Term Termination?

"The longer a source of authority is in control, the longer it is able to accrue power around itself." Thus begins a post by my colleague, Stephen Warne, entitled "The Power of Time." Though lacking any outside sources,  Warne logically argues that if an authority gains to much power, there is a very real potential that the authority will abuse it (through corruption, etc).

Because he is advocating a policy change, we assume that Mr. Warne's audience is policy makers and voters. Therefore, he suggests that there be a term limit for the Texas governor--meaning that a single person can only have a limited number of four-year terms. Warne sites the the federal presidential term limit as an example, since presidents can only be elected twice.

Overall, Mr. Warne's argument makes sense: as the governors time in office goes on, he attains more power and influence (for example, he can appoint around 2000 people to various offices if given enough time). If we change who is in power every few years, it ensures that the state is not driven by the agenda of a single individual. However, the argument would have been significantly strengthened had Warne looked at some of the objections to term limits.

First of all, term limits could constrain voter's choice and possibly force them to vote for a substandard candidate. For instance, what if there is an excellent governor who have served two terms, and must therefore step down, but there is no other candidate that is an acceptable replacement?

Secondly, if a governor knows that they do not have the option of being elected again, they have no reason to fully listen to the opinion of voters. This could potentially, in extreme cases, lead to four years of leadership that is intentionally dismissive of the opinion of the public.

A good way to look at whether a course of action is legitimate is to look at its use in the past. In 2009, The Statesman's editorial board wrote an article entitled "Time for term limits? Let the voters decide" in which they pointed out that (according to the National Governors Association) 37 states place term limits on their governors. Widespread does not necessarily mean advisable, but it shows that there are many poeple who think it is a good idea.

To conclude, both approaches are used in state governments across the nation, so there doesn't seem to be one clearly preferable option.  There are legitimate arguments on both sides, but in the end, I think the decision of term limits should simply be left to Texas voters. Though Warne argues logically and compellingly, going deeper into the topic and the objections against it would have strengthened his claims.

Are The Courts Broken?

Prison life: blank walls, bars, and guards. While most people know what the inside a prison looks like, living inside one for decades is something totally different. Micheal Morton has spent the last 25 years of his life behind bars for a crime he did not commit. The now 57 year old man has lived almost half his life in prison for murder, despite the fact that he was innocent the entire time. Though Morton was exonerated last month on recently found DNA evidence, it took our system 25 years to realize he did not do the crime. How could a system dedicated to justice have such unjust results? Is the Texas justice system broken? Let's take a look at Micheal Morton's case specifically.

Morton was initially arrested and convicted of the 1986 murder of his wife. At the time, DNA testing was not advanced enough to be used as evidence, thus discovering this evidence--which is obvious now--wasn't even considered at his trial. However, the recent testing found DNA that points to another man who has a history of violence. Because of this evidence, Morton was exonerated last month--meaning that he can leave prison, but must conform to certain restrictions, such as he must stay inside the state.

One shocking aspect of the case is that his lawyers sought to have the DNA testing done for six years before it happened. Also, Morton's son, who was three years old at the time and witnessed the crime, told his grandmother that a "monster"--which was not his father-- killed his mother. The prosecution did not admit this into the case, and the defense didn't know about it. The prosecution also omitted the fact that charges had been made to Mrs. Morton's credit card using a forged signature shortly after Mr. Morton was put in jail. All three of these issues are being raised in a list of grievances The Texas Coalition on Lawyer Accountability filed with the State Bar of Texas on Monday, according to a Texas tribune article by Brandi Grissom entitled "Lawyer Group Files Grievances in Morton Case."

So it seems the justice system is working to correct the wrong done at some level, but why did this even happen in the first place? Aren't there laws about the prosecution sharing with the defense all the facts they find? Yes, there are; they are called discovery laws. According to another Texas Tribune article ("Morton Case Sparks Calls for Texas Evidence Law Reform") the US Supeme Court decision Brady v. Maryland requires prosecutors to provide defendants with "exculpatory evidence," meaning any information that could prove that they are innocent. The problem is that the state of Texas does not have an official definition of "exculpatory evidence," so the interpretation of this phrase is usually left up to trial judges or prosecutors. The state does not even mandate basic information sharing such as police reports. Even so, many district attorneys in Texas have mandated that their lawyers share information with the defense. In the end, some prosecutors in Texas have no obligation to share much information at all.

Why hasn't it been fixed? Well, since 2007, legislators have proposed more than a half-dozen measures that would have expanded access to discovery, but none of them passed, largely blocked by legislators. The article above ("Morton Case Sparks Calls for Texas Evidence Law Reform") explains the motivation behind uncooperative prosecutors by interviewing Sen. Rodney Ellis (who is a lawyer). He says, “The role of the prosecutor is to discover the truth. But oftentimes there’s more interest in getting a conviction.” He goes on to say that many Texas prosecutors view a conviction as a win.

