Get ‘Er Done

July 31st, 2008 by Jake Hatlin | Posted in Election Commentary | No Comments »

Unfortunately, as of today, July 31, the list of Republican House candidates not taking their respective race as seriously as they should is a bit longer than I would prefer.  Every breakfast conversation I happen to find myself a participant of eventually turns to the doom and gloom that is ahead if some of our folks running under the flag of the GOP don’t get off the couch and start running for office.

But amidst the scary scenarios and the talks of those who think it is too hot to get out and walk neighborhood doors, one name keeps poping up as the model for those in tight races to follow…Jim Murphy.

A little bit about Mr. Murphy before we induldge into what he’s up to these days.  He is a freshman State Representative from Harris County, made so after he assumed the seat formerly held by Joe Nixon.  In getting to the House he survived a tight 2006 primary that had less than 4 points separating all three candidates, edged out his opponent in the run-off, and then ran an agressive 2006 General Election race to earn a double diget victory despite the democrat wave that hit Texas.

Mr. Murphy knows how to campaign hard, a trait that will serve him well during this election cycle.  The July campaign finance reports made it very clear that democrats are targeting his race in their effort to claim a majority in the lower chamber, but unlike some of his Republican colleagues in the same shoes, Mr. Murphy isn’t running around like a chicken with his head cut off.

No, instead Mr. Murphy is out raising money, knowing that the road ahead will be an expensive one.  On his last two reports combined, Mr. Murphy has taken in a quarter of a million dollars, putting him ahead of the curve amongst his fellow Republican freshmen.  But more impressive - to me - is that everytime I hear Mr. Murphy’s name come up during campaign talks, it is in association with the walking duties that he has already assumed.

While others are dreading the day that the Labor Day Holiday concludes and they have to take to the streets, if the reports that come to me are correct, Mr. Murphy has already hit the pavement to knock on doors and start visiting with as many voters as he can.  And though I can not confirm, I will also share with you the notion I have heard that Mr. Murphy is skipping this summer’s legislative conferences, opting instead to focus on the one thing that matters right now…re-election. 

When I wrote of Mr. Zedler’s woes I said that if he is not knocking on doors then he needs to be dialing for dollars.  This is a plan that Mr. Murphy has employed, and a plan that other Republicans need to closely watch.

If we are to keep a majority in the House, perhaps even add a seat or two, and also protect what we already own in the Senate then it is going to take a strong effort not only in November, but during all the days between now and then as well.  As Republicans we can not expect to be handed our victories anymore.  Those days are over, replaced with election cycles that are going to continue to challenge the integrity of our party just as it did in 2006.

And what exactly did we see in 2006 when the circumstances forced us to take a long and hard look at ourselves in the mirror?  Without going into detail, I will simply say that what we saw is nothing that we want to see again in 2008.

But if we are not thorough then we will come face to face with the same reflection again.  That is the reality of the climate we are in.  Knowing what it can do for congressional redistricting, Senator Obama has pledged to help down ballot democrats in Texas.  There is still a Bush backlash in the air.  Some of our outgoing officials have done more harm than good.  And as we have all seen with our own eyes, democrats are hell-bent to not be outspent this fall.  All of this means that it is going to take nothing short of our very best to prevail in November, a notion that I hope makes its way to some of our Republican candidates who for whatever reason see the situation differently.

So how do you combat direct challenges to your integrity?  With good old fashion hard work.  With lots of sweat and sleepless nights on the campaign trail.  Just ask Mr. Murphy.

Standing At That O So Common Intersection Of Life

July 31st, 2008 by Jake Hatlin | Posted in Talking Policy | No Comments »

There are occasions in life, more than we probably realize, when we find ourselves standing at the intersection of politics and sports.  Both are prevailing cultures of our society, so it is expected that - at times - their separating boundries will sometimes blur.  Look at some examples:

1. President Carter’s protest of the 1980 Olympic Games,
2. Our Current President is a former baseball General Manager,
3. Greg Oden, the number one overall pick of the 2007 NBA draft endorsed in this past democrat Presidential Primary,
4. Curt Shilling’s headline catching endorsement of President Bush upon winning the 2004 World Series,
5. and of course, who among us can forget Pat Tillman’s courageous story of putting down the shoulder pads to take up arms overseas?

