OKLAHOMA CITY — While University of Oklahoma President David Boren is calling for a moratorium on further state tax cuts, the chairman of the House’s Revenue and Taxation Committee believes Boren’s request is premature.
State Rep. Randy Terrill said Thursday he still believes the state’s income tax is still too high, but wants to gather information from a series of interim studies scheduled later this fall, before deciding “whether or not additional tax relief is needed or necessary.”
“Boren’s call was premature,” Terrill, R-Moore, said. “We haven’t begun our interim studies yet. We want to look at whether or not additional tax relief is needed or necessary and, if so, what type of tax relief is preferable.”
Terrill said Oklahoma must balance tax cuts against the “right set of priorities” and targeted spending increases.
“It’s about respect for taxpayers, too,” he said.
In an interview last week with the Associated Press, Boren urged lawmakers to sideline future tax reduction proposals and, instead, invest in higher education to create a knowledge-based economy which he believes will produce long-term benefits in new businesses and good jobs.
“I think we ought to have a moratorium on tax reductions right now,” Boren said last week. “I think we’re bumping the limits and I think we certainly don’t need to proceed down that path.”
Boren said that when he served as governor 30 years ago, more than 40 percent of OU’s budget came from appropriations by the Legislature, with the balance coming from tuition and fees, grants and contracts, private donations and other sources.
This year, the AP reported, state tax dollars will provide only 21.5 percent of the $713 million operating budget for the OU campus in Norman and just 7 or 8 percent of the $632 million budget for the OU Health Sciences Center in Oklahoma City.
And as public funding for OU declined, tuition and fees paid by students have increased.
“It’s almost a dollar for dollar trade-off,” Boren said.
Yet Terrill — an OU alumnus, himself — says certain tax cuts will “have the effect of generating more revenue for the treasury.”
“The higher business taxes are, the more they are a deterrent to growth and job creation,” he said. “We want to invest in higher education, but we want a business-friendly climate here as well.”
Additionally, he said, the state should establish clear lines of accountability, so taxpayers can see exactly where their money is going and how those funds are spent.
“The clearer the lines of accountability are, the more voters can see if their tax dollars have been spent well and whether or not there is a need for more revenue,” he said. “But when the pot gets blended and mixed, the voters get skeptical.”
And while Boren said an investment of state tax dollars in colleges and universities — and other research institutions — will produce economic results, Terrill said recent tax cuts have not caused a reduction in government services.
“We paid for the tax cuts purely out of surplus,” he said. “There has not been one reduction in state government.”
Boren countered, saying that some temporary tax cuts “won’t amount to much.”
“It’s very tempting to give in to the siren song of tax cuts. I realize that,” he said. “I always want to keep taxes as low as they can possibly be. If we really want to put more money in the pockets of Oklahoma citizens so they can spend it the way they want to, ironically, I think investment is the best way to do that right now than some temporary tax cuts that won’t amount to much. Most people won’t even notice.”
Terrill, however, said he would prefer those cuts to go directly to taxpayers.
“Again, it’s about respect,” he said. “I believe when we had the type of economy we have and when we have record surpluses, we should return some of that surplus back to the public.”
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Friday, September 21, 2007
Lawmakers propose new tax cut
OKLAHOMA CITY — Just days after OU president David Boren called for a moratorium on further cuts and more investment in higher education, two state lawmakers announced they’ve filed legislation to exempt most overtime pay from state income tax.
But at least one area lawmaker said he has concerns about the idea.
State Senator Kenneth Corn, D-Poteau, and Rep. Bud Smithson, D-Salisaw, held a Capitol press conference Monday to say they’d filed a measure “to help ensure Oklahoma workers would keep more of their hard earned dollars.”
The proposal — Senate Bill 1132 — would exempt most overtime pay from state income taxes required by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
“We’re talking about a tax break that will make a meaningful difference to the many Oklahomans and their families who work hard, but still live paycheck to paycheck,” said Corn, D-Poteau. “If they keep more of their overtime pay, it’s money that’s going to go straight back into the local economy for food, groceries, clothing and other necessities. It’s a win-win proposal.”
Corn said the exemption would apply to most employees who are paid by the hour but not apply to employees who are exempt from the FLSA overtime mandates — that is, executives, professionals or administrative employees.
However, Norman Democrat Wallace Collins said he’d like to know what the impact would be on the state or if both lawmakers were “simply cutting taxes.”
“While I think that we’ve cut taxes about all we’ve needed to cut them, a tax exemption (like the overtime proposal) would benefit working people,” Collins said.
