Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Texas Education Spending - Opinion

After charting the progress of Texas education spending for the last few months, I have found that there has been some progress made, but this progress is definitely lacking.

Since the last legislative session took $5 billion away from Texas public schools, the education economy has been suffering. I went to Ranger College (a small two-year college in west Texas) when the legislature wanted to cut the school, which is why this issue is so important to me. Even though Ranger was a small school, and I know attend TCU, the impact it makes on student's lives was important and the school should not have been on a cut list just to give money to other programs.

Legislatures need to make the changes now and not only restore, but increase the education fund throughout the state. Our school districts and high education institutions desperately need this money or the future generations are going to suffer dramatically.

Hopefully as the legislature closes, the education budget will be increased and talked about more. Other issues in education are starting to take center stage (State testing was addressed earlier this week) so I know education is top of mind for both the House and Senate.

Please write, call or email your legislatures to encourage them to vote yes to education budget increases. The investment now will make a difference in the future. 

Ivy Anderson

Children Obesity- Last Post

By researching this for four months now, I feel that I have learned about the current child obesity epidemic. In my opinion, the changes that need to be made are very simple and would have a huge impact. At the beginning of the project, I thought the major problem was what the schools were feeding the children, but after my last blog post, I have come to the conclusion that it is in the parents hands. First, if a child’s parent isn’t making good decisions, then how is a child supposed to. I can assume that more than 75% of a children’s yearly food intake is under their parents watch. In the school year, only one of their meals is not under their parents watch, and in summertime, the parents have full control of what their children eat. Even during the school year, the parents can have control over what their child is eating for lunch by not giving the child lunch money and packing a healthy lunch for their child to take to school.

In higher grade levels, like middle school and high school, I think the best option would be to offer healthier foods and also require strictly a “nutrition” class, along with the health class that is already required. 

Shelby Knight

HB 892 Not Passed

It turns out that Texas House Bill 892, proposing a lowered drinking age to 18 for those in active duty Military, didn't really go anywhere. According to LegiScan, it looks like the bill was filed on February 1, 2013. It was read for the first time on February 19, and on the same day it was "Referred to Licensing and Administrative Procedures," whatever that means. So I decided to do some research and find out what exactly that does mean.

The "Licensing & Administrative Procedures" action on HB 892 was referring to the committee in the House of Representatives that goes by that name, The Licensing & Administrative Procedures Committee of Texas. It's a committee made up of nine representatives that have jurisdiction over the Alcoholic Beverage Code and the regulation of the sale of alcoholic beverages.

Thus far, nothing else has happened with this Bill. It looks like we're gonna have to wait for another session to see if this passes in the state of Texas.

After visiting the Capitol, I learned that there is a lot going on and it is easy for some things to get overlooked. I think it's a good thing in this situation that the bill didn't go very far. The research I found showed that lowering the drinking age is only a detriment to a person's well-being, and has no real benefits.

-Hannah Teague

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

If a rainy fund spills open, will a body of water be replenished?

The 2013 legislation has less than 30 days left, and while some are claiming HB 11 is out of the running, Gov. Rick Perry thinks differently. “We have plenty of time to get the work done in the session,” said Perry, continuing his optimistic outlook with “there is nothing more important [than the water legislation] to this state” (Texas Tribune).

Gov. Rick Perry discusses the remaining legislation
Source: Texas Tribune

While HB 11 allocates for $2 million to be taken from the Rainy Day Fund and used for the implemented state water plan, many soundly disagree. Democrats and Republicans alike are fighting for valid, and crucial, allocation of the state’s Rainy Day Fund. Due to the $5.4 billion in education cuts last legislation, many democrats feel that that money should be replaced by tapping into the Rainy Day Fund.

They have a valid point. State educators provide the foundation of a student’s educational career, and budget cuts in education impact the lives of both these students and educators alike. In addition, further debate stems from many far-right conservatives who fear tapping the Rainy Day Fund for anything, claiming it “should be reserved for emergencies,” according to the Texas Tribune.