Kirk Bohls, of the Austin American Statesman, recently profiled a more close to home example of standing at that familiar intersection when he weighted in on Texas’ new steriod testing program, and if we are hitting the mark or missing the big picture.  According to Mr. Bohls, one of my all-time favorite sporting columnists, the fact that Texas only identified two student athletes abusing steroids does bring into question the millions of dollars spent and, yes, we are missing the big picture by not testing our student athletes for use of such recreational substances as cocaine, marijuana, and alcohol.

On the topic of was it worth it, I don’t know and therefore I will not disagree with Mr. Bohls.  I like to think that perhaps there is something to Lt. Governor Dewhurst’s take that just catching two means that the program is acting as a successful deterrent.  Yet, I can not in good faith completely submit to that theory and not question if steroid abuse was an apparent problem in Texas, or one that we simply created with sensational headlines anytime an occurrence was uncovered.

It is Mr. Bohls’s passion for Texas taking it one step further and incorporating recreational drug testing into its UIL testing program that I would like to focus on with this post.  Quoting Mr. Bohls:

Without question, some athletes use steroids. But there are thousands more high school students who are abusing alcohol, marijuana, heroin or cocaine than have ever considered injecting themselves with anabolic steroids, designated an illegal controlled substance without a doctor’s prescription in 1991.

That is exactly why the University Interscholastic League should pursue directives from its own membership to strongly urge the Legislature to broaden the horizons of this unprecedented drug-testing effort to check for more dangerous substances.

No one, least of which myself, can argue that Mr. Bohls’s heart is not in the right place.  Even though the National Institute on Drug Abuse would suggest that teen drug use has declined slightly since the statistics Mr. Bohls quotes from 2004, substance abuse amongst our youth remains a problem that plagues our society despite our multiple wars against drugs.  Yet I will disagree with an idol, a person whose eyes that I have seen the evolution of sports through, when Mr. Bohls asserts that this battle needs to be fought on our high school playing fields. 

Perhaps it is time to grow more aggressive against teen drug use, but that is an argument separate from the venue.  I disagree that this crusade should be carried out through Texas’ countless locker rooms for two reasons.  First, steroids is a sports specific drug.  No one takes steroids so that they can skate faster on their skateboard.  Likewise, students don’t take steroids so that they can look better in a bathing suit.  Those that do, seek out and use steroids for athletic achievement.  Couple that with the unfair advantage that steroids produces and you have the justification in targeting high school athletes with this testing program.

Recreational drugs, however, do not know the boundaries of a locker room.  They are not sports specific, and in fact, it would not surprise this blogger to learn that recreational drugs are used more by students outside of organized athletics than by those who compete on playing fields.  Cocaine, pot, booze, they’re used by all: athletes, honor roll students, deadbeats, band members, cheerleaders, and hall monitors.  Heck, I imagine they’ve even found a way to infiltrate the chess team.

As such, I think a UIL recreational drug testing program would unfairly target and discriminate against UIL athletes, and to steal Mr. Bohls’s sentiment, I believe it would miss the mark by not targeting student bodies as a whole.  So as I find myself standing at the corner of politics and sports, staring at the street sign and wondering which way we should go, I implore the Legislature to not take up this crusade. 

Recreational drug use by teenagers is far bigger than just our student athletes.  Don’t disproportionately go after them in a witch hunt that you are not willing to extend to entire student bodies.

Stuck Between A Rock And A Hard Place

July 30th, 2008 by Jake Hatlin | Posted in Talking Policy | 1 Comment »

So what do you do when the Legislature limits the revenue you can raise as a local government taxing entity and then does not give you the funding that you think you need to run your operation?  Complain about it, apparently.  Welcome to the world of public education in Texas.

The question of “How are we to make ends meet?” was certainly the prevailing notion at Commissioner Scott’s recent Education summit, where education leaders from across the state began discussions on the proposed education budget that Commissioner Scott will be taking to the Legislature.  Their predicament is simple, most are at the point where they can not raise property taxes without a public vote, and the Lege has their heels dug in when it comes to their request for more education dollars.

