Blue Oklahoma - Front Page

After The Tornado

DocHoc — Wed, 22 May 2013 15:32:38 GMT

There are arguments to be made about how we, as Oklahomans, might better prepare for deadly tornadoes like the one that ripped through Moore and Oklahoma City Monday, killing 24 people, injuring more than 300 and destroying hundreds of homes.

But, for now, what seems overwhelmingly important is the grief and mourning most of us in this area feel about those who died and who lost their homes. We're mostly numb here in this place. Those of us, like myself and family, who are safe and sound, homes intact, can only imagine the real pain hundreds if not thousands of people are feeling now, especially the parents of those children who died at Plaza Towers Elementary School in Moore.
The images on the television, the newspaper photographs, haunt us, make most of us feel discombobulated and, if possible, less secure here in a place where suddenly a tornado drops from the sky and grows, like something in a science fiction film, into a debris-wrapped killer that turns a typical American suburb into a war zone. Where I watched the tornado hit on television only 20 minutes away, it was calm, with the sun peeking in and out of clouds.

This is our home, for better or worse, and it has been seriously violated as it has been before and will be again. It seems too much for words right now, but they will come as we process our grief.

What strikes me, though, against the terrible sadness is the human redemption we witnessed among the children who bravely dealt with the tornado's destruction at their schools, their courageous teachers and, of course, the area's first responders. They prove our humanity and can keep us going in this dark time in the Oklahoma City area.

What's clear is that teachers covered their students with their bodies as destruction struck. Children hung tight and survived. First responders, both firefighters and law enforcement officers, dug them out from the rubble.

The community, as usual, later responded to help in droves literally by the thousands.

I mostly write about Oklahoma politics here. There is much to say about how, in general, teachers and some first responders are currently at odds with the present state government in terms of pay, benefits and appreciation, but that's for another day. Suffice it to say, we take them for granted at the expense of our larger community.

Moore, Oklahoma City and the state will get through this, but let's hope we learn a lot, too, and we come to better appreciate some of our real culture's heroes, teachers and first responders. Let's listen better to our children, as well, and love them even more.

Anti--Abortion Measure Harasses and Intimidates

DocHoc — Mon, 20 May 2013 17:36:32 GMT

Last week, Gov. Mary Fallin signed a bill that should have anyone who cares about equal rights here take a deep breath and consider just how far the GOP will go in its continued war against women's reproductive freedoms.

The bill, House Bill 2015, adds to the absurd and intimidating morass of reporting and paperwork physicians and patients must now complete whenever there is an abortion procedure. Alone that should be enough to significantly bother anyone who believes in women's reproductive freedom, which is the major cornerstone of gender equality.
But the bill also added a new provision that would actually allow taxpayers, whether they are involved in a specific abortion or not, to sue doctors if they believe they are not meeting the requirements of the reporting law. Although this new provision seems entirely unconstitutional, it does have the potential to further intimidate physicians who perform abortions here.

The bill passed 79-15, with seven excused in the House, and 39-7, with two excused in the Senate. Its principal sponsors were state Rep. Sean Roberts, a Hominy Republican and state Sen. Kyle Loveless, an Oklahoma City Republican. The overwhelming vote majorities show the state legislature for the foreseeable future will continue to hassle abortion providers and their patients in a quest to end legalize abortion, which would have to happen by an unlikely U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

According to one media report, Fallin and the bill's principal sponsors said the bill was needed to ensure doctors were complying with the law, but the added reporting requirements and making an lawsuit option available to people-let's face it-who are simply opposed to abortion and will do about anything to stop it obviously make it a legal measure of intimidation and harassment.

Here is some of the language of the new reporting requirements in the bill:

Were the remains of the fetus after the abortion examined to ensure that all such remains were evacuated from the mother's body?
If the remains of the fetus were examined after the abortion, what was the sex of the child, as determined from such examination?
. . .
Prior to the pregnant woman giving informed consent to
having any part of the abortion performed or induced, if the
pregnancy was at least eight (8) weeks after fertilization, was the pregnant woman told that it may be possible to make the embryonic or fetal heartbeat of the unborn child audible for the pregnant woman to hear?

Note the old anti-abortion tropes that somehow women are getting abortions because of the sex of the fetus, which is a myth in this country, and the standard implication that hearing a fetal heartbeat SHOULD be some moral litmus test when it comes to abortion. Again, women should have the right to a private, non-intimating abortion procedure and physicians should be allowed to perform the procedure under accepted medical guidelines without the intrusion of anti-abortion dogma.

Here's the language concerning the taxpayer lawsuit option in the bill:

If an abortion provider fails to submit any report required pursuant to Section 1-738k of this title, upon the refusal, failure or neglect of the State Commissioner of Health, within twenty (20) days after written demand signed, verified and served upon the State Department of Health by at least ten registered voters of the state, to institute or diligently prosecute proper proceedings at law or in equity to compel an abortion provider to submit any report required pursuant to Section 1-738k of this title but not yet submitted to the State Department of Health, any resident taxpayer of the state after serving the notice aforesaid may in the name of the State of Oklahoma as plaintiff, institute and maintain any proper action which the State Department of Health might institute and maintain to compel the abortion provider to file such report. If a court of competent jurisdiction determines the claims to be meritorious, the abortionist shall be compelled to file the report and to pay the fee(s) prescribed in subsection B of this section, with costs and reasonable attorney fees. If all claims stated by the resident taxpayers in the written demand are determined in a court of competent jurisdiction to be frivolous and brought in bad faith, the resident taxpayers who signed such demand and who are parties to the lawsuit in which such claims are determined to be frivolous and brought in bad faith shall be jointly and severally liable for all reasonable attorney fees and court costs incurred by the abortionist.

Beyond the excruciatingly awful legalese of this passage, note that the taxpayer who brings the suit may do so "in the name of the state of Oklahoma as plaintiff." Note also the use of the word "abortionist" to refer to a physicians who perform the abortion procedure. Obviously, the bill is actively trying to encourage such lawsuits against "abortionists," but without any legal standing or personal damage how could such a plaintiff really make a claim?

Can you imagine a legal system in which virtually anyone could file a lawsuit against you in the name of the state in which you live because they disagree with you on a political issue? If this provision is upheld, then the door is wide open to this sort of legal abuse and political intimidation.

Oklahoma has passed several anti-abortion laws in recent years that have made it more of a hassle to get the procedure performed here. This is because the state government is dominated by right-wing, religious folks who have supposedly made stopping abortion a priority. But the GOP, with the help of some Democrats, has also made it a visceral, wedge issue to manipulate religious Christian fundamentalists into voting against their financial interests. That political strategy has continued to be effective here, but make no mistake that the social costs here and the damage to the state's national image have been high.

Intrinsic to gender equality is the idea that women control their own bodies and make their own decisions about their bodies. If women lose that right here, and such control is given to the state, then women will lose even more rights in the future, such as access to birth control and even beyond that. That a female governor signed this terrible bill into law should be an affront to all the state's women, but, tragically, that won't be the case. The wake-up call has yet to be heard, but it will come someday.

Inhofe, Lankford Disregard Environmental Concerns

DocHoc — Fri, 17 May 2013 21:34:47 GMT

I think it's fair to say that at least some members of the Oklahoma Congressional delegation and the corporate power structure here are waging a carefully constructed rhetorical war against the environment.

The principal ammunition is money given by the oil and gas industry in campaign contributions to politicians, such as Republicans U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe and U.S. Rep. James Lankford, who represents Oklahoma's Fifth Congressional District. The principal tactics-or to put it another way, what that money buys-are relentless science denial, linguistic subterfuge and reductionist sloganeering.

The victim, of course, is the environment. Our planet faces the major threat of global warming caused by man-made carbon emissions. By supporting the interests of the oil and gas industry above environmental protection, politicians like Inhofe and Lankford, the corporate energy sector here and their mouthpiece, The Oklahoman, have not only positioned themselves on the wrong side of history but have also sold out the future of the planet for money and power.
Take just this week. On Wednesday, Inhofe announced he, along with other senators, have introduced a legislative plan for a "full global embargo against Iranian oil" that also includes a requirement that the federal government open up more of its land for energy production. Of course, as even Inhofe concedes in a press release, the United States doesn't import any oil from Iran, but that doesn't matter because the new production of oil by big corporations on federal lands would somehow help those countries who do import oil from Iran. All this will result in the "defeat" of Iran, according to Inhofe, which is a somewhat fantastical concept in itself.

Of course, traditional drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, on federal lands will also damage the environment and only exacerbate the real problem of climate change through the burning of fossil fuels, but, as we know, Inhofe doesn't buy into the science of global warming and calls it all a hoax.

On Friday, Inhofe also issued a statement arguing that the Department of Interior needs to back off any re-proposals of rules over fracking on federal lands, which are going to provide the oil needed to defeat Iran. In the statement, Inhofe makes the claim that "over one million wells have been fracked and there has not been a single confirmed case of groundwater contamination in that time." It's not surprising that argument has been refuted. (Click here as well.) Fracking has also been related to earthquakes here in Oklahoma and elsewhere.

