POSTED BY FROSTY TROY
The term "teacher union leader" typically evokes a hard-charging labor activist who shares an adversarial relationship with the school district, is focused solely on protecting members' bread-and-butter interests, and flees from phrases like "school reform."
But a new report based largely on interviews with 30 local union presidents who each have spent less than eight years in office paints an evolved picture of leaders who are often involved in collaborative relationships with their school superintendents.
They have to work together constantly to balance the needs of a new generation of teachers with the needs of older members.
They see the importance of framing arguments for improved salaries and working conditions within the context of improved schools and building a better teaching force.
The unprecedented demands for evidence of student success under state and federal accountability laws have changed the mix.
In this new atmosphere, industrial-style bargaining, which pits one side against the other, is of little use in solving different problems or developing new programs.
There are also challenges from within. Today's union leaders deal with two very different groups of members -- veterans who want to preserve traditional approaches to pay and protections, and new teachers who demand strong support from unions in the first years of teaching, and ongoing training, as well as innovations in pay.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
The Education of Jeff McMahan
POSTED BY ARNOLD HAMILTON
Democrat Jeff McMahan won the only two political races he ever ran – both for state auditor and inspector. Both times he defeated Republican Gary Jones, a former Comanche County commissioner who now serves as the state GOP chairman.
The 2002 and 2006 campaigns were hard-hitting, personal and bitter.
In many ways, the feud is as intense now as it was then.
Jones doesn’t parse his words: He is convinced McMahan is crooked and deserves to be prosecuted. He’s worked tirelessly to tie McMahan to a straw donor scheme involving former longtime state Sen. Gene Stipe. And he’s accused McMahan of being bought by abstractors tied to Stipe and his estranged business partner Steve Phipps.
McMahan says Jones has levied 511 allegations against him so far – all with one goal: Drumming McMahan out of office in hopes it will help Jones win it.
“This comes from a guy … twice defeated by me,” McMahan said, “and he’s still bitter.”
Jones says McMahan’s only hope is to claim he’s the victim of a vendetta because he can’t refute the facts.
In a recent interview in his first-floor state Capitol office, McMahan discussed his on-going battle with Jones and the negative headlines that have dogged his first 4½ years in office.
On Jones’ accusations against him: “They [political opponents] can say anything and they’re not liable. That’s the real sad part about it. They can say anything they want to say about you and they don’t have to be accountable.
“But you know, that’s what scares me about him in this position [auditor]. He lobs those allegations and bombs out with no supporting documentation. What would keep him from doing that to a director of a state agency or a school superintendent? He could hurt a lot of innocent people, would be my concern, if he were sitting in this chair, just because he doesn’t check things out very well.”
On media coverage that links him to straw donors, junkets, failed business ventures and federal investigations: “They’re doing their job. I disagree with it, but they’re doing their job.
“I would hope they would put themselves in the role of being the auditor: We get allegations every day on someone violating the public’s trust, and before we throw it out there to you guys [media], we go check it out – we do an audit – and try to gather up supporting documents.
“And until we’re finished gathering those supporting documents, you won’t hear from us about that issue.
“I would just ask the citizens to play our role a little bit – check it out before they believe anything that comes out of his [Jones’] mouth.”
On his relationship with Steve Phipps, the Kiowa abstractor who recently pleaded guilty to a federal mail fraud count in an investigation of a kickback scheme involving state lawmakers: “I met Mr. Phipps in ’02, the year I was running, when Mr. Scott [former state Auditor Clifton Scott] introduced me to him, and he seemed like a very intelligent man. Never thought he would be doing anything that would contrary to state law.
“He’s never asked me for anything, any favors or anything of that nature.
“I went fishing with him, of course … I went with him and Clif and literally thought that Clif had paid for that trip and found out the day after checking into it, Clif had gotten his checkbook out to pay for it, and Steve had already paid for it. Bonehead decision.”
On his primary job – to ensure tax dollars are spent properly: “That’s what we’ve tried to do. Unfortunately, we’ve stepped on some toes. We’ve stepped on some toes on both sides of the political aisle. But I grew up as a Democrat that tries to choose to do the right thing, regardless, especially in this position.”
On the state motor vehicle audit that identified more than $20 million in potential savings: “When we’re putting our mentally ill out of the streets or they’re ending up in our county jails, and we’re not taking care of our elderly in the nursing homes, but yet we can drive nice suburbans or nice four-door diesel trucks to the state Capitol and back home every day, something’s wrong with that picture. It was a common sense issue.”
On state Rep. David Dank, R-Oklahoma City, introducing a resolution demanding McMahan step aside because of the allegations: “I actually went to see him. He wouldn’t come off the House floor. I sat up there for quite a while and he wouldn’t come out.”
[He said Dank only agreed to meet him later in the office of – and presence of – state state Rep. Dan Sullivan, R-Tulsa. Dank’s resolution went nowhere in the GOP dominated state House.]
On whether he thinks Jones ever will leave him alone: “It’s an obsession. It’s something I don’t have. It’s something I don’t understand. I don’t think Gary Jones is going away. I think there are a lot of things in the future that may pop up and bite him.
“I think if you give someone like that enough rope, they’ll hang themselves. He can only hurt so many people before somebody calls his hand.
“I could get caught up in a cat fight with him everyday. Who’s that helping? We’re going to continue to do our job. We’re going to keep uncovering fraud, waste and abuse and we’re going to keep receiving national recognition. I think it’s good for Oklahoma. It’s good for our staff.
“Bottom line, I’ll have a record to run on, and it’s going to be good.”
For the full story on Jeff McMahan’s fight for political survival, see “McMahan Besieged: Auditor’s Political Education” on the cover of the July 10/25 issue of The Oklahoma Observer.
Democrat Jeff McMahan won the only two political races he ever ran – both for state auditor and inspector. Both times he defeated Republican Gary Jones, a former Comanche County commissioner who now serves as the state GOP chairman.
The 2002 and 2006 campaigns were hard-hitting, personal and bitter.
In many ways, the feud is as intense now as it was then.
Jones doesn’t parse his words: He is convinced McMahan is crooked and deserves to be prosecuted. He’s worked tirelessly to tie McMahan to a straw donor scheme involving former longtime state Sen. Gene Stipe. And he’s accused McMahan of being bought by abstractors tied to Stipe and his estranged business partner Steve Phipps.
McMahan says Jones has levied 511 allegations against him so far – all with one goal: Drumming McMahan out of office in hopes it will help Jones win it.
“This comes from a guy … twice defeated by me,” McMahan said, “and he’s still bitter.”
Jones says McMahan’s only hope is to claim he’s the victim of a vendetta because he can’t refute the facts.
In a recent interview in his first-floor state Capitol office, McMahan discussed his on-going battle with Jones and the negative headlines that have dogged his first 4½ years in office.
On Jones’ accusations against him: “They [political opponents] can say anything and they’re not liable. That’s the real sad part about it. They can say anything they want to say about you and they don’t have to be accountable.
“But you know, that’s what scares me about him in this position [auditor]. He lobs those allegations and bombs out with no supporting documentation. What would keep him from doing that to a director of a state agency or a school superintendent? He could hurt a lot of innocent people, would be my concern, if he were sitting in this chair, just because he doesn’t check things out very well.”
On media coverage that links him to straw donors, junkets, failed business ventures and federal investigations: “They’re doing their job. I disagree with it, but they’re doing their job.
“I would hope they would put themselves in the role of being the auditor: We get allegations every day on someone violating the public’s trust, and before we throw it out there to you guys [media], we go check it out – we do an audit – and try to gather up supporting documents.