Now, I am not an expert on public school finance and as such I will not pretend to be one.  But I do firmly believe that the topic does deserve a forum, so I will pass along to you 3 articles that covered the summit and that can better articulate the problem at hand.

Fort Worth Star

San Antonio Express

Austin American Statesman

My guess is that given the limited resources and the rising costs of such necessities as gas and food, that school districts all across the state are about to find themselves in the same boat that the Lege was in back in 2003, that being the SS Budget Cuts.  However, I do not consider this to be a terrible scenario.  A tough scenario, yes.  But not a terrible one.

The budget deficit of 2003 coupled with a Republican Legislature’s will to not raise taxes forced our lawmakers to put on Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Taxpayer’s shoes and understand that there is only so much money in the bank and that they needed to balance their priorities accordingly.  I, personally, think that a dose of that same concept could be healthy for school districts who have grown accustom to falling back on their ability to just raise property taxes.

We’ll see if I am right about their fate to come, and if so, how exactly it works out. 

Not to be too difficult on school districts, I will offer this after thought to taxpayers.  You get what you pay for.  You asked the Legislature to get school property taxes under control, now don’t be surprised when your kid’s bus stop gets cut from the route.

Things That Drive Me To Drinking…A Redistricting Commission

July 27th, 2008 by Jake Hatlin | Posted in Talking Policy | 4 Comments »

Can you feel that energy in the air, that silent pulse of electricity that has slowly but surely gained steam over the last five years?  I felt it too, and I know what it is…redistricting is upon us.  Yes, it is true, in less than two and one half years, our esteemed lawmakers will be back in Austin redrawing our various districts for public office.  It has been too long.

Is there any more fun to be had with watching the Legislature than in a redistricting year?

Now, I can feel you saying that I am getting a head of myself, but I would argue not.  Even though we have a regular session still to go before we get to redistricting, people are already talking about this election cycle as one of democrats’ last two shots at taking a majority in the Lege before the pencils and maps are pulled out of the closet.

So since it’s on the minds, naturally people are talking about redistricting as well.  I have to confess, other than Texas picking up three congressional seats, I really don’t know what is in the works.  I’m not sure which parts of Texas are going to gain and which parts are going to lose, so I can’t comment extensively.  But one redistricting topic that keeps coming up that I do want to weigh in on is the concept of a non-partisan Redistricting Commission.

The concept of a non-partisan commission drawing our various legislative districts is a great minority party idea that makes that party look like the good guy when ever the press gets worked up over a map they don’t like.  Democrats are talking big about a commission right now, and if I remember correctly, even some Republicans supported the idea back in the 80s and 90s. 

But that is all the concept is to me, a soundbite for the minority party.  I can’t support the idea of a new commission taking the map drawing responsibility out of the Legislature’s hands, for several reasons.  Stay with me, gentle reader, as we explore each.

How Are We To Fill This Commission?

Suppose we did create a nine member board to draw all of our maps for us (I arbitrarily throw that number out there).  How will we fill these seats?  Will we make them Governor appointments, and if so, is everyone at the table comfortable with the Governor having a monopoly over commission membership?  Since such commission would easily become the most publicized commission Texas would have, I will venture to say the answer to that question is no.

So do we elect them?  That would be counter productive because then we would have to draw them districts and inevitably they would wind up someday drawing their own districts.  I guess we could elect them statewide, but then certain regions (such as west and south Texas) run the big risk of getting run over when all our Redistricting Commissioners end up calling either Central Texas, DFW, or Houston their homes.  Besides, would you honestly trust someone who ran for office only to redistrict?  I wouldn’t.

It’s The Legislature’s Job To Redistrict

It is not their job to punt the ball, which is exactly what forming a commission to redistrict would be.  I know that the decision is a tough one to make, and I know that there is a lot at stake with our legislative maps, but isn’t making the tough decisions what we elect our officials to do?  When I go to the ballot box, I expect the person I vote for to stand up tall during dire circumstances, not find someone else to push the task off on.