People who are paid overtime, he said, “are certainly not CEOs and managers and people like that. And a bottom-up tax break could be beneficial.”
Collins said he preferred tax cuts that came “from the bottom up.”
“I do support the idea of trying to help working people,” he said. “But I’d kinda like to see tax cuts come from the bottom up and not the top down.”
The proposal comes on the heels of a call by Boren to put a moratorium on further tax cuts and “more investment in higher education.”
“I think we ought to have a moratorium on tax reductions right now,” Boren said in an interview with The Associated Press. “I think we’re bumping the limits and I think we certainly don’t need to proceed down that path.”
Boren, a former Democratic governor and U.S. senator, authored legislation to abolish the inheritance tax between spouses at the federal and state levels.
The state’s recent tax cuts, he said, will reduce state revenue by more than $600 million a year, about “as far as the state should go.”
“We’ve pushed the tax cut envelope about as far as possible and I think what people in Oklahoma really want is excellence,” Boren said. “It’s very tempting to give in to the Siren song of tax cuts. I realize that,” he said.
The lawmakers said they had also filed a companion measure, Senate Concurrent Resolution 43, calling on Congress to enact similar legislation at the federal level. Both measures will be considered when the 2008 legislative session convenes in February.
But while Boren and Collins were cool to the idea, Republican leaders in the Oklahoma Senate said they are willing to consider the proposal.
“The idea of exempting overtime pay from income taxes is being promoted nationally by prominent Republicans like former Speaker Newt Gingrich, and it is an idea Senate Republicans are willing to consider here in Oklahoma,” Senate Co-President Pro Tempore Glenn Coffee said in a media release.
“Oklahoma’s income tax rate is too high, so we are continually looking for ways to reduce the tax burden on Oklahoma families,” he said.
But at least one area lawmaker said he has concerns about the idea.
State Senator Kenneth Corn, D-Poteau, and Rep. Bud Smithson, D-Salisaw, held a Capitol press conference Monday to say they’d filed a measure “to help ensure Oklahoma workers would keep more of their hard earned dollars.”
The proposal — Senate Bill 1132 — would exempt most overtime pay from state income taxes required by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
“We’re talking about a tax break that will make a meaningful difference to the many Oklahomans and their families who work hard, but still live paycheck to paycheck,” said Corn, D-Poteau. “If they keep more of their overtime pay, it’s money that’s going to go straight back into the local economy for food, groceries, clothing and other necessities. It’s a win-win proposal.”
Corn said the exemption would apply to most employees who are paid by the hour but not apply to employees who are exempt from the FLSA overtime mandates — that is, executives, professionals or administrative employees.
However, Norman Democrat Wallace Collins said he’d like to know what the impact would be on the state or if both lawmakers were “simply cutting taxes.”
“While I think that we’ve cut taxes about all we’ve needed to cut them, a tax exemption (like the overtime proposal) would benefit working people,” Collins said.
People who are paid overtime, he said, “are certainly not CEOs and managers and people like that. And a bottom-up tax break could be beneficial.”
Collins said he preferred tax cuts that came “from the bottom up.”
“I do support the idea of trying to help working people,” he said. “But I’d kinda like to see tax cuts come from the bottom up and not the top down.”
The proposal comes on the heels of a call by Boren to put a moratorium on further tax cuts and “more investment in higher education.”
“I think we ought to have a moratorium on tax reductions right now,” Boren said in an interview with The Associated Press. “I think we’re bumping the limits and I think we certainly don’t need to proceed down that path.”
Boren, a former Democratic governor and U.S. senator, authored legislation to abolish the inheritance tax between spouses at the federal and state levels.
The state’s recent tax cuts, he said, will reduce state revenue by more than $600 million a year, about “as far as the state should go.”
“We’ve pushed the tax cut envelope about as far as possible and I think what people in Oklahoma really want is excellence,” Boren said. “It’s very tempting to give in to the Siren song of tax cuts. I realize that,” he said.
The lawmakers said they had also filed a companion measure, Senate Concurrent Resolution 43, calling on Congress to enact similar legislation at the federal level. Both measures will be considered when the 2008 legislative session convenes in February.
But while Boren and Collins were cool to the idea, Republican leaders in the Oklahoma Senate said they are willing to consider the proposal.
“The idea of exempting overtime pay from income taxes is being promoted nationally by prominent Republicans like former Speaker Newt Gingrich, and it is an idea Senate Republicans are willing to consider here in Oklahoma,” Senate Co-President Pro Tempore Glenn Coffee said in a media release.