“And until we’re finished gathering those supporting documents, you won’t hear from us about that issue.
“I would just ask the citizens to play our role a little bit – check it out before they believe anything that comes out of his [Jones’] mouth.”
On his relationship with Steve Phipps, the Kiowa abstractor who recently pleaded guilty to a federal mail fraud count in an investigation of a kickback scheme involving state lawmakers: “I met Mr. Phipps in ’02, the year I was running, when Mr. Scott [former state Auditor Clifton Scott] introduced me to him, and he seemed like a very intelligent man. Never thought he would be doing anything that would contrary to state law.
“He’s never asked me for anything, any favors or anything of that nature.
“I went fishing with him, of course … I went with him and Clif and literally thought that Clif had paid for that trip and found out the day after checking into it, Clif had gotten his checkbook out to pay for it, and Steve had already paid for it. Bonehead decision.”
On his primary job – to ensure tax dollars are spent properly: “That’s what we’ve tried to do. Unfortunately, we’ve stepped on some toes. We’ve stepped on some toes on both sides of the political aisle. But I grew up as a Democrat that tries to choose to do the right thing, regardless, especially in this position.”
On the state motor vehicle audit that identified more than $20 million in potential savings: “When we’re putting our mentally ill out of the streets or they’re ending up in our county jails, and we’re not taking care of our elderly in the nursing homes, but yet we can drive nice suburbans or nice four-door diesel trucks to the state Capitol and back home every day, something’s wrong with that picture. It was a common sense issue.”
On state Rep. David Dank, R-Oklahoma City, introducing a resolution demanding McMahan step aside because of the allegations: “I actually went to see him. He wouldn’t come off the House floor. I sat up there for quite a while and he wouldn’t come out.”
[He said Dank only agreed to meet him later in the office of – and presence of – state state Rep. Dan Sullivan, R-Tulsa. Dank’s resolution went nowhere in the GOP dominated state House.]
On whether he thinks Jones ever will leave him alone: “It’s an obsession. It’s something I don’t have. It’s something I don’t understand. I don’t think Gary Jones is going away. I think there are a lot of things in the future that may pop up and bite him.
“I think if you give someone like that enough rope, they’ll hang themselves. He can only hurt so many people before somebody calls his hand.
“I could get caught up in a cat fight with him everyday. Who’s that helping? We’re going to continue to do our job. We’re going to keep uncovering fraud, waste and abuse and we’re going to keep receiving national recognition. I think it’s good for Oklahoma. It’s good for our staff.
“Bottom line, I’ll have a record to run on, and it’s going to be good.”
For the full story on Jeff McMahan’s fight for political survival, see “McMahan Besieged: Auditor’s Political Education” on the cover of the July 10/25 issue of The Oklahoma Observer.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Nothing New
POSTED BY FROSTY TROY
Here's a news flash: Women get paid less than men. OK, so that's not anything new. Even just a year out of college, women earn 20% less than male counterparts.
Ten years after graduation, the pay gap gets worse with women earning 69% of what men earn, according to a new study by the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.
The group analyzed two surveys conducted by the U.S. Department of Education. The studies provide nationally representative information on the lives of two groups of college students.
One study followed about 9,000 bachelor's degree graduates from 1992 to 1993 for 10 years after college. The second examined the 10,000 four-year degree recipients of the 1999-2000 class for one year.
These pay differences that appear early in female careers are so important because pay wages and job offers are based on previous earnings. Over time, they become cemented and the differences continue to grow.
The study found many women major in subjects that traditionally pay less, such as education, but the pay gap exists among men and women who concentrate in the same area, though the size of the gap varies.
In education, for instance, women earn 5% less than their male colleagues in the first year after graduation.
Accounting for hours, occupation, parenthood and other factors, it was found that one-quarter of the wage disparity is unexplainable and may be due to discrimination.
The study suggests several ways to close the pay disparity, including encouraging women to enter careers in traditionally male-dominated and higher-paying occupations such as mathematics and science; creating awareness among women to negotiate for better pay; and promoting family-friendly policies in the workplace.
Female students must have such knowledge in order to deal with the issue. They have to be more educated in what they can do, and professions that they are not going into as females.
Here's a news flash: Women get paid less than men. OK, so that's not anything new. Even just a year out of college, women earn 20% less than male counterparts.
Ten years after graduation, the pay gap gets worse with women earning 69% of what men earn, according to a new study by the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.
The group analyzed two surveys conducted by the U.S. Department of Education. The studies provide nationally representative information on the lives of two groups of college students.
One study followed about 9,000 bachelor's degree graduates from 1992 to 1993 for 10 years after college. The second examined the 10,000 four-year degree recipients of the 1999-2000 class for one year.
These pay differences that appear early in female careers are so important because pay wages and job offers are based on previous earnings. Over time, they become cemented and the differences continue to grow.
The study found many women major in subjects that traditionally pay less, such as education, but the pay gap exists among men and women who concentrate in the same area, though the size of the gap varies.
In education, for instance, women earn 5% less than their male colleagues in the first year after graduation.
Accounting for hours, occupation, parenthood and other factors, it was found that one-quarter of the wage disparity is unexplainable and may be due to discrimination.
The study suggests several ways to close the pay disparity, including encouraging women to enter careers in traditionally male-dominated and higher-paying occupations such as mathematics and science; creating awareness among women to negotiate for better pay; and promoting family-friendly policies in the workplace.
Female students must have such knowledge in order to deal with the issue. They have to be more educated in what they can do, and professions that they are not going into as females.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Abortion Politics
POSTED BY ARNOLD HAMILTON
Three things you need to know about SB 139, the Legislature-approved, mean-spirited anti-abortion bill that is ostensibly aimed at ensuring state tax dollars do not pay for the procedure:
1. Anti-abortion zealots – mostly Republicans, backed by religious fundamentalists – could not present a single shred of evidence that elective abortions are being performed at taxpayers’ expense at the University of Oklahoma Medical Center.
A crisis in need of a solution? Hardly. This is pure politics. This is about the 2008 elections – and beyond.
It’s much easier in Bible-belt Oklahoma to demagogue the abortion issue in a 30-second TV spot, a pamphlet or a church voters guide than it is to explain that this bill doesn’t really end abortion, why it damages one of our state’s crown jewels – the OU Health Sciences Center – and why it’s unfair to poor women who don’t have options in the event of a troubled pregnancy.
Besides, aren’t Republicans supposed to be against government intrusion? What could be worse for a true conservative than government meddling in one of the most sacred relationships – between patient and doctor.
2. This version won converts because it includes exceptions for cases of rape or incest.
But what nobody seems to be discussing is that the bill requires rape and incest victims to report the crime to law enforcement before they can be eligible for this treatment. Rape and incest are two of the most under-reported crimes for a reason: Many still fear being stigmatized.
Haven’t these the women been through enough? Can you imagine a young girl being forced to turn her father or brother into police in order to be helped medically?
3. Rep. Rebecca Hamilton, D-OKC, is persona non grata in the House Democratic Caucus because of her role in refashioning SB 139 into an anti-abortion bill.
It put some colleagues in the terrible position of having to vote on this issue for a second time this session [SB 714, which included even more restrictive language, passed both houses earlier, only to be vetoed by Gov. Brad Henry].
As mentioned earlier, it is too easy to demagogue this issue. Hamilton’s anti-abortion zealotry played into the Republicans’ hands, giving them a cheap – but oft-times effective – campaign issue to browbeat some of her colleagues.
House Democrats won’t soon forget the betrayal.
Finally: What will Gov. Henry do with SB 139?
Best guess: He will sign it. The measure passed both houses by what would appear to be veto-proof margins.
