Campus Carry Bill Critique

On Tuesday July 28, 2015, LoBeau published a blog titled A Deadly Combination to the ongoing blog: Next Generation Feminist arguing against the signing of a campus carry bill by Governor Greg Abbott. I have to disagree with this argument. I attend UT during the long semester and there have been many times that I have received warning/emergency messages from UTPD about violent behavior and threats especially near Guadalupe which so happens to be the street I have to walk to get to my parking garage. The most recent one I received stated "UTPD searching for subject who displayed a knife at 2400 Guadalupe. Male subject in tyedye shirt." How are students supposed to protect themselves from this kind of situation?

There are a number of restrictions put on who may or may not receive a handgun license that exclude people with certain backgrounds from being eligible such as:

Felony convictions (permanent) and Class A or B misdemeanors (5 years, permanent in cases of domestic violence), including charges that resulted in probation or deferred adjudication.

Pending criminal charges (indefinite until resolved)

Chemical or alcohol dependency (defined as 2 convictions for substance-related offenses in a 10-year period; 10-year ban from the date of the first conviction)

Certain types of psychological diagnoses (indefinite until the condition is testified by a medical professional as being in remission)

Protective or restraining orders (indefinite until rescinded)

Defaults on taxes, student loans, child support and/or other governmental fees (indefinite until resolved).

In my opinion, the people that go through the legal process of getting their handgun license, etc. are responsible enough to carry a gun for protection. Most likely, the people that are going to cause harm with a weapon would bring one regardless of the rules, so unless campuses throughout the states are going to check each and every student as they walk on campus, which is very unlikely, having a weapon for protection on campus is necessary.

Unnecessary Government Spending

While driving through Austin, I see a crazy number of signs warning me to drive now text later, or even just saying drive safely. Are taxpayer dollars really spending money on these pointless signs? I’m sure everyone of age to drive knows what could result of texting and driving. Those that chose to take the risk anyway are hardly going to be affected by some trivial sign. I just can’t vision someone picking up their phone to shoot a text while driving and seeing a sign that reads “Drive now, Text later,” and changing their mind all of a sudden. I certainly don’t see a reckless driver changing the way they drive by reading a sign that says “Drive Safely.”

I understand the reason behind the no texting while driving campaign, but I feel road signs are a lousy way to convince people otherwise. There are much better things to do with government spending. Think of the actual things we could accomplish if that money went toward something a bit more meaningful and consequential like educational grants for deserving students, healthcare, improvement of our infrastructure etc.

I do realize that this is one of many minor spending issues in our state that most likely wouldn’t even put a dent in the other larger programs I mentioned. However, if the government put a stop to multiple unnecessary spending projects, the money could be substantial in helping essential programs and projects throughout Texas.

On Tuesday, July 28, 2015, Andrew M. Brooks posted Stage Five - Original Editorial 1 to his blog: Texas is as Texas Does.

I agreed with this article until I came across the argument that there should be no gun restrictions. I don't know about others, but I am thankful that there are restrictions put on who may or may not be eligible to obtain a gun license in Texas.

These restrictions include:

1. felony convictions (permanent) and Class A or B misdemeanors (5 years, permanent in cases of domestic violence), including charges that resulted in probation or deferred adjudication.
    
2. pending criminal charges (indefinite until resolved)
    
3. chemical or alcohol dependency (defined as 2 convictions for substance-related offenses in a 10-year period; 10-year ban from the date of the first conviction)
    
4. certain types of psychological diagnoses (indefinite until the condition is testified by a medical professional as being in remission)
    
5. protective or restraining orders (indefinite until rescinded)
    
6. defaults on taxes, student loans, child support and/or other governmental fees (indefinite until resolved).
    

Every single one of these restrictions improve the safety of our state, except for the 6th restriction that, in my opinion, is not necessary.

Some argue that felons and criminals are going to find a way to get guns regardless of laws. This may be true, but it doesn't mean we should just hand guns over to them. These rules are put in place, not only to protect us, but to grant us a sense of safety and security to Texas citizens. I do believe in the right to bare arms, but I am definitely opposed to unrestricted access.

Minimum Wage Raise (Blog Stage 5)

Federally imposed minimum wage now stands at $7.25 an hour. President Obama and Democratic legislators are calling for an increase in minimum wage to an astounding $10.10 an hour by 2016l that is if Texas doesn't pass the Texas Minimum Wage Increase Amendment first. Many people are fighting for this bill to be passed, but they don’t realize how many negative effects it can have on our economy.

Raising the minimum wage raises the cost of hiring at companies that employ low-wage workers and low-wage interns. Faced with higher labor costs, many businesses are going to have to raise prices, lay off workers or cut their profit margins. Competitive pressures will usually prevent business from boosting prices. That leaves business with the unpleasant choice of either letting go of hardworking employees or accepting much lower profits.

Democratic congressmen are trying to get the minimum wage raise passed which harms businesses even though big business helps many congressmen win re-election through campaign funding. Why should business donate money for congressional incumbents to win re-election if they are going to pass a bill that could harm the business industry as a whole? Congressmen may not be thinking about the support that businesses provides them, which is why it is critical that they be reminded.

The Editors of The Christian Century published “McWages” on February 16, 2014. The Christian Century is a progressive, ecumenical magazine based in Chicago. Committed to thinking critically and living faithfully, the Century explores what it means to believe and live out the Christian faith in our time and attracts many Christians throughout the United States as its audience.

            The Christian Century Editors argue that the government should step in to raise the minimum wage, especially for franchise owners, because $7.25 an hour is not enough to live off of. The Editors point out that fast food workers deserve $15 an hour which is more than twice the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour they currently receive. They believe that fast food chains are highly profitable and can afford to raise employee wages, but cannot do it independently because that would make the franchise raise the competitive wage for the franchise next door resulting in an industry-wide strike. The Christian Century Editors state that “people shouldn’t have to work multiple jobs to have their basic needs met.” They conclude with explaining that a wage increase would benefit everyone from working poor to high class and it would take the pressure off of welfare programs thus taxpayers wouldn’t pay to feed and house the poor.

            The Christian Century Editors give influential reasoning on why they think the minimum wage should be raised. However, if the minimum wage were to rise to an extremely high $15 dollars an hour what would that do to the middle class when it comes to the rise of consumer goods? The price of goods would have to increase in order to balance out the hefty pay raise of minimum wage employees. The minimum wage is set for a reason: it gives unskilled workers such as high school and college students a chance to earn money until they build their skill set to take on a more lucrative job.

Texas Money Race

On Monday, July 20, 2015, The Texas Tribune published an article titled First Disclosures Offer View of 2016 Texas Money Race. This article explains the flock of people already heading for electoral funding. The author of this article pretty much calls out people that need a lot of funding, and sheds a bad light on it. When looking at campaigns and elections it is clear that money plays a huge role in who wins and who loses. The person that spends less money on campaigning, usually the incumbent, actually wins most of the time because this person is clearly not threatened by the other candidate. Congressional incumbents have many advantages over their challengers which, in turn, leads to a very high percentage of re-election often called congressional stagnation. However, this doesn’t mean that whoever spends less will win. Challengers must spend more than the incumbents to even have a chance at winning congressional office, which is why it is wrong to call these people out for simply trying to put their name out there.