It's also not surprising that Inhofe doesn't mention in his press releases that he has received at least $550,950 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry since 2007.

Inhofe's ties to the oil and gas industry through campaign funding ultimately result in an assault on the environment as he does the bidding of big energy companies.

One of his anti-environment colleagues in Washington, Lankford, does the same type of bidding. Lankford received $160,350 in campaign money from the oil and gas industry in the 2011-2012 campaign cycle. What does that amount of campaign money get the oil and gas industry?

On Thursday, Lankford criticized the federal government during a hearing for not expediting drilling permits on federal land. He has argued that new rules related to fracking are not needed for drilling on federal lands because apparently states do such a good job regulating the oil and gas industry. The Oklahoman, of course, extensively covered Lankford's predictable remarks.

To round out the week, the newspaper, which is a propaganda mouthpiece for Inhofe, Lankford and all of Oklahoma City's large energy companies, such as Devon, Chesapeake, Sandridge and Continental Resources, published an editorial Friday mocking protesters of the Keystone XL pipeline currently under construction in the state.

The editorial focused on one quote by a protester, who was arrested at a construction site, and the editorial made the sophomoric argument once again that people who fight for the environment most likely also use cars fueled by gasoline and thus have some type of conflict of interest that renders their arguments invalid.

The real conflict of interest is that the newspaper is owned by Philip Anschutz, a Colorado billionaire, who became rich drilling for fossil fuels, and that the newspaper conveniently never allows consistent, dissenting views to its one-sided, conservative myopia when it comes to the environmental destruction. Has Oklahoma become the epicenter of an anti-environment campaign waged by corporate interests for short-term profits?

Take Cover, Oklahoma! Here Come All Those Businesses

DocHoc — Wed, 15 May 2013 17:43:19 GMT

Oklahoma politics has long seemed incredulous under Republican dominance, but it reached a new level of weirdness early this week.

On Monday, Gov. Mary Fallin signed her highly-touted tax cut into law amid the usual GOP rhetoric about people keeping their "hard earned" money and joyful predictions of a stampede of new businesses and skilled workers soon to flood the state. This is just GOP code for what the bill really does, which is this: It rewards the wealthiest Oklahomans with a tax cut through an irresponsible decrease in state revenue.

Also, on Monday, Fallin signed a measure into law that raises fees for driver's licenses by $12 making it all a net financial decrease for many of the approximately 40 percent of Oklahomans who won't even qualify for the tax cut. Under the law, the top income tax rate would drop from 5.25 percent in 2015 and then to 4.85 percent in 2016 if there are available revenues to cover the cut.
Meanwhile, an Oklahoma City attorney, Jerry Fent, has announced he plans to sue the state over the tax cut measure, House Bill 2032, because he argues it contains more than one subject, which is unconstitutional in Oklahoma. The bill provides for the tax cut and $120 million in repairs to the state Capitol building. This could be considered log rolling, a political technique used to sway legislators to vote on a bill even though they stand against one component of it.

So let's get this straight: Fallin and GOP leaders are making hoopla over a tax cut that doesn't even give a break to some 40 percent of Oklahomans and might not even go into effect anyway because of a lawsuit. The hike in the basic driver's license fee and other licenses' fees under Senate Bill 652 would mean thousands of Oklahomans are actually paying more, not less, to the state.

But that basic reality didn't stop the GOP propaganda machine, which was in full throttle Monday. Here's Fallin in a press release issued by her office about the tax-cut bill signing:

One of the first questions I get when I am talking to business owners throughout the country is, 'if I come to Oklahoma, are you going to raise my taxes?' Passing a significant and responsible tax cut will help us to recruit these businesses and retain the ones we already have. Our tax cut will ultimately lead to more job opportunities for all Oklahomans.

Is that really one of the first questions she gets from business owners? Does the state even need businesses that are owned by people fixated on getting out of paying taxes?

Fallin called the tax cut "responsible" in her remarks, but the responsible approach would have been to delay a cut until the economy has fully recovered and then, with interest rates at historic lows, authorize a bond interest to fix the state Capitol building.

House Speaker T.W. Shannon, a Lawton Republican, had his say, too.

The way you grow an economy is by letting hard working people keep more of their hard earned money. Oklahoma has proven this conservative principle to be true over the past 15 years. By lowering the income tax rate, we are attracting skilled and educated workers to our state and making Oklahoma a leader in business and economic growth.

What is Shannon talking about when he refers to the past 15 years? Prior tax cuts that mean the state remains dead last on a regional basis in per pupil funding and has some of the nation's worst medical outcomes? The state's new-age dependency on the federal government for its sustenance and viability? The fact state workers haven't had an across-the-board raise in six years? What we do know for sure is that the Great Recession beginning in 2008 devastated state revenues, the state has not fully recovered and education funding has taken the brunt of the hit. That's not disputable, and that's five of Shannon's 15 glory years right there.

The average tax cut per person is $81 annually, but it would collectively cost the state budget $136 million in 2015 and then more than $230 million in 2016 if that year's tax cut does take effect, according to estimates. The $81 average is a bit misleading. The bulk of the cut goes to the wealthiest Oklahomans, who will see an average cut of $2,031 annually, according to the Oklahoma Policy Institute. OK Policy estimates 41 percent of Oklahomans won't get any break, people with incomes from $19,500 to $36,400 would only get a $9 reduction annually, and, overall, the bottom 60 percent of income earners will receive only 9 percent of the cut.

But don't think the GOP isn't thinking about the poverty-stricken here. On Monday, Shannon also announced that Fallin had signed into law his House Bill 1908, which uses money from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families funds to pay for a public service campaign promoting marriage. In other words, the GOP is taking money away from a program that helps impoverished people to tell them they need to get married.

So the class warfare waged by Republicans here continues.

Uncool Conclusions

DocHoc — Mon, 13 May 2013 14:38:21 GMT

It's only fitting that as an editorial in The Oklahoman pointed out that Oklahoma's cool weather in April was "news that a climate change zealot won't want to hear," scientists were reporting the average daily level of carbon dioxide in the air in the world was at its highest level in three million years.

Carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping gas, and its growing levels in the atmosphere have been blamed for global warming and climate change.

In a May 10 editorial brief titled "Cool to conclusions" in its weekly Scissors Tale column, The Oklahoman reported the rather unremarkable news that last month was the seventh coolest recorded April in the state's history dating back to 1895.
"We won't extrapolate from this data to support a conclusion that global warming is over or that this will be one of the coolest summers on record," the editorial claims, and then goes on to criticize anyone who brings up the recent temperature record breaking summers as evidence of global warming.

"It would be nice if the zealots wouldn't leap to conclusions based on those summers," according to the commentary, "or last year's Superstorm Sandy or any other weather phenomenon that's cashed in like a lottery ticket to score a political point."

So, in essence, the editorial IS using a particular weather event to criticize those concerned about climate change, which is the same thing as using a weather event as evidence to argue global warming is simply a mythology embraced by, to use its own word, "zealots." The editorial does exactly what it says it won't do, which makes its writer as much as a zealot as anyone else.

The disingenuous rhetoric comes with a heaping dose of faulty logic. The seventh coolest April in one state hardly compares with the fact that 2012 was the warmest year on record for the contiguous United States or the fact the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently reported that ocean surface temperatures last year off the Northeast coast in this country were the highest in 150 years.

The editorial also doesn't refer to the actual math of global warming, which can be viewed in these charts from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Two other subjects The Oklahoman will always omit from any discussion of climate change is the fact the world's best known global warming denier, its own home-state darling U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, has received at least $550,000 in campaign funding from oil and gas companies since 2007 and the fact the newspaper itself is currently owned by Philip Anschutz, a Colorado billionaire, who became rich decades ago by drilling for fossil fuels.

All the omissions and faulty logic come just as scientists reported that the average daily carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere is now at 400 parts per million, the highest in at least three million years. The measurements come from scientific instruments in Hawaii and have been compared to carbon dioxide levels in trapped air bubbles in ancient Antarctic ice.

According to a New York Times article, scientists didn't mince words about the significance of the finding. "It feels like the inevitable march toward disaster," one scientist said. The impact of carbon emissions on the climate continues to be one of the planet's largest problems.

So let's be clear: Global warming is a scientific issue and fact, not a bipartisan debate, and no one weather event can determine much of anything. Long-term climate patterns, which now include a series of unusual weather events through the years, high carbon dioxide levels in the air, warming sea temperatures and melting Arctic ice indicate we face a problem. The Oklahoman does a great disservice to its readers and the broader community here in its discussions of global warming when it simply engages in rhetorical hyperbole by calling people zealots, making false comparisons and omitting crucial information about conflicts of interest.

GOP Offers Rhetoric But No Raises For State Workers

DocHoc — Fri, 10 May 2013 18:34:05 GMT

The continued lack of anything close to adequate funding for public education is one of the major disappointments of the Republican state budget proposal currently making its way through the legislature, but one of its glaring omissions is a big letdown as well.

The budget contains no raise for the state's some 34,000 employees, who haven't seen an overall, across-the-board salary increase since 2006 when Brad Henry was governor.

