Steal from the poor and give to the rich. Did I miss something?

A regressive tax system is defined by a tax level which increases as the wealth or ability of an individual or business to pay decreases. This mere definition sounds biased to favor the wealthy within a population. I completely agree with David when he states, "If we were to adopt a more progressive tax system, taxing the wealthiest Texans a much higher percentage than the paltry 3% they currently pay, while reducing the disproportionate tax burden on the poor, the benefits would be endless."

Texas is depending on regressive taxes, such as property taxes and a one-cent sales tax, along with fees to provide a great portion of funding for important state functions. When we look at inequality as David talks about it seems obvious to me that we are taking money from the poor to provide for the poor and likewise money from the rich goes right back to the rich. This money gap causes the issue David addresses of poor socio-economic mobility. If only there was a tax which could solve this problem; perhaps an income tax? Texas is one of only seven states which do not impose an income tax. 

An article on WiseGeek breaks down basic advantages income taxes would have over consumption tax including a progressive system which would adjust to individual incomes, consumption rates, and deduction qualifications. Income taxes would better measure an equal and fair amount of taxes each individual could be expected to pay. An income tax could also be used to distribute the wealth evenly so that districts or state functions which currently do not receive sufficient funding could be on the right path to receiving a more even disbursement of funds. Texas is currently attempting to solve funding issues but we are not looking into all of our options, especially those which seem more fair and beneficial.    

Effective Public Transportation for Texas

     I have to disagree with the idea of an overhaul on public transportation in Austin, which Christopher suggests on his blog. I have lived in Austin for three years now and have taken advantage of the bus system and occasionally a taxi. I believe the effectiveness of public transportation is apparent to those who have no other option such as a personal vehicle or carpool. The capital metro system is an effective although time consuming way to navigate Austin. For those who have the option to take a car, the public transportation system seems like a hassle when in fact, the capital metro system is not only already effective but also working to grow through the input of the community. The website is user friendly and even has a trip planner which uses starting points and destinations to give the user the ideal route and timing needed. This trip planning feature allows a bus rider to bypass colored maps which Christopher points out are sometimes difficult to interpret.

     The proposition that we look to New York as an example is like comparing apples to oranges. New York’s subway system is so developed and successful due to the tight concentration of people and businesses. Austin is a sprawling city; if you think the buses don’t reach enough of the city, an underground system would likely only be a straight strip through the middle, at least to start with. Christopher also mentions traffic jams which are frequent on I-35. These traffic jams are not a result of public transportation but a result of the quantity of people compared to lanes during rush hour and collision delays. Providing an underground system would not likely clear up the traffic on I-35 as Texas and Austin is a place where a great number of residents own a vehicle and therefore would not be part of the target population to benefit from growth in public transportation. I think that Austin is a city which effectively promotes carpooling, bike riding, and public transportation but a user of such methods must understand that just because it’s better for the environment does not mean that it will be easier or faster than commuting in a personal vehicle.   

Voter ID Laws, Where's the Justification?

     The media urges people, all people, to get out and vote. As elections draw closer the average American citizen will hear increasing statistics about voter turnouts and how each person can make a change. The promotion of voting and participation from every American creates confusion when it comes to the proposed voter ID law. If every citizen is encouraged to vote and we want to increase participation, then why is Texas making voting more difficult?

     ID requirements are restricted to particular government issued cards which excludes even student IDs. Texas officials argue that government issued IDs are free and require documents that citizens should already have such as a birth certificate. The fact is that all citizens do not have IDs and would be penalized just for the sake of protecting voter identification fraud. Only six people have been convicted for identification fraud in the past decade and compared to the vast number of citizens who would also be kept away from polls, a law which would only help to reduce fraud seems more harmful than helpful. As Nathaniel Persily, a voting law expert at Columbia Law School, states, “There is fraud and there is some voter impersonation fraud but you’re trying to kill a fly with a bazooka with these kinds of laws…There’s a lot of collateral damage.” 

     Attorney General Eric Holder compares voter ID laws to the poll taxes once imposed and which were eventually deemed unconstitutional. Such laws prevent minorities from taking part in the voting process as the highest percentages of people without IDs are within such minorities and would be hindered in comparison to other races. If identification fraud was more of an issue then legal identification could be justified but because there have been so few issues, a voter ID law seems more excessive and restricting to the people we should be encouraging. 

So, What's the Issue Here?

