June 8, 2009
Domestic terrorism to halt abortions?
Political terrorism is defined by prominent political scientists as the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property in order to coerce or intimidate a government or the civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives. This is mainly applied to the violent acts of ‘jihad’ and predominately associated with anti-American sentiment stemming from the Middle East.
However, in recent years ‘domestic terrorism’ has resurged (it had been a popular method of protesting during the morally pious Reagan years); ‘soldiers’ of the morality war in America have rearmed themselves in the wake of an Obama Administration and have begun to assemble in opposition to the impending liberality.
The American population has been mired in economic woes and inundated with troubling news from a two-front war aboard for the better part of a decade now, yet the social and political crusaders continue to wage battle for America’s propriety. The death of American doctors, nurses, health care practitioners, etc, is a wholly unacceptable concept when defending the ‘right to life’ issue.
It should not have to be said that Roe vs. Wade was not simply a symbolic court decision; but it gave every woman the right to choose for herself the path that suits her life. This decision has been diluted and basically rendered meaningless over the past three decades thanks to conservatism in state legislatures who have systematically worked to create obstacles that prevent women in their states from obtaining clinically safe abortions or become at risk for targeted violence due to legislators’ open opposition to the practice of abortion.
This vitriolic passion toward abortion-seekers and providers violates not only the very essential decision of Roe, but also a woman’s basic right to quality of life. Keep in mind, most of these congressional usurpations of judicial/constitutional rights is decided upon by men. And the majority of those who become active domestic terrorists for the cause of abortion have predominately been men, including the most recent attacker of Dr. Tiller (the Fox News proclaimed “baby killer”).
It is time that Americans make up their own minds about what is right and what is wrong instead of attempting to legislate, regulate and enforce morality upon masses that are living in the present ….. Not the past. Americans should know better to fight for life with death; it is an embarrassment to the cause they are advocating for and to the nation in general. When we attempt to control our women and their minds, we become no better than those we find repugnant in other nations who dominate their women via national laws.
June 2, 2009
The End of Days: Republican leadership takes over
The official end of the first session of the 52nd Legislature was certainly anti-climatic following the antics perpetrated by the Republican Leadership on the adopted Sine Die date of May 22. Leaders in both the House, but predominately the Senate broke the public’s faith in the process of compromise and effective government (if they had it to begin with).
The Senate had failed a bill containing the new pet project of the Republican Party; the CIO bill, the language inhabited three separate bills in only a week (SB980, HB1704, HB1170). Instead of accepting that the language had failed to receive the approval necessary to move to the Governor’s desk, a certain Senator held the vote on SB980 open for nearly 5 hours allowing no other business to be conducted. While the President Pro Tempore waved the final action rule in order for the Senate to hear the bill that was gutted and replaced with the CIO language; HB1170 is the final form of the CIO bill and passed the Senate on Tuesday, May 26.
The irony is not lost on many; the Oklahoma Republicans have systematically attacked what they deem as Democratic pet projects/issues, most notably, Autism funding, without batting an eye. However, when a bipartisan vote to fail a bill occurs, they decide to procedurally throw a temper tantrum, hold a legislative session over which costs the taxpayers money; all in effort to ensure that their legacy in the majority was “successful.”
I offer the following statement for thought: how effective is your government/leadership (political affiliation aside) when it finds it not only necessary but imperative to shove a major governmental reform bill through the legislature during the final hour?
What occurred in the final days of session in the Oklahoma Legislature stands as a clear example of the abuses of procedure and leadership in order to achieve a political end. It will take awhile before we can judge whether or not the end justified the means of obtaining this potential new law, but something tells me the way in which the bill was passed that it could be very dangerous for the people of Oklahoma.
April 22, 2009
Budgeting: The Great American Process
As ‘budgeting season’ descends upon the Oklahoma State Capitol, let’s step back and evaluate the budgeting process in American politics. Pay particular attention to the in-fighting associated with the modern budgeting process.
