Blog Stage Five: Original editorial or commentary #1

I believe that the Texas government should adopt a new constitution (or significantly revise the 1876 one) for a number of different reasons:
-Too long and disorganized (467 amendments ratified)
-Amendments poorly written
-Limited executive power
-Part-time legislature
-Partisan election of judges
-Restrictions on local government

An example of how the Texas constitution is poorly written and confusing is a clause in a 2005 constitutional amendment that was designed to ban gay marriages, but it also endangers the legal status of all marriages in Texas.
"This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."
The wording of it effectively "eliminates marriage in Texas", including common-law marriages. It's a massive mistake and another amendment may be needed to reverse the problem.

A major step towards fixing the Texas constitution is an amendment authorizing the legislature to meet any time necessary to carry out its duties. The amendment should allow a just compensation for the members of the legislature so that more Texans can afford to serve. A legislator's salary of $7,200 per year, has not changed since 1975, affects who can afford to serve financially. Basically, provide longer legislative terms and better pay. The legislature is the foundation of state government and sets the policies that affect our live and the future of Texas.

Past attempts to revise the Texas constitution failed as a result of:
-the legislature was the constitutional convention
-the two-thirds rule
-right-to-work provision
-lack of political leadership

Why hasn't Texas rewritten/revised the constitution?
-Texan Mentality: If it ain't broke don't fix it.
-Texans have had low participation in special constitutional elections.
-Texans give little thought to changing the constitution because they are not prepared to deal with its complexity.
This mentality needs to change because Texas needs to revise the 1876 constitution into a clearer document.

Blog Stage Four: "State funding doesn't cover prisoner health care costs, officials say"

On the blog, Grits for Breakfast, a commentary was written about Texas' budget for prisoners' healthcare and how to cut costs. The audience: Texas taxpayers. The author believes that the best solution to this budget crisis is to parole older inmates, who have the higher healthcare costs.

UTMB is spending $2 million per month over the prison healthcare budget. Officials are making a new contract which will "provide medical care for Texas' imprisoned criminals." The Legislature's plan of $900 million isn't enough, so "top officials with the University of Texas... threatened to stop providing care unless adequate funding can be guaranteed."

The author gave names such as Dr. Kenneth Shine, Dr. David Callender, and Brad Livingston. By providing this evidence, I feel like the author is more creditable because he has sources. I agree that "the policy will actually increase demand for prisoner healthcare." The author did include a link to the policy which is supportive evidence.

"...'offenders 55 and older averaged $4,853 in yearly medical costs, while the average for those below that age was $795.' So to really get the most bang for the buck, paroling older offenders would generate the most savings in healthcare costs."

Is this editorial successful: No. Not in my eyes.
Even though the older inmates cost more, in healthcare, that doesn't mean we should parole them. That's not a good enough reason. No matter who you are, you should get the consequence that your crime deserves. I would rather have more prisoners be euthanized than be let out on the streets as free men. I don't want to pay for these horrible people's healthcare. Murderers and rapists shouldn't get parole. The prisoners, who are spending the remainder of their lives in prison, should be put to death.

The author did include a link to the recidivism report that supports the idea that "Older offenders also have much lower recidivism rates than ...younger inmates".

Author's Conclusion: "So for my money, the best budgetary and public-safety bang for the buck comes from releasing older offenders who... cost the state the most in healthcare services. Do I think the parole board will do that? Not really. But that's what would make the most sense."

This commentary didn't convince me that we should parole older prisoners to cut healthcare costs. Just because the statistics say that older offenders are more likely to not return to jail, doesn't mean that they aren't committing crimes. They've just gotten better at hiding them.

I hope the parole board has enough sense to not release offenders because of their age. This author has a money saving point of view and not a realistic point of view. Would this author want a bunch of old men/women, who committed heinous crimes, be released from prison earlier than they should? I hope not.

I definitely don't want to live in a state that would permit older offenders parole just for the sake of spending less money. Money isn't everything to me.