Three things you need to know about SB 139, the Legislature-approved, mean-spirited anti-abortion bill that is ostensibly aimed at ensuring state tax dollars do not pay for the procedure:
1. Anti-abortion zealots – mostly Republicans, backed by religious fundamentalists – could not present a single shred of evidence that elective abortions are being performed at taxpayers’ expense at the University of Oklahoma Medical Center.
A crisis in need of a solution? Hardly. This is pure politics. This is about the 2008 elections – and beyond.
It’s much easier in Bible-belt Oklahoma to demagogue the abortion issue in a 30-second TV spot, a pamphlet or a church voters guide than it is to explain that this bill doesn’t really end abortion, why it damages one of our state’s crown jewels – the OU Health Sciences Center – and why it’s unfair to poor women who don’t have options in the event of a troubled pregnancy.
Besides, aren’t Republicans supposed to be against government intrusion? What could be worse for a true conservative than government meddling in one of the most sacred relationships – between patient and doctor.
2. This version won converts because it includes exceptions for cases of rape or incest.
But what nobody seems to be discussing is that the bill requires rape and incest victims to report the crime to law enforcement before they can be eligible for this treatment. Rape and incest are two of the most under-reported crimes for a reason: Many still fear being stigmatized.
Haven’t these the women been through enough? Can you imagine a young girl being forced to turn her father or brother into police in order to be helped medically?
3. Rep. Rebecca Hamilton, D-OKC, is persona non grata in the House Democratic Caucus because of her role in refashioning SB 139 into an anti-abortion bill.
It put some colleagues in the terrible position of having to vote on this issue for a second time this session [SB 714, which included even more restrictive language, passed both houses earlier, only to be vetoed by Gov. Brad Henry].
As mentioned earlier, it is too easy to demagogue this issue. Hamilton’s anti-abortion zealotry played into the Republicans’ hands, giving them a cheap – but oft-times effective – campaign issue to browbeat some of her colleagues.
House Democrats won’t soon forget the betrayal.
Finally: What will Gov. Henry do with SB 139?
Best guess: He will sign it. The measure passed both houses by what would appear to be veto-proof margins.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
New Survey
POSTED BY FROSTY TROY
The National School Boards Association's Council of Urban Boards of Education has released findings of a major research study, Where We Teach, which surveyed how teachers and administrators feel about their urban school environments.
A majority of urban teachers and building administrators hold high expectations for students and care whether students are successful.
The survey found that nearly one-third of teachers and nearly 16% of administrators agree that students at their schools are not motivated to learn.
Nearly one-quarter of teachers also agree that most students at their school would not be successful at a community college or university.
Among the major findings is that while most teachers and administrators in the survey believe they can deter bullying in their schools, the majority believe that bullying still goes on at least once a month.
Three-quarters of teachers disagree that racial barriers to educational and economic opportunity no longer exist in the U.S.
While parent involvement is known to be one of the indicators of success for students, teachers and administrators differ in their perceptions of parent involvement.
While 81% of administrators agree that parents support their school and activities, only 57% of teachers agree with that perception.
Teachers know – but most remain mum – that the biggest obstacle, especially for minority children, is sorry parenting. All the "reforms" in the world won't improve the situation until parenting improves.
The National School Boards Association's Council of Urban Boards of Education has released findings of a major research study, Where We Teach, which surveyed how teachers and administrators feel about their urban school environments.
A majority of urban teachers and building administrators hold high expectations for students and care whether students are successful.
The survey found that nearly one-third of teachers and nearly 16% of administrators agree that students at their schools are not motivated to learn.
Nearly one-quarter of teachers also agree that most students at their school would not be successful at a community college or university.
Among the major findings is that while most teachers and administrators in the survey believe they can deter bullying in their schools, the majority believe that bullying still goes on at least once a month.
Three-quarters of teachers disagree that racial barriers to educational and economic opportunity no longer exist in the U.S.
While parent involvement is known to be one of the indicators of success for students, teachers and administrators differ in their perceptions of parent involvement.
While 81% of administrators agree that parents support their school and activities, only 57% of teachers agree with that perception.
Teachers know – but most remain mum – that the biggest obstacle, especially for minority children, is sorry parenting. All the "reforms" in the world won't improve the situation until parenting improves.
Monday, May 7, 2007
What Risk?
POSTED BY FROSTY TROY
Don't cry for the insurance industry. Despite poor-mouthing by some, the property and casualty industry raked in record profits last year.
With no major hurricane activity in 2006, coupled with premium increases, the property and casualty industry profit is estimated at $68.1 billion.
In medical malpractice, the national 2004 and 2005 loss payments as a percentage of premiums paid by doctors were 63.3% and 52.4%.
Despite all the lies you've heard or read, in Oklahoma the losses paid out to victims for each dollar paid in by doctors were only 33.2 cents in 2004 and 13.8 cents in 2005.
The Consumer Federation of America and other consumer groups released the study on the profitability of the property/casualty insurance industry in America.
In 2004, the property and casualty insurance industry set an industry record by netting an after-tax profit of $40.5 billion.
In 2005, even considering Hurricane Katrina and other major hurricanes, the industry posted a profit of $48.8 billion – another new record.
The $157.4 billion in profit over the last three years equates to roughly $524 for every American, or $1,574 per household.
One of the key reasons that the insurers can make so much money even in what would appear to be hard times is that they have found ways to lay-off risk onto the public by requiring victims of injury to pay more.
They have also tried to limit payouts by pushing so-called tort reform in Oklahoma and elsewhere to limit their payouts [but not their profits].
In 2004-2005, the profit of insurance companies in the state exceeded national averages by $235 million.
Kudos to Gov. Brad Henry for his veto of the so-called tort reform bill, based on nothing more than a tissue of lies.
Don't cry for the insurance industry. Despite poor-mouthing by some, the property and casualty industry raked in record profits last year.
With no major hurricane activity in 2006, coupled with premium increases, the property and casualty industry profit is estimated at $68.1 billion.
In medical malpractice, the national 2004 and 2005 loss payments as a percentage of premiums paid by doctors were 63.3% and 52.4%.
Despite all the lies you've heard or read, in Oklahoma the losses paid out to victims for each dollar paid in by doctors were only 33.2 cents in 2004 and 13.8 cents in 2005.
The Consumer Federation of America and other consumer groups released the study on the profitability of the property/casualty insurance industry in America.
In 2004, the property and casualty insurance industry set an industry record by netting an after-tax profit of $40.5 billion.
In 2005, even considering Hurricane Katrina and other major hurricanes, the industry posted a profit of $48.8 billion – another new record.
The $157.4 billion in profit over the last three years equates to roughly $524 for every American, or $1,574 per household.
One of the key reasons that the insurers can make so much money even in what would appear to be hard times is that they have found ways to lay-off risk onto the public by requiring victims of injury to pay more.
They have also tried to limit payouts by pushing so-called tort reform in Oklahoma and elsewhere to limit their payouts [but not their profits].
In 2004-2005, the profit of insurance companies in the state exceeded national averages by $235 million.
Kudos to Gov. Brad Henry for his veto of the so-called tort reform bill, based on nothing more than a tissue of lies.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Aborting A Bad Bill
POSTED BY ARNOLD HAMILTON
Common sense, decency and fairness, thy name is Sen. Charlie Laster.
Laster, a Shawnee Democrat, provided the key vote Wednesday to sustain Gov. Brad Henry’s veto of a draconian anti-abortion measure that would have shackled doctors at publicly-funded hospitals and all-but-denied poor women access to the procedure – even in cases of rape and incest.