Some agencies have found money for raises in that time period, and Oklahoma Highway Patrol Troopers and some other law enforcements agencies may still be hoping for a raise this session, but it's clear that the bulk of state employees, with some exceptions, are clearly unappreciated by the Republican-dominated political leadership.
That this has created a morale problem is a huge understatement. I know several state workers, and, though this is anecdotal, most of them believe the current political milieu at the Capitol is hostile and demeaning when it comes to their concerns. These state employees do some of the most important and demanding work in our culture for low pay within underfunded systems, and they get treated with disrespect and suspicion by the GOP leadership.

Gov. Mary Fallin has set the tone by dismissing the idea of a simple cost-of-living raise and instead calling for a study that would compare state employee salaries with salaries in the private sector with the goal of eventually creating a performance-based system for raises and adjustments. In other words, the state will spend $200,000 for what will probably be a biased report that will somehow incredibly show state employees are overpaid.

How can you compare the salary of a child welfare social worker in the field with anyone else's salary in the private sector?

The hostility is also apparent in the GOP rhetoric of "right-sizing" government and in its efforts to cut taxes for the state's wealthy while downplaying commitments to provide basic state services and adequate education funding.

Much of this hostility, which is happening in other Republican-dominated state governments as well, can be seen ultimately as a backlash against the nation's first African American president and carries racist overtones. Unfortunately, Republicans on the national level have also stalemated Congress and in the process have denied President Barack Obama and Democrats any chance of providing more stimulus money to the states.

The national political tension and the Republican-dominance of state government here mean state employees must go years without cost-of-living raises while working in overly demanding situations. They forge on because for many state employees their job is a calling, a way to make a meaningful contribution to the culture here in Oklahoma.

Let's be clear: State employees deserve raises, not a study.

Oklahoma Workplace Injuries Tell The 'Other' Story

DocHoc — Wed, 08 May 2013 18:27:51 GMT

I'm surprised Gov. Mary Fallin and other Republican leaders didn't hold a big ceremony Monday as the governor signed the new workers' compensation "reform" bill into law.

After all, the GOP has touted for weeks how Senate Bill 1062, the measure changing the state's workers compensation system, is "historic" and, as with just about every other legislation Republicans pass, is sure to bring a stampede of regulation-escaping businesses here.

Instead, Fallin issued a short press release with the usual dose of Republican mythology. "This is an important pro-growth policy," Fallin mentioned, "that will help us attract jobs and build a stronger and more prosperous Oklahoma." We'll all live happily ever after, right?
What the press release doesn't mention, of course, are the recently released statistics about the state's workers either killed or injured on the job in 2011. The numbers, which I will get to later, aren't good. The new workers' compensation bill, of course, includes nothing significant to promote workplace safety as it reduces benefits for workers.

It seems to me that a civilized society would be more focused on preventing job-related injuries and deaths than making it easier for companies to escape their responsibility for maintaining unsafe work environments. Safer workplaces here and elsewhere would bring down costs for everyone, including businesses.

Workers' compensation is a process by which injured workers are compensated for medical costs and lost work time. The process can vary state-to-state.

SB 1062 changes the Oklahoma workers' compensation process from a judicial process to an administrative process. It allows companies to opt out of the system entirely if they provide their own benefits for injured workers. It also reduces maximum benefits for temporarily and completely disabled workers from 100 percent to 70 percent of the state average weekly wages. Injured workers who make less than the weekly average will, of course, only get 70 percent of their own wages, not the state average. The highest amount a temporarily disabled worker can receive under the new system has gone down from $771 to $539.70.

Changing the system to a supposedly less adversarial administrative process will bring Oklahoma in line with most states, but it's difficult to see it as a panacea. The opt-out measure could be hard to enforce for compliance and open the doors for businesses to provide only minimum coverage, which was set at a $2 million policy with medical costs capped at $500,000. The reduction in benefits is simply that, a reduction in benefits for workers who are seriously injured on the job.

All of this is supposedly going to reduce workers' compensation insurance costs for businesses here. If it does, and that remains to be seen, it will be at the expense of workers. It's simply impossible to see it otherwise. That the system here needed streamlining or structural changes is one thing, and such changes can be argued, but allowing companies to opt out of the main system and actually reducing the amount of money a seriously injured worker can receive are not so arguable for what they signify. These two changes are clearly designed to help companies at the expense of workers, some of whom do extremely dangerous jobs day after day.

Dangerous work coupled with unsafe work environments leads to deaths and injuries. In Oklahoma, 86 people were killed on the job in 2011, the last year for which statistics are available, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. That's a rate of 5.5 percent for every 100,000 workers, which is higher than the national rate of 3.5 percent. In addition, 40,600 Oklahoma workers were injured on the job in 2011, the organization reports. Nationally, 4,693 workers were killed on the job in 2011, the department reports. These numbers here and across the country have been fairly stagnant since 2008.

The AFL-CIO argues that a main reason for the bleak numbers here and elsewhere is because the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) can't perform needed workplace inspections because of its inadequate funding and low staff levels. Oklahoma doesn't have a state OSHA program, but the AFL-CIO point applies here as well.

Performing workplace inspections and eliminating job-related deaths and injuries in Oklahoma should be just as an important issue as trying to help corporations reduce costs related to safety issues. That's not going to happen in Oklahoma anytime soon under its Republican-dominated government, and so the tragedy continues.

The Inhofe Way: Sarcasm, Not Science

DocHoc — Mon, 06 May 2013 22:23:48 GMT

It was only a matter of time because of the recent cool temperatures here in Oklahoma, but U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, the world's most infamous global-warming science denier, has now weighed in on the issue with a typical dose of snark.

Last week, Inhofe issued a press statement titled, "Global Warming Alarmists Should Send Some of Their Hot Air to Warm Up Oklahoma," that, as the title indicates, essentially argues that the abnormal, cooler temperatures in the state are proof that climate change is, well, simply "hot air."

The argument is obviously nothing new for Inhofe, and, to his credit, he even referred to his "climate awareness friends" in the release. Good natured fun, right? Well, it's only fun until you realize that Inhofe has cherry picked the science and used cold weather events throughout his career to argue there is some type of left-wing conspiracy among scientists to bring down the fossil-fuel industry.
The real alarmist, of course, is Inhofe himself, who has pretty much based his entire Senate career on fighting a straw man he pretty much created single handedly. That fictional straw man is the mad, leftist scientist who wants an immediate end to the use of fossil fuels in the world and, in a diabolical and secret quest, will lie and cheat and hurt people, especially those executives at oil and gas companies.

The short press release, published Friday, doesn't mention that Inhofe from 2007 to 2012 has collected $550,950 in campaign funding from oil and gas companies, but it does mention how "our job-creating energy sector is being attacked." That says much about Inhofe's credibility.

So, once again, for the record: Global warming is happening, and it's real. Variations in temperatures from one year to the next don't matter nearly as much as long-term patterns. Look at these charts dating various temperature averages from 1880 to 2012 from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The planetary air temperature is also just one factor. For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently reported that ocean surface temperatures last year were the highest in 150 years.

As one climate-change scientist, Peter Gleick, has noted many global warmer deniers, such as Inhofe, engage in deceptions and falsehoods. In February, 2012, Gleick wrote:

These statements are scurrilous deceptions and falsehoods. The planet is warming - an observation noted by every climate research institution tracking temperatures, the US National Academy of Sciences (over and over and over), every other national academy of sciences on the planet, and every professional society in the geosciences.

Another recurring issue is Inhofe's straw man. There are certainly environmental activists that engage in what some in the country might view as extreme acts, but the vast majority of people who argue for a reduction in the use of fossil fuels and carbon emissions are just regular people who drive cars and fly in airplanes and want to do the right thing. In fact, most of us are not alarmist enough over the issue, especially given the simple fact that the planet one day could be sucked dry of fossil fuels. What happens then? Renewable energy sources ultimately equal sustaining life.

We also don't receive money in campaign contributions like Inhofe to gain power to express a particular point of view. Just that conflict alone should render Inhofe's arguments biased and not worthy of consideration, but the corporate media here gives him a pass on that major conflict of interest.

Primarily, Inhofe can engage in his snarky ways because he's supported by one of the most conservative newspapers in the world, The Oklahoman, which is owned by Colorado billionaire Philip Anschutz, an oil and gas magnate.

A recent editorial in The Oklahoman was highly critical of what it called "anti-fossil fuel forces," who have predicted a "global warming apocalypse" that has now supposedly come under scrutiny. The editorial is filled with straw man arguments and general arguments not supported by empirical evidence.

It's a shame that some Oklahoma farmers suffered crop losses due to the seasonally late freezes, and it's a good thing that recent rains here have made a dent in the severe drought. None of that, however, disproves global warming.

Did GOP Sabotage Tax Cut?

DocHoc — Fri, 03 May 2013 19:59:43 GMT

After watching the Oklahoma House debate and then pass future income tax cuts for 2015 and 2016 on Wednesday, I almost have to wonder if Republicans haven't intentionally placed a poison pill in the legislation through the process of logrolling.

