Conservative Republican or Liberal Democrat?

    On March 23, 2011, "The Empower Texans" blog posted an article titled "A Murphy/White Tax" by Andrew Kerr. The article is mainly about Rep. Jim Murphy proposing House Bill 1454 which widens the scope for hotel taxes. Which is extremely odd since part of the reason why people voted for him was because he promised to protect the citizens from tax increases.
    Kerr's intended audience is the taxpaying citizens of Texas, more specifically, Houston. The author is very credible since he provides an example of Mayor Bill White who previously tried to raise taxes in the same way. He goes on to say that White lost his next election because people did not want him raising their taxes. Kerr's argument is how can Rep. Murphy turn his back on the people that voted for him and raise taxes on them. Kerr's evidence and logic support his claim by contrasting his very conservative stance during the campaign to the bill he is trying to pass now. Kerr also points out that since the situation didn't work out very good for White, Murphy may be facing the same fate.
     I have to agree with the author since I would feel totally betrayed if I had voted for Murphy and then he just turned around and wanted to raise my taxes. I think, no matter how great they want to portray themselves, every politician is corrupt and, in the long run, is only looking after himself. If the government really wants to raise taxes, they should raise taxes on the rich. And I think Rep. Jim Murphy should be more careful when choosing a party to run for.

Fog Machine

     I believe education should be our nation's number one priority. Austin Independent School District is facing major budget cuts and reading "Time for Austin school chief to level with us" by the Editorial Board posted up  on March 1, 2011 on the Austin American Statesman website, arguing that our AISD Superintendent Meria Carstarphen should be a lot more forthcoming about her future plans for the reorganization of the district and I have to say I completely agree.
     The author's intended audience are the tax paying citizens that are being given a false assurance from Carstarphen. The article explained how she felt exigency was imperative this week even though we have five board meetings left until the legal deadline April 15th. The article also proves the rumor that employees have been notified is false. It also suggests offering incentives for teachers willing to leave early since it has been working in the Dallas district. I like that it gives a information of a proposal regarding what might happen to the teachers that might get cut which entails giving teachers a lump sum of $10,000 per person. I love that the article points out that while hundreds of teachers might be cut, Carstarphen's proposal doesn't include cutting  bonuses and car stipends. I especially love how the article ends, "She works for them, and they work for us."
     The article gives plenty of information and lets me look through all the fog that Carstarphen is giving. It gives facts and numbers, not just opinions and assumptions. The article demands for more information and I am right there along with it.