Proponents needed 32 votes in the 48-member Senate to override the governor’s veto. They managed only 31. Laster’s change of heart made the difference.
“I initially voted in favor of Senate Bill 714,” Laster said in written statement, released after the vote. “However, in the days since that vote, I have visited with Gov. Henry and multiple medical professionals.
“I am pro-life and I have consistently voted for pro-life legislation. This bill, however, holds poorer Oklahomans to a different standard than everyone else and I can’t support that. It does not allow an exception in the case of rape or incest and medical experts in Oklahoma believe this bill will undermine the relationship between doctors and their patients. The bill also interferes with private health insurance coverage.
“Gov. Henry was urged to veto the measure by the Oklahoma State Medical Association, Oklahoma Osteopathic Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Oklahoma Nurses Association.
“For these reasons, I decided to stand with the medical community and vote to uphold Gov. Henry’s veto.”
The pro-life governor thanked senators who backed his veto, but added, in a prepared statement, that “I respect the position of those who did not. This is a very difficult and very emotional issue, and I know each senator did what he or she believes is best for the state of Oklahoma.
“No one makes decisions of this nature lightly, but given the flaws in the legislation, I believe there was really no other course of action. I support reasonable restrictions on abortion and have signed such restrictions into law, but this legislation triggered too many unintended consequences with respect to medical care, the health of the mother and the treatment of rape and incest victims.
“I know some will be tempted to cast this vote in a political light or engage in personal attacks, but I would urge them to respect the decision made by each individual legislator. There are good people on both sides of SB 714, and it is my hope that they can put this issue behind them and work together to address the needs of Oklahoma.”
The bill’s author, Sen. James Williamson, R-Tulsa, expressed his disappointment but vowed to continue his fight to override the veto. In a prepared statement, he also fired not-so-veiled political threats at both Laster and former Republican-turned-Democratic Sen. Nancy Riley of Sand Springs.
“Sen. Laster’s flip-flop on this life-and-death issue is surprising and disappointing. Sen. Laster will likely be hearing from many pro-life Oklahomans in the coming days. There will be a lot of prayers that he will have a change of heart on the next override vote.”
On Riley, he said: “In the past, Sen. Riley consistently voted pro-life as a Republican. She never told pro-life supporters that rape and incest exceptions were important to her. As a Democrat, she even voted for SB 714 in committee before opposing the bill on the floor. Sen. Riley’s waffling on the issue of life is extremely disappointing.”
Lawmakers in both houses must vote to override a gubernatorial veto. Since this measure is a Senate Bill, the override effort must begin in the Senate. Williamson said he will pursue a successful override “as many times as necessary” until next year’s legislative session ends.
For some Republicans, it is the perfect scenario. Playing their most naïve supporters like a fiddle, they can demand occasional override votes, knowing they won’t be successful – but will whip the fundies into a lather. The result: More campaign contributions. More foot soldiers in the political trenches.
The truth is, even the most ardent abortion foes usually are willing in a spirit of fairness, common sense and decency to acknowledge there should be exceptions – typically in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is in danger. SB 714 would have wiped out exceptions for rape and incest as it sought to thwart the use of any taxpayer dollars for such procedures at public hospitals.
Who would have been most affected? The poor.
Compassion? Grace? Forgiveness?
Forget it.
Common sense, decency and fairness, thy name is Sen. Charlie Laster.
Laster, a Shawnee Democrat, provided the key vote Wednesday to sustain Gov. Brad Henry’s veto of a draconian anti-abortion measure that would have shackled doctors at publicly-funded hospitals and all-but-denied poor women access to the procedure – even in cases of rape and incest.
Proponents needed 32 votes in the 48-member Senate to override the governor’s veto. They managed only 31. Laster’s change of heart made the difference.
“I initially voted in favor of Senate Bill 714,” Laster said in written statement, released after the vote. “However, in the days since that vote, I have visited with Gov. Henry and multiple medical professionals.
“I am pro-life and I have consistently voted for pro-life legislation. This bill, however, holds poorer Oklahomans to a different standard than everyone else and I can’t support that. It does not allow an exception in the case of rape or incest and medical experts in Oklahoma believe this bill will undermine the relationship between doctors and their patients. The bill also interferes with private health insurance coverage.
“Gov. Henry was urged to veto the measure by the Oklahoma State Medical Association, Oklahoma Osteopathic Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Oklahoma Nurses Association.
“For these reasons, I decided to stand with the medical community and vote to uphold Gov. Henry’s veto.”
The pro-life governor thanked senators who backed his veto, but added, in a prepared statement, that “I respect the position of those who did not. This is a very difficult and very emotional issue, and I know each senator did what he or she believes is best for the state of Oklahoma.
“No one makes decisions of this nature lightly, but given the flaws in the legislation, I believe there was really no other course of action. I support reasonable restrictions on abortion and have signed such restrictions into law, but this legislation triggered too many unintended consequences with respect to medical care, the health of the mother and the treatment of rape and incest victims.
“I know some will be tempted to cast this vote in a political light or engage in personal attacks, but I would urge them to respect the decision made by each individual legislator. There are good people on both sides of SB 714, and it is my hope that they can put this issue behind them and work together to address the needs of Oklahoma.”
The bill’s author, Sen. James Williamson, R-Tulsa, expressed his disappointment but vowed to continue his fight to override the veto. In a prepared statement, he also fired not-so-veiled political threats at both Laster and former Republican-turned-Democratic Sen. Nancy Riley of Sand Springs.
“Sen. Laster’s flip-flop on this life-and-death issue is surprising and disappointing. Sen. Laster will likely be hearing from many pro-life Oklahomans in the coming days. There will be a lot of prayers that he will have a change of heart on the next override vote.”
On Riley, he said: “In the past, Sen. Riley consistently voted pro-life as a Republican. She never told pro-life supporters that rape and incest exceptions were important to her. As a Democrat, she even voted for SB 714 in committee before opposing the bill on the floor. Sen. Riley’s waffling on the issue of life is extremely disappointing.”
Lawmakers in both houses must vote to override a gubernatorial veto. Since this measure is a Senate Bill, the override effort must begin in the Senate. Williamson said he will pursue a successful override “as many times as necessary” until next year’s legislative session ends.
For some Republicans, it is the perfect scenario. Playing their most naïve supporters like a fiddle, they can demand occasional override votes, knowing they won’t be successful – but will whip the fundies into a lather. The result: More campaign contributions. More foot soldiers in the political trenches.
The truth is, even the most ardent abortion foes usually are willing in a spirit of fairness, common sense and decency to acknowledge there should be exceptions – typically in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is in danger. SB 714 would have wiped out exceptions for rape and incest as it sought to thwart the use of any taxpayer dollars for such procedures at public hospitals.
Who would have been most affected? The poor.
Compassion? Grace? Forgiveness?
Forget it.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Deformed Reform
POSTED BY ARNOLD HAMILTON
If there were an official Oklahoma State Legislature dictionary, you'd no doubt find this synonym for the word phony: House Bill 1804.
If there were an official Oklahoma State Legislature dictionary, you'd no doubt find this synonym for the word phony: House Bill 1804.
See also, bogus, pandering.
HB1804, by Sen. James Williamson, R-Tulsa, and Rep. Randy Terrill, R-Moore, is the so-called immigration reform package that senators approved 41-6. It plays to a noisy group of nativists who think it's really going to do something to slow -- if not reverse -- the growth of undocumented newcomers.
Think it's going to really stop employers from hiring anyone who provides authentic-looking identifying documents? Think it's going to lead to mass firings? Think it's going to lead to mass deportations?
Think again.