The overall GOP argument for the cuts-basically, let's cut taxes to make businesses locate here-was as vague and sloganeering as it gets and lacked any real, accepted empirical evidence beyond right-wing distortions and wishful thinking. The overall, rhetorical defense of the tax cut on Wednesday lacked basic conviction.
Meanwhile, the tax-cut legislation, according to Republican state Rep. Scott Martin, a Norman Republican, does "two fantastic things." (Note the word "two.") Those two things: (1) It cuts the top income tax rate from 5.25 percent to 5 percent in 2015 and then, perhaps, to 4.85 percent in 2016 if revenues go up enough to pay for the cut, (2) and it provides $120 million funding for repairs of the state Capitol building, two diametrically opposed initiatives.

The process of adding unrelated subjects to legislation in an attempt to circumvent the democratic process is called logrolling, and it's unconstitutional here in Oklahoma. No matter how the Oklahoma Supreme Court eventually rules on this legislation, Republicans by their own admission and rhetoric have clearly separated it into two-shall we count it again, two, two subjects in one--different initiatives. It seems, forgive the word play, almost "two" obvious.

How many Republican legislators were willing to buck the bullying of the GOP leadership and vote no, either because they oppose the tax cut or the immediate allocation of money to repair the crumbling Capitol building? To be sure, seven Republicans did stand up, but in the end the vote was 65 to 35 to approve the measure, and now Gov. Mary Fallin will sign House Bill 2032 into law.

Fallin and the rest of the GOP leadership had to know the legislation would eventually face a constitutional challenge in the courts because it contains more than one subject so their overall reasoning deserves any speculation it can muster. Either they intentionally poisoned the legislation knowing it would never become law or, probably more likely, they're simply rolling the judicial dice, knowing they can always come back next legislative session and pass the same or even larger tax cut for 2015.

Either way, Republicans can proudly say they passed a tax cut in 2013, which seemed to be the main purpose of the legislation, anyway, since no cut would go into effect until 2015. Remember, there's still the next legislative session to undo or revise the whole thing. The entire GOP tax-cut spectacle this session could easily become meaningless next year.

This arcane political process means little or nothing to most ordinary Oklahomans. More than 40 percent of them won't even get a tax cut under the legislation, and the average cut is only $88 annually. Those with the highest incomes fare much better, of course, because it's a flat, regressive income tax cut. This is absolutely a tax cut for Oklahoma's wealthiest citizens, though Fallin insists it "will let Oklahoma families keep more of their hard-earned money." Well, frankly, governor, only some Oklahoma families, and it isn't much money at all.

Meanwhile, the 2015 and 2016 tax cuts would cut $237 million from state revenues after a time period of drastic budget cuts to education. The proposed state budget, released yesterday, doesn't even begin to address inadequate education funding in Oklahoma.

On the brighter side of Wednesday's action, House Democrats held together and voted unanimously against the tax cut, and state Rep. Scott Inman, a Del City Democrat and the House minority leader, delivered the day's most passionate and intelligent remarks about the issue.

Here's to Inman, and his "it's important" speech. It's difficult to rouse energy and compassion in one losing cause after another in one of the reddest states in the country, something this blog has tried to do for nearly 10 years now. Inman gives us inspiration to keep up the progressive fight.

Pension Politics

DocHoc — Wed, 01 May 2013 17:21:21 GMT

With so much at stake for so many, it's simply wrong that Republicans Gov. Mary Fallin and Oklahoma Treasurer Ken Miller are working together at the last minute to streamline Oklahoma's pension plans this legislative session without allowing adequate input from stakeholders.

The Oklahoma Legislature adjourns at the end of the month, and leaders are even hinting at an earlier conclusion, but news reports are only now surfacing that Fallin and Miller have nearly reached a deal or developed a proposal.

What that deal might be is a little bit difficult to ascertain, but it's highly probable that any proposal would try to reduce the state's costs in some manner and, given the current ideology in power at the Capitol, possibly shift more costs to pension holders and/or reduce their benefits. At the state Capitol these days, "reform" always means less for ordinary Oklahomans and more for the state's wealthiest citizens.
In other words, what won't happen is the honorable thing, and that is for the state government to simply meet its basic commitment to adequately fund the state's seven pension plans, which now face an $11 billion liability.

Two major contentious issues have emerged. One is to streamline the management of all the plans under one board, an idea that is adamantly opposed by the Oklahoma State Firefighter's Association. The second one is to somehow begin to change the overall system for new workers from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan, which should worry anyone with a sense of logic. How can you change the system in this way for new workers in a state like Oklahoma without jeopardizing the future benefits of those currently enrolled in one of the systems?

The Oklahoma Education Association has issued a legislative alert about the matter because teachers fall under the woefully underfunded Oklahoma Teachers Retirement System (OTRS), and, on a personal note, I've had discussions with current teachers who are extremely concerned they will face reduced benefits when they retire. (Full disclosure: As a professor, I currently pay into the OTRS.) Our state teachers, some of the lowest paid instructors in the nation, working in some of the most underfunded schools in the nation, SHOULD be concerned.

There is no question that the overall liability of the pension plans is a problem, but the real culprit has been the lack of funding for the plans over the years. Our legislators have been more interested in cutting taxes for the state's wealthiest citizens than honoring basic commitments to teachers, first responders and social workers.

Even as Miller, in particular, talks about the dire need for pension change, the legislature is considering tax cuts spread out over two years beginning in 2015.

Miller, in one news report, claims he and Fallin have been transparent and should have some specific legislation to offer next week.

But why wait until the last minute? It appears to be a political tactic to prevent groups interested in the issue to mobilize in protest. Politics has always been a dirty business in Oklahoma, but this political move, if it happens, is extreme by any standards, especially given Fallin's undying support for a tax cut.

Boren Makes Passionate Plea For More Higher Education Funding

DocHoc — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:07:15 GMT

University of Oklahoma President David Boren published a passionate and insightful op-ed last week that encapsulates perfectly the seismic decline of state government funding for public higher education in this country.

I want to first praise Boren's commentary, and then add some of my own points.

In an aptly titled editorial, "Will public higher education disappear?," Boren calls the funding crisis of higher education a major threat to our country. "The result of declining state support for public higher education and cost shifting to students," Boren writes, "is threatening America's role in the world."
As OU's president since 1994, Boren makes his argument with good authority. He notes that state funding for OU has declined from 32 percent of its overall budget when he became president to just 15 percent now. Costs have been shifted to students, who often go into debt with loans secured by the federal government.

As a long-time professor in this state I've followed Boren's comments about higher education since he became president, and I've read his pleas before for more state funding for higher education. I can't recall reading a more passionate call for more state funding by Boren, and his points are succinct and convincing. We can't ruin our public education system in this country without, essentially, ruining our country. I agree with that.

But I would like to add to Boren's comments because I believe he leaves a couple of important things out of his arguments, which need to be addressed in any discussion about funding for higher education.

(1) I couldn't even pretend to know the influence of the "corporate model of education" on OU, but the philosophy underpinning it has been a complete disaster for more than two decades on the country's overall public higher education system. The corporate model of education argues that students are consumers and instructors are providers, and their supposed free-market interaction will result in thriving universities. That hasn't happened. Across the nation, universities face severe budget problems. In fact, the corporate model can be directly blamed for beginning to take the "public" out of "public education," turning it into a consumer-driven product rather than the sustaining of deeply-needed centers of intellectualism and critical inquiry.

Those of us, like myself, who have spoken out against the corporate model of education have been ignored while powerful higher education advocates, such as Boren, more often than not simply ignore the issue. I can only guess it's because of political expediency. Conservatives, which now control our own state government, believe in the moral viability of the free market and privatization of government. Some may well see the drop in OU's state funding as a great victory of the free enterprise system and conservative values. Higher education leaders obviously have to be careful how they phrase their requests for more funding, but nothing can be systematically changed until the corporate model of education is exposed as one of the main culprits in what Boren calls the move to "dismantle public higher education."

Let's be clear: Students come to universities to learn, discover and create. They are not coming to buy a pair of shoes at the best price possible nor are universities trying to make the best profit possible by selling shoes. Conflating the academic mission with corporate ideology will result in exactly what we have now: Corporations and the rich people who control them pay less in taxes and students pay more in tuition in a system that is not even remotely sustainable. Both Boren and I will be long retired when it happens, but it's conceivable given current trends that many of our public universities, especially in Oklahoma, could become private enterprises in the decades to come. Students will get priced out, and the country will rot in its conservative debris.

(2) My second point is that depoliticizing the call for more education funding hasn't worked here. It's true that both Oklahoma Republicans and Democrats have participated in creating budgets that have defunded higher education in recent years, but it's the liberals who have stood up here consistently and argued for more education funding for universities and schools. It's also the "movement" conservatives, or Republicans, who are most apt to argue in favor of the corporate model of education and tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, which leads to smaller or stagnant state budgets during poor economic times.

Gov. Mary Fallin and the GOP-dominated legislature are even on the verge of cutting income taxes once again under the dubious Republican argument that this will create a better economy here, but it's probably going to mean less money for higher education down the road.

