No smoking in any public facility within the state of Texas? Believe it or not a proposal has been introduced the Texas legislature that may do just that and has one author deeply displeased with the Republican Party. Shawn M. Griffiths expresses his opinion in his January 27th posting of “The North Texas Conservative.” In efforts to put down this proposal, Griffiths has chosen to bring into question the integrity of the GOP by elaborating on the party’s position to help free market and support capitalism or lack thereof. His argument is simply that if business owners wish to, they and not the government should have the right to decide whether or not smoking is allowed. He goes on the further claim that restaurants and bars would suffer a decline in business should the bill be passed.
I am not a smoker myself and would like nothing more than to have public facilities ban smoking. It would be nice to go to any bar of choice and not have to worry about my health or even the sure convenience of not smelling like an ashtray upon leaving. Having said that, I would have to agree with the author; not necessarily on the basis of free market, but to his point that it should not be up to the government to control where a person is entitled to smoke. There can be many argument s if this would negatively affect businesses and I see this becoming an issue in a bigger picture. Sure I don’t like to go to places that currently allow smoking, but I ultimately have the choice to make a decision to not go there. Because I enjoy that freedom, I should not have the right to prevent someone else from choosing to do so.
There are currently 27 cities that have passed this ordinance an despite some criticisms, Texan’s can take comfort knowing that they have the convenience of traveling shortly outside of city limits to once again enjoy indoor public smoking.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
Texas should beware strings in stimulus
“Texas would be silly to turn down the money,” writes the author in the February 25th edition of the Dallas Morning News. Referring to the stimulus plan offered by the federal government, he explains that despite the fact that while many state figures oppose such a bill, it would not be in the best interest of the state to decline such funds.
With the federal government passing legislation that has enabled the states to receive stimulus money in hopes of giving some much needed assistance, some legislatures welcome the roughly $16 Billion dollars. Others including the governor himself, however, are hesitant to accept such moneys for fear of further damaging the state’s economy. Governor Perry has been an opponent of the bill because he believes that the state could very well end up using state money to finish projects that the federal money started, but ran out before they could be finished. There are many arduous points to be made whether or not Texas shouldn’t accept the money. Rather than waste time forever debating the issue he pays tribute to the fact that some State representatives are instead discussing how to spend the money responsibly.
Utilize the stimulus in a way that does not later obligate the state to any long-term spending. This is a valid solution that the writer gives to Governor Perry’s argument. The point being made is that although opponents look for long complicated reasons to oppose assistance, there are just as easily a number of simple and obvious solutions.
I am advocate of this article simply because there are a great number of issues that could be eased with the proper funding. While the federal government’s money may not fix all of the state’s problems, it could certainly be a promising start. As the writer points out, there would be no reason as to why $16 billion dollars could not be beneficial to the state and its citizens.
With the federal government passing legislation that has enabled the states to receive stimulus money in hopes of giving some much needed assistance, some legislatures welcome the roughly $16 Billion dollars. Others including the governor himself, however, are hesitant to accept such moneys for fear of further damaging the state’s economy. Governor Perry has been an opponent of the bill because he believes that the state could very well end up using state money to finish projects that the federal money started, but ran out before they could be finished. There are many arduous points to be made whether or not Texas shouldn’t accept the money. Rather than waste time forever debating the issue he pays tribute to the fact that some State representatives are instead discussing how to spend the money responsibly.
Utilize the stimulus in a way that does not later obligate the state to any long-term spending. This is a valid solution that the writer gives to Governor Perry’s argument. The point being made is that although opponents look for long complicated reasons to oppose assistance, there are just as easily a number of simple and obvious solutions.
I am advocate of this article simply because there are a great number of issues that could be eased with the proper funding. While the federal government’s money may not fix all of the state’s problems, it could certainly be a promising start. As the writer points out, there would be no reason as to why $16 billion dollars could not be beneficial to the state and its citizens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)