Austin Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance, The Good and The Bad

Fellow classmate and author, Wes Davis, of The View Less Taken recently posted “Bag Ban: The Impacts,” a commentary about a public policy of my personal interest. Wes takes an object approach of citing both the advantages and potential disadvantages of the Austin city ordinance that took effect March 1, 2013, which regulates the types of single-use carryout bags that can be provided by Austin retailers and encourages consumers to utilize reusable bags as an alternative to plastic bags.

As one advantage, Wes notes that damage to the planet could be significantly reduced if the ban on plastic bags catches on nationally. With this, West reveals a major environmental issue regarding the use of plastic bags, being that they are not biodegradable, which causes them to accumulate in landfills and in oceans. The plastic used in most plastic grocery bags (polyethylene terephthalate or PE) can take anywhere from 500 to 1000 years to break down! In 2008 Daniel Burd, a Waterloo, Canada high school student, demonstrated that certain types of bacteria in soil can effectively decompose plastic bags in three months. However, until researchers replicate his experiment and waste treatment plants implement new processes to do so, reducing the use of plastic bags and recycling them are two options to alleviate the problem.

For instance, recent laws in California have made biodegradable plastic bags mandatory. One biodegradable plastic made from corn (polylactic acid or PLA), decomposes into water and carbon dioxide in 47 to 90 days! Unfortunately, while plastic bags are fully recyclable, many people do not recycle them, but reuse them as trash bags for household items. For those who are interested in recycling plastic bags, drop-off locations for recycling can easily be found by visiting PlasticBagRecycling.org. As Wes mentions, the ban on plastic bags is trending. Many cities nationwide, including San Francisco, Los Angeles  and Mexico City, have either banned plastic grocery bags entirely, or encourage the use of reusable bags by charging fees for plastic grocery bags.

Wes notes an advantage for Austin businesses being the removal of the cost of production or purchase of plastic bags to provide customers free of charge. I agree that while the cost may not have been a heavy burden on the budgets of Austin businesses, there certainly is an advantage in eliminating plastic bags as an expenditure altogether. Now plastic bags are a source of revenue, as most stores charge anywhere from 20 cents to 2 dollars for a plastic bag. Moreover, businesses are able to sale reusable bags at an even higher rate. At some point those stashes of plastic bags in the cabinets and pantries of Austin consumers will diminish (if it hasn't already happened). With consumers purchasing more Hefty and HEB brand trash bags for items they would have reused a plastic grocery bag for, revenue for the overall sale of bags by Austin businesses will significantly increase.

I agree with Wes’ argument that the recent ban on plastic bags is a huge inconvenience for consumers in Austin. Remembering to bring them into stores presents a challenge (at least for me). Like Wes, I often forget to bring them inside and am faced with either purchasing more bags at the register or leaving my grocery cart unattended to go to my car and get them with my son. (As if grocery shopping with a four year old was not hectic enough!)

I would add that reusable bags are not durable. Their weak stitching takes the brunt of over-stuffing and the weight of more grocery items than would normally be placed in a plastic grocery bag. Consumers are doomed to constantly replace reusable bags, which adds up in cost over time. Another key argument made by H. Sterling Burnett on ncpa.org is that reusable bags present a considerably dangerous health concern, as they are repeatedly used, often with grocery items such as meat, poultry, and fish. If not cleaned regularly, harmful bacteria and mold can form which can contaminate bag users, their food, and others who make contact with the bags, including the grocery store conveyor belt.

Wes sheds light on another key disadvantage with reusable bags. The large number of people coming in and out of stores with bags and even without bags, carrying out items they purchase by hand, makes it difficult for businesses to determine who has actually paid for the items in their bags or in their hands. While this presents a problem for businesses it also presents an issue for customers being targeted by security as potential shoplifters. Better keep those receipts in close proximity folks!

Overall, Wes’ post is very well-organized and well-written. He provides a comprehensive commentary by taking an unbiased approach to review both the advantages and disadvantages of the ordinance. While I can relate to many of the pros as well as the cons, I agree with Wes and feel that the ordinance's positive impacts on Austin businesses and the environment  far outweigh the negative impacts on consumers and businesses.