So my point is that there's no hiding the fact that education funding issues, with some exceptions, are as politically partisan as anything else in our culture today. Nothing will get done by ignoring this obvious dilemma, as Boren, a former Democratic U.S. Senator, does in his commentary, whether the omission was intentional or not.

For years, universities have been under attack by conservatives, such as David Horowitz, for supposedly embracing liberal values across disciplines, which is a myth. I think many universities, perhaps even at OU, have been overly sensitive to this reductionist argument. The truth of the matter is that liberals actually need more space, freedom and recognition on our state's campuses, in our culture and in our media here. If that doesn't happen, then the funding issue for higher education won't get seriously resolved anytime soon or ever.

Editorial Suffocation

DocHoc — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 19:50:28 GMT

A recent editorial in The Oklahoman attacking the Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice is a disingenuous, snarky piece of sophomoric drivel that deserves some basic refutation and a collective response.

Titled "Feminists for double-standards" (April 25, 2013), the editorial is filled with enough weird, overly wrought false comparisons and red-herring claims to make any decent English instructor cringe in embarrassment for its writer, who obviously needs to go to a writing lab for remedial help.

The overall thesis of the piece is difficult to discern. It seems to be that OCRJ members, who rallied at the Capitol this week during Pink Wave 2013, are feminists who contradict feminist tenets. The editorial never directly criticizes the group's focus on bringing attention to Oklahoma's draconian anti-abortion laws or legislative proposals that threaten the rights of women to control their bodies. It even agrees with a comment made by Martha Skeeters, OCRJ president, about the state's high female incarceration rate.
What's the point? If The Oklahoman wants to argue that state lawmakers should control women's reproductive capabilities then by all means it should do so, but why simply attack a group that thinks otherwise with misleading claims that it somehow contradicts itself on some philosophical level about women's rights? Again, what's the point, especially since the editorial's overall argument is not really an argument but more of a twisted maze of false, self-proclaimed epiphanies? It's a make-believe, gotcha commentary without any real gotcha.

The editorial begins by making the claim that essentially OCRJ members are "self-proclaimed feminists" who embrace "double standards." Note that it doesn't focus on OCRJ's work or the point of the rally. The point seems to be to undermine OCRJ's credibility in some manner, not to argue against its positions.

The main evidence provided for the dubious and just plain weird double-standards claim is that in her remarks Skeeters argued in favor of alternative sentencing for many imprisoned women in Oklahoma, which leads the nation in female incarceration. The editorial actually agrees with Skeeters' overall point, but finds her "logic bizarre." Isn't that bizarre in itself?

Speaking of bizarre logic, here's the editorial's big point: "If women can be trusted to make their own decisions and live with the consequences when it comes to having an abortion, shouldn't the same standard apply to women who decide to break the law?" That's supposedly a double standard, though not in any traditional sense that anyone can really understand.

It's difficult to even parse the false comparison. I'll try. Yes, women can be trusted to make their own decisions. It's not a question, ever, of "if" or "when" or "how." How does that belief somehow contradict the belief that the state has a ridiculously high and embarrassing female incarceration rate? What's the "same standard"? Let's be very clear: An abortion is NOT a crime, and Skeeters is not arguing that women who do actually commit criminal acts should not face consequences. She's just arguing for sentencing that would allow more incarcerated mothers to live with their children.

But, the editorial screeches in the arrogance of stupidity, ". . . why stress the separation of mothers from their children when incarceration also separates fathers from children (not to mention the permanent separation that abortion creates)? Should the law treat criminal parents differently based on gender when each commits the same crime?"

Note, again, that the writer is not actually talking about OCRJ's main mission of fighting for reproductive justice and rights for women. The writer is making red-herring claims about double standards to make snarky asides, such as "not to mention the permanent separation that abortion creates." (Note the italics. It's a code.) Skeeters is not arguing that fathers should not also be given alternative sentencing to be with their children, and, of course, what about single mothers or pregnant women who are incarcerated?

And, of course, men don't have reproductive organs, and OCRP's mission is to fight for reproductive rights for women.

The editorial then criticizes Skeeters for supporting sex education classes in our schools. "Skeeters' comments," according to the editorial, "suggest she's fine with politicians intruding on private parental decisions regarding their children's learning about the birds and bees, but not similar efforts regarding citizens' abortion decisions." Again, the false comparison and weird logic is simply staggering. Sex education classes help prevent abortions. That's one of the points of sex education classes. It's the Oklahoma right-wing religious folks who are the hypocrites when they try to criminalize abortion at the same time they fight against sexual education classes in our schools. That's the real double standard.

The editorial, and so many like it in The Oklahoman, can make this a suffocating place in which to live. OCRJ is a group with a clear mission that is standing up to express its political viewpoints against a tidal wave of right-wing hypocrisy in this place. They do so in a peaceful, heartfelt and intelligent manner, and this is what they get from the state's largest newspaper, which won't even engage them on the real issues. If The Oklahoman wants to send women to jail for having abortions, then it should argue the case and leave the logic and the critical thinking to the grownups in the state.

Future Tax Cuts?

DocHoc — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 15:20:03 GMT

Gov. Mary Fallin and legislative leaders have announced a plan for future tax cuts in 2015 and 2016 that primarily benefit the wealthiest Oklahomans and will cut money available for schools by millions of dollars in coming years.

It's an irresponsible plan in today's uncertain economic environment and can easily be seen as part of the GOP strategy to "starve the beast" of government funding through incremental tax cuts. Neighboring Kansas, which cut taxes recently and is now facing major budget problems, wasn't mentioned in the announcement.
On Tuesday, as expected, Fallin, House Speaker T.W. Shannon, R-Lawton, and Senate President Pro Tempore Brian Bingman, R-Sapulpa, announced they had reached an agreement on the future tax cuts. Under the plan, the top rate would drop from 5.25 percent to 5 percent in 2015, and then to 4.85 percent in 2016. The second cut is dependent on revenue growth in 2016 that is equal to or greater than the amount of lost revenue.

Besides mostly Democrats and the Oklahoma Policy Institute, a state think tank, there appears to be no real emerging opposition to the tax-cut plan at the Capitol. Republicans now hold super majorities in both the House and Senate. A press release issued by Fallin's office said the cuts and two other measures dealing with workers' compensation and state buildings have been "identified as having the support of both the governor and majorities in the House and Senate."

As I've written before, the futuristic tax-cut plan lacks basic logic. Why not simply wait until next year, gauge the economy and incoming revenues, and then decide on a tax cut for 2015? This plan, if passed, will tie the hands of legislators next year if there's a major drop in revenues. How many Republican legislators would ever vote to rescind a tax cut?

According to media reports, the cuts would reduce state revenue by $237 million annually if and when they go into effect. This comes right after a time period in which education funding in Oklahoma has faced massive cuts. The cuts also don't address unneeded tax credits that lower state revenues each year.

The cuts would mean an $88 to $140 annual savings for the average Oklahoma taxpayer, according to one media report, but because it's a flat, regressive cut state residents with the highest incomes will pay thousands less each year. The question becomes if an $88 tax cut is worth lowering the quality of life here through inadequate education funding.

Fallin claims the cuts will "boost our economy and help us to create more jobs and bring more businesses to Oklahoma," but what businesses besides oil and gas companies are going to locate here when our educational systems are so vastly underfunded?

Kansas is still grappling with recent tax cuts that could eventually lead to a $1 billion shortfall by 2018, according to some estimates. If that's what most Oklahoma Republicans want for our state, then they should simply argue for it and not spend time covering their tracks with sweeping and outdated GOP myths about tax cuts.

In response to the plan, OK Policy issued a statement that argued it would "commit us to tax cuts two years from now, when we have no way of knowing what Oklahoma's needs or economic situation will look like." The organization also issued a call to action to "stop these irresponsible tax cuts" through a letter drive to legislators.

The tax cut plan, according to the release from Fallin's office, also includes $120 million in funding to repair and renovate the state Capitol building, which is a worthy endeavor. But the potential, long-term cost to educational and other vital services caused by inadequate funding is simply more important despite the Capitol's obvious symbolic value. In fact, it would make more logical sense to NOT cut taxes at all until the Capitol is renovated and education funding is restored.

The other two measures contained in the announcement would change the state's workers' compensation system from a judicial process to an administrative process and would centralize the management of state buildings and provide a plan for renovations. Bingman has championed the workers' compensation system "reform," which I oppose and wrote about here. Shannon championed the building plan.

Oklahoma Needs Hate Crime Law Addressing Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity

DocHoc — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 03:25:56 GMT

The violent attack on former Corporation Commissioner Jim Roth outside of an Oklahoma City bar recently was a hate crime by any reasonable definition.

Roth, pictured right, who is also a former Oklahoma county commissioner, was inside the bar when a man started making anti-gay slurs. Roth was then followed outside and physically attacked while his assailants berated him verbally about his sexual orientation.

The attack is a wake-up call that goes beyond the fact that Roth is a former public figure and well-known in the community. This is hate and violence at one of its crudest and ugliest levels, experienced far too often by members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community, whatever their stature. Roth's assailants should be held responsible for their actions.