Budgetary politics is the foundation of contemporary American governance with vested interest in the funding of discretionary as well entitlement programs that the populace relies upon. Although it has been through various stages of policy development and enactment, budgetary politics and the response by the citizenry in America has always been directly related to the political events in which the U.S. is involved.
There have been many attempts to restructure and reform the process of budgeting in American politics. Throughout our nation’s history there have only been a handful of budgeting policies that have seemingly reflected the domestic/public opinion, the political makeup of the legislature versus the executive and the events that America is linked to at the time. Power-shifting has defined the struggle to create comprehensive budgetary policy; from the Congress to the executive branch, to the newly adapted Obama strategy that involves the grassroots level of citizen-lobbying efforts to push stimulus plans through. The role that policy and the process play in budgeting continuously shifts depending on the political ‘place’ in which America finds itself.
Throughout this era in budgeting, the U.S. has seen many political maladies that have led to the attempted reformation of the process. The “Stalemate era” is characterized by the political factions that play budgeting as a game of Tit –for – Tat taxation and non-taxation; once the democrats began insisting (post 9/11) on passing legislation that assisted the unemployed, including health insurance. This idea was matched by the Republican plan to give tax credits to those who could not find employment (although welfare is certainly not a Republican-supported doctrine).
There have been many factors that have led to this stalled era in American budgeting; the rise of the “two Americas” and divided party governance. The executive branch has dominated by the Republican Party during the majority of the “Stalemate era” and has cultivated a brand of fiscal policy that is driven predominately by cronyism. There was also a large shift (since the mid-1960s) in who benefits from the budget and from where the money is raised to fund programs. There has been an increase in funding to entitlement programs and individuals in the form of social welfare which comes at the expense of another program. The real issue is not balancing the budget but budgeting the nation’s wealth; how and what to spend produces political infighting that is associated with contemporary budget agreements.
The budgeting process that the U.S. adheres to now is a culmination of economic forecasting and “new public management” ideals. There are limits to discretionary spending programs; this is accomplished by dividing discretionary spending into three categories: military/defense, international and domestic programs. This breakdown helps determine where and how much of the budget is going toward mandatory government programs. The “pay-as-you-go” mentality became common practice in the late 1980s through the 2001 period for mandatory spending programs; post-September 11, 2001 “pay-as-you-go” fell to the wayside.
Economic forecasting has become an essential tenant in the process of budgeting over the last three decades; when policy makers attempt to weigh all national and U.S. interests abroad while deciding what programs to fund and which to cut. Budget leaders, appropriation/finance committee chairs along with the executive branch began to consider economic instability (high unemployment, recessions, the global economy, disasters). Anticipating the nation’s debt and its expenditures before a fiscal year has become far more important to decision-makers struggling to gain control over the budget.
Budgetary politics is the foundation of contemporary American governance with vested interest in the funding of discretionary as well entitlement programs that the populace relies upon. Although it has been through various stages of policy development and enactment, budgetary politics and the response by the citizenry in America has always been directly related to the political events in which the U.S. is involved.
There have been many attempts to restructure and reform the process of budgeting in American politics. Throughout our nation’s history there have only been a handful of budgeting policies that have seemingly reflected the domestic/public opinion, the political makeup of the legislature versus the executive and the events that America is linked to at the time. Power-shifting has defined the struggle to create comprehensive budgetary policy; from the Congress to the executive branch, to the newly adapted Obama strategy that involves the grassroots level of citizen-lobbying efforts to push stimulus plans through. The role that policy and the process play in budgeting continuously shifts depending on the political ‘place’ in which America finds itself.
Throughout this era in budgeting, the U.S. has seen many political maladies that have led to the attempted reformation of the process. The “Stalemate era” is characterized by the political factions that play budgeting as a game of Tit –for – Tat taxation and non-taxation; once the democrats began insisting (post 9/11) on passing legislation that assisted the unemployed, including health insurance. This idea was matched by the Republican plan to give tax credits to those who could not find employment (although welfare is certainly not a Republican-supported doctrine).
