newly introduced bill.  I sincerely hope that his post brings about awareness to this issue and facilitates policy reform.  

Texas Women's Health Program

The editorial that was published in the Austin American Statesman on Jan 24, 2013, by the Editorial Board, highlights the poor execution of the Texas Women’s Health Program, as it changed hands from federal oversight to state and local oversight at the beginning of 2013.  

The author criticizes the state of Texas for refusing to continue with the federally funded health care program that was affiliated with Planned Parenthood.  The federal government’s contribution to this program was a vast 32 million dollars, however, this coverage is now up to the state.   The author argues that the forecasted doubts behind the shortcomings of the state have been justified.  The state has already had considerable trouble in accurately providing a list of the health care providers for this new program.  The website with this information has incorrectly linked medical providers who are not affiliated with the program, as well as those providers who are no longer accepting new patients.  This makes it incredibly difficult for someone who is trying to obtain coverage.  Additionally, the author includes a report released by George Washington University, which states that at least five counties in Texas would ultimately struggle to accommodate the same number of women patients that had previously received care through Planned Parenthood.  These statistics are very ominous and the risks of not being able to provide care to the women in need are too great.  

I believe that the author’s intended audience is the general public, however, this article hits close to home for women.  I agree with the general sentiments behind this opinion piece, however I believe that it is incredibly early in the life of this program to declare it a failure.  I sincerely hope that progress can and will be made to ensure that this program continues to provide the same level of care as the original program, if not better.   

Letting Medicaid Slip Away

In a recent article, published Jan 2, 2013, The Texas Observer analyzes the risks that are associated with Gov. Rick Perry's refusal to expand the Texas Medicaid program.  As part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as "Obamacare," federal funding is available for each state with new recipients of Medicaid until 2017, and afterwards, each state would  receive federal reimbursements for 90% of costs.  This funding would go directly to serve those in need, and Texas is crying for help.  There are 6 million Texans currently living without insurance, which is the highest percentage in the country.  One out of every four Texans who are uninsured would finally have access to health care, as long as the Texas Medicaid program is expanded.

What then is the argument against expansion?  In June 2012, the US Supreme Court ruled that states have the right to refuse the expansion of Medicaid, Gov. Perry didn't miss a beat on that exception.  According to Gov. Perry, he believes that the real issue is about freedom, and federal support could threaten this freedom.  He also argues that every Texan has health care in this state (anyone can be treated in an ER), and that how the state pays for it and delivers it should be left up to the state.  However, he does not provide any alternative methods for administering care and effectively ensuring that Texans will be covered.  Gov. Perry obviously has never worked in a hospital before.  As someone who has seen the ERs filled to capacity, day in and day out, and understands the methodology behind patient care and treatment processes, I can assure you this it is not sustainable.  Sure, uninsured patients can seek medical attention in the ER for an ailment such as an exacerbation from diabetes, but they don't have the same access to follow up care, or life saving measures such as dialysis.

This issue is too complex and too many lives are at stake to justify refusing Medicaid expansion.  Studies are being published by the day, providing evidence that expansion will mean a significant decrease in deaths per year, on average, 6.1%, and a substantial decrease in overall state funding allocated to health care.  Furthermore, this issue has deep roots in Texas.  In 1965, President Johnson, a Texan, declared a war on poverty, and enacted the first Medicaid bill.  Now only 48 years later, Texas government is trying to undermine this progress.  This article is worth reading, regardless of your political stance or economic values.  It is a simple breakdown of the drastic repercussions of forfeiting federal assistance, and if nothing else, it will provide another perspective on this issue.