Rain on Perry

In the article Perry Takes "Rainy Day" Literally, Paulburka (his signature), pokes at Mr. Perry's resistance against the use of the Rainy Day fund. Paul, the author, believes that Mr. Perry is only using the fund for natural disaster situations. Paul believes that this statement is rubbish only due to the fact that he believes many of the local districts will pay for the damage. The government will only have to pay for fixing up schools and other government entities. Again, Paul believes that the Rainy Day Fund is to be used as insurance for the state of Texas. When Texas can't pay for its public services, Rainy Day saves the day, or as Paul believes. He also believes that Rick Perry will never spend the Rainy Day Fund on helping out with the deficit.

I would agree that cuts are needed to help fix the budget. "Budgeting," allows for money to be saved and also gives us the idea of where money needs to be, and where it does not. I do not agree with where some of the cuts are going to be made (particularly education), but I do know that cuts need to be made, obviously. I also agree with Mr. Perry on the use of the Rainy Day Fund and believe that we should make cuts, before we dip into it. It is, if you will, a last resort. I also enjoyed the jousting in the comment section between Paul and Anonymous. It is my belief as well the Rainy Day Fund should be saved, or a good chunk of it, for other major events that may happen. Look at the incident in Japan. I do not know if they have a type of “Rainy Day Fund,” but if they do not, I bet they wish they did. Something devastating might happen and it is good to have a backup emergency fund. As for Paul’s credibility, I am uncertain. Every person is entitled to their own opinion.

Dallas scrap clean air agreement?

In this article, "Dallas Should Return Clean Air Agreement to the Drawing Board," a unanimous author posted an article on the The Dallas Morning News regarding Dallas needing to take its clean air agreement back to the drawing board. This article reflects Dallas's power to buy cement from "clean" cement companies, forcing others to comply to air regulations. Ash Grove, a cement company, could not meet part of that agreement and took the Dallas City Council to court. Ash Grove is contesting that state law did allow cities to make purchasing preferences based on clean air conditions. TXI and Holcim, Ash Grove's competitors, have met the standards.

The author states that if Dallas would not have backed down, Ash Grove would most likely complied to the regulations. The author also believes that the Dallas City Council could make huge/vast improvements to a cleaner atmosphere. The author also states that Downwinders at Risk, an environmentalist group, has the right to ask City Hall why it has not gave precise numbers on the amount of pollutants that Ash Grove would be expected to eliminate. The author strongly believes that Dallas should not back down. This is a fight worth fighting.

I think the author believes in a transition to a greener planet, as do a lot of people. I think that Ash Grove is in a tough spot. I do not know if they can afford to go green (sometimes transitioning to cleaner processing is expensive), or if they are being stubborn. As for the Dallas City Council, their ability to influencer policies happens globally, welcome to politics. Maybe Ash Grove needs financial help to become cleaner, to comply. I believe that it depends on Ash Grove's situation. Pollution is something that I believe needs to be considered and dealt with. I do not believe in hard crack downs that make companies struggle to comply. The Dallas City Council did not crack down, but simply controlled the economy buy purchasing cement from other "cleaner" companies. This is a way to make a statement without direct concentration.