Texas High School Students Get Test Relief

I am pleased to post about House Bill 5, which was signed into law by Governor Rick Perry on June 10, 2013 during the 83rd Texas Legislative session. Related to public school accountability, including assessment and curriculum requirements, the bill mandates a reduction in standardized testing, such that Texas students entering high school for the 2013-2014 school year will take ten less standardized state exams in order to graduate, in comparison to fifteen under the old law.  

With standardized testing reduced, students and teachers will have more time and thus more opportunity to focus on developing skills for college and the workforce, rather than spending the majority of the school year preparing for state exams. Beginning in the 2014-2015 school year, students will also have more flexibility in choosing curriculum in areas of their personal interest.

Under the law, Texas public schools will do away with offering only one general education plan that requires all students to take the same core courses in order to graduate. Instead a basic curriculum, which includes four English credits and three credits each in science, social studies, and math, has been established for minimum graduation requirements. While minimum course work must be completed for graduation, a broader curriculum will be offered for students who chose a diploma endorsement program of their choice. Students will have the option to choose an advanced graduation plan or diploma endorsement, which requires additional course work focused in one of five areas of study, including science and technology, business and industry, public services, humanities, and multidisciplinary studies.

Now, if this doesn't sound like college preparation, I don’t know what does! Students who choose a diploma endorsement or even consider one will be cognizant of the structure of a college graduation plan and better prepared for the transition into college life. Moreover, this system gives students an opportunity to examine studies of their interest, which they may continue in college. This may reduce the population of students who enter college with undecided majors or change majors frequently, as the program gives students an opportunity to discover early on that they may or may not have a passion for a program of study. 

The bill also establishes attendance standards which require students in grades K through 12 to be in attendance for 90 percent of the days a class is offered (or between 75 and 89.9 percent if the student completes a plan approved by the school principal) in order to receive credit or a final grade in a course. The board of trustees of each school district is to appoint at least one attendance committee to hear petitions for students who have not earned class credit or a final grade as a result of  their attendance.

The bill also sets forth new measures to enhance school accountability by rating school academic and financial performance as well as community and student engagement to provide a more accurate representation of a school’s performance. Schools will receive a letter grade for their performance in each area to provide a comprehensive and practical representation of a school’s overall performance. 

While Texas has come a long way in terms of testing required for high school graduation, the passage of House Bill 5 has a great connection to House Bill 72, passed during a 1984 special session, which enacted many educational reforms including a requirement for students to pass a basic skills test in order to graduate from high school.

The increase in standardized testing in Texas over the past few years can be attributed to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) which became No Child Left Behind (NCLB) when it was reauthorized in 2001, becoming one of the most significant federal reforms since the passage of ESEA. The primary focus of NCLB is to hold schools accountable for the performance of all students by measuring student proficiency on state academic achievement standards through the use of annual assessments, relying on scientific research to determine what methods are most effective, promoting an increase in parental involvement, and measuring overall school performance with annual assessments and progress reports.

Texas was prepared with a plan when the Obama administration recently announced that states may get relief from the provisions of the NCLB in exchange for efforts to close achievement gaps, promote rigorous school accountability, and ensure that all students are on track to graduate well-prepared for college and the workforce.

While Texas has long emphasized the need for school accountability, high-quality academic assessments, and highly-qualified teachers, the new law allows Texas high schools to continue improving student achievement and school accountability. By relying on a combination of state exams, curriculum focused on college and career readiness, emphasis on the importance attendance, and a more comprehensive school performance assessment, Texas high schools should see an increase in their overall performance ratings as well as their graduation rates. 

Texas Justice System Reviewed

Brandi, a fellow classmate and blogger of Brandi's TX state blog, recently posted “Original commentary #1,” a commentary about the role of the justice system in Texas State and local government on July 26, 2013.

Brandi highlights key points about the Texas justice system’s budget, efforts to ensure that criminals are justly punished, and the important role of the Texas attorney general. She also emphasizes the difficulty of a judge’s obligation to adjudicate objectively and without prejudice. While Brandi does not go into great detail about the complex court system, law enforcement, criminal prosecution, trials, appeals, and corrections, she does emphasize the importance of the accountability of the members of the justice system to remain abreast with current laws and regulations and maintain an acute awareness of the effects of their actions, rulings, and the messages they impart. 