All it's going to do is put local and state law enforcement in the time-consuming business of chasing down an endless well of "tips" from yokels worried about "illegal fer-en-ers" in their midst.
It's also a great tool to get even with your enemies. All you'd have to do is sick the local sheriff or police on a business competitor and they could be tied up in knots for who-knows-how-long, answering trumped up charges.
The most meaningless provision in the package?
Businesses can't be hammered if they're caught with undocumented employees -- so long as they participate in the federal Basic Pilot program, which is designed to validate through a national database the identifying information submitted by prospective employees.
You need to know this about Basic Pilot: It only determines whether a Social Security number is valid. It doesn't tell you is whether the Social Security number is being used at multiple locations.
In other words, you don't know whether the number really is the prospective employee's -- or whether it's stolen.
Nationally, there are myriad examples of the same Social Security number being used at multiple locations, at the same time.
Those promoting immigration reform would have you believe the Basic Pilot provision is going to help ensure that businesses do not hire undocumented workers.
Baloney.
It just provides them legal cover to keep doing what they're doing.
As I've argued before, the nation's immigration problems are in need of a federal solution, not a patchwork quilt of xenophobic state "reforms." The President is right on this issue: America needs a guest worker program.
Evidently, the nativists are so riled over the immigrants in their midst that some even threatened senators before the vote.
Sen. Johnnie Crutchfield, D-Ardmore, said one unidentified nativist called him a "bastard" and demanded he vote for the package.
"I've been here nine years," said Crutchfield. "They could have at least said 'Sen. Bastard.'"
The package now returns to the House for review of Senate amendments. The House is expected to sign off, meaning this mess soon will end up on Gov. Brad Henry's desk, barring something unexpected.
Will he have the good sense to veto? Could a veto be sustained in either House?
Not likely.
When this law becomes Oklahoma's shame -- with widespread reports of racial profiling and other problems -- remember the pandering politicians who knuckled under and voted for it.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Logrolling and Steamrolling
POSTED BY ARNOLD HAMILTON
Who would have guessed it?
The House’s mad scientist, Rep. Mike Reynolds, was right.
All session, the south Oklahoma City Republican warned that a tiny cabal would end up crafting the state budget – leaving the vast majority of lawmakers with a single, up or down vote on a nearly $7 billion spending blueprint.
No input. No give and take. It would be take it or leave it – period.
That’s what happened.
Only 54 hours after the package was first made public, a sharply-divided state House voted Wednesday to send the general appropriations bill to the governor, completing a warp-speed legislative “review” of the closed-door agreement.
The Senate went first – and quietly. On Tuesday, it voted in lockstep – all 24 Democrats and all 24 Republicans – to endorse the package.
Some House Democrats weren’t so compliant. They raised hell for three hours Wednesday, knowing all the while it was a fait accompli. The final vote was 84-16.
Even Reynolds rolled over and voted for it. He’s become such a pariah among his GOP colleagues he didn’t even bother to join them in caucus just moments before the bill was taken up.
It was a brilliant Republican budget strategy: Roll everything into one measure. Dare unhappy Democrats to vote against a package that included a sorely-needed $60 million supplemental appropriation for education, as well as pay raises for teachers, state employees and highway patrol troopers.
They all but taunted the Democrats during debate: House Appropriations Committee Chairman Chris Benge, R-Tulsa, and Rep. John Wright, R-Broken Arrow, offered thinly-veiled threats that “no” votes would be used to browbeat offending Democrats at election time.
Of course, Benge insisted he was doing no such thing: “I don’t put this in the form of a political threat.” He also said with a straight face – honest – that “this is the most open process I’ve ever been a part of.”
It’s fair to say this is not the first time in Oklahoma legislative history that the majority party rolled over its minority counterparts on a budget package [which, of course, means it was Democrats doing the “rolling” since they controlled the Legislature most of the 20th Century].
It’s also fair to point out that new House Speaker Lance Cargill launched this session promising that – unlike his hard-headed predecessor, Todd Hiett – both sides would at least be heard.
With the budget hijinks, he missed a golden opportunity to usher in a new day. He ended up with hard-feelings reminiscent of the short-lived Hiett regime. Was it hubris? Was it an overpowering desire to pay back Democrats for past disrespect? Was it a misplayed hand that will come back to haunt?
Cargill no doubt will argue that Democratic voices were at the table. And indeed they were. But they were voices from the Senate, where the 24-24 tie resulted in a power-sharing agreement this session.
The 44 House Democrats – representing about 1.5 million Oklahomans – were shut out.
Of course, so were most House Republicans.
When an emotional Rep. Jerry McPeak, D-Warner, asked for a show of hands from those who felt they had real input in the process, only about a half-dozen were raised – all Republicans.
“In my three years,” McPeak said, “this is by far the most closed I’ve seen it.” And “unfortunately,” he added, “the most adversarial I’ve seen it.”
Most Democrats who rose to speak against the package argued it would be more open and more transparent to separate the supplemental – or emergency – appropriations into separate bills, so lawmakers and the public could know more precisely how the money was being spent.
“At the outset we were promised open government – a brand new day,” said Rep. Al Lindley, D-Oklahoma City. “Either we were misinformed. We were not told the truth. I misinterpreted what was said. Or I missed the second memo.”
Rep. Mike Shelton, D-Oklahoma City, sarcastically welcomed freshman lawmakers to the Oklahoma House, where “stuff [like the nearly $7 billion budget] just kind of falls out of the sky and lands on your desk.”
“It’s supposed to be open government,” he said, “but back door deals were made once again. It’s disappointing.”
There were two key votes on the budget package.
The first – on the Senate amendment that encompassed the spending blueprint – passed 60-40. All 40 “no” votes were Democrats. Four Democrats joined lock-step Republicans in voting for it – Rep. Wallace Collins of Norman, Rep. Scott Inman of Del City, Rep. Eric Proctor of Tulsa and Rep. Purcy Walker of Elk City.
The second – final passage of the budget – was approved 84-16. The warnings about how the vote could be “interpreted” during the next campaign were clearly heeded, as 24 Democrats peeled off and voted for it.
The 16 who opposed the closed-door process to the bitter end were: Rep. Scott BigHorse of Pawhuska, Rep. Ed Cannaday of Whitefield, Rep. Rebecca Hamilton of Oklahoma City, Rep. Ryan Kiesel of Seminole, Rep. Al Lindley of Oklahoma City, Rep. Jeannie McDaniel of Tulsa, Rep. Ryan McMullen of Burns Flat, Rep. Jerry McPeak of Warner, Rep. Danny Morgan of Prague, Rep. Richard Morrissette of Oklahoma City, Rep. Bill Nations of Norman, Rep. Anastasia Pittman of Oklahoma City, Rep. Brian Renegar of Hartshorne, Rep. Mike Shelton of Oklahoma City, Rep. Jabar Shumate of Tulsa and Rep. Dale Turner of Holdenville.
Who would have guessed it?
The House’s mad scientist, Rep. Mike Reynolds, was right.
All session, the south Oklahoma City Republican warned that a tiny cabal would end up crafting the state budget – leaving the vast majority of lawmakers with a single, up or down vote on a nearly $7 billion spending blueprint.
No input. No give and take. It would be take it or leave it – period.
That’s what happened.
Only 54 hours after the package was first made public, a sharply-divided state House voted Wednesday to send the general appropriations bill to the governor, completing a warp-speed legislative “review” of the closed-door agreement.
The Senate went first – and quietly. On Tuesday, it voted in lockstep – all 24 Democrats and all 24 Republicans – to endorse the package.