“Oklahoma’s income tax rate is too high, so we are continually looking for ways to reduce the tax burden on Oklahoma families,” he said.
Wesselhoft proposes new legislation "to better protect" state's pregnant women
OKLAHOMA CITY — Saying he wants to “better protect women and unborn babies” state Representative Paul Wesselhoft said he’ll introduce legislation next year to strengthen the penalties for assaults on pregnant women.
Wesselhoft, a Moore Republican, said he would file the bill for the 2008 legislative session. That measure would make it a felony to assault a pregnant woman with the intent of causing a miscarriage, and would set a minimum sentencing requirement of five years in prison for a first conviction. A subsequent, second conviction would carry a minimum 10-year sentence.
Should a woman suffer a miscarriage within 48 hours of the assault, her assailant would face a minimum of 20 years in prison, he said.
Wesselhoft said he wrote the measure after learning how many pregnant women are assaulted each year in Oklahoma.
“We have over 3,000 pregnant women who are physically attacked in this state,” he said. “I think it’s an outrage that any man would attack a pregnant woman.”
Statistics from the Journal of the American Medical Association and the Oklahoma State Department of Health show that in 2005 about 6 percent of the nation’s pregnant women were assaulted. For Oklahoma, that figure is 3,158.
“Oklahomans must protect unborn children and the mothers who carry these vulnerable babies,” Wesselhoft said in a media release about the bill. “It takes a degenerate to try to kill an innocent baby, no matter what stage in life. I hope this bill literally scares the hell out of that reprobate who would physically abuse a pregnant woman.”
While Wesselhoft acknolwedges he hasn’t found a Senate co-author for the proposal, he believes the bill will be popular with the House of Representatives’ Republican leadership.
“I feel very optimistic,” he said. “Most likely our leadership will choose a couple of bills as part of their agenda, and I believe this will be one. I believe we’re definitely going to pass it in the House.”
Wesselhoft could get help from an unlikely ally.
Officials with the Oklahoma Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault said they did research for Wesselhoft’s measure, and added they would be receptive to the proposal — provided it didn’t contain “other language which could cause problems for women.”
“I haven’t actually seen the bill yet,” said Marcia Smith, the OCADVSA’s executive director. “But we are supportive of the idea. We hope that it’s in a form that we can support. We hope they don’t put anything else in there that will harm women.”
Smith said the group supports any legislation which holds abusers more accountable.
“We’re going to take a very close look it, anything that holds an abuser more accountable for their crimes is something that we can support.”
Many times, she said, women in abusive relationships are encouraged to terminate their pregnancy, or not seek medical help or child support. “That’s why we’re open-minded to this idea. Often, physical violence to a pregnant woman will result in brain damage or chemical imbalances to the fetus.”
Abused women, Smith said, are impacted by violence which in turn impacts their unborn baby.
Wesselhoft said he welcomed input from the group.
“I’m going to call them when the bill is heard in committee,” he said. “I do want their input, they are a critical component.”
Wesselhoft’s bill comes on the heels of a handfull of other measures — known as fetal homicide laws — which recently were passed by state lawmakers.
Those bills include:
• A bill passed in 2006 which defines an unborn child as a human being, but does not include legal abortion or instances of death during medical, therapeutic or diagnostic testing.
• A revision of the state’s civil wrongful death statutes — passed in 2005 — which revises the law governing the intentional shooting with intent to kill another, and assault and battery by adding an unborn child and includes a penalty anyone who willfully kills an unborn child.
Wesselhoft said lawmakers will get their first chance to review his bill next February at the beginning of the legislative session. “We must not allow over 3,000 pregnant women a year, and their unborn babies, to be physically abused or murdered,” he said.
Wesselhoft, a Moore Republican, said he would file the bill for the 2008 legislative session. That measure would make it a felony to assault a pregnant woman with the intent of causing a miscarriage, and would set a minimum sentencing requirement of five years in prison for a first conviction. A subsequent, second conviction would carry a minimum 10-year sentence.
Should a woman suffer a miscarriage within 48 hours of the assault, her assailant would face a minimum of 20 years in prison, he said.
Wesselhoft said he wrote the measure after learning how many pregnant women are assaulted each year in Oklahoma.
“We have over 3,000 pregnant women who are physically attacked in this state,” he said. “I think it’s an outrage that any man would attack a pregnant woman.”