Brandi does point out a key problem with the Texas justice system, being that the perceptibly "enormous" budget is not sufficient enough to carry out the large number of vital tasks performed by the its members. While the complexity of the lower judicial courts and complicated system of determining jurisdiction, electing, and appointing judges presents confusion, the budget problem presents an even greater concern. The speedy growth of the population, growing rate of impoverished, poor, and under-educated individuals, as well as the influx of drugs that enter the state exacerbates the issue. This shortage of funds poses questions about how effectively the justice system can perform the multitude of duties it is tasked with.

While I did not acquire any new information, I did enjoy reading the commentary and certainly agree with Brandi’s statement that, “The involvement of Texans in the issues that face our world is an important factor in keeping the system in balance and running the way we want it to.” I feel that all Texans would greatly benefit by being active participants in Texas State and local government by helping to mobilizing those who share their interest in the community, voting, and actively taking positions on public policy.

Pulling Your Card, Texas

In response to a recent Supreme Court ruling in which the court found Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 unconstitutional, Attorney General Eric Holder announced Thursday that the Justice Department is launching a new initiative in the battle for voting rights. How does this affect Texas state and local government? The Justice Department is recommending that a federal district court in San Antonio require Texas (yes us, again) to get federal approval before putting future redistricting changes in place.

In Holders view, this initiative (with Texas being the first of many states) will strengthen modern voting protections by cutting down on what many view as discriminatory practices, such as Texas’ incessant redistricting and gerrymandering. Attorney General Greg Abbott called the move "political theater" while Governor Rick Perry responded by calling this the Obama Administration’s attempt to work-around the Supreme Court’s ruling, and challenged the constitutionality of Holder’s request.

Now before you get all worked up about the feds pulling your card (Perry), let’s take a closer look at the Act and the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 provides the “coverage formula,” defining “covered jurisdictions” as states or political subdivisions of the states (nine states including Texas and other counties) that maintained tests or devices as prerequisites to voting, and had low voter registration or turnout. In such covered jurisdictions, Section 5 of the Act provides that no change in voting procedures can take effect until approved by specified federal authorities.

While The Supreme Court struck down Section 4, Section 5 of the Act is still in effect, thus the Federal Government’s enforcement of federal preclearance is still constitutional. Simply put, Section 4 provides a definition of a state or local jurisdictions with discriminatory voting  practices and patterns. The elimination of Section 4 renders even more state and local governments susceptible to preclearance, as hardly any states utilize tests or devices as prerequisites to voting; however, many have extremely low voter registration and turnout and perceptibly discriminatory practices.

It just so happens that Texas’ voter turnout currently ranks dead last in the nation. Texas’ voting practices have been heavily scrutinized for decades and many deem them as as discriminatory. It was only a matter of time that these questionable practices would be further examined and possibly regulated. If it were Atlanta or Alaska who ranked last out of the 51 contiguous states and districts I’m sure the uproar in Texas would not be so extreme.

Laughing With Us or At Us

Eileen Smith is the editor of the local political blog, In the Pink, who has been named Best Blogger by the Austin Chronicle, which also named In the Pink the Best Local Political Blog in 2008. She was also named Best Local Blogger by the Austin Chronicle in 2009. While Smith utilizes humor and satire, her blog calls attention to many important political issues in Texas.

In the July 16, 2013 article,"Señor Abbott," Smith argues that Texas has become a laughing stock of the country, with special thanks to governor Rick Perry’s recent “call [for] Legislators” to return for an “emergency special session on a statewide ban on any feminine [hygiene] products,” which could be used as weapons to attack state officials.

Ironically, during the regular Legislative session (83(R)) House Bill 1862 was signed into law by Perry, which removed switchblades from the list of prohibited weapons (in relation to the criminal consequences of engaging in certain conduct with prohibited weapons). This makes one wonder whether tampons are more dangerous than switchblades. 

Smith further asserts that the country’s laughter will continue as Greg Abbott recently announced that he will be running for governor of Texas. Why would this perpetuate the mockery? Smith notes, “In his time as attorney general, Greg Abbott has, among other disturbing things, conducted widespread deli raids with ICE agents and earnestly defended the rights of cheerleaders to speak in tongues during football games.” Smith, of course, is underlining some of the extreme and odd measures and positions Greg Abbot has taken in his career.