Unfortunately, Oklahoma doesn't specifically address sexual orientation or gender identity in its hate crime laws. It is one of 14 states that fail to provide any hate-crime protection for the LGBT community.
According to a media report, earlier this month Roth was at Granddad's Bar, 317 NW 23rd Street, in Oklahoma City attending a birthday gathering. A man started making anti-gay comments, which Roth tried to ignore, according to the report. When Roth and a friend decided to leave, the man and two other people followed them outside and attacked them, punching Roth in the head, the report states, and the attackers then fled the scene. Police are investigating the attack.

The owner of the bar, Greg Seal, recently placed an advertisement in the Oklahoma Gazette titled "HATE IS NOT ON TAP AT GRANDDAD'S," which called for tolerance and referred to a "situation recently that is sad and embarrassing." Both he and Roth, who are friends, according to the media report, didn't want the incident to become a major news story.

Roth posted this on his Facebook page about the incident:

Dear Friends - Thank You so much for your kind words and encouragement about the recent unfortunate event in OKC.
Please know the City of OKC police have been great and together with Greg & Jennifer Seal, the perpetrators will be held accountable.
I believe that we all have the right (and responsibility) to live, love and pray as our souls require and so I am not deterred by the ignorance of one or more people towards me or anyone else who honestly walks their life journey.
Thanks for your friendships; stay strong!
My best, Jim

The way Roth has handled the incident publicly is inspirational, and the outpouring of support for him has been immense.

As I mentioned, though, Oklahoma is a state that doesn't address sexual orientation as part of its hate-crime laws, and this is a major problem. In addition, the state legislature and state politicians have a long history of opposing LGBT rights. The Oklahoma House just this session passed a resolution reaffirming its stance against same-sex marriage, and state Rep. Sally Kern, an Oklahoma City Republican, is well-known nationally for her bizarre, anti-gay tirades that are tolerated by her constituents and many of her fellow legislators. A state senator even once pushed to allow Oklahoma to opt out on federal hate-crime legislation that extended protection because of sexual orientation and gender identity.

The lack of effective, inclusive hate-crime laws here and the overall legislative history of bigotry against LGBT community in the state obviously don't help prevent attacks like the one experienced by Roth recently and may even create a sense among some misguided people that it's acceptable to openly vent bigotry and even attack people of marginalized groups.

This Oklahoma climate of intolerance, created by so many of our leaders through the years, needs to change, but that's admittedly difficult to do under the state's current, conservative government. What can be done is to hold Roth's attackers responsible for their actions and to keep working to change our hate laws here to reflect reality.

Is Oklahoma 'Grand Bargain' Agreement Near

DocHoc — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 20:54:03 GMT

Will disparate interests lead to some type of legislative Grand Bargain in Oklahoma this year that includes an irresponsible tax cut, a reduction in workers' compensation benefits for injured workers and a plan to codify delays in state infrastructure improvements?

Maybe so or maybe not, but conflating these different GOP initiatives seems not only like a recipe for political infighting but also just plain poor governance and lawmaking. Trading, say, a reduction in benefits for people losing their limbs on the job for a delayed but larger tax cut is a grim business. It's also illogical and ego-based politicking unrelated to the specific consequences of legislation.
Struggling to find an agreement on a tax cut and what Republicans call workers' compensation "reform," the GOP bigwigs have essentially announced they plan to announce a deal next week that includes majority agreement on the two issues, along with the support of an eight-year, "pay-as-you-go" agreement to renovate some state buildings and infrastructure.

House Speaker T.W. Shannon, a Lawton Republican, said, "We just thought it made sense to make it an announcement altogether." Of course, there's been no actual announcement yet. This is sort of an announcement about a pending announcement, which makes very little sense.

The principal players include Shannon, who wants to take the slow path to infrastructure improvement, Senate President Pro Tempore Brian Bingman, a Sapulpa Republican, who wants big changes in the state workers' compensation system and Gov. Mary Fallin, who wants a tax cut, any tax cut it seems, to seal her GOP bonafides. The vested interests come complete, no doubt, with big and easily-bruised egos, or is that too much of an assumption?

Currently, on the tax-cut front, the Senate is negotiating House Bill 2032, a Fallin-supported measure that initially cut the top income tax rate from 5.25 percent to 5 percent next year without any offsets. The Senate, which had its own plan rejected by the House, then rewrote the bill. The new plan is to cut the rate to 4.95 percent, but not until 2015, and to sunset some tax credits.

A Senate plan to "reform" the state's workers' compensation system, contained in Senate Bill 1062, is now undergoing negotiations in the House, which is rewriting the measure. The bill is ostensibly about changing the system from a judicial process to an administrative process, but it also reduces benefits for those who get injured on the job. I wrote about it here.

So the Senate is rewriting the House's tax bill and the House is rewriting the Senate's workers' compensation bill.

Meanwhile, Shannon's infrastructure plan, House Bill 1910, which centralizes state property oversight and creates a long-term plan to renovate buildings, flies under the radar given the fact that the state Capitol building is crumbling to pieces before everyone's eyes as Republicans announce their plan to make an announcement.

All these initiatives should be considered on their own merits without political tradeoffs unrelated to their purposes and consequences.

So here's my own announcement of some common sense ideas: The tax cut should be put on hold because of the future loss in state revenue until the economy completely recovers from the Great Recession or until lawmakers get serious about overhauling the entire tax code. Any workers' compensation bill that under the guise of "reform" severely reduces benefits for injured employees deserves to be defeated just for that reason alone, especially in Oklahoma. Why even implement a long-term, infrastructure renovation plan until the state Capitol building is repaired?

How Many Job Injuries Go Unreported?

DocHoc — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 17:16:08 GMT

I wonder how many Oklahoma workers injured on the job don't file workers' compensation claims because they feel their employer would retaliate against them by either firing them outright or limiting their career advancement?

This is a question virtually impossible to answer because of its built-in paradox-suppression equals invisibility-but any reasonable person would have to concede that it happens, especially among long-term workers with chronic injuries that have developed over many years because of repetitive physical tasks or repetitive body positioning.

Here are some questions that might go through injured workers' minds: Will I lose my job if I file a claim? Will I be reassigned to a position that pays less money? Will I become known as someone who complains too much and thus not given raises or promoted?
But these aren't the type of questions getting much attention in this year's GOP legislative quest to "reform" the workers' compensation system, which pays people injured on their jobs for lost work time and medical expenses.

What workers' compensation reform seems to mean to many Oklahoma GOP legislators is reducing the financial amount of awarded claims for on-the-job injuries and reducing an employee's ability to file an injury claim. This, goes the logic, will reduce the amount of money any given company will have to pay for workers' compensation insurance. Reform, under this definition, means human pain and suffering is secondary to corporate interests.

Before the right-wing co-opted the language of the progressive movement, using terms like "reform" to promote the power of the few over the many, huge strides were made in developing and protecting worker rights. The idea of workers' compensation due to injuries dates back to the nineteenth century, and developing and sustaining workers' rights from the beginning of the twentieth century until the 1980s was most often associated with the language of progressive reform. The labor movement has since its inception pushed consistently for workplace safety. It was even a Republican, former President Richard Nixon, who signed into law the bill creating the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in 1970.

In Oklahoma and other conservative states, the word "reform" now means rolling back rights and advances for workers in order to promote the interests of corporations.

A workers' compensation measure, Senate Bill 1062, is now under negotiation in the House. Its principal purpose is to change the current workers' compensation system from a judicial process to an administrative process, but legislators have also pushed for reducing award amounts and limiting the time period for claims.

One of the provisions, according to media reports, would reduce disability wage benefits by 30 percent. This is based on the premise that wage benefits aren't taxed, and thus the state should only pay 70 percent of its average weekly wage rate. Other provisions, since removed from the bill, would have reduced benefits to amputees and spouses of workers killed on the job, and reduced the amount of time in which a claim could be made from 30 days to three days. There is a potential that these provisions could be restored in some form as the bill makes its way through the legislature where disagreements on it remain between the House and Senate.

Legislators are also discussing whether some companies should be allowed to opt-out of the system entirely if they provided compensation benefits on their own.

The bottom line is that no one is discussing statistics like these: In 2010, 91 workers were killed on the job in Oklahoma. In 2011, there were more than 49,000 recorded on-the-job injuries. The discussion among Republicans is mostly limited to how to help companies pay less in insurance while reducing benefits for workers.

To return to my first question, no one seems, as well, to be discussing how many on-the-job injuries go unreported, especially in a weak job market in which workers might feel fearful of losing their jobs.

It's clear the intent of SB 1062 is to erode workers' benefits and rights. Let's hope it dies in a storm of legislative bickering this session.

Conservative Tax Cut Presumptions

DocHoc — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:26:27 GMT

The Oklahoman editorial board has attempted to philosophically defend the GOP push for a tax cut this year despite the cut's future impact on revenue in a state that has faced budget reductions in recent years.

