Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Voter ID?

In his blog post, Zach Turner argues that photo ID should be required to vote. He argues that requiring voters to have an ID would reduce voter fraud, and that everybody should just have some sort of ID, because they aren't very expensive and "would really just make everything easier." This certainly makes sense and seems reasonable. With voter fraud running rampant in both Texas and the United States as a whole, it's about time we buckled down and keep the voter ID requirement. Right?

How big of a problem is voter fraud anyway? It must be pretty darn high if laws are being enacted to stop it. Well, according to the Attorney General himself, "evidence of voter fraud abounds," with over 50 cases in recent years resulting in convictions (though according to PolitiFact, 29 of these alleged convictions weren't really convictions, and resulted in varying resolutions). Since 2002, the total number of voter fraud "convictions" is still only 62. In a state of 25 million people, 62 is completely insignificant. In fact, that means that,  on average, there is only one fraudulent vote for every four counties over the course of ten years. According to the Secretary of State's office, 39,072,039 ballots have been cast since 2004. Depending on which estimate you decide to use, our state's fraudulent voter rate lies somewhere between .00005% and .0001%. This ludicrously small number is hardly worth worrying about, but supporters of voter ID laws continue to shout "fraud!" On top of that, the same report noted that 40 of those 62 cases were found fraudulent people illegally cote using mail in ballots for somebody other than themselves, meaning that voter ID laws wouldn't do anything to stop 2/3 of the fraudulent votes. Voter fraud is simply not anywhere near as huge a problem as supporters of voter ID laws say. Hey, even Mitt Romney does it

Those who are against voter ID laws, primarily supported by Republicans, claim that they are meant to stifle the poor and minority voters, who tend to vote Democratic. This certainly seems to be the case. The law poses a huge disadvantage to the 1.4 million Texans  who are registered to vote but who lack government issued IDs, most of whom are Hispanic or African American. Approved ID's can be difficult to obtain, especially for those in West Texas, where they would have to drive 100 miles to the nearest state office, only to drive 100 miles back. Only 8% of white citizens lack an ID, compared to 25% of black citizens, and Hispanic voters are anywhere from 46% to 120% more likely than a non-Hispanic voter to lack an ID. Assuming every single person who was convicted of voter fraud also didn't have an ID, it still wouldn't justify rendering the other 1,399,938 honest voters ineligible, especially when they happen to be more likely to vote for Democrats. 

Supporters of voter ID laws claim that they are meant to combat the threat of voter fraud, but virtually no threat exists. Instead, essentially disenfranchises as many as 1.4 million honest voters (in the state of Texas alone). All of this data seems to strongly suggest that the whole voter ID scare is just a scam. There is no way that those who create and promote voter ID laws, who happen to be Republicans, genuinely believe that fraudulent voting, with such insignificant numbers, is a legitimate threat to the system, and surely it's just a coincidence that those who would be made ineligible by the law or who would otherwise be negatively affected by it happen to be much more likely to vote Democratic. It sure seems as though the GOP is using voter ID laws to suppress Democratic votes, under the guise of protection against a non-existent threat. But hey, that's just stupid.

Friday, August 10, 2012

Equality?

The United States has an incredibly high degree of income inequality, one of the worst in the world, and the gap is constantly increasing. This is a serious problem, if the Occupy protesters are to be believed. The average income of the top 20% is 8.5 times larger than the income of the bottom 20%. Things start to get uglier for us when you start to look at inequality by state. Texas is ranked with the 2nd highest level of income inequality in the nation; the wealthiest 5% make 13.8 times as much as the bottom 20%. Our level of inequality is much more severe than that of the country, which itself is already one of the worst. All this data begs the question, does it even matter? Isn't this just the natural order of things - the rich are rich because they worked hard for their money, and the poor are poor because they lacked the ambition of the wealthy?