Some House Democrats weren’t so compliant. They raised hell for three hours Wednesday, knowing all the while it was a fait accompli. The final vote was 84-16.
Even Reynolds rolled over and voted for it. He’s become such a pariah among his GOP colleagues he didn’t even bother to join them in caucus just moments before the bill was taken up.
It was a brilliant Republican budget strategy: Roll everything into one measure. Dare unhappy Democrats to vote against a package that included a sorely-needed $60 million supplemental appropriation for education, as well as pay raises for teachers, state employees and highway patrol troopers.
They all but taunted the Democrats during debate: House Appropriations Committee Chairman Chris Benge, R-Tulsa, and Rep. John Wright, R-Broken Arrow, offered thinly-veiled threats that “no” votes would be used to browbeat offending Democrats at election time.
Of course, Benge insisted he was doing no such thing: “I don’t put this in the form of a political threat.” He also said with a straight face – honest – that “this is the most open process I’ve ever been a part of.”
It’s fair to say this is not the first time in Oklahoma legislative history that the majority party rolled over its minority counterparts on a budget package [which, of course, means it was Democrats doing the “rolling” since they controlled the Legislature most of the 20th Century].
It’s also fair to point out that new House Speaker Lance Cargill launched this session promising that – unlike his hard-headed predecessor, Todd Hiett – both sides would at least be heard.
With the budget hijinks, he missed a golden opportunity to usher in a new day. He ended up with hard-feelings reminiscent of the short-lived Hiett regime. Was it hubris? Was it an overpowering desire to pay back Democrats for past disrespect? Was it a misplayed hand that will come back to haunt?
Cargill no doubt will argue that Democratic voices were at the table. And indeed they were. But they were voices from the Senate, where the 24-24 tie resulted in a power-sharing agreement this session.
The 44 House Democrats – representing about 1.5 million Oklahomans – were shut out.
Of course, so were most House Republicans.
When an emotional Rep. Jerry McPeak, D-Warner, asked for a show of hands from those who felt they had real input in the process, only about a half-dozen were raised – all Republicans.
“In my three years,” McPeak said, “this is by far the most closed I’ve seen it.” And “unfortunately,” he added, “the most adversarial I’ve seen it.”
Most Democrats who rose to speak against the package argued it would be more open and more transparent to separate the supplemental – or emergency – appropriations into separate bills, so lawmakers and the public could know more precisely how the money was being spent.
“At the outset we were promised open government – a brand new day,” said Rep. Al Lindley, D-Oklahoma City. “Either we were misinformed. We were not told the truth. I misinterpreted what was said. Or I missed the second memo.”
Rep. Mike Shelton, D-Oklahoma City, sarcastically welcomed freshman lawmakers to the Oklahoma House, where “stuff [like the nearly $7 billion budget] just kind of falls out of the sky and lands on your desk.”
“It’s supposed to be open government,” he said, “but back door deals were made once again. It’s disappointing.”
There were two key votes on the budget package.
The first – on the Senate amendment that encompassed the spending blueprint – passed 60-40. All 40 “no” votes were Democrats. Four Democrats joined lock-step Republicans in voting for it – Rep. Wallace Collins of Norman, Rep. Scott Inman of Del City, Rep. Eric Proctor of Tulsa and Rep. Purcy Walker of Elk City.
The second – final passage of the budget – was approved 84-16. The warnings about how the vote could be “interpreted” during the next campaign were clearly heeded, as 24 Democrats peeled off and voted for it.
The 16 who opposed the closed-door process to the bitter end were: Rep. Scott BigHorse of Pawhuska, Rep. Ed Cannaday of Whitefield, Rep. Rebecca Hamilton of Oklahoma City, Rep. Ryan Kiesel of Seminole, Rep. Al Lindley of Oklahoma City, Rep. Jeannie McDaniel of Tulsa, Rep. Ryan McMullen of Burns Flat, Rep. Jerry McPeak of Warner, Rep. Danny Morgan of Prague, Rep. Richard Morrissette of Oklahoma City, Rep. Bill Nations of Norman, Rep. Anastasia Pittman of Oklahoma City, Rep. Brian Renegar of Hartshorne, Rep. Mike Shelton of Oklahoma City, Rep. Jabar Shumate of Tulsa and Rep. Dale Turner of Holdenville.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Pitiful Priorities
POSTED BY ARNOLD HAMILTON
Your state representatives worked extra long hours this week. Three days they started at 9 a.m. and didn’t wrap up the rhetorical festivities until the supper hour.
They engaged in extended, spirited debate before the Republican majority rammed through bills that would:
1] Expand the state’s college scholarship program to home-school graduates;
2] Give lawmakers an option other state employees don’t have [to opt out of the state’s health insurance plan]; and
3] Tighten restrictions on emergency room abortions [even though the author herself conceded there is no evidence current law is being violated].
What lawmakers couldn’t find time to do was resolve the $58 million-$75 million budget crisis paralyzing the state’s public schools, even though they promised nine months ago to fix the problem.
Teachers and staff are being laid off. Class sizes are being increased. Programs are being cut. School boards are tabling next year’s hiring decisions.
All because state lawmakers mandated, but didn’t fully fund, a $3,000 teacher pay raise and related costs last year. They called it an oversight and pledged to cough up the money when the 2007 session opened in February. So far, nothing.
School superintendents are so desperate to keep their districts afloat that more than 100 descended on the state Capitol to plead for the promised money. But they couldn’t get an audience with Republican House Speaker Lance Cargill, whose calendar was booked. Think the State Chamber of Commerce would be treated similarly?
What the supes who filled much of the House gallery got was a front-row seat at the Theater of Misplaced Priorities: They watched lawmakers rasslin’ over the latest incumbent protection act – a scheme that would have prevented would-be sheriff’s candidates from even filing for office unless they already had completed the state’s 375-hour law enforcement training program [at a cost of more than $1,000].
State Rep. Jerry McPeak, D-Warner, tried to persuade GOP leaders to allow a vote on his Honesty in Funding Education Act [HB1935], which would have covered the un-funded mandates. But he was shot down.
[Cargill said Thursday he believes House and Senate negotiators are very close to striking a bi-partisan budget deal that will include a fix for the school funding crisis.]
Meanwhile, school superintendents and school boards, students and patrons worry whether top-notch teachers – afraid they won’t be rehired next year because of budget woes – will accept contract offers from other states.
Educators are left to pondering something else: The House didn’t make time to debate McPeak’s bill, but on Thursday, it did manage a vote – 60-39, mostly along party lines – to speed up $60 million in income tax cuts.
“That amount alone would make our schools whole,” lamented House Minority Leader Danny Morgan, D-Prague.
Only one Republican voted against the tax cuts: Stillwater Rep. Terry Ingmire, who will be leaving office because of term limits after next year.
Five Democrats broke with their caucus to support the tax cuts: Rep. Terry Harrison of McAlester; Rep. Scott Inman of Del City; and Rep. Lucky Lamons, Rep. Eric Proctor and Rep. Jabar Shumate, all of Tulsa.
Priorities, loud and clear.
Your state representatives worked extra long hours this week. Three days they started at 9 a.m. and didn’t wrap up the rhetorical festivities until the supper hour.
They engaged in extended, spirited debate before the Republican majority rammed through bills that would:
1] Expand the state’s college scholarship program to home-school graduates;
2] Give lawmakers an option other state employees don’t have [to opt out of the state’s health insurance plan]; and
3] Tighten restrictions on emergency room abortions [even though the author herself conceded there is no evidence current law is being violated].
What lawmakers couldn’t find time to do was resolve the $58 million-$75 million budget crisis paralyzing the state’s public schools, even though they promised nine months ago to fix the problem.
