Fracking and Its Consequences (Stage 8)

Forest at Longhorn Politics brings up the issue of "fracking" which has become a crucial topic lately. What is it and why has it become such a big deal recently? Fracking is the cornerstone of America's push for energy independence. Most politicians, including Obama, have given oil and gas industries full endorsement to carry out these new drilling techniques with little restriction. Energy independence has been an elusive goal for the United States ever since the oil embargo in the 70s. Now with that goal within their reach law makers are pushing hard with little concern for the long term consequences. Namely the environment and as Forest mentions our drinking water. Many of the techniques used to crack the shale layer use toxic chemicals that leech into the groundwater. Once in our drinking supply these chemicals are almost impossible to filter out. Not to mention, Texas is in short supply of fresh water these days. Our water supply is going to be an important election issue for the coming decades. I don't see how our local politicians can afford to look the other way but it seems like that's exactly what they're are doing.

Texas with its large reserves of oil will no doubt be a key player in the fracking game. One of the issues Forest brings up is corruption. He has a good point considering that the Texas Lege heavily favors deregulating the energy industry. Lack of regulation is one of the main reasons why Texas ranks among the highest in the nation regarding pollution. I'm also certain that special interests groups will bombard us with plenty of disinformation regarding the safety of fracking. And considering the amount of money that goes into the energy industry these will be some of the best financed groups around.

I would also like to add that some analysts have argued that driving down oil prices will lead to more unrest in already unstable regions. Regions that depend on the supply of oil and the United State's military protection for stability. Which means the US will most likely increase its efforts to stabilize these regions. Will fracking be the key to our survival or downfall? With the New York Times claiming that the "United States is on track to overtake Saudi Arabia as the world's largest oil producer as early as 2017," it is clear that fracking isn't going away anytime soon.

Should Texas Adopt a Merit Based Judicial Selection? (Stage 7)

Texas is one of 39 states, that elects its judges to some degree or another, but should politics be part of the judicial selection process? This wasn't always the case. In 1824, President Andrew Jackson began persuading states to adopt judicial elections. Sometime thereafter, Texas adopted its own form of judicial elections which have remained part of the state's tradition for the last 130 years. However, this is contrary to what the Founding Fathers envisioned when they created a government of separate powers to be free of majority bias. Now states use judicial elections to strengthen incumbent political parties. Partisanship will always be part of the executive and legislative branches, but at least the judicial branch should be independent. Judges should be free of the political process to provide tough decisions based on their own reasoning without worrying about re-election. Sometimes the right decisions can be very unpopular with the current generation's consensus. Take Brown V. Board of Education or Roe V. Wade, for instance. Imagine what kind of country we would live in today if the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States had to worry about re-election. I'm sure we have plenty of state and local judges capable of making controversial but necessary decisions. It would be reassuring to know that they were selected based on merit rather than which political party's flag they carry or who raises more money than their opponent. Perhaps defeating a more qualified candidate in the process. Partisan elections tip the scales in favor of an unbalanced legal system that isn't capable of catering to the highly diverse population that makes up Texas.

The other two issues with judicial elections are that campaigns cost a lot of money and they divert funds from more important issues. Expensive campaigns puts our justice system up for sell with the most important judges commanding the highest price. I am assuming a bit much, but if it smells like corruption and looks like corruption, well you get the idea. From what I've researched the push for court reformation is nothing new. Since the beginning, reformists have grappled with the problem of selecting judges in a way that is true to democracy without compromising judicial independence. In 1995, the Texas Legislature attempted to address the problem of corruption by placing limits on campaign contributions. Yet, it still costs several million dollars to run for a seat in the Texas Supreme Court. Not to mention, Texas has never had a very strong finance regulatory commission. While a merit based system has been slow to catch on the debate for one has not faltered for the better part of a century. And for good reason. Separating our judicial system from the influence of political parties and special interest groups is in the majority of Texans' best interests. Our current system tends to rule in favor of big business at the expense of consumer protection and environmentalist groups.

Fixing The Capital Punishment System

Let me stray aside from my previous blogs and say that I do support the death penalty. As Shelly York mentions in her blog, the problem with our capital punishment system is that the appeals process can be very expensive and time consuming. There has been a lot of talk mostly in other states about ending the death penalty all together. Proponents argue that the costs of keeping our capital punishment system outweighs the benefits. The appeals process is the reason why it costs considerably more to execute a criminal than house them for life. The current appeals process was created a long time before advanced technologies have come to light. Requiring DNA testing before a death penalty trial begins is a step in the right direction towards improving an archaic system. It would cut through a lot of bureaucratic red tape and speed up the process while reducing costs.