As it turns out, income inequality does matter, a lot. High levels of income inequality have been shown to have many adverse effects. Countries with higher levels of inequality, like the U.S., have been shown to have higher drug abuse rates, infant mortality rates, levels of obesity, homicide rates, incarceration rates, percentage of the population with some metal illness, and teenage birth rates, as well as lower child well-being (measured by UNICEF), foreign aid spending, trust in others in the community, and socio-economic mobility.  This last part is rather shocking. Socio-economic mobility refers to the relative ease or difficulty associated with moving up in class or status. Low mobility means that people are essentially stuck in the class they're born into, with little chance of moving up in life. The American Dream no longer exists (in America, anyway).

While most of the data observed is international and compares countries, the trends still hold true for the states. Dropout rates tend to be higher in more unequal states, including Texas. Recalling that we're the 2nd most unequal state in the nation, it may be expected that we rank rather poorly in these categories. This is certainly true. Texas has the 2nd highest number of pregnancies in all age ranges of women under 20, as well as the highest number of births in the same age groups (besides 18-19, which we're second by a very small margin). We've also got the 4th highest incarceration rate in the country, as well as the 12th highest percentage of obesity. The list goes on and on, as Texas is continuously ranked poorly in numerous social and economic areas. 

Clearly, the severe degree of inequality within Texas (and in a broader view the United States) is an issue, but can it be fixed? As many already know, Texas has a highly regressive tax system. In fact, a study shows that we've got the 5th most regressive system, which really is not a huge surprise. In Texas, the bottom 20% must pay 12.2% of their income on taxes, while the top 1% only has to pay 3.3%. This is clearly unfair, and it's easy to see how it contributes to our state's level of inequality. If we were to adopt a more progressive tax system, taxing the wealthiest Texans a much higher percentage than the paltry 3% they currently pay, while reducing the disproportionate tax burden on the poor, the benefits would be endless. While regressive taxes certainly contribute a large amount to income inequality, they are not the only  factor, and much more would need to be done to completely fix the issue. Sadly, the state, as well as the country, will continue in its growing inequality, with very little chance of significant reform or correction to the system, because any change to make people more equal would be socialism and socialism is evil.

Friday, August 3, 2012

Forced Sonograms?

In Lauren Campbell's article, The Way I See it, she argues that the Texas law requiring women to have a sonogram 24 hours prior to having an abortion is reasonable. I personally disagree with that, and believe that it is not acceptable. Women should not be manipulated in such a way when faced with an already terribly difficult decision. Lauren argues that the law provides the fetus the right to be seen for what it really is, a baby, that words like "fetus" serve to dehumanize it, and that the law is trying to get women to realize what they are really doing when having an abortion. 

First of all, this is not at all scientifically accurate, as a fetus is not a baby, but an entirely separate stage in human development, and the term is not intended to be dehumanizing, but an accurate description. We might as well start calling each individual sperm or egg a baby now, since it's just as correct. To state that a mandatory sonogram is necessary for a woman to "realize exactly what they are doing" is almost insulting to the entire gender. It seems to imply that women have absolutely no clue how abortions work, like they think some fairy comes and magically makes them un-pregnant. Of course women are aware that terminating their pregnancy means that they are killing the unborn fetus - that's why it's such a difficult decision. 

Lauren goes on to ask, "which do you think would be worse: having a baby as a teen mom, and either keeping it or giving it up for adoption, OR making a ... decision to have an abortion and possibly going on to regret it later in life?" To me, the answer to this question seems entirely obvious - going through 9 months of pregnancy and the mood swings, depression, weight gain, and all the other terrible things that accompany it, only to be followed by a painful, not to mention expensive, childbirth to keep or give the baby for adoption is clearly much worse of an option. Keeping a child is often an irresponsible idea, as it is very unlikely that mothers who would be considering abortions are financially or emotionally capable of adequately taking care of a child. As this article describes in greater depth, adoption, while it may seem like the nobler course of action, is also very difficult. It’s costly, and on top of that quite unsuccessful – thousands of American children are currently being held under state care without being adopted. It’s not as simple as handing your baby to a new family once it’s born.

The choice to have an abortion is an incredibly difficult one, and the new law requiring sonograms while a woman is most emotionally vulnerable only makes the decision harder. The law is not intended to simply allow women to "think twice" about their decision, but to forcibly persuade them to change their mind. It is cruel and manipulative, and should be revoked as soon as possible.