Statistics from the Journal of the American Medical Association and the Oklahoma State Department of Health show that in 2005 about 6 percent of the nation’s pregnant women were assaulted. For Oklahoma, that figure is 3,158.
“Oklahomans must protect unborn children and the mothers who carry these vulnerable babies,” Wesselhoft said in a media release about the bill. “It takes a degenerate to try to kill an innocent baby, no matter what stage in life. I hope this bill literally scares the hell out of that reprobate who would physically abuse a pregnant woman.”
While Wesselhoft acknolwedges he hasn’t found a Senate co-author for the proposal, he believes the bill will be popular with the House of Representatives’ Republican leadership.
“I feel very optimistic,” he said. “Most likely our leadership will choose a couple of bills as part of their agenda, and I believe this will be one. I believe we’re definitely going to pass it in the House.”
Wesselhoft could get help from an unlikely ally.
Officials with the Oklahoma Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault said they did research for Wesselhoft’s measure, and added they would be receptive to the proposal — provided it didn’t contain “other language which could cause problems for women.”
“I haven’t actually seen the bill yet,” said Marcia Smith, the OCADVSA’s executive director. “But we are supportive of the idea. We hope that it’s in a form that we can support. We hope they don’t put anything else in there that will harm women.”
Smith said the group supports any legislation which holds abusers more accountable.
“We’re going to take a very close look it, anything that holds an abuser more accountable for their crimes is something that we can support.”
Many times, she said, women in abusive relationships are encouraged to terminate their pregnancy, or not seek medical help or child support. “That’s why we’re open-minded to this idea. Often, physical violence to a pregnant woman will result in brain damage or chemical imbalances to the fetus.”
Abused women, Smith said, are impacted by violence which in turn impacts their unborn baby.
Wesselhoft said he welcomed input from the group.
“I’m going to call them when the bill is heard in committee,” he said. “I do want their input, they are a critical component.”
Wesselhoft’s bill comes on the heels of a handfull of other measures — known as fetal homicide laws — which recently were passed by state lawmakers.
Those bills include:
• A bill passed in 2006 which defines an unborn child as a human being, but does not include legal abortion or instances of death during medical, therapeutic or diagnostic testing.
• A revision of the state’s civil wrongful death statutes — passed in 2005 — which revises the law governing the intentional shooting with intent to kill another, and assault and battery by adding an unborn child and includes a penalty anyone who willfully kills an unborn child.
Wesselhoft said lawmakers will get their first chance to review his bill next February at the beginning of the legislative session. “We must not allow over 3,000 pregnant women a year, and their unborn babies, to be physically abused or murdered,” he said.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Lawmakers question new immigration law
OKLAHOMA CITY — Five state lawmakers, including two from Cleveland County, have asked for an attorney general’s opinion on whether the state’s new immigration law is enforceable.
State Reps. Bill Nations and Wallace Collins, both Norman Democrats, and Reps. Al Lindley, D-Oklahoma City; Al McAffrey, D-Oklahoma City, and Scott BigHorse, D-Pawhuska, sent a seven-page letter to Attorney General Drew Edmondson requesting the opinion, Edmondson’s office confirmed Friday.
The letter, dated Sept. 5, asked Edmondson whether the state’s new immigration law — created by House Bill 1804 — conflicts with federal immigration law. The state law was authored by Moore Republican Randy Terrill.
“As widely reported in the press, there is a great deal of confusion regarding what the bill does and does not do,” the letter states. “There are also questions regarding to how the law will affect public agencies, schools and other members of our constituency.”
Nations said he endorsed the request because “it’s almost impossible” to have a civil conversation about immigration.
“I think that a law of this sort, this approach, is punitive and not well thought out,” he said. “It’s reactionary. This is a complicated problem that needs to have a better solution. It’s frustrating, because the abililty to have moderates sit down in a room and use common sense and come up with a workable solution is very limited.”
Nations said lawmakers asked Edmondson 21 questions about the immigration law, including:
• Can public and private elementary and secondary schools “deny issuance of identification cards to students who are not U.S. citizens, nationals, lawful permanent residents?”
• Does “categorization of immigrants for the purpose of eligibility for school identification” constitute a state-imposed regulation of immigration?
• Can state officials, including judges “rely on a defendant’s current lack of immigration status to infer that he or she was not lawfully admitted to the United States?”
• Do full due process protections, including the right to counsel, apply to proceedings?
“We need solutions,” Nations said, “and solutions are not coming from Washington, D.C.”
Friday, Terrill said he expected the measure to be challenged.