Unlike Gov. Mary Fallin and to an extent House Speaker T.W. Shannon, a Lawton Republican, who mostly engage in sweeping, Republican generalizations when it comes to cutting taxes, a recent commentary in the newspaper actually tried to parse the issue and offer specific counter arguments to those people who oppose an income tax cut right now.
The newspaper should be commended for actually trying to construct a logical argument, but ultimately the overall argument fails because of misguided assumptions, lack of empirical evidence and over reliance on unproven conservative dogma. It would be nice if state leaders, including editorial writers at Oklahoma's corporate media, could have a rational discussion about taxes, but it can't happen if we must begin with prevailing conservative presumptions that simply aren't true.

The editorial, "High-tax states wouldn't mind an economy like Oklahoma's" (April 12, 2013), essentially offers counter arguments to the Oklahoma Policy Institute, which has opposed any income tax cut this year, primarily because of its future effect on state revenues and in light of recent budget cuts. The latest proposal under consideration, which came out of the state Senate, would drop the top tax rate from 5.25 percent to 4.95 percent starting in 2015, sunset some tax credits and would cost the state $169 million a year. That proposal is now under negotiation. Fallin and Shannon have pushed for a cut from 5.25 percent to 5 percent starting in 2014. It would cost the state more than $100 million a year.

I have outlined my argument against a tax cut at this time here, but in this post I want to address some of arguments put forth by The Oklahoman in its response to OK Policy and others opposed to a cut.

The commentary, for example argues that a "tax cut is hardly going to make the poor poorer" because the top income tax rate starts at $8,700 for a single filer. This argument supposedly addresses concerns OK Policy has about the relationship between taxes and poverty in the state. But the editorial doesn't address the fact that any flat cut that doesn't take into account income brackets is always regressive and shifts the most money to the wealthiest in our society. Also, declining government revenues eventually lead to budget cuts or stagnation, which could mean fewer dollars for safety-net programs that help the poor.

The Oklahoman dismisses OK Policy's concerns that state workers haven't had a cost-of-living raise since 2006, arguing in italics that it's a political sales pitch that comes off like this: "You need to accept less take-home pay so a bureaucrat can get more." Not every state worker is a bureaucrat, of course, and under Fallin's original plan 43 percent of Oklahomans wouldn't even receive a tax cut. I'm unsure the sales pitch for stopping a tax cut right now comes off to a majority of people as described by The Oklahoman. Here's the real sales pitch: You will receive no tax cut at all or a token amount of money and it will take money away from schools.

Higher education funding from the state has declined in recent years because of lower state revenues, prompting tuition hikes, but that's okay, according to the commentary, because colleges will raise tuition no matter what. This type of argument dismisses any real discussion of just how much tuition has skyrocketed or of the increasing cost of college, which is saddling many students with crippling debt. It also makes a presumption that colleges will always raise tuition each year, which isn't necessarily true. A few years ago, for example, many state colleges came together and gave students a year without any increase. It also implies that colleges would have raised tuition that same amount with more state support. I don't think that's true, either.

The editorial goes on to argue that "no amount of taxation is ever so great that government boosters won't claim poverty," which is a misguided, conservative assumption. On the philosophical level, so-called "government boosters" are usually people who want a fairer, progressive tax system. They actually favor tax cuts for the less fortunate in our culture. They want to adequately fund education and safety-net programs and call attention to the growing income inequality between the richest people in our culture and everyone else. Specifically, they recognize the state's historical and well-documented lack of decent funding for education and the state's historical and well-documented poverty levels. How can we not "claim poverty" when it stares us in the face?

Many of us opposed to the tax cut have argued that the median cut is only $39 a year, a trivial amount, at the same time it collectively takes a large chunk of money away from overall state revenues. The answer from The Oklahoman is more Republican dogma and presumption. The editorial claims, even though the cut is small the private sector "allocates money far better than any government agency." That's certainly true if you're a billionaire, like the newspaper's owner, Philip Anschutz, but it's not so true if you're working at a minimum wage job and don't even receive the extra $39 annually. The free market enforces poverty as much as it makes people rich. The newspaper is making an assumption certainly not held by everyone and probably not even a majority of voters in this country.

Finally, the newspaper claims tax collections actually went up after recent tax cuts, but it completely ignores the impact of the Great Recession on Oklahoma and the steep decline in revenues after 2008. I'm trying hard not to engage in hyperbole here, but this claim borders on rewriting not just history but extremely recent history. A strong argument could be and has been made that the tax cuts sent state revenues into a devastating downward spiral once the economy tanked.

Still, I'll give The Oklahoman some credit here for the attempt to argue ideas and also for its rather subdued approach to the tax-cut proposals presented by lawmakers so far this year. The editorial seems okay with the idea that lawmakers "may favor state spending over tax cuts this year, and consider tax cuts again in future years." I'm okay with that idea, too.

Looking For A Tax Cut In All The Wrong Places?

DocHoc — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 18:42:36 GMT

Gov. Mary Fallin, in what is becoming another desperate search for a tax cut, has dropped her demand for a tax decrease this coming year and says she's open to proposals that would slash rates in 2015 and in subsequent years.

House Speaker T.W. Shannon, a Lawton Republican, has also joined Fallin in a new show of openness and compromise over a Senate tax cut proposal. Both Shannon and Fallin had previously insisted on a tax cut for 2014.

This is mixed news. While it's encouraging Fallin and Shannon might be open to a delay in a cut and support some reform of the tax code, including the elimination of unneeded credits, it also begs this question: Why not just wait until next legislative session to cut taxes since the initial decrease wouldn't go into effect until 2015? Wouldn't it be more responsible to just wait and see how well the economy is doing next year?
Of course, the real GOP elephant in the living room is that Oklahoma is still recovering from the Great Recession, recent budget cuts have devastated education funding and the tax cuts will primarily benefit only the wealthiest Oklahomans.

Are Republicans at this point just trying to pass a tax cut only for the sake of saying they cut taxes? I think so. Beyond sweeping generalizations-people need more money in their pockets, tax cuts will attract businesses, etc.-Republicans have offered no rational reason for a tax cut at this time, especially given recent budget cuts and pressing infrastructure needs.

Here's where we stand. The House passed a Fallin-supported bill that would lower the tax rate from 5.25 to 5 percent in 2014 without any offsets. They also killed a Senate proposal that delayed a tax cut until 2015 and also dealt with deductions and credits. When the Senate got the House tax measure, contained in HB 2032, a committee inserted new language in it that would delay a tax cut from 5.25 to 4.95 percent until 2015 and sunset some tax credits.

What has transpired since is the type of Republican infighting that doomed a tax cut last legislative session. At first, Fallin and Shannon insisted on a 2014 tax cut. Now, they've backed off the rhetoric, and are indicating they could accept delaying a cut, especially if it's larger. So it's back to square one.

As expected, the trashy spectacle of the crumbling state Capitol building has become an important part of the GOP intraparty fight. Sometimes symbols-state Capitol buildings are about as symbolic as you get-are extremely important. Republicans are considering tax cuts in a building that has to be fenced off in places because pieces of it are falling to the ground. Scaffolding is in place to protect people from getting hit from dropping limestone fragments. The building needs major electrical and plumbing work as well. The building is now listed as an endangered historic place by Preservation Oklahoma, Inc.

It could take more than $200 million to repair and renovate the building, but it appears Republicans would rather give big tax breaks to millionaires than fix the house. State Senate President Brian Bingman, a Sapulpa Republican, and Shannon can't even agree on whether the issue should be studied, much less on an aggressive plan for repairs. A bond issue to repair the building, even supported by the ultra-conservative editorial board of The Oklahoman, was deemed out of the question by House Republicans even before the session began.

It will probably take a major accident and ensuing lawsuit to get the current Republican majority at the Capitol to take action on the building.

Meanwhile, under Fallin's initial tax cut proposal, 43 percent of Oklahomans wouldn't even get a tax cut, according to the Oklahoma Policy Institute. The median cut would be just $39 annually. The real breaks go to those with household incomes in the top 1 percent. The plan would reduce revenue by more than $100 million a year. The current Senate plan would reduce revenues even more.

Let's get back to education, which is just one area of government that has faced decreased state support in recent years. Gene Perry, an analyst with OK Policy, points out that funding for state schools has decreased by $200 million in the last four years and that higher education has seen its state support drop by 26.2 percent in the last five years.

It is fundamentally wrong to reward millionaires with tax breaks while systematically defunding state educational institutions. All of us who live here are going to pay the price for this ideological error.

Coburn: Obama 'Believes In Socialism'

DocHoc — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 17:23:23 GMT

In its quest to lionize Oklahoma's U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn as some type of great thinker of our time, The Oklahoman editorial board has offered up for our enlightenment some fancy Coburn witticisms that seem far more crazy than profound.

Meanwhile, Oklahoma U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, who at 78 has indicated he plans to run for reelection in 2014, has vowed to stop any efforts in the Senate to pass the minor gun control measures under consideration in the wake of the Newtown, CT shootings that left 20 school children and six adults dead.