Teachers and staff are being laid off. Class sizes are being increased. Programs are being cut. School boards are tabling next year’s hiring decisions.
All because state lawmakers mandated, but didn’t fully fund, a $3,000 teacher pay raise and related costs last year. They called it an oversight and pledged to cough up the money when the 2007 session opened in February. So far, nothing.
School superintendents are so desperate to keep their districts afloat that more than 100 descended on the state Capitol to plead for the promised money. But they couldn’t get an audience with Republican House Speaker Lance Cargill, whose calendar was booked. Think the State Chamber of Commerce would be treated similarly?
What the supes who filled much of the House gallery got was a front-row seat at the Theater of Misplaced Priorities: They watched lawmakers rasslin’ over the latest incumbent protection act – a scheme that would have prevented would-be sheriff’s candidates from even filing for office unless they already had completed the state’s 375-hour law enforcement training program [at a cost of more than $1,000].
State Rep. Jerry McPeak, D-Warner, tried to persuade GOP leaders to allow a vote on his Honesty in Funding Education Act [HB1935], which would have covered the un-funded mandates. But he was shot down.
[Cargill said Thursday he believes House and Senate negotiators are very close to striking a bi-partisan budget deal that will include a fix for the school funding crisis.]
Meanwhile, school superintendents and school boards, students and patrons worry whether top-notch teachers – afraid they won’t be rehired next year because of budget woes – will accept contract offers from other states.
Educators are left to pondering something else: The House didn’t make time to debate McPeak’s bill, but on Thursday, it did manage a vote – 60-39, mostly along party lines – to speed up $60 million in income tax cuts.
“That amount alone would make our schools whole,” lamented House Minority Leader Danny Morgan, D-Prague.
Only one Republican voted against the tax cuts: Stillwater Rep. Terry Ingmire, who will be leaving office because of term limits after next year.
Five Democrats broke with their caucus to support the tax cuts: Rep. Terry Harrison of McAlester; Rep. Scott Inman of Del City; and Rep. Lucky Lamons, Rep. Eric Proctor and Rep. Jabar Shumate, all of Tulsa.
Priorities, loud and clear.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Immigration Reform Folly
POSTED BY ARNOLD HAMILTON
The state House deepened the red in Oklahoma’s neck on Wednesday.
Only nine lawmakers had the gumption to oppose a so-called immigration reform measure so breathtakingly Draconian that it surely will spark a wildfire of legal challenges.
Unless cooler heads prevail in the Senate or Gov. Brad Henry suddenly locates his veto pen, the Lege is on the verge of transforming state and local law officers into full-time immigration enforcement agents.
That ought to be a real comfort to those with a Latino surname or accent -- or those who aren't pearly white.
The commercial television stations rarely show up at the Capitol anymore, what with the demand for wall-to-wall coverage of grass fires, drive-by shootings and spring showers.
When they do make an appearance – as they did Wednesday – the Legislature’s publicity hounds aren’t about to disappoint.
For about 100 minutes, Rep after Rep rose to somberly lament the federal government’s inaction on what they portrayed as a grave matter of national security in this post-9/11 era.
“The President of the United States has been derelict in his duties,” said state Rep. Scott Inman, D-Del City. “So has the Congress.”
The majority view: The dangers posed by 83,000 improperly documented immigrants in Oklahoma cooking meals, busing tables, cutting grass, roofing houses, installing sprinkler systems and working in hog farms can no longer be ignored.
One of the few voices of reason in the protracted debate was state Rep. Glen Bud Smithson, D-Sallisaw. His thick drawl and aw-shucks humility only added to the charm of his common-sense warning that Oklahoma is repeating an all-too-common American mistake: Mistreating people.
Think blacks and slavery and the back-of-the-bus and separate water fountains. Think Indians and broken treaties and conquered land. Think Japanese and World War II internment camps. Think women and a basic right to vote.
“We have a history of treating people bad,” he said, “and regretting it later.”
Immigration is a problem in need of a solution – a comprehensive federal solution. Oklahoma’s approach is like putting a band-aid on a severed hand. It can’t begin to deal with the underlying reason for illegal immigration: poor economic conditions in Mexico, Central America and elsewhere. It can’t secure America’s borders from a steady stream of immigrants desperate for hope, for a better way of life.
Even business leaders are worried about the measure’s effect on the Oklahoma economy. What happens if many immigrants pack up and move elsewhere? Who’s going to fill thousands of hard-labor positions at hog farms in the remote Panhandle?
This wasn’t even a significant issue for most Oklahomans two years ago. Ambitious politicians beat the drums so loudly and so long that it’s now the No. 2 issue, behind only education. It feeds a deep, ever-present strain of nativism that does Oklahoma anything but proud.
The anti-immigrant stampede is on. The 88 votes in favor were far more than the bill’s author, state Rep. Randy Terrill, R-Moore, predicted before Wednesday’s vote.
Terrill hinted ominously that illegal immigrants may be fleecing state taxpayers out of $1 billion. He touts as fact, figures from the Washington-based Federation for American Immigration Reform that illegal immigrants are costing Oklahoma’s taxpayers more than $200 million – even though a representative of the anti-immigrant group told a House committee last fall that its numbers are estimates of estimates.
There was no mention of new studies in Texas and California that indicate illegal immigrants actually put millions more dollars into public coffers than they take out.
The reality is, most improperly documented immigrants spend their time hiding, trying to avoid detection, hoping to keep paychecks rolling in – not trying to scam the system.
[Most, not all. Yes, there are some bad apples taking advantage of the sieve-like southern border to import all manner of criminal activity. This isn’t going to stop them. They’re chasing American dollars.]
What was even more disheartening Wednesday was the number of state representatives who expressed opposition to – or at least reservation about – the measure, yet ended up voting for it.
Smithson, for one, evidently failed to persuade himself, despite his eloquence. He cast a yes vote.
Another lawmaker, state Rep. Jerry McPeak, D-Warner, a Creek who is active in the House Native American Caucus, reminded his colleagues that “most of the rest of you folks were illegal immigrants. Welcome to our country.”
He at first voted against the measure, but before the final vote was declared, switched in favor.
And Rep. Shane Jett, R-Tecumseh, whose wife is from Brazil and working to secure her citizenship, argued passionately against the bill, noting that it served to legitimize racist groups. He pointed as proof to an Oklahoma Ku Klux Klan web site that trumpeted the measure.
Yet, when it came time to vote, Jett’s desk was clear and he was no longer on the House floor. He didn’t vote on what some lawmakers called the most important legislation this session. After the vote was declared official, Jett could be seen standing in the fifth floor hallway outside the House chamber.
An interesting note: Four of the nine “No” votes were term-limited state representatives who aren’t worried about the next election because they can’t run: Rep. David Braddock, D-Altus; Rep. Darrell Gilbert, D-Tulsa; Rep. Al Lindley, D-Oklahoma City; and Rep. Ray McCarter, D-Marlow.
Others who opposed the bill were Rep. Rebecca Hamilton, Rep. Al McAffrey and Rep. Mike Shelton, all Oklahoma City Democrats; Rep. Bill Nations, D-Norman; and Rep. Paul Roan, D-Tishomingo.
Not surprising, House Republicans voted in lock-step on the issue – even House Speaker Pro Tem Gus Blackwell of Goodwell, whose district is home to significant hog operations that rely heavily on immigrant labor.
The Senate’s immigration reform sponsor, Sen. Kenneth Corn, D-Poteau, says he supports the package in its current form, but is open to possible changes. Don’t count on the Senate, however, to significantly alter the blueprint for a state-sponsored crackdown.