     While browsing various blogs I was looking for an article to talk about that did not involve Perry’s Medicaid decision as I feel I’ve been focused primarily on this topic. When I saw a post on the Burnt Orange Report page about racial tension, my interest was piqued as I consider racism to be one of several ongoing issues which must be handled with care.

     I had to read this post about three times and read the linked pages before I understood the basic statement for the post. I’m not sure if the author intends the audience of this post to be up to date on the proposed “poll tax” or ID requirement from May but personally I was clueless as to what the situation and subsequent issue was. The article calls to attention Perry’s accusation of Eric Holder as having “purposefully used language designed to inflame passions and incite racial tension.” Upon briefly looking into Eric Holder’s office and standings, this statement seemed off base and without proper introduction. Holder is the first African-American Attorney General of the United States and has spoken on race relations; at the time in 2009 however, the president admitted his language may have been controversial. This piece of information from a past speech is useful in understanding why his use of “poll tax” may have been misunderstood. It would appear that Holder is not as cautious or selective with his words, causing them to come out as inciting in nature. In order to understand this post fully and to have an opinion, I would need a greater understanding of the character and past of Eric Holder within political offices and through speech.

     The post then discusses “an election law overhaul last May which included a requirement that voters present a certain form of government-issued photo ID or be turned away from the polls.” This issue is quickly dismissed however as Texas is acknowledged to be one of nine states which must have an approval for change from the Department of Justice. The state did not receive preclearance for the requirement of government-issued IDs and as such does not seem to have an issue. This post in the end turned out to be too brief to explain or evoke a thoughtful opinion. There may have been potential for a valid point regarding Perry’s accusation of Holder or for the proposition of an ID requirement but these points required outside knowledge or research to be understood. 

Corpus Christi Caller Times: Perry has a point but no solution

The Corpus Christi Caller Times speaks to the Texas public asking them to consider Perry’s reasons for declining Medicaid expansion in the article Gov. Perry has a point, but no solution for uninsured Texans. While the article makes a good point for and against Perry, the article fails to elaborate important points. The article mentions a letter which states that Obamacare’s expansion plan “would simply enlarge a broken system that is already financially unsustainable.” Rather than explain how the system is “broken” which would lead to better understanding and reinforcement of this statement, the article states an additional issue of an insurance mandate which should, but is not guaranteed to, bail out health care. The article goes on to validate some of Perry’s other statements by the uncertainty of expected outcomes which is a weak way to support such statements. If it cannot be determined that the expansion of Medicaid would hurt Texas in the long run, then why would this possible solution be declined? In fact, the article notes the shocking $76 billion in federal funding which Perry has decided to walk away from. In order to provide perspective to this decision, the article suggests that even if the expansion of Medicaid turns out to be successful, there may be an issue once full federal funding is cut and could turn into a $76 billion “gift the state can’t afford.” What confuses me about this suggestion is the fact that the article states the policy that Texas would be capped at only a 10 percent contribution and suggests the state might not be able to afford the federal funding “gift”. The article needs to elaborate on this point more; will the state be financially stuck although the expansion was successful or would it be a problem that a small percentage of funding feeds into this success? The article simply states, “Perry offers no solutions. But he stands in the way of a solution for 1.2 million of Texas’ uninsured.” It seems to me that Perry has decided to take the cautious route with a known outcome but in doing so he has passed up an opportunity to provide a better life to many Texans and a better use of money for all Texans. 

Perry Dismisses Funding and Health Care Status

The Austin Chronicle addresses Perry's decision to reject programs for Medicaid expansion in its article, Point Austin: Perry's Tantrum. Perry utilizes the Supreme Court's decision that states be able to accept or reject Medicaid programs without federal sanction in order to justify his argument for the maintenance of state sovereignty. Perry has decided to reject Medicaid expansion, an offer of expanded funds from the federal government, which would not only cut in half the number of uninsured Texans but would also bring a flow of money back into the Texas economy through the health care system. When Perry was asked to address the fact that Texas had recently been ranked last in the provision of health services he used the excuse that the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality had picked and chosen points in order to make Texas look bad.


This article sheds light on the types of faulty arguments Governor Rick Perry is using to defend his decisions. Rather than accepting federal funding into the state's health care, Perry has decided that Texans are "free to go without health care." It is important to read and understand this article along with others of its kind as the decisions our leaders are making affect where our tax dollars end up.