So is the Texas justice system broken? I would say that, as we see in the case of Micheal Morton, the system does function, but must be reformed in this area to prevent any further injustice. The laws about discovery must be revised so that there is a clear standard of what is "exculpatory evidence," and legislators might consider enacting further laws that ensure all the facts are presented.

Money Can't Buy Everything

Kids are important. Schools are important. We all agree with this, and it's beyond dispute that Texas does not have a very good public school system.

Today, I will be addressing an editorial written by my colleague, Mr. Martinez, on Texas education. His arguments basically came down to: we have a sad education system, and we need someone who will actually fix it. While I agree with his basic premise, I have one main critique of Mr. Martinez's post.

In his second to last paragraph he stated, "The problem with Texas education is the lack of funding ... the only way we will be able to greatly improve K12 education is to increase funding." This seems a reasonable conclusion, but let's see if funding really has a very significant impact on academic performance.

A May, 2011 article published in Fox News entitled Public School Per-Student Spending Increases as State Funding Decreases, spoke on elementary through high school funding while looking at a U.S. Census Bureau report. Fox specifically compared Utah (which spends very little per student) to New York (which spends a lot), "In Utah, the lowest per-student spending state, 21 percent of schools failed to meet the goals set under that federal education law. In New York, the highest per-student spending state, 38 percent of schools fell short." Utah actually has a very noticeably higher percent of succeeding schools!

Although it's compelling, looking at only two states is not conclusive on whether or not funding significantly improves education. Let's take a broader look at per-student funding across the US. Senior policy annalist Jennifer Cohen, of The New America Foundation, published the following chart in September, 2010 after looking at data from The Federal Education Budget Project. The chart shows each state's annual per-student spending (on the left side), and contrasts it with the high school graduation rates (on the bottom).

 

The article (entitled "Examining the Data: State Per Pupil Expenditures and State Graduation Rates") which contains the chart, concludes, "...the scatter plot [seen above] makes it abundantly clear that states are not guaranteed a certain graduation rate depending on how much they spend per student." Though this analysis is only for high school graduation, it still make the point that money cannot buy everything, especially when it comes to education. Further analyzing the data, Ms. Cohen claims, "Instead, how a state (and school district, and school) spends its money matters significantly more than how much money it actually spends."[emphasis added]

In the end, Mr. Martinez's point may be the answer. To "greatly" increase performance, we might need more funding, depending on how you define "greatly." By looking at the above chart, however, it's plain that there are many states that spend less than Texas per student but have higher graduation rates. Therefore, I conclude that our school system isn't necessarily in need of more funding, but maximizing resource use would make a more long term difference.

Life, Liberty, and Water

It is illegal to water your own lawn. That is what it's come to here in central Texas. As anyone who lives here knows, we've been going through an enormous drought. From our dead lawns to all the dried up ponds, you don't have to look far to see just how bad it is.

Not only does it make our parks a lot uglier, the drought is actually hurting the Texas economy. As Reuters reported this afternoon[1], the drought has cost Texas "more than $5 billion in agricultural losses." Government officials have noticed. Accordingly, Austin is in Stage 2 watering restrictions[2], which means you can only water for a few hours once a week.

This situation brings up the question: is putting more regulations on citizens the best way of dealing with shortage? Water is owned by "the government"--but doesn't that mean that it really belongs to no one? If property ownership rights were established for water, I believe it would give a lot more reason to conserve water. Though it may seem crazy, let's look at a couple of reasons for water rights.

Currently, you own the water that is directly beneath your property, but, generally speaking, the state owns water that is above ground (rain water, streams etc). Ownership systems like our water have been referred to by some as "the tragedy of commons"--which essentially states that if a resource is held by no one or everyone, there won't be the motivation to keep it in order. In the same way, there isn't much of an incentive to conserve the water that comes out of our hoses and faucets, because it belongs to everyone. Just as you don't have as much concern for a rental car as you do for your own, possessing ownership of an object (such as water) gives you a reason to take care of it.

This is not an unprecedented idea. The natives of Hawaii actually had a system of water-rules for thousands of years in which streams were privately owned. The owner had domain from the stream's headwaters to the sea. Infringement on these property rights was punishable with death[3]. You thought my idea was extreme? Though this is just one example, history shows that shortages are best handled my market forces, not government regulation.

If we gave ownership of water to several different companies, for example, they would have to compete to provide quality,  responsibly use their resources, and would overall run a much more conscientious and effective operation than our government. In fact, Jonathan H. Adler (Professor of Law), of the Cato Institute, said in his 2009 article Warming Up to Water Markets: "water management must shift toward recognition of transferable rights." Meaning water should be bought and sold within a market.

Implementation obviously wouldn't be simple. There would need to be rules ensuring safety, prohibiting abuse, monopolies, and things of that nature. It wouldn't happen overnight, but this system is viable if the proper regulations are put in place.

Because people have an incentive to conserve what is theirs, if we changed the ownership of water to specific owners, I think it would result in water being better conserved, and used more wisely. Water should be a form of property.