There is the argument that it is a conflict of interests for the Lege to draw the lines that include their own districts, and while I can respect that argument I point to the counter argument that there are several decisions they make that you could call a conflict of interests.  Are we also to appoint a lawyer policy commission because many of our Legislators also practice law?  How about a Commission for elderly policy?  Many of our lawmakers are over 55 and thus have a conflict in this area.  What about property taxes?  Since all of our lawmakers either own or rent property, isn’t it as much of a conflict in interest to charge them with reforming our property tax system?

Will A Commission Really Solve The Perceived Problem?

I doubt it will.  An appointed commission is just as likely to want to monkey with the lines as the Legislature is.  The reason is because they, too, are humans, humans with an agenda, humans with friends they want to help out, humans who are prone to make mistakes.

I am not saying that the Legislature has always done a bang up job with redistricting.  2003 was a mess, but so was 2001 when democrats controlled the lower chamber.

Conclusion

There are more reasons as to why I give a Redistricting Commission the stink eye, but I won’t bore you with more detail.  Besides, all this talk has made me thirsty, so off to the bar I go. 

I know it’s Sunday afternoon…don’t judge.  I’m sure you’ve done it before yourself.

There Is Such A Thing As Timing

July 26th, 2008 by Jake Hatlin | Posted in Talking Policy | 3 Comments »

What happens when your timing is off?  It could leave you out in front of your wide receiver with a long pass, or it could mean that you let the cat out of the bag a little earlier (or later) than planned.  In the case of the Texas state government, not having their timing down has left them on the wrong side of small business owners across the state.

The situation is simple, Texas is trying to reduce its cost of doing business by streamlining the office suppliers who keep the shelves of our many state agencies stocked with pens and paper.  As such, the current long list of suppliers approved for state agencies to shop at is about to be reduced to just two large scale suppliers so that the cost of units will go down and Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Taxpayer get to see more of their tax dollars put to use elsewhere. 

There’s just one problem, the vast amount of businesses that are going to lose their state office supplier status are small businesses, and they’re really pissed off about it.  Many publications across the state reported this story, but the Austin American Statesman gets the link because apparently I am trying to keep their columnists employed.

According to the AAS, pulling the estimated 400 million dollars a year that the state regularly spends on furniture and office supplies away from small business competition is going to leave many of those small businesses who have grown accustom to being a vendor struggling to make ends meet.  From the article, written by David Shieh:

The news has distressed small-business owners across the state, many of whom say they rely on the state contracts to keep their operations afloat. Although the comptroller’s office has invited small businesses to participate in the bidding process, only a handful of companies — large corporations such as Staples or OfficeMax — would be able to handle the size of the proposal…  

Now, normally I am a fan of our state government looking for ways to save a buck because I think that our government should run more like a private business by keeping its cost of operation as low as possible.  However, in this particular case the timing of the cost saving move will likely leave the money saved (about 12 - 15 million a year if I heard correctly) not worth the aftermath of the damage done to Texas’ relationship with its small business owners.

If you’re as clever as I hope, then you have picked up on the timing issue that I am referring to.  Small business in Texas was already pissed off at the state before word of this move ever broke.  Why?  The new and improved business franchise tax that they just had to dig deep and find a way to pay for earlier this summer.  I can almost guarantee you that if any of the businesses about to get squeezed out of their office supplier contracts also had to cut a check to the Comptroller then they aren’t going to vote for a single incumbent come this November, Republican or Democrat…it doesn’t matter.

So there in lies the problem.  Small business already feels the victim of the state by the business franchise tax (which is a debate for another time), and as they see it the state is now back no less than 60 days later to rub salt in that wound by taking more money from the till.  Sure, it is highly probable that only a small fraction of small businesses in Texas are going to be effected by this, but that doesn’t matter.  Who do you think other small business owners are going to side with when they read about this in the paper, the state or their own brethren? 

I remember once back in the day I decided to get back at a friend who was habitually taking advantage of my generosity by going behind his back one night and running up his bar tab to an insane ammount and then ducking out just before it was time to close out.  But just to show that there was no hard feelings, I picked up the tab next time out even though - dollar for dollar - I was still well short on retribution.  I did so because I didn’t want to stick it to my friend in back to back fashion.  That would not have been good timing.  As it turns out, we’re still friends today.

We’ll see if Texas incumbents and small business are still friends come November.

