Too Much Money

In the upcoming election, Texans will be voting on 16 propositions to pass the legislature. Proposition 15 wants to give hospitals and researchers 3 billion dollars to try to find a cure for cancer. Most of the money will go to Houston and Baylor because they have some of the best experts in the country working to find a cure. Giving money for cancer research sounds good, but the problem is that 3 billion dollars has to come out of taxpayers pockets. Taxes are going up as it is, this will only make them go up faster. People that are for the proposition say that the money is needed to save the 35,000 Texans that die from cancer a year. Lance Armstrong is promoting the proposition for the same reasons. Cancer research has been very highly funded in the past and is still funded heavily today, but what has come of it? with all money, technology and hard work no one as found a cure for cancer. it is still a good chance that even with 3 billion dollars of taxpayer money our experts still wont find a cure. Without the cure, can the money be justified? Experts say they wont know until they try; 3 billion dollars is a huge amount just to "try".
The bottom line is that this proposition is too much of a burden on taxpayers. 3 billion dollars is not an amount that is easily collected, our government also doesn't have the best record of using our taxes wisely. There are so many other diseases that are killing countless amount of people. These diseases need research money as well, if we poor all our efforts into cancer then we are condemning all the other people dieing of other diseases. I want a cure for cancer to be found, but we can't afford to give 3 billion dollars to hospitals to do it with. They are being funded as it is, and there are other ways for Private and public institutions to get more funding.

State asks voters to boost cancer research funding

This article written by Corrie MacLaggan, is about the proposition 15 bond proposal. She is a part of the Statesman staff and her article appeared on statesman.com. The discussion of the article is whether or not Texas government should grant 3 billion dollars to public and privet institutions to help fund cancer research.
M.D. Anderson which is a hospital in Houston, and Baylor are the best cancer hospitals in the nation. The majority of the bond would be invested in them. The city of Houston as a lot to do with the proposition mainly because 40 percent of the votes for the proposition are said to be in Houston. The argument is cancer research important enough to merit the spending of 3 billion dollars, or is it too much of a burden on the taxpayer.
The evidence that this bond is strongly needed is given by the top experts in the field. They say that cancer is a very complex disease to study, each tumor even of the exact kind, is very different. They almost have their own fingerprint. from the research that has already taken place experts have found promising leads, but to continue the research equipment and personnel costing up to 1 million dollars a year is needed. Cancer kills 35,000 people a year in Texas alone. The opposition says that cancer isn't the only deadly disease and doesn't deserve all the money to experiment with. Also with all the money the bond will provide it is not certain that any cures will be found. The only certainty is that taxpayers will have to pay off this incredible amount.
MacLaggan makes a good argument. She gives both sides of the story and allows the reader to make a decision. There is good evidence that this bond is needed for cancer research and it is obvious that these potential discoveries will be made at a much slower rate without it. I am still not convinced that it is a good thing. the sum of the proposal seems almost to high for the country much less this state. I don't see this benefiting Texas especially if no cure is ever found.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/10/07/1007cancer.html

A Border fence 16 Feet High and 'Aesthetically Pleasing'

The basic argument of Juan Castillo's article is that Texas officials and residents have been fighting the federal plans to build a wall between Texas and Mexico. just recently the full plans for the wall have been revealed to the public which has stirred up more anger from the residents and officials. The wall will be massive and stretching 70 miles long between Roma and Brownsville. They are also concerned that the wall will be harmful to the environment, and also hurting ranchers and farmers by cutting off the water supply of the Rio Grande.
Castillo verifies his information by having the exact measurements of the wall showing just how huge and strong it is going to be. he also includes some quotes and the feelings of Patricio Ahumada Jr. the mayor of Brownsville. Who is not in favor of the wall in fact the Brownsville community is considering filling a lawsuit to block the construction. Castillo also mentions Nancy Brown, a biologist, who has studied the area where the wall is being built. She is confident that the wall as great potential to harm the wildlife in the area. She and the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge, is trying to find wildlife-friendly spots for placement of the wall.
Is the wall the best plan to stop illegal immigrants crossing the border? Some officials say that sensors, cameras, and more guards is a better plan. Juan Castillo gives lots of evidence to support the fact that the wall my not be a great idea, and shows a number of people who strongly oppose the wall. whether or not the protests change the outcome of the wall at least our government is making an effort to control the southern border, any added protection is good.


http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/10/01/1001fence.html