Tapping into the Rainy Day Fund is a shaky move from any stance. There is no telling exactly how bad the drought will be this year, what will happen to our economy the next few years, and what kind of emergency or natural disaster could occur at any moment in time. We may each have opinions on where to designate money from the Rainy Day Fund (if at all), but this opinions have the ability to change given the circumstances that come our way and the cards we are dealt. Democrats, republicans, and far-leaning republicans may differ on allocation of Rainy Day Funds, but we all share the common fear of where the money will end up now and how this will affect us in the long run.

-Becca Adkins
Post 5:  If a rainy fund spills open, will a body of water be replenished?

So what's happening with CPRIT

Over the past months of watching CPRIT and their legislative bill, I feel like not a whole lot has happened. More and more scandals and negative evidence keep leaking, but this has not expedited the Transparency Board. If anything, the bad press this organization has received seems to be providing people with more evidence of government corruption. So can the government fix the cronyism and neglect that was rampant in CPRIT? How can a system that relies on cronyism and back scratching provide thorough transparency for the public? Firstly, "the legislation [Senate Bill 149], which was approved by the Senate and is pending in the House, tightens controls on the grant process to ensure that political considerations do not taint CPRIT decisions" (

But the fight against cancer is too important.

The funding that is currently sitting in CPRIT can be used to provide research and researchers for this terrible disease. As the second largest source of cancer funding in the nation, they have a responsibility to commit to their original intents. According to James Gray of the American Cancer Society Action Network, only three out of the 500 grants were "focus of controversy" (

House Bill 951, a CPRIT overhaul bill, proposed by State Representative Jim Keffer, "would enable the agency to start giving out money again" (

Many support the revamping of CPRIT because they see the value of those funds benefiting those in need. Yet this investigation has dragged on and drudged up so much. 

Avery Ruxer
Post 5

Need for Stability

For the last three years, I’ve had to privilege to work with CASA- Court Appointed Special Advocates in Fort Worth as well as in my hometown. Trained CASA volunteers serve as advocates for children from abused or broken homes in court. Whether you are a trained advocate or volunteer within the organization to raise funds and support, spending time with this organization has taught me one very important thing. Children from foster homes or abused homes have a need for stability.

Senate Bill 245 concerns the contracts and eligibility for advocacy centers to be allowed to provide services for children from abused or neglected cases. While House Bill 915 relates to the care and monitoring of health care services for foster children. These two bills are making progress and the bill sponsors are optimistic.

It is necessary for these bills to be passed because it will require the consistency and stability these children need. These are services most parents regulate for their own children, and foster homes and advocacy centers must be required and legally allowed to provide those same care measures. Children from neglected homes or foster care deserve the same quality of treatment as any other child, and someone has to look out for their well-being. If that means legislation, then it is essential for SB 245 and HB 915 to be passed.

Brelle de Groot

Sunday, May 5, 2013

Texas Legislature Working Together for Women’s Health?

Rep. Sarah Davis 
According The Texas Tribune, it seems that the two parties have a mutual agreement. Democrats will not push to reinstate Planned Parenthood in the Texas Women’s Health Program and Republicans will not put up barriers for women’s health care in Texas. During the Texas Tribune symposiumon The State of Women's Health, Rep. Sarah Davis (R-West University Place) said, “the major difference is we’re not fighting about it, we’re just doing what’s right for women and the state.” Davis is the only Republican member of the House Women’s Health Caucus.

Davis negotiated a bipartisan “grand bargain,” that would prevent amendments on the House budget bill that would have jeopardized an agreement to

The 2014-15 state budget is still in committee but at this point lawmakers have allocated more financing towards women’s health services before the 2011 budget cuts. Right now the house version of the bill has doubled financing for family planning services to $75 million. The Senate version increases family planning services to $43 million. The House and the Senate have both added $100 million to support the Texas Women’s Health Program. The programs was formally the Medicaid Women’s Health Program which lost $9-to-$1 federal match when the state decided to remove Planned Parenthood clinics from the programs.

“We should not be playing political football with women’s health,” Davis said, “because it doesn’t do either side any good.”

For more information on the state of women's health in Texas watch the Texas Tribune's symposium below.