Vote NO On Prop 3

Early voting has started on the 10 proposals to be included as amendments to the Texas Constitution.


Proposition 3:  The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of general obligation bonds of the State of Texas to finance educational loans to students.

     We need to vote no on Proposition 3. Supporters of this proposition argue that the state’s ability to issue student loans will cease. This is not true. The state will be allowed new bonds but Texas voters must approve each general obligation bond request first. Under the Hinson- Hazlewood College Student Loan Program, the state of Texas regularly issues bonds to raise funds for loans to college students. Presently, every 4-6 years the public gets to vote on whether or not the constitution will be amended in order to issue new bonds when the demand increases for student loans. So far, voters have approved a total of $1.86 billion in bonds for this program over the years. No one would disagree that it’s important for the state to invest in college education. Texas subsidizes the student loans, and of course, the students loans are payed off by the students.

    It is expected that the last $275.5 million of unissued bonds will be used up by the end of 2013. When this happens Texas voters must again approve the new general obligation bond request.  Proposition 3 would allow the state to issue new bonds without further voter approval to replace older bonds. This would take the right to vote on this matter out of the hands of the public, and the issuance of new student loan bonds would be set on autopilot to renew whenever the state sees fit. We are in an economic crisis right now because of excessive government spending. Government spending should be under closer scrutiny. We cannot vote yes on proposition 3.

Rick Perry and A Women's Health

What a Rick Perry Presidency Would Look Like for Women, written by Rachel Farris in her blog Mean Rachel on August 17, 2011.

    Rachel Farris makes it very obvious that she is not a fan of Rick Perry. In her blog, Mean Rachel, is an entry titled, What a Rick Perry Presidency Would Look Like for a Women. In it she opposes Rick Perry’s current and “would-be” policies on contraception, abortion, sonogram laws, and Texas’ poor education system. Perry’s current policies in Texas and the laws he would implement nation wide if he were elected president would directly effect the lives of women which would consequently raise the national birth rate and the growing number of children in America would suffer from the diminishing education system, which in Texas, under Perry’s watch, is one of the worst in the nation.
    With this blog entry, Rachel Farris is writing to women in general, but not excluding her male readers. The issues she talks about here directly and indirectly effect all Americans. Her first matter of business involves Perry’s approval of abstinence programs over sex and contraception education. Farris’ problem with this is that Perry bases his decision on his personal beliefs rather than studies and figures. In her blog, Farris posted a link to “a 2005 study which found teens in Texas were actually having more sex after undergoing an abstinence-only program” but she says, “Rick Perry still stands by the practice”. Farris’ second matter of business is with the new mandatory transvaginal sonogram that women who are 8 to 10 weeks pregnant and considering an abortion are required to get. The transvaginal sonogram displays a detailed image of the fetus and makes audible a real time heart beat .” Farris quoted Perry as saying “In Texas we have pursued policies to protect unborn children whenever possible.”  She argues that Texas is ranked highest in the nation of adults without high school diplomas and “Texas boasts another first in the nation in the percentage of children without health insurance and, in 2010, Texas tied with Mississippi for the highest percentage of workers employed in minimum-wage jobs”.
    I completely agree with Farris’ on this subject. Perry governs based on his personal beliefs rather than considering scientific studies and research which do not correspond with his policies. His beliefs aren’t even constant with his policies. He will protect unborn children whenever possible but once these children are grown he won’t protect or care for them.