Coburn and Inhofe represent an outdated, dying set of political beliefs repudiated by President Barack Obama's convincing reelection in 2012. They rile up the angry home folks here, for sure, but if this state had just 200,000 more college graduates it would never elect anyone even remotely like them.
Let's start with Coburn. Last Sunday, The Oklahoman editorial page published a commentary that argues, in its clichéd, hackneyed way, "Congress could use more members like Coburn, who puts country first." He's not like "The Great Divider," i.e. Obama. What's more, "Coburn is willing to make the difficult decisions." Insightful, no?

To prove its astounding, nonpartisan thesis, the editorial announces: "Today we present Coburn in his own words, about the most pressing concerns of the day." Sound the trumpets! Drum roll, puhleease. What follows are an assortment of boring, Coburn quotes that mostly just regurgitate the GOP line. Some of them, however, are just plain whacky or seem like typical Republican truth stretchers. Read them for yourselves. I've selected a few, not in any certain order, to parse through in this post.

Coburn: "You've got to give him (Obama) credit. He's an ideologue. He actually believes in socialism. He thinks that's the way to solve the problem. And it's an elitist view that says Washington knows better than what the individual family or statesman (does)."

So does essentially labeling Obama a socialist mean he's making the "difficult decisions" in Washington? No, it proves Coburn is a partisan, who will stoop to hyperbole and name calling to scare people here into voting for Republicans. It's also a rejection of intellectualism. Coburn has to know what socialism is, and he has to know that Obama is not a socialist.

Coburn: "Government's 89 percent bigger than it was 10 years ago. Personal income's down 5 percent in this country. And they want to claim that we need more government to be able to solve our problems. And the problem is we're incapable of managing the government we have today."

I tried to find some verification for Coburn's statement about government growth but failed. I did find somewhat reputable articles that showed the number of government employees has declined under the Obama administration and overall government spending as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has risen by less than 10 percent since 2003. Both articles had conservative bents. Just like the socialist comment, this fancy witticism seems basically untrue.

Coburn: "Start treating health care like every other resource in the country. Create a real market that's transparent, created where payment is connected with the purchase. And American consumers, they're the best buyers in the world at everything else, they will lower the cost of health care.

"Our total care will decline rapidly in this country under the Affordable Care Act, the quality of care - plus we're going to ration Medicare."

That Coburn wants a commercial health care system that is basically only accountable to "free-market" (free to die) principles is nothing new. But two statements stand out. First, Americans are absolutely NOT the best buyers in the world and they are often manipulated by unscrupulous corporations. Look at the mortgage crisis. Second, and this is more important, there is no movement to "ration Medicare," certainly not among Democrats. If Medicare would ever be rationed-what does that even mean?-it would be part of a Republican plan to try to end the program altogether. Coburn is trying to scare people.

The editorial also contained some Coburn comments about excessive job programs in Ada that seem exaggerated and, at the very least, needs some verification from the state's largest newspaper.

In the end, it's just the same Coburn we've always known, taking ideological jabs and distorting facts while hiding under his cover as some bipartisan, fiscal expert. The Oklahoman seems quite content to perpetuate this real hoax among its dwindling readership.

Speaking of hoaxes, that man that once proclaimed that the science underpinning global warming was a type of liberal "hoax" has now turned his attention to gun control. Inhofe, along with other Republican Senators, has vowed to filibuster any gun control measures that come before the Senate. One of the proposals would expand background checks on those who purchase guns.

Obama has made gun control a priority since the Newtown shootings, and a group made up of family members of victims recently visited Washington to meet with Congressional members and push for gun control measures. According to Inhofe, "See, I think it's so unfair of the administration to hurt these families, to make them think this has something to do with them when, in fact, it doesn't." This is just more Obama bashing, and it lacks basic compassion for those mothers and fathers who lost their children in the shootings.

Inhofe and Coburn continue to base their political platforms on creating as much anti-Obama hysteria in the state as they can and then reaping the benefits of that through constituent support. That's about the sum total of what they stand for right now. They don't let truth get in their way, and they are as willing as the next Republican to use the GOP standard talking points.

The Oklahoman commentary that poses Coburn as some type of great thinker of his time is laughable. In fact, the rhetorical love fest does more damage to Coburn than good because it shows just what an ideologue he remains. What's not laughable is another six-year term for Inhofe, which seems like it's going to happen.

Oklahoma Should Embrace New College Online Learning Trends

DocHoc — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 17:19:51 GMT

It's taken some time, but the academic side of higher education, along with an attendant philosophy of open, shared knowledge, are finally asserting themselves in digital learning at universities throughout the country.

An open, elearning system is remarkably good news for Oklahoma, with its low college graduation rate and overall underfunded educational systems, just as long as higher education leaders here recognize that MOOCs and the soon-to-be launched DPLA are opportunities, not threats to their individual turfs.
Massive Open Source Online Courses (MOOCs) and the Digital Public Library of America (DPLA), which launches April 18, represent a turn away from the corporate model of education and places professors and teaching, and, of course, students, at the forefront of elearning. Corporate learning management systems, from Blackboard to Desire2Learn, have for too long dictated the terms of online intellectual engagement at universities, especially smaller, non-research colleges with limited funding. Online, for-profit colleges can never duplicate in any sustainable sense the academic rigor offered by our public and private universities, especially our leading institutions of knowledge.

Before I go further, let me give some background. MOOCs, which came into the academic scene a couple of years ago, are free online courses offered by some of the country's premiere universities, such as Harvard and MIT. Anyone with an email address can take courses-"Epidemiology: The Basic Science of Public Health," "Write Like Mozart: An Introduction To Classical Music Composition," and "Greek and Roman Mythology" to name just a few-- through systems such as Coursera and edX. The courses are not currently offered for credit, but that could soon change.

The Digital Public Library of America is a project began in 2010 that aims, according to one of DPLA's founders, Harvard professor Robert Darnton, to "make the holdings of America's research libraries, archives, and museums available to all Americans-and eventually to everyone in the world-online and free of charge." It will launch April 18 in an initial, limited form. The plan is to build the DPLA into what would be the largest bank of accessible knowledge ever in the history of mankind. The scope of the project simply can't be understated.

Can you imagine having every written artifact in history and much more available to you in a matter of seconds? It will revolutionize information science, and could help universities save millions of dollars (maybe even more) through centralization.

At the philosophical core of MOOCs and the DPLA is the idea that knowledge and learning should be a shared, global experience, which will create better societies and advance mankind even further in the sciences and the arts. It's the culmination, really, of the so-called Information Age in which we live. We're not there yet, of course, but the trajectory is clear. It's difficult to not look at all this in utopian terms, but there's also a pragmatic side. In discussing the DPLA, Darnton writes:

What could be more utopian than a project to make the cultural heritage of humanity available to all humans? What could be more pragmatic than the designing of a system to link up millions of megabytes and deliver them to readers in the form of easily accessible texts?

The dilemma, of course, is the question over how are we going to pay for all this, and the answer is that we can't afford to NOT go forward. Again, it's difficult not to place it in sweeping terms. Our very existence on this planet may well depend on the main philosophy driving MOOCs and the DPLA. That doesn't pay a professor's salary, of course, but just as media outlets have had to adjust to the reality of the Internet so, too, must universities. I may risk ridicule here, but the money issue seems trivial when compared to the overall conception of what MOOCs and the DPLA offer mankind.

In practical terms, MOOCs could be offered for credit in the days ahead and a combination of taxpayer and institutional money could be used to subsidize online education to underserved populations throughout the world. The DPLA, funded now by foundations, has many different partners and stakeholders, and could conceivably survive financially under its current, fiscal model.

As I stated before, what I find so encouraging about MOOCs and the DPLA is the new surge of academic energy in online learning. I've taught online courses for some ten years now, and I've seen how corporate learning management systems have influenced pedagogy and class structure with mixed results. MOOCs are built around the professor; it's not the professor building a course within a for-profit platform that will always increase in cost and will always have built-it obstacles to limit sharing or changing systems. MOOCs reassert the simple premise that it's the instructor that determines course quality, not the technology itself, not a mid-level university administrator often without academic experience. It's the instructor's expertise, her credentials, her commitment that matters, not the underlying computer code, which in the case of MOOCs is open source and available to everyone. This is not to say that corporations don't or can't have a role in both MOOCs and the DPLA, but openness and sharing, their driving force, are the antithesis of monopoly and control.

What does all this mean for our state? The concepts of MOOC's and the DPLA represent a huge opportunity for Oklahoma. It's been my experience that online learning here overall has been somewhat slow to develop and hindered by limited funding, institutional bias and lack of foresight. For example, the former provost at Oklahoma State University, Robert Sternberg, now the president of the University of Wyoming, recently made it a point to argue that online learning had limitations. But these new trends in online learning could open the door for thousands of Oklahomans, who want a college degree but face life obstacles in attending a college as traditional students. The state has chronically lagged behind the national average in the number of its college graduates. MOOCs and the DPLA also have the capability, if managed appropriately, to help make a dent in the nation's student-debt problem if courses remain free or reasonably priced while allowing students to take courses with some of the best professors in the country and in our state.

The new trends in online learning also open new opportunities for collaboration among our state's many universities.