Now That Is The Kent Hance That I Know And Love

July 25th, 2008 by Jake Hatlin | Posted in Talking Policy | No Comments »

What is not to love about Kent Hance?  A former State Senator, Congressman and Railroad Commissioner, Mr. Hance has not let his new post as Chancellor of Texas Tech University slow down his natural born skill to shoot from the hip and say what is on his mind.

Arguably, it was this trait that allowed Mr. Hance to top George W. Bush in a 1978 Congressional race, where Mr. Hance’s one-liners and zings effectively portrayed the current President (and former Governor of Texas) as not a real Texan.  30 years later, Mr. Hance’s words are still serving him well.

While testifying before a Senate Higher Education Subcommittee, Mr. Hance proudly spoke his mind by pointing out that perhaps the research that Texas Tech University is doing for the Defense Department is a bit more important than Texas’s studies in Humanities.  Specifically, Mr. Hance said:

…research on “the best part of Shakespeare’s play” isn’t on the same level as the research his university is conducting for the Defense Department.

Now see, this is what you get when two universities compete for research dollars in front of Texas Senators, great sound bites.  University of Texas President William Powers did offer a well thought out counter argument in defense of his university’s practices, though.

However, On this one I’m going to have to side with Mr. Hance.  His one-liner was far more entertaining and frankly, would you rather a university be able to improve and bring innovation to our nation’s defense systems or answer the age-old riddle of, “To be, or not to be?”

Now, that is the question.

Finding A New Punching Bag - John Kelso

July 25th, 2008 by Jake Hatlin | Posted in Talking Policy | 3 Comments »

I’ll tell you, I haven’t been myself lately.  I’ve been snapping a people on the street, sending back my coffee at Starbucks, cutting people off on the highway, and pulling the heads off of my sister’s Barbi dolls.  Today after telling a five year old that Santa Claus wasn’t real and that I backed over the Easter Bunny last spring, I think I figured out the problem.

I’ve got a lot of pent-up aggression, made so from my about-face with Burnt Orange Report.  Ever since I decided to change my tone with Texas’ leading liberal blog (see, there I go again), I haven’t had a punching bag to beat on.

So we are now holding open tryouts to fill the position of my own personal punching bag, so that I can return to the calm and even-headed Jake Hatlin who waits until children are eight before shattering their Christmas dreams.  First up, a very…very qualified candidate, Austin’s very own loudmouth, John Kelso.

First and foremost, I think that we can all agree that anyone wanting to designate themselves as a historical landmark opens themselves up to all the grief that comes their way.  But that is no new thing for Mr. Kelso, he’s been turning out pointless dribble and selling it as journalism for quite some time now.

Mr. Kelso’s latest story made me further question exactly what the AAS sees in him.  According to him, the Gods of real estate have unfairly frowned upon a dry cleaner who is having to relocate because - brace yourself - their South Congress Avenue rent is going up.  And in a related story, there’s not going to be a shortage of dry cleaners in downtown Austin.

Mr. Kelso covers the Washburn Town and County Cleaners, who are having to relocate at the end of the month after 31 years on South Congress because their rent is going from about 2,000 to about 10,000 a month.  Now I will admit, that is quite the hike in rent.  But at the same time, I’m sure the owner is charging a rate that someone is willing to pay.

And that is what real estate is suppose to be about, right?  Getting the most out of your investment?  Mr. Kelso’s tone seems to hint at that answer being no, that there is a greater social responsibility being ignored here.  Yet I submit that if that were the prevailing thought then Austin would still resemble its panoramic from the early nineteen hundreds and everyone who has flocked to Austin since would have no place to work or call their home.

So what exactly are we talking about here every time we hear the sad story of an Austin icon that has to up and move because they have been priced out of their neighborhood?  Gentrification is what we are talking about, or more specifically the theory that individual property value will increase as improvements and development around that property makes the area a more attractive location.

Bottom line…it happens.  I don’t expect anyone to like it - least of which those that find themselves priced out - but gentrification is a natural occurrence of a healthy local economy and an aggressive development plan, two characteristics that accurately describe Austin right now. 

