Classy Budgeting

The sight of understanding is view through clear eyes, an open mind, and a cynical heart. Money is clear and doesn't mind much and fills the pockets like a blood to the heart if you're lucky enough. 

Between 11.68 and 15.71 percent of growth doesn't cut it for the spending cap for me. The Legislative Budget Board should subject changes with is financial growth to come. The spending cap is put in place just as The Darling Texan explains, to basically put a cap on it. Of course the cap doesn't help if you poke holes in it. In other words creating loopholes in budget spending. So what is the point?

House of Cards (season one) said it first, the first thing to be talked about is education. Why didn't we get the memo? I agree with The Darling Texan that it is a topic too far ignored. The Darling Texan particularly its points out that Texas has one of the lowest SAT rates and we should direct some of this potential growth and spending cap nonsense to Texas school systems. 

This is no taboo subject, yet, of course low and behold our children down the road haven't received enough education it will be a sore subject. The Darling Texan makes it understood with clear eyes and an open mind that it is up to us and the lawmakers we elect to take our booming surplus of potential growth and use it for betterment purposes, "getting back on track".

http://thedaringtexan1.blogspot.com/2014/12/needed-changes-for-new-budget.html

Judicial Rules

An article based on the Supreme Courts more recent hearing has struck particular attention to the 13 class-action lawsuit and about 400,000 plaintiffs against Amazon. The court ruled Tuesday on whether workers should be compensated for the lengthy security measure prior to leaving an Amazon Warehouse. Where workers jobs are to "retrieve products from warehouse shelves and package them for delivery" The court ruled the security measure were not apart of their job and therefore they will not be paid as if it were. The court considered this was not "integral and indispensable" to their jobs. 

The Supreme Court interpreted the law in 1956 in Steiner v. Mitchell to require pay only for tasks that are an “integral and indispensable part of the principal activities for which covered workmen are employed.”

There is no reason for workers to be paid for what they do before and after their productive work time. They are not putting for effort contributing to the job by taking off their belt. It should be said that it should not have to be such a burden and lengthy time however it should be incorporated in as part of the day. There must obviously be some way to make security check move smoother and faster, which Amazon reports to have contrary to the article. There is a solution here and for the Supreme Court to hear and address such an arbitrary issue is lacking in progress of the Judicial system in our nation's government. 

-http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/business/supreme-court-rules-against-worker-pay-for-security-screenings.html?ref=politics&_r=0