Among those “other things,” the Houston Chronicle notes that Abbot has approved the TX Department of Health and Human Services’ decision to exclude clinics affiliated with abortion providers from the Medicaid program and has since taken legal action, filing a law suit to stop the federal government from ending federal funding of the Texas Medicaid Women's Health program. This strongly relates to House Bill 2, which Governor Rick Perry recently signed into law, which places restrictions on abortions in the state of Texas, which many view as placing restrictions on women’s rights. It was during the Senate discussion of House Bill 2 that feminine products were banned from the state capitol gallery, as many feared they would be thrown at officials as a sign of protest.  

Smith further points out Abbot’s insularity by highlighting his recent statement, made in a podcast on Coffee and Markets, that he is not personally concerned with the idea of attracting Hispanic voters. Hmm, this sounds quite similar to Phyllis Schlafly’s stance on the GOP’s efforts to secure the Hispanic vote. Smith points out that Abbot’s wife is Hispanic, which underlines the peculiarity of his indifference to connecting with the growing Hispanic population of Texas. 

The evidence lies in Smith’s supporting sources, which she provides as hyperlinks within the editorial. The reader is able to listen to the pod cast of Greg Abbot’s statement about his disinterest with gaining the Hispanic vote in his campaign plans for Texas governor. Not only is this provided but also a recent editorial on The Washington Post, which discusses how handguns (for those with concealed carrying licenses) were allowed on the gallery floor while House Bill 2 was discussed, yet tampons and pads  were not. The Huffington Post has a similar article which features a woman who had her feminine products confiscated as well as the food she carried to help manage her diabetes.

As a native Texan who has become accustomed to the norm of unpredictable and extreme actions of our state and local government, which continue to shape our reputation, I find Smith’s arguments rather convincing. Prior to reading the editorial I was unaware of the issue of banning feminine products in the state capitol but found that the issue has been widely covered and criticized, not only in the state of Texas but on a national level. While I do not know many particulars about Greg Abbot, other than his role as Texas Attorney General, I find Smith’s choice of his career highlights to be rather unconventional, but factual. Although her descriptions of Abbot's “disturbing” acts are somewhat exaggerated, her credibility lies in the actuality of the events, which one was reported by the Office of the Attorney General, while the ICE raid at the Texas French Bread Company seemed to only be covered by bloggers such as Smith.

I am sure that Greg Abbot has done more for Texas than initiate round ups for illegal aliens but, as we know, each and every choice, action, or event in one’s personal life or career will be brought under the microscope when running for president of the US or governor of Texas. Here lies the political significance of Smith’s argument. If Texas wants to create an image of itself as a diverse state which has limited government, why take such extreme measures (especially against women) to impose upon the peoples’ rights. Second, if Greg Abbot truly wants to win the election as governor of Texas then perhaps he should start focusing on what actions he can take now to get there. I’m sure the support of his family members (votes) could help him get there.

To Perry and Beyond

Jody Seaborn previously edited Insight, the Sunday perspective section of the Austin American-Statesman. Seaborn is currently the Austin American-Statesman books editor and has been an editorial writer and columnist for the Austin American-Statesman since 2011.

Rick Perry’s recent announcement that he would not run for a fourth term as governor in the next Texas gubernatorial election has many, including Seaborn, examining his last three terms as the governor of Texas as a legacy characterized by consistent conservatism, numerous appointments, and significant use of the veto. While Seaborn comments on Rick Perry’s  legacy  as one of the “top 10 longest running U.S. governors” in his July 8^th article, “Rick Perry's Legacy, and Future,” he assesses the likelihood of Perry making another run for U.S. President in the 2016 elections in a July 9^th follow up article “Just One More Thing about Rick Perry’s Future ….”

While the title of the editorial, “Just One More Thing about Rick Perry’s Future …” leads one to believe the article’s content will be at least 80 percent Perry-bashing, Seaborn’s focus is not primarily on Perry, but on many of the potential Republican presidential candidates including Marco Rubio, Chris Christi, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Bobby Jindal, and Ted Cruz.