“I’m not surprised in the least that somebody would be considering filing a challenge to the bill. Maybe they are hoping the attorney general will do their research for them,” he said.
Terrill said he was “99.9” percent confident that the bill would withstand any challenge to it. “House Bill 1804 is a carefully calibrated measure,” he said. “It’s designed to sync perfectly with federal immigration law.”
Terrill said the measure was written “well within” constitutional and federal immigration guidelines.
“A state cannot regulate immigration,” he said. “A state can, however, cooperatively enforce immigration law and the federal government encourages states to cooperatively enforce the law.”
House Bill 1804, he said, was not regulation but cooperative enforcement.
“This request is just the first step in trying to thwart implementation of the law,” Terrill said.
Rep. Collins disagreed, charging the law was aimed primary at Hispanics and, therefore, racist.
“I voted against the bill, I didn’t support the bill,” Collins said. “I think it was racist and aimed primary at the Hispanic population. I think that’s wrong.”
And while Terrill said recent polls show “a vast majority” of Oklahomans want tougher immigration laws, Collins said most Oklahomans didn’t understand the issue.
“People are not educated about the real facts of federal immigration,” he said. “They don’t understand.”
Edmondson’s spokesman, Charlie Price, said the attorney general will assign the letter to an associate for review. But that review, Price said, could take several weeks.
Portions of the law are set to go into effect Nov. 1.
State Reps. Bill Nations and Wallace Collins, both Norman Democrats, and Reps. Al Lindley, D-Oklahoma City; Al McAffrey, D-Oklahoma City, and Scott BigHorse, D-Pawhuska, sent a seven-page letter to Attorney General Drew Edmondson requesting the opinion, Edmondson’s office confirmed Friday.
The letter, dated Sept. 5, asked Edmondson whether the state’s new immigration law — created by House Bill 1804 — conflicts with federal immigration law. The state law was authored by Moore Republican Randy Terrill.
“As widely reported in the press, there is a great deal of confusion regarding what the bill does and does not do,” the letter states. “There are also questions regarding to how the law will affect public agencies, schools and other members of our constituency.”
Nations said he endorsed the request because “it’s almost impossible” to have a civil conversation about immigration.
“I think that a law of this sort, this approach, is punitive and not well thought out,” he said. “It’s reactionary. This is a complicated problem that needs to have a better solution. It’s frustrating, because the abililty to have moderates sit down in a room and use common sense and come up with a workable solution is very limited.”
Nations said lawmakers asked Edmondson 21 questions about the immigration law, including:
• Can public and private elementary and secondary schools “deny issuance of identification cards to students who are not U.S. citizens, nationals, lawful permanent residents?”
• Does “categorization of immigrants for the purpose of eligibility for school identification” constitute a state-imposed regulation of immigration?
• Can state officials, including judges “rely on a defendant’s current lack of immigration status to infer that he or she was not lawfully admitted to the United States?”
• Do full due process protections, including the right to counsel, apply to proceedings?
“We need solutions,” Nations said, “and solutions are not coming from Washington, D.C.”
Friday, Terrill said he expected the measure to be challenged.
“I’m not surprised in the least that somebody would be considering filing a challenge to the bill. Maybe they are hoping the attorney general will do their research for them,” he said.
Terrill said he was “99.9” percent confident that the bill would withstand any challenge to it. “House Bill 1804 is a carefully calibrated measure,” he said. “It’s designed to sync perfectly with federal immigration law.”
Terrill said the measure was written “well within” constitutional and federal immigration guidelines.
“A state cannot regulate immigration,” he said. “A state can, however, cooperatively enforce immigration law and the federal government encourages states to cooperatively enforce the law.”
House Bill 1804, he said, was not regulation but cooperative enforcement.
“This request is just the first step in trying to thwart implementation of the law,” Terrill said.
Rep. Collins disagreed, charging the law was aimed primary at Hispanics and, therefore, racist.
“I voted against the bill, I didn’t support the bill,” Collins said. “I think it was racist and aimed primary at the Hispanic population. I think that’s wrong.”
And while Terrill said recent polls show “a vast majority” of Oklahomans want tougher immigration laws, Collins said most Oklahomans didn’t understand the issue.
“People are not educated about the real facts of federal immigration,” he said. “They don’t understand.”
Edmondson’s spokesman, Charlie Price, said the attorney general will assign the letter to an associate for review. But that review, Price said, could take several weeks.
Portions of the law are set to go into effect Nov. 1.