There have been many factors that have led to this stalled era in American budgeting; the rise of the “two Americas” and divided party governance. The executive branch has dominated by the Republican Party during the majority of the “Stalemate era” and has cultivated a brand of fiscal policy that is driven predominately by cronyism. There was also a large shift (since the mid-1960s) in who benefits from the budget and from where the money is raised to fund programs. There has been an increase in funding to entitlement programs and individuals in the form of social welfare which comes at the expense of another program. The real issue is not balancing the budget but budgeting the nation’s wealth; how and what to spend produces political infighting that is associated with contemporary budget agreements.
The budgeting process that the U.S. adheres to now is a culmination of economic forecasting and “new public management” ideals. There are limits to discretionary spending programs; this is accomplished by dividing discretionary spending into three categories: military/defense, international and domestic programs. This breakdown helps determine where and how much of the budget is going toward mandatory government programs. The “pay-as-you-go” mentality became common practice in the late 1980s through the 2001 period for mandatory spending programs; post-September 11, 2001 “pay-as-you-go” fell to the wayside.
Economic forecasting has become an essential tenant in the process of budgeting over the last three decades; when policy makers attempt to weigh all national and U.S. interests abroad while deciding what programs to fund and which to cut. Budget leaders, appropriation/finance committee chairs along with the executive branch began to consider economic instability (high unemployment, recessions, the global economy, disasters). Anticipating the nation’s debt and its expenditures before a fiscal year has become far more important to decision-makers struggling to gain control over the budget.
February 2, 2009
House Republicans Respond to Obama Stimulus Plan
Ever the patriotic lot, the Oklahoma House Republicans are already hard at work stimulating the nation’s economy. The retail sector has been hard hit by the economic downturn. Circuit City has blown a circuit. Other national retail chains are laying people off or flirting with bankruptcy. But the conservative leaders of the legislature’s lower chamber are buying high dollar flat screen televisions like lobbyists used to buy lunch.
Apparently wanting to either support the President or beat him to the punch the Speaker has authorized the use of thousands of taxpayer dollars to purchase flat screen monitors. These monitors will have the dual use of economic stimulus and to clearly see in high definition excellence the red ink in this year’s budget.
The main 412 A, B, and C meeting rooms are awash in high definition flat screen electronics as is the appropriations room. A portable unit is available in meeting room 108.
The purpose of the new screens according to House Officials is to better display committee votes and to provide for presentations of important information to committees. Despite the new electronic gadgetry the screens were not available for presenting the recent historic inauguration ceremonies from Washington D.C. Other, older electronic devices picked up the proceedings just fine. Maybe the new devices don’t pick up the old Democratic analog signals.
It will be interesting to see how the first Republican legislature in state history responds to the estimated $2.5 billion dollars in Federal stimulus the Obama administration may send our way. Expect to see those dollars start showing up in this current fiscal year and for Oklahoma to continue to receive stimulus for the next 18 to 24 months. Funds will be targeted primarily for education; health and transportation but expect smaller amounts for energy and environment and for welfare.
The Medicaid portion of these funds will be vital in keeping many struggling Oklahoma rural hospitals afloat. U.S. Senators Inhofe and Coburn have expressed misgivings over the package and will probably vote against it in the Senate. Our U.S. House Republicans have already said they don’t want the money. It is a good bet they will want to have a say in how it is spent however. It looks like much of the stimulus package may go directly to Democratic Governor Brad Henry. The Governor may get to decide where more than 1/3 of the funding goes without consulting legislative leaders or congressional delegations.
New President Pro Tempore Glen Coffee is also trying his best to help President Obama. Coffee praised Obama for saying he wants to strengthen government transparency and accountability. Coffee wants to do the same thing at the state level – and he wants to do it the old fashioned Democratic way too. Coffee wants to create a new agency. This will set up a battle with Governor Henry who has not been keen on expanding the state bureaucracy while cutting state budgets.