At least one group stands to benefit from the folly: lawyers.
State Rep. Richard Morrissette, D-Oklahoma City, said his firm likely will add lawyers in anticipation of a tsunami of wrongful termination lawsuits if the measure becomes law.
“This,” he said, “is the full attorney employment act.”
Not to mention the Pandering Politicians Publicity Act of 2007.
The state House deepened the red in Oklahoma’s neck on Wednesday.
Only nine lawmakers had the gumption to oppose a so-called immigration reform measure so breathtakingly Draconian that it surely will spark a wildfire of legal challenges.
Unless cooler heads prevail in the Senate or Gov. Brad Henry suddenly locates his veto pen, the Lege is on the verge of transforming state and local law officers into full-time immigration enforcement agents.
That ought to be a real comfort to those with a Latino surname or accent -- or those who aren't pearly white.
The commercial television stations rarely show up at the Capitol anymore, what with the demand for wall-to-wall coverage of grass fires, drive-by shootings and spring showers.
When they do make an appearance – as they did Wednesday – the Legislature’s publicity hounds aren’t about to disappoint.
For about 100 minutes, Rep after Rep rose to somberly lament the federal government’s inaction on what they portrayed as a grave matter of national security in this post-9/11 era.
“The President of the United States has been derelict in his duties,” said state Rep. Scott Inman, D-Del City. “So has the Congress.”
The majority view: The dangers posed by 83,000 improperly documented immigrants in Oklahoma cooking meals, busing tables, cutting grass, roofing houses, installing sprinkler systems and working in hog farms can no longer be ignored.
One of the few voices of reason in the protracted debate was state Rep. Glen Bud Smithson, D-Sallisaw. His thick drawl and aw-shucks humility only added to the charm of his common-sense warning that Oklahoma is repeating an all-too-common American mistake: Mistreating people.
Think blacks and slavery and the back-of-the-bus and separate water fountains. Think Indians and broken treaties and conquered land. Think Japanese and World War II internment camps. Think women and a basic right to vote.
“We have a history of treating people bad,” he said, “and regretting it later.”
Immigration is a problem in need of a solution – a comprehensive federal solution. Oklahoma’s approach is like putting a band-aid on a severed hand. It can’t begin to deal with the underlying reason for illegal immigration: poor economic conditions in Mexico, Central America and elsewhere. It can’t secure America’s borders from a steady stream of immigrants desperate for hope, for a better way of life.
Even business leaders are worried about the measure’s effect on the Oklahoma economy. What happens if many immigrants pack up and move elsewhere? Who’s going to fill thousands of hard-labor positions at hog farms in the remote Panhandle?
This wasn’t even a significant issue for most Oklahomans two years ago. Ambitious politicians beat the drums so loudly and so long that it’s now the No. 2 issue, behind only education. It feeds a deep, ever-present strain of nativism that does Oklahoma anything but proud.
The anti-immigrant stampede is on. The 88 votes in favor were far more than the bill’s author, state Rep. Randy Terrill, R-Moore, predicted before Wednesday’s vote.
Terrill hinted ominously that illegal immigrants may be fleecing state taxpayers out of $1 billion. He touts as fact, figures from the Washington-based Federation for American Immigration Reform that illegal immigrants are costing Oklahoma’s taxpayers more than $200 million – even though a representative of the anti-immigrant group told a House committee last fall that its numbers are estimates of estimates.
There was no mention of new studies in Texas and California that indicate illegal immigrants actually put millions more dollars into public coffers than they take out.
The reality is, most improperly documented immigrants spend their time hiding, trying to avoid detection, hoping to keep paychecks rolling in – not trying to scam the system.
[Most, not all. Yes, there are some bad apples taking advantage of the sieve-like southern border to import all manner of criminal activity. This isn’t going to stop them. They’re chasing American dollars.]
What was even more disheartening Wednesday was the number of state representatives who expressed opposition to – or at least reservation about – the measure, yet ended up voting for it.
Smithson, for one, evidently failed to persuade himself, despite his eloquence. He cast a yes vote.
Another lawmaker, state Rep. Jerry McPeak, D-Warner, a Creek who is active in the House Native American Caucus, reminded his colleagues that “most of the rest of you folks were illegal immigrants. Welcome to our country.”
He at first voted against the measure, but before the final vote was declared, switched in favor.
And Rep. Shane Jett, R-Tecumseh, whose wife is from Brazil and working to secure her citizenship, argued passionately against the bill, noting that it served to legitimize racist groups. He pointed as proof to an Oklahoma Ku Klux Klan web site that trumpeted the measure.
Yet, when it came time to vote, Jett’s desk was clear and he was no longer on the House floor. He didn’t vote on what some lawmakers called the most important legislation this session. After the vote was declared official, Jett could be seen standing in the fifth floor hallway outside the House chamber.
An interesting note: Four of the nine “No” votes were term-limited state representatives who aren’t worried about the next election because they can’t run: Rep. David Braddock, D-Altus; Rep. Darrell Gilbert, D-Tulsa; Rep. Al Lindley, D-Oklahoma City; and Rep. Ray McCarter, D-Marlow.
Others who opposed the bill were Rep. Rebecca Hamilton, Rep. Al McAffrey and Rep. Mike Shelton, all Oklahoma City Democrats; Rep. Bill Nations, D-Norman; and Rep. Paul Roan, D-Tishomingo.
Not surprising, House Republicans voted in lock-step on the issue – even House Speaker Pro Tem Gus Blackwell of Goodwell, whose district is home to significant hog operations that rely heavily on immigrant labor.
The Senate’s immigration reform sponsor, Sen. Kenneth Corn, D-Poteau, says he supports the package in its current form, but is open to possible changes. Don’t count on the Senate, however, to significantly alter the blueprint for a state-sponsored crackdown.
At least one group stands to benefit from the folly: lawyers.
State Rep. Richard Morrissette, D-Oklahoma City, said his firm likely will add lawyers in anticipation of a tsunami of wrongful termination lawsuits if the measure becomes law.
“This,” he said, “is the full attorney employment act.”
Not to mention the Pandering Politicians Publicity Act of 2007.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Sierrans
POSTED BY FROSTY TROY
Bless the Sierra Club. Those combative conservationists have led the fight to keep the Bush Administration and a GOP Congress from further degrading America's environment.
Now the Sierrans are holding the new Democratic majorities in Congress accountable for their promises.
If you think political action doesn't work, here's a brief list of what the Sierra Club (and its allies) were able to accomplish in 2006:
-Big Oil won't drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
-Moratorium stands on new offshore oil and gas leasing.
-Endangered Species Act remains intact.
-No more logging in the Giant Sequoia National Monument.
-California clean car standards now adopted by 11 states.
-Several state efforts to reduce mercury pollution.
-Congressional attack on the Clean Air Act stopped.
-More than 280 cities nationwide signed on to reduce global warming.
Bless the Sierra Club. Those combative conservationists have led the fight to keep the Bush Administration and a GOP Congress from further degrading America's environment.
Now the Sierrans are holding the new Democratic majorities in Congress accountable for their promises.
If you think political action doesn't work, here's a brief list of what the Sierra Club (and its allies) were able to accomplish in 2006:
-Big Oil won't drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
-Moratorium stands on new offshore oil and gas leasing.
-Endangered Species Act remains intact.
-No more logging in the Giant Sequoia National Monument.
-California clean car standards now adopted by 11 states.
-Several state efforts to reduce mercury pollution.
-Congressional attack on the Clean Air Act stopped.
-More than 280 cities nationwide signed on to reduce global warming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)