So what is the real estate market in south Austin to do, Mr. Kelso?  Specifically, what is the owner of the property that Washburn Town and County Cleaners calls home to do?  Property values are up and they have an opportunity to increase their return on their investment, so how would you have them proceed?

Are they to shrug their shoulders and say, I know I could get more - a lot more - for this lease, but hey, you give me a discount on my laundry?  As touching as that sounds, I don’t think it would be fair to expect that from an investment holder.  Especially when you consider that the very same investment holder is also probably seeing their property taxes rise as the south Austin development keeps pushing the value of their real estate investment up and up.

Sure, it’s a bit of a shame that the brothers owned dry cleaning operation has to move because they can no longer afford to stay located where they are.  But dare I say, that’s life?

Some of you may hate me for this, perhaps even my very own partner in crime, but I dare.

Add One More To The List Of Fans For A UNT Law School

July 24th, 2008 by Jake Hatlin | Posted in Talking Policy | 1 Comment »

The University of North Texas in on board, the City of Dallas is on board, so are all those freshly rejected law school applicants.  And now you can add one more to the list of supporters for another public law school in Texas…Jake Hatlin.  Too bad my endorsement is worth less than a cup of coffee in this town.

I may not be able to seal the deal for a UNT law school, but this site does have a few readers so what I can do is subject you to the why, and tell you about what is in the works and of the last piece of the puzzle that needs to fall in place.

According to the Dallas Morning News, the metroplex is ready to go.  The UNT folks have been talking it up, and the city of Dallas is ready to put up as much as 16 million dollars to renovate a home and make a general investment in what will hopefully be the University of North Texas School of Law.  The only thing that needs to happen from here is that the Lege has to sign off on the idea.

Our esteemed lawmakers tried in 2007, and with the clock running out, Rep. Dan Branch attached the idea to another bill, which unfortunately fell victim to a technicality and ultimately did not make it across the finish line.  But that is why we have session every two years, so that we can pick up where momentum left off.  I have not personally heard of any specific bills to be filed (like anyone would tell me anything), but I would be surprised if the Dallas County Delegation didn’t find a way to get this put on the top of their priority list.

Now comes the sales pitch.  Texas desperately needs another law school, and the DFW metroplex desperately needs to be the host.  Consider that the last time Texas opened a public law school, Speaker Tom Craddick wasn’t even a member of the House.  Dare I say, we’re a little behind?  I dare.

It is also worth mentioning that nine out of ten law school graduates from Texas stay in the Lone Star State, yet they still come in well under our total number of bar admittances.  What this means is that under our current law school enrollment capacity, Texas is not meeting our own professional lawyer needs.  That could change for the better with another public law school.

There is a cost factor as well.  It doesn’t take a fool to notice that public law school is noticeably less expensive than private law school tuition.  Yet in Texas private law schools actually outnumber their public counterparts.  Affordable education…I’m a big fan.

And in this blogger’s opinion, DFW would be the perfect fit.  They are the largest metroplex in the nation to not have a public law school.  They have considerably less total law school seats than their Houston counterpart.  Per capita, DFW is lagging in the number of practicing attorneys, and what law student wouldn’t be better served in life from pub crawling up and down Lower Greenville?

My guess is that SMU Law and Texas Wesleyan are going to be a little skirmish about the idea of another law school going up in their back yard.  But both should rest assured in that there are plenty of qualified students wanting to go to law school in Texas to go around for everyone.  Besides, if another DFW law school really was against SMU Law’s best interests, then I doubt a proud Pony would be one of the lawmakers pushing for it. 

So Jake’s on board.  When the Lege gavels in and (hopefully) a UNT Law School bill is filed, show me where to sign up to testify in favor. 

Am I solidly behind the idea because it is sound public policy?  Yes, but don’t discount the possibility that there are some selfish motives at work here.  I just might have been one of the poor saps left holding nothing but a thick stack of law school rejection letters in my hand, wishing we had more seats to put butts in.      

Doing My Part To Fight The Good Fight

July 23rd, 2008 by Jake Hatlin | Posted in OGR On Other Blogs | 6 Comments »

My main man, Phillip Martin, has embarked upon an interesting crusade to end the horrid stereotypes that gives us bloggers a bad name, something that even I can get behind.  Mr. Martin lists the specific stereotypes that he feels holds us under a glass ceiling, and while I agree, I think he came up short on saying what is truly on our minds and which stereotypes most make us feel like second class citizens.