This will be just one more area that Coffee and Henry will but heads. Henry will no doubt want to keep commitments to early childhood education, K-12 education and research proposals such as EDGE in his budget. Coffee will likely want to divert funds to public safety, corrections and perhaps even more tax cuts. This will be in addition to his drive to enact tort reform and workers compensation reform.
January 10, 2009
No shirt, no shoes, legislate!
Amidst all the debate on the Senate floor Tuesday concerning the Republicans’ new rules, senators and the media missed the real story: Male senators gotta’ wear pants!
For at least two years, 2007 and 2008, it appears that wasn’t the case. To their credit, when the new Republican majority rolled out their new rules they presented them like a bill, complete with underlined new language and stricken language from the last legislature’s rules. That made it easy to see what was added and what was taken away.
Under the previous session’s Code of Conduct and Standards for Member of the Senate and Staff, male members were required to wear “(C)oat and tie” in the chambers during sessions of the Senate. Female members were required to don “appropriate attire.” There was no mention of “slacks and trousers” for the men in last session’s rules.
Thankfully, that language was added in the new rules. Ironically, Democrats voted as a group against the new rules. In political parlance where every vote shows you’re either for or against something, it would appear the Republicans can hit the stump and claim Democrats are against pants.
But Democrats may want to seize on what was missing in the new rules in their own stump speeches. Republicans, apparently, believe it is appropriate to debate the merits of tax cuts, tort reform or education funding sans shirt and shoes, which are not required by the recently-passed rules. As long as male members throw on a tie, coat and some slacks or trousers, they’re good to go legislate.
And if that’s the case for the guys, just what is “appropriate attire” for the ladies?
Some have suggested that this legislative session could be particularly interesting. If they only knew!
December 15, 2008
A Civics Lesson
Did you know when you voted on November 4 in the Presidential election you were not really voting for Barak Obama or John McCain, but for their party electors who are pledged, but do not always, cast their vote for the candidate who won the most votes in their state when they meet to officially nominate their party candidate to be our next President?
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its U.S. senators (2 in each state) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives which varies according to the state's population (determined by the census taken every 10 years) and 3 for Washington, D.C. , as allowed by the 23rd Amendment to our Constitution ratified on March 29, 1961. Washington, D.C. is not recognized as a State and does not have Representatives in the U.S. House or Senate. There are a total of 538 Electoral College members. Oklahoma has seven electoral votes.
Like the President and members of Congress, Electoral College members are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Most of the time, electors cast their votes for the candidate who has received the most votes in that particular state. However, there have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people's decision, which is entirely legal.
A faithless elector is one who casts an electoral vote for someone other than whom they have pledged to elect. On 158 occasions, electors have cast their votes for president or vice president in a different manner than that prescribed by the legislature of the state they represent.
Of those, 71 votes were changed because the original candidate died before the elector was able to cast a vote. Two votes were not cast at all when electors chose to abstain from casting their electoral vote for any candidate. The remaining 85 were changed by the elector's personal interest or perhaps by accident. Usually, the faithless electors act alone.
By law, on the Monday following the second Wednesday in December, the electors of each state meet in their respective state capitals to officially cast their votes for president and vice president. These votes are then sealed and sent to the president of the Senate, who on the first day of the new Congress, opens and reads the votes in the presence of both houses of Congress elected at the same time as the President.
This year electors will meet on Monday December 15, 2008 and the votes will be opened and counted by Vice President Cheney on January 6, 2009. The winner will be sworn into office at noon January 20, 2009.
If a candidate fails to receive a majority of the electoral votes (270) the House of Representatives will choose a President and the Senate will choose a vice president.
Members of Congress can object to any state's vote count, provided that the objection is supported by at least one member of each house of Congress. A successful objection will be followed by debate; however, objections to the electoral vote count are rarely raised.
WE THE PEOPLE are witnessing a historical time in our Nation. I hope all are paying attention and giving more than a passing glance to these events. Your grandchildren may ask you about them someday.