[1] Article titled: "With the onset of fall weather, the U.S. South was starting to creep out of a devastating drought that has caused billions of dollars in damages, according to a national drought report issued Thursday."
[2] City of Austin website. "Stage 2 Water Restrictions Begin for Austin
[3] National Park Service. "A Cultural History of Three Traditional Hawaiian Sites on the West Coast of Hawai'i Island".  http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/kona/history1g.htm

The Death Penalty Governor?

Let's kill more people!

That's what the audience seemed to say at one of the earlier presidential debates of 2011. I, for one, was startled by the the widespread applause for Rick Perry's execution record.

Our governor has now gotten a national reputation for being "tough on crime." Consequently, I was intrigued by an article entitled "Should reformers praise or chastise Rick Perry's criminal justice record?" posted Oct. 2, on the Texas political blog Grits for Breakfast. As a consultant for the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition and the Innocence Project, the author does have a bias in this issue, but also more background knowledge than most people.

What I find particularly appealing about this post is how the author goes into many unexplored aspects of governor Perry's criminal justice record. The article is a response to a story in Yahoo News in which the Brother of an exonerated prisoner praised the governor's law enforcement accomplishments. Grits brings up many good points. Firstly, the author looks to Perry's 2005 life-without-parole law that appears to have directly decreased the number of defendants sent to death row. Second, the article notes that Perry's longevity in office contributed to the high number of executions done under his administration. In addition, Grits brings up how little the Texas governor is involved in these cases (indeed, many of these death sentences are from years before the current governor was elected), and strengthens the point with a quote from the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition Chief. The main question seems to be: is he really so tough on crime? The author ends by stating his opinion: Perry is not execution-crazed as some view him, but does not deserve the praise that some (specifically the man in the Yahoo article) give him.

In addition to the ideas, the writing is solid. It started out directly quoting a viewpoint that would be referenced throughout--making sure we are all on the same page. The language and ideas are concrete and easy to follow.
On the other hand, Grits made the sweeping assertion toward the end that Perry had kept tens of thousands out of jail--this had no specific backing.

To sum it up, Grits makes the well supported argument that Perry is not "the death penalty governor" as some might see him, but simply a politician who welcomes extra publicity from an issue that he may or may not have wanted to bring out. However, it has certainly gotten people talking.

The "Key" to oil independence?

What goes up must come down--unless your talking about gas prices. A proposal for an oil pipeline running from Canada to Texas may be a small boost for a sick economy and hurting wallets.

The Keystone XL pipeline is designed to transport crude oil from Canada to the Texan gulf coast to be refined. Before the end of the year, the State Department will decide whether or not to allow Keystone's construction.

Barry Smitherman of the Texas Railroad Commission advocates the pipeline in an opinion piece entitled "Texas Needs the Keystone Pipeline." Published in the Austin American Statesman yesterday, Smitherman's article seeks to persuade citizens, as well as the state, of the benefits of building the pipeline. There is a 30 day public comment period in effect right now, so Smitherman focuses on convincing citizens and state officials to speak out in favor of the pipeline.

Smitherman does a great job of covering the issues. He points out that the Keystone program has been under an extensive three-year federal review (set to continue for a few more months), which has shown the program would generate about 50,300 person-years of employments, billions in revenue, and energy security. He also responds to concerns about the pipeline.

First, the question that's been haunting all politicians recently: where's the money coming from? Smitherman points out the pipeline is not government funded, but is actually privately financed. Another large issue adressed in the article is the environment. The author points to the government reviews that have repeatedly stated there wouldn't be significant environmental impacts.

There are a number of things I would have liked Smitherman to do differently. Firstly, I think he could addressed national security more fully. He asserted that skeptic's opinions where not based on fact, but did not tell what facts upon which it should be based. Also, Smitherman does not specify how much oil will be supplied by the pipeline; which begs the question: will this actually help with energy independence that much?  In addition, I think he should have addressed more fully the concerns of states this pipeline will run through. He did mention the tax revenue they will receive, but left us wondering whether a large pipe will be running through people's back yards. Though this is an extreme example, it would have--in my opinion--strengthened his article to address these other concerns as well.

However, as a whole, this article is very solid and does a good job of presenting well reasoned, convincing arguments.

Power Struggle

Protection--the government tries so hard to employ safety regulation. But does it actually help?

A recent requirement from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will mandate the 47% reduction of emissions from Texan power plants by 2012. As Claire Cardona reported in The Texas Tribune on Tuesday, the EPA's rule has angered many in the power industry.

A major objection to the requirement is the manner it was put in place. Texas was not originally part of the rule, so other states (such as Kansas and Oklahoma) where informed of the requirements a year before Texas. Lack of time is what makes compliance so hard for Texan power companies. In fact, a major power producer has filed suit against the EPA because they fear the time limit may force them to lay off hundreds. Though the regulations seem sudden, the article points out that companies should have expected regulations of this sort.

Will this turn out as another state vs. federal boxing match? All we can do is wait and watch these events unfold.