So, always the one to be there for my brethren, I am offering some insightful additions to the list of stereotypes that Mr. Martin produced.  In no particular order here are the other damning perceptions of your modern blogger….

• He’s a geek
• He hasn’t had a girlfriend in years
• The last girl he talked to on the telephone required a credit card number
• During high school he cut holes in his underwear so that they would tear easier
• Only the co-ed community service fraternity gave him a bid
• Upon graduation he realized that his chosen degree qualified him for practically nothing
• He now has an inflated sense of self purpose
• He really thinks he is making a difference
• He proudly refers to his blog as “journalistic work”
• He finds that his parents’ basement suits his living needs just fine
• He won’t go to a bar unless it has free wifi
• He drinks daiquiris and wine coolers
• He is on a first name basis with all the employees at his local, non-corporate coffee shop
• He dresses…well, refer back to number 1
• He desperately needs a tan
• For some reason he still thinks that facial hair is cool
• His idea of a target rich environment is a bloggers’ convention
• One day, he’ll take great pride in showing his son how to blog
• He refers to the “Glory Days” as when his parents finally got the internet
• He prefers his small paycheck because it would be wrong to make more than others

I’m with you, Phillip.  Guys like you and I can not stand for this brand of oppression anymore.  You organize the march and I’ll be there at your side, singing We Shall Overcome!

Actually, now that I think about it, many of these stereotypes do apply to me.  In that case, if other bloggers out there feel the same then perhaps we would be better served to get the Lege to pass a law making us a protected class of citizens, don’t you think?
 

Fixing Our Broken System Of Financial Aid

July 23rd, 2008 by Jake Hatlin | Posted in Talking Policy | 3 Comments »

I usually don’t find myself engrossed in the Houston Chronicle.  I mean no ill will toward the metropolitan paper, it’s just never really turned me on before.  However, when I came across this article on proposed new rules that could make college financial aid based more on merit and less on financial portfolio, I couldn’t put it down.

Here’s a little upfront information about me.  I have not, do not, and will never buy into this theory that we should punish people for being “rich”.  Sorry, Senator Obama, I read your book and all, but I’m still not on board. 

Basically I find punishing the “rich” through either proportionately higher taxes or by excluding them from opportunities to be both a disincentive for one to want to better themselves and also to be firmly against our nation’s bedrock principle that if you succeed where others couldn’t, then you have rightfully earned the fruits of your labor.

I have always viewed our state’s system of distributing financial aid as a gross injustice.  No where in my perfect world should financial aid (loans or grants) be granted based on who “needs” it instead of who deserves it.  In a nutshell, here’s why…everyone needs it.

Frankly I find it very presumptuous for the state to assume that just because parents can afford to pay for their child’s college education that they will.  I know of many accomplished students from my college days whose well to do parents opted not to cover their total education expenses.  At the same time, these same students had trouble obtaining their desired level of state financial aid because of their family’s income status.  So as you can see, they needed it, too.

But probably easier to relate to is the fact that the income thresholds we have worked with in the past have been extremely unfair to middle class working families.  Teachers, nurses, police officers, firefighters, they all work hard to put food on the table, they all do not have the capabilities to pay for their children’s higher ed needs, and yet for some unexplainable reason, the state considers them all to be in such position.

And the children of these middle income families who perform so well in high school, who meet every academic standard, who prove to be a worthy investment, are left with nothing but empty pockets and an unfair system that says, sorry, merit doesn’t matter here.

I, personally, find it hard to swallow every time we look a top 5 percent student in the eye and tell them that they can’t qualify for college grants because their police officer dad and their teacher mother make too much money.  That student then gets saddled with loans that they didn’t deserve.  And furthermore, we teach them to start to question exactly what are they working so hard for. 

Merit should matter more.  In fact, I think merit should be the only thing that matters.  According to the HC, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board is starting to think so as well, and I applaud them for considering new rules that will put less emphasis on a student’s income background and more emphasis on their net-worth to the classroom.