Like Shelly I feel a very strong sense of righteousness when it comes to punishing hardened killers and rapists. Why should a criminal who is undeniably guilty beyond all reasonable doubt be allowed to compete for the same resources needed by those who have been convicted on less than concrete circumstances? When I say undeniable, I mean having been captured committing the crime on video or linked through DNA. I leave out confessions because of the Tulia incident which comes to mind. To quote William Blackstone, it is "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." In this respect I agree wholeheartedly, but we are living in a different era. We have access to technology that goes beyond eye witness accounts or confessions. However, in circumstances involving less than concrete empirical evidence, those who are and tried and convicted should have full access to the appeals process without having to compete with criminals who are absolutely guilty.

Should We Allow Texas Farms to Buy Our Politicians?

Industrial farms around the nation are fighting back against animal rights groups with litigation and help from state senators. Could Texas be next and should we prevent them? After all, The cattle industry is big business in Texas. It started when Central Valley Meat, a Californian slaughterhouse, was shut down in 2012 after a string of undercover videos popped up on the internet showing animal abuses at the accused plant. Corporate farms in Iowa, Vermont, and Florida began pushing legislation that would prevent citizens from exposing similar abuses. Farms in other states are also considering similar tactics. Going so far as to accuse these activists of being terrorists even though they haven't committed any real crimes. These bills would make it illegal to photograph farms without the owner's consent and a felony to lie on the job application.

Let me start by saying, I am a carnivore and like the taste of steak just as much as the next guy. However, the idea of skinning calves alive and causing unnecessary suffering to animals disturbs me. I wouldn't buy food from a company guilty of such atrocities. I understand that it's not possible to provide livestock with ideal living conditions and provide the volume needed to feed the country, but there should be consideration. I also believe that industrial farms (CAFOs) left unregulated will not enforce policies as strictly as needed. We need whistle blowers in the system to provide information on how our food is being processed. Let's be honest the majority of us, including me, would not take the time or effort to investigate such issues on our own, even though it does matter. Texas's cattle industry is very important, but similar bills should not be allowed to pass here. It's not just for the sake of animals but Texans as well. We have a right to know if these farms are operating within the law and if they're preparing our food properly and morally.

The only purpose of these bills is to keep the general public from having an inside window to conditions taking place inside these farms. It's not like a defense contractor where espionage is more prevalent and restricting pictures is necessary. Private property owners do have certain rights, but considering the industry those rights shouldn't be taken for granted. If it's cheaper to buy politicians that pass laws to prevent the leakage of animal abuses instead of preventing them, it just goes to show that what happened in these videos is much more common than the public would like to believe. I'm not a big fan of deregulation. It didn't work for Enron or the hedge fund industry, so why would these mega farms be any different? I'm not beating on farmers, I know most are honest hardworking individuals. What we're talking about here are corporate farms with little incentive, other than the fear of getting shut down, to regulate themselves in an appropriate manner.

I haven't even touched the other reason to support stricter regulations. E. coli, mad cow disease, and salmonella have gotten a lot of media exposure lately. One of these undercover videos caught an inspector, one of the guys who are supposed to protect us, coaching farm operators on how to cheat inspections. So now we've gone from a moral dilemma to a public health issue. When something goes wrong at one of these farms hundreds of people get sick before the culprit is tracked down. As a result, thousands of animals will be put down because of lax regulatory enforcement. Instead of misspent resources on litigation CAFOs should be working on methods to prevent such abuses from occurring in the first place. So, if a few activists want to sacrifice their time going undercover and exposing the farming industries' dirty secrets, I commend them. They're contributing to a worthy societal cause. 