While Seaborn indicates that Perry may have “blown his best shot at the Republican nomination” due to a disastrous performance in 2012 (which was extensively scrutinized), he argues that many of the potential Republican front-runners, though “young and charismatic,” have vulnerabilities, which somewhat level the playing field.

Seaborn further asserts that “Democrats don’t have a deep, young bench” in comparison to their Republican counterparts, with Hillary Clinton as the only foreseen candidate, suggesting that the Democratic Party has no other potential prospects.

Seaborn offers no statistics to support his claim but refers to recent and highly publicized political events to back his argument  For instance, the mainstream media has ensured that nearly everyone in Texas between the age of 18 and 80 who picked up a newspaper, turned on the television, or used a smartphone within the past two weeks has some knowledge of Perry’s recent announcement. By the same token, the majority of adult Americans who resided in the U.S., especially in Texas, during the last presidential election have, at least, a general awareness that Perry ran for the Republican Party nomination (and know of his public blunders during the run-off). With that being noted, the intended audience of the article is broad, including Texas residents who are marginally to considerably familiar with current political events in Texas and on a national level.

Without many other substantial facts and statistics to back his argument, the article seems directed to anyone who would not challenge his claim. For instance, Seaborn’s claim, that it is unlikely that Rick Perry will win the Republican nomination and the presidency, proves to be accurate as neither 2016.presidential-candidates.org nor 2016election.com even list Rick Perry in the top six potential Republican candidates for the 2016 presidential election. However, the same two websites name at least six potential Democratic candidates, including Elizabeth Watten, Joe Bidden, Andrew Mark Cuomo, and Clinton. Though, 2016election.com shows Clinton currently leading in the polls, the website proves Seaborn’s claim, that the Democratic Party’s only hope is Hillary Clinton, is primarily an opinion, as the voter outlook has the potential to change, as the elections get closer.

While I do agree with his claim that many of the potential Republican candidates, including Rick Perry, have weaknesses, which have the potential of impairing their chances of winning the party nomination and even the presidency, I do fell that the potential Democrat candidates have weak points as well. Thus, from my perspective, Seaborn’s credibility is fairly sound.

Although I learned more from the assessment of Seaborn’s argument than the argument itself, I did gain insight about some potential Republican presidential candidates that I had little knowledge of prior to reading the article. My personal belief that Rick Perry has a slim chance of receiving the Republican Party’s nomination and winning the presidential election was reinforced by Seaborn’s editorial. 

Republicans Connect with Hispanics

The longtime leader of the conservative movement, Phyllis Schlafly’s radical response to the GOP’s attempts to secure the Hispanic vote is brought under the microscope in Republican Outreach to Minority Voters Hits Overdrive, Seen as Wildly Successful by Harold Cook on Letters from Texas. Her statement that Republicans should focus on the “millions of white voters who did not vote in the last presidential election” rather than waist time on “Hispanics coming in from Mexico” who are going to vote Democrat anyway on account of having too many children out of wedlock and their inability to understand the Bill of Rights or the concept of small government, has been a popular political media topic in the recent weeks since her appearance on multiple talk radio and television shows upholding her claim. 

The article points out the extent of Schlafly’s narrow-mindedness and questions whether the Republican Party is truly interested in the welfare of the Hispanic population or simply the figures when it’s time to go to the voting polls. Perhaps it is neither as Shchlafly suggests that Republicans would be more successful in future elections by totally disregarding the idea that Hispanics would vote conservatively and what would be more advantageous is damaging the possibility of increasing the conservative Hispanic vote by blatantly insulting the culture with insubstantial prejudice notions. 

The article also notes that Schlafly’s conservative leadership in the National Republican Party has influenced the Texas State Board of Education to require children to learn about her in future history textbooks where she will be glorified as a key player of the conservative insurgence while her bigotry will undoubtedly be left out. 

The significance of the article rests in the fact that Hispanics represent 37 percent of the Texas population and 16 percent of the US population and many vote conservatively (and do not all come from Mexico). From the Republican National Hispanic Assembly to Hispanic Republicans of Texas and everywhere in between, Hispanic voters do in fact support the GOP. The article emphasizes Schlafly’s confirmation of the Republican Party’s aim to remain predominantly white while the Republican-led Texas State Board of Education continues its efforts to teach children to glorify individuals in leadership roles who are shamelessly prejudice.