Blog Stage 5: Original Editorial or Commentary #1

Background research:
http://kxan.com/2017/03/21/public-to-testify-about-school-choice-tuesday-morning/

Texas lawmakers are planning to vote on Senate Bill 3, which is a plan that creates a savings account from tax dollars for families to use for their child's education. It also gives businesses tax credit if they donate towards a scholarship account.

I actually think this might be a bad idea. One main argument against this bill is that private schools and religious schools will benefit from this, while public schools may suffer. Others also say that these private institutions should not receive public taxpayer money. I think these arguments are completely valid. While I believe people should send their children to whatever institution they want, what this bill will do if passed is that it will create competition between public and private schools. This is good, but the problem is private schools generally already have higher funding due to higher tuition, grants, etc. People want to send their children to prestigious or challenging schools, so in order to attract these people, schools will have to improve their level of education. Since private schools already have an advantage in terms of resources, the quality of education may already be higher, so if this bill is passed, then it is definitely possible we see more people going the private school route. Some may argue that this will motivate schools to be better at what they do. The problem is, they can't.  The money from this bill comes from the taxpayer,  which means if the people spend it on private schools, there will be even fewer funds given to public schools, so their level of education could and most likely will deteriorate. Without extra funding, there is absolutely no way for any public school to actually be able to compete with private schools, because they wouldn't be able to even sustain themselves.

Ultimately, I think this is a bad idea because while giving people money for education is good, it could potentially reduce the quality of public schools which could set back the education for a lot of people. It's not like everyone will just all of a sudden attend private school because of this bill. According to the article "Public to testify about school choice Tuesday morning" from KXAN, the bill gives back "$5,000 to $8,000", depending on the income of the family. Even with the money from this bill, some people may still be unable to afford private school tuition, so they have to go to public schools. What I think should happen is that we can simply have this money go to public schools. The quality and level of education will hopefully rise, which will close the gap between private and public schools. This way, people can have a fair choice on what type of school they wish to go to without really having to worry too much about pricing.

Blog Stage 4: Substantial Commentary or Criticism 2

The blog post "Texas innocence compensation still looks pretty good (compared to Kansas)" from the blog Grits for Breakfast talks about the amount of compensation Texas gives towards those falsely accused of a crime. There are no specific authors stated because of it's editorial nature, but we can find out about it's board of writers through here: bios. The targeted audience of this blog is pointed towards local government officials and the everyday people, as it is trying to convince them that this part of the criminal justice system is a good idea and should be supported and implemented, as it would save both the government and taxpayers a lot of money to be used somewhere else.

The article's main argument is that the amount paid towards the innocent is a fair and decent amount, especially when compared to other states like Kansas, who are currently considering using a similar compensation policy. It provides evidence by stating Texas gives a  "lump sum of $80,000 per year served, along with lifetime annuity payments of $40,000 to $50,000 plus $25,000 for every year someone was wrongfully registered as a sex offender"

One major evidence that this blog post uses is the historic data of previous events. For example, the article says that one person in Kansas named Eddie Lowery was wrongfully sentenced to 9 years for rape. But then, he won 7.5 Million dollars from a settlement. He declined the state compensation after being released because of how low that annual compensation was. If he were given $80,000 a year for a total of the 9 years he served, he might have accepted, and the total would only amount to $720,000, a significant difference from 7.5 million. Basically, by raising the amount given, they are still able to potentially save large sums of money.

Because of this, the author's logic behind this argument is that the reason these states are increasing compensation amounts is because "civil suits can cost local government much more". What this means is some people who are wrongfully accused refuse to accept the low compensation and instead sue the government, which would leave them "open to much larger liability".

Ultimately, I would have to agree with this author that Texas' current innocence compensation does indeed look good. I would imagine anyone would be pretty upset if they had to spend many years in jail for a crime they did not commit. If they discovered that the compensation for spending say 10 years in jail is $25,000 annually, the amount Texas USED to pay, then they would probably be very angry. The article also says that many people who are released after a long time in jail often possess "few marketable skills and/or an array of health problems", so they really aren't in a good position to start working again to sustain themselves. By raising the the amount paid, these wrongfully convicted people can quickly get back on their feet, and most likely won't sue the government.