Should Texas State offer a tuition cap for higher education?

With the demand for higher education on the rise, so is that of the tuition fees for Texas Colleges and Universities. The May 1st posting of Menson's Revue shines light on this growing issue. Tuition is already high enough and has continued to rise over the years. Not everyone can afford the cost of secondary education often resulting in potential students to seek alternative means of financing. Students are for forced to work full time jobs during their tenure or even worse, mount up enormously large debt in the form of loans. The author of this article has exemplified these problems by relating their own financial situation and the burden it carries. I absolutely agree with their argument and more. Rising tuition has heavily placed a strain on families that struggle to cope with the already high costs, and in doing so raises a question of fairness across the board. Placing a cap on tuition would give families the opportunity to prepare for costs without having to worry whether it will be enough later on. This proposal can’t take away from the already high fees, but at least it would place a limit and give a majority of Texas families some much needed breathing room.

State Senate backs off on ultrasound

Abortion is a sensitive issue for most people. Pro life or Pro choice, there are many arguments to be made for either side. Republican Senator Dan Patrick has taken this argument a step further by introducing a bill to the Texas Senate that would force women seeking abortion to view an ultrasound before doing so. According to the article in the May 1st edition of the Statesman, there has been a major alteration. Fortunately, Senator Patrick has made a change to his own bill by making this requirement still mandatory, but giving women the option to decline. This is nothing more than an attempt for Pro life advocates to gain control over the situation by forcing guilt or remorse upon women in hopes of changing their mind. Such a bill would only add further stress and could lead to further complications; something that wouldn’t be healthy for mother or child. I personally believe in the right to choose, but would never consider doing so myself and in choosing so, have no reason to force by beliefs upon someone else. As such, Patrick and other politicians have no business in forcing their beliefs in the form of a law. We love to preach freedom, but when it comes to such a controversial topic, are those rights really protected? Instead we are forced to rely on the interpretation of heavily persuaded politicians to make decisions for us with the intention of protecting us from ourselves. When considering this difficult decision by potential mothers, it should be left to those parties involved and no others. Despite the major amendment to the proposed bill, I hope it doesn’t make it though the House as it did the Senate.

RE: Guns+ College + Legal Right To Be On = Stupid

Fast forward five years from now. A troubled student has had a lapse in judgment and has chosen to inflict harm on other students by going on a shooting spree. Fortunately for that Texas campus, another gun toting student is there to stop him using deadly force and save the day. Hollywood has painted a noble, yet very unrealistic scenario; one that would be nothing short of a fairytale if such a serious situation was to occur yet again.
The blogger of "Blue in a Red Sea Makes Purple Waters" feels that it is very much a poor decision by the Texas Legislature. Many Americans feel that they have a right to carry armed protection and in light of many recent tragic events, perhaps rightly so. I don’t feel however that this right should be extended to Universities across Texas and couldn’t agree more with the commentary on this article. Have we really grown so fearful that we have lost our inability for reason? Allowing guns on campus would be nothing short of a revisit to the old fabled Wild West when everyone including grandma carried a firearm. The author is correct in thinking that it should be up to the Campuses and local officials to provide adequate security. We place our trust in the hands of these professionals on a daily basis and at the same time would ask that anyone bearing arms to also step in and risk their life to diffuse a situation.
Such tragedies often happen few and far between. It’s a shame when they do happen, but the worst thing we could do is to allow ourselves to be given a false sense of security. If such a bill were to pass, I would feel no safer at school than today.

Texas House OKs strip club admission fee tax

Charging a $5 fee to enter a strip club in an effort to gain budgetary monies may just sound like another ridiculous idea thrown in the hat; however it may prove to be a good source of income for the state. The State has already passed legislation regulating Sexual Oriented businesses to charge a $5 fee for admission that would go straight to the State in order to fund specific projects. The problem has come over the litigation of whether this form of revenue is constitutional. There has already been a ruling in which the current situation has gone against first amendment rights. Rather than waste further time and possibly miss out on this cash cow, Rep. Senfronia Thompson has pushed a bill through the Texas House that would replace this fee with instead a tax on what the business charges for admission. This is a great idea and the legislature is making the correct decision to at least still gain some money to add to their budget. Already endorsed by many strip club operators, many of which feel that in this economy the burden of having to pay $5 would be too heavily imposed on the customer causing a reduction of business. The house is smart to recognize the current bills potential. The sheer lobbying in the case has paid off by the Industries’ leaders. The most important thing to remember in this is to explore any and all of their motivations and in doing so realize that everyone is a winner. You have the industry imposing less on their consumers and also end litigation that the prior bill has received. Though it may not bring in as much money as originally intended, it would still generate some $4 to $6 million dollars annually; money that would fund sexual assault prevention and education programs.

Statewide Smoking Ban Proposed in Texas House

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.

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.

Lawmaker suggests that stimulus money pay for mansion restoration

Wednesday's edition of the Statesman explains how the state could be searching for alternative means to help pay for the apparent $27 million dollar ($25 million needed by the state) project currently on the plate of the Texas Legislature. In hopes of easing state spending, some republican lawmakers are looking into the possibility of utilizing federal stimulus money toward the restoring costs of the Governor's Mansion. The chairman of the budget-writing Senate Finance Committee, whom is a Republican himself, still has to find out whether or not the state will be permitted to use the part of the $16 billion dollar stimulus to finance the restoration.
It’s important that the people of Texas understand that the Republicans voted against the stimulus and for them to now attempt to use this in order to fund such a project would represent the upmost hypocrisy. Rather than find a way to pay the outrageous price tag, the Finance Committee should be seeking a way to lower the cost of the construction all together. This is just another example of government spending money unwisely.