Proposition 11

Texas will hold a Constitutional Amendment Election on Tuesday, November 3. One such amendment to be voted on is the Fifth Amendment Section 17, Article I, by proposition eleven. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the taking of private property for public use without just compensation, a provision commonly referred to as the “takings clause.” Section 17, Article I, Texas Constitution, contains a similar clause prohibiting a person’s property from being taken, damaged, or destroyed for public use without adequate compensation, unless the property owner consents. The authority of government to claim private property for public use is called eminent domain. Texas has granted the authority of eminent domain by statute to entities other than the state, including political subdivisions, special districts, and private concerns, such as utilities and
common carriers. The process of acquiring property through the use of eminent domain is called condemnation.
So now that you know what is already in place allow me to explain what they are wanting to change. The proposed amendment would amend Section 17, Article I, Texas Constitution, to restrict the taking, damaging, or destroying of a person’s property for public use to circumstances in which the taking, damage, or destruction is necessary for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State of Texas, a political subdivision of the state, the public at large, or an entity granted the power of eminent domain, or for the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property. So in a nut shell, This would limit the legal reasons the State could use to take or use a person's property. Also, it would limit it's taking purposes. By this I mean that the property would have to be used by the State for the State. The State will no longer be allowed to take a property and hand it over to a private organization.

Sources: http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/pubsconamend/analyses09/analyses09.pdf
http://www.lwvtexas.org/2009VG/2009CAVG%5BFINAL%5D.pdf

Pure Opinion

In Paul Burka's blog Just Wondering... he makes very broad assumptions based on a one day absence of comment from the Perry campaign. Granted, in the first few lines of his blog he admits that he's "probably making a mountain out of a molehill", but after reading it, I failed to see the molehill, (guess it was behind the mountain).
Burka states that because of the Perry campaign's silence monday October 19th he is wondering if they are rethinking their hyperaggressive attack strategy. Is one days silence really enough to conclude that the Perry's entire campaign team is re-evaluating their entire strategy? Also, from what source did he derive that a hyperaggressive attack is indeed the campaign's strategy? No source information was given.
However, Burka does give, what he believes to be, an example of hyperaggression by the Perry campaign using Perry's expression of "monster" in reference to Cameron Todd Willingham. Burke believes that "Perry overreached in an effort to sway the debate in his favor". Once again this is an opinion by the author and not a concrete fact.
Perhaps Burka's aim is toward boosting the votes for Kay Bailey Hutchison. I say this because of the way he sees the Perry campaign "ambushing" Hutchison in her initial campaign tour and continues to in press releases and on campaign web sites like washingtonkay. The author continues to slander Perry by stating that ha has a "tendency to pour gasoline on the fire" and "keeps getting him into trouble". I believe that Burka's blog was written purely on his own opinion for whatever intent he deemed valuable. Read it for yourself here and you be the judge.

To Pass or Not to Pass?

My editorial critique is over an article entitled, Government-guaranteed student loans good for students, parents and taxpayers. In this article the author addresses the new bill being passed, HR 3221, which would end new taxpayer subsidies to companies that lend students money for college and allow the Education Department to lend directly to students at lower rates than private lenders. The author argues that this would not only be beneficial to students but to parents and taxpayers as well. The author brings to light all of the positive aspects that this bill would bring about but states nothing about any draw backs or repercussions. As a matter of fact the author states that Critics who are decrying a "takeover" of student loans are ignoring reality. I believe the strongest point the author makes is when they make reference to the banking industry having already benefited from a taxpayer bailout stating, “when the economy tanked last year, many banks, along with other private lenders, shut their counters to students until the federal government poured more money into the student loan program”. Basically, the banks are nothing more than a middle-man that lend government money to students and charge a high interest rate to rake in a hefty profit. Passing this bill would cut out the middle-man and release the financial “choke hold” that private lenders have on students. The author, who’s name is not attached to the editorial, does provide good source information to strengthen their argument. Just going on the facts presented by this author I would agree with them in pushing for this bill to pass. On the other hand, I would like to see the downside of what this might do for the students, taxpayers, and private lenders involved.
See article here.