Sources:

http://www.businessinsider.com/usda-shuts-down-slaughterhouse-animal-cruelty-in-n-out-2012-8

http://www.toledoblade.com/Politics/2013/03/18/Bills-aim-to-end-undercover-farm-animal-abuse-investigations.html

The Impact of Sequestration in Texas

David Jennings of Big Jolly Politics says the fiscal cliff was a fabricated lie. Well, maybe he's right to a certain extent. The term "fiscal cliff" implies that our economy is going to take a nosedive now that sequestration has taken hold. That may not be the case, however, letting it happen in the first place was sloppy politics all around. Shame on Congress and the White House for letting their egos get in the way of compromise. Or perhaps it was some other motive that got in the way of resolving this issue. While both sides agree that some budget cuts are necessary to our future economic well being, the manner in which they did it was cowardly and wrong. By letting the deadline pass they side stepped accountability as usual and are now blaming each other as expected. Coming from an industry that is directly affected by sequestration I'll admit that I am personally biased, but I also accept the fact that the government needs to reduce its spending. When it comes to the United State’s economic future I have no problem finding a new job if it comes to that. I just hope that unemployment benefits aren’t the next to be cut.

One thing I absolutely disagree with David Jennings is his dogmatic stance on taxes. He says "if Republicans vote to increase tax rates on anyone, we lose." Taxes have already gone up for everyone this year. If Obama plans to close the loopholes that allow corporate executives and the super rich from paying their share of taxes, I say go for it. The media made a big stink when Mitt Romney revealed that he only paid about 13 percent in taxes on his multimillion-dollar income despite the fact that he should have been taxed twice for corporate earnings. Yet this is nothing out of the ordinary. The average tax rate for executives is just over 12 percent which is considerably less than their secretaries pay in income taxes. So when it comes to raising the marginal tax rate for wealthy Americans I fully support it, but the rich do have access to options that make it incredibly difficult to enforce. They can claim citizenship in one tax haven nation and do business here. They can also hide their wealth among other tactics, but any step in the right direction is a worthy cause.

Some of the effects of sequestration are already being felt in Texas. Border agents are being subjected to furloughs and some detention centers have let out undocumented immigrants in retaliation to having their budgets cut. Protests have popped up around city halls in Texas, especially in Houston where clashes between government workers and Tea Partiers have gotten ugly. This tug of rope between Democrats and Republicans is going to cost us because they can't find a compromise between taxes and spending cuts. Both issues are key to our economic future and need to be addressed.

Texas Growth at a Cost

What is the real price of Texas job and population growth? Tom Whitehurst Jr. from Corpus Christi's Caller slams Rick Perry's definition of "job creation." Recently, Rick Perry returned from a trip to California in which his goal was to steal firms away using tax incentives and other freebies. Part of our governor's administrative success is that he's been fairly good a keeping Texas filled with newly poached firms from states where businesses actually pay their taxes. While unemployment has been lower in Texas than most of the nation keep in mind that these benefits are mostly temporary and the problems that come with them aren't. When the grace period runs out and these companies have to contribute taxes like other businesses they do what Dell and other companies are doing by relocating to the next state that offers them a better deal.

But, what about these people whose jobs moved to Texas. Guess what? They're also following the money by moving to Texas. That means Texas' cost of living is going to rise. It also means that we will need a lot more schools, better roads, and public amenities to compensate for all this growth. Who's going to pay for all these public goods? Not the business firms that are feeding off of our funded tax incentives. That means we will pay most of the bill. If not through higher taxes, than by other means. As it is Rick Perry has already raised every fee and toll imaginable. Not to mention property taxes have skyrocketed in the last few years.

All this job poaching may seem like a good deal for Texas in the short run, but it can't be good for the economy overall. The problem with the phrase job creation is that it implies that something has been created that wasn't there before. Instead, Perry has merely taken business from somewhere else and brought it here by questionable means. The U.S. GDP doesn't going up as a result of all this poaching. In fact, it may have a negative overall effect on the economy.

The debate over the use of drones in Texas law enforcement.

Should the government of Texas be allowed to spy on its own residents indiscriminately? At least one local legislator doesn't think so. Lance Gooden, R-Terrell, is pushing for legislative action to cease plans on using this technology to provide 24 hour surveillance on Texans. "Why should the government or anyone else be able to watch my every move?" He's right but it's nothing new. The state of Texas has always used planes and helicopters to provide aerial surveillance on it's residents, but with this new technology the amount of data provided will be at unprecedented levels.Without any legal restraints who's to say where and to what extent this technology can be used for. Yet, drones do have their advantages. For one, they reduce the costs of providing aerial support to law enforcement. On the other hand, they do put pilots out of work and increase the potential to infringe on our privacy. Do you think legislation should be passed to limit the use of drones or are certain members of the Texas' government trying to fix something that isn't broke? You can find the rest of the article here at the Texas Tribune.