Legal immigration takes years, very costly, attorney says
Immigration laws in the United States are so convoluted that it can take decades before an immigrant — seeking to become a legal resident — can achieve that goal, a Norman attorney said Friday.
Giovinna Perry, who practices immigration law in Oklahoma City, said some Hispanic families are forced to wait anywhere from 12 to 15 years to become legal residents. For residents from the Philippines, the wait can be even longer — more than 20 years.
“One of the things people say all the time is, ‘why don’t they just legally come here,’” Perry said. “Well, the answer is because it isn’t that easy.”
Speaking at the Cleveland County Democratic Party’s weekly Tyner Corn Bread and Beans luncheon, Perry said federal immigration law requires one of two relationships: either through family or through employment. “But somebody has to file an application,” she said.
“Before 1996 people could go in and out of the country with no repercussions. But after that, Congress changed the law. They developed a quota system and limited the number of available visas, and every year they meet that quota. It’s created a backlog.”
To make matters worse, she said, the federal government “doesn’t treat borders the same way” and many times, immigrant workers in the United States are exploited or the victims of illegal actions by law enforcement.
“The exploitation of immigrants is big in this country. You see it in the news more and more every day. We have reports of law officers going to grocery stores on Shields (Boulevard) asking people for papers. Those things are illegal — stopping people and asking for papers.”
Perry said Oklahoma lawmakers also “contributed to the problem” when they adopted House Bill 1804.
“Right now, because of HB1804, a lot of people are scared and leaving the state of Oklahoma,” she said. “Employers are scared and they don’t understand.”
Perry said the new law requires companies to “sign up with certain information programs” to verify a worker’s residency. “For state offices and state contractors, the law goes into effect Nov. 1. For private companies, it’s July of 2008 and applies to all new workers.”
Because of the law, Perry said many companies are firing all their current workers. “Then they can’t find anyone to do the work. It’s a problem in construction, housing, hotels and the food processing industries — all the jobs we know the immigrants are doing right now.”
Oklahoma’s law — like those of other states, she said — “is a bad way” to solve the problem. “I believe it’s going to have a real negative impact on state economy. And I don’t think the American public will stand for it.”
To solve the problem, Perry said policy leaders should focus on four areas — better border security, a foreign policy that helps strengthen the economy of other countries, a path to citizenship for all undocumented workers currently in the United States, and more worker visas for immigrant workers at all levels.
“We need to focus on all four areas,” she said. “But right now the government is just focused on security. That’s like saying you’re going to cure a sick person and not focus on preventative medicine. It just won’t work.”
Giovinna Perry, who practices immigration law in Oklahoma City, said some Hispanic families are forced to wait anywhere from 12 to 15 years to become legal residents. For residents from the Philippines, the wait can be even longer — more than 20 years.
“One of the things people say all the time is, ‘why don’t they just legally come here,’” Perry said. “Well, the answer is because it isn’t that easy.”
Speaking at the Cleveland County Democratic Party’s weekly Tyner Corn Bread and Beans luncheon, Perry said federal immigration law requires one of two relationships: either through family or through employment. “But somebody has to file an application,” she said.
“Before 1996 people could go in and out of the country with no repercussions. But after that, Congress changed the law. They developed a quota system and limited the number of available visas, and every year they meet that quota. It’s created a backlog.”
To make matters worse, she said, the federal government “doesn’t treat borders the same way” and many times, immigrant workers in the United States are exploited or the victims of illegal actions by law enforcement.
“The exploitation of immigrants is big in this country. You see it in the news more and more every day. We have reports of law officers going to grocery stores on Shields (Boulevard) asking people for papers. Those things are illegal — stopping people and asking for papers.”
Perry said Oklahoma lawmakers also “contributed to the problem” when they adopted House Bill 1804.
“Right now, because of HB1804, a lot of people are scared and leaving the state of Oklahoma,” she said. “Employers are scared and they don’t understand.”
Perry said the new law requires companies to “sign up with certain information programs” to verify a worker’s residency. “For state offices and state contractors, the law goes into effect Nov. 1. For private companies, it’s July of 2008 and applies to all new workers.”
Because of the law, Perry said many companies are firing all their current workers. “Then they can’t find anyone to do the work. It’s a problem in construction, housing, hotels and the food processing industries — all the jobs we know the immigrants are doing right now.”
Oklahoma’s law — like those of other states, she said — “is a bad way” to solve the problem. “I believe it’s going to have a real negative impact on state economy. And I don’t think the American public will stand for it.”
To solve the problem, Perry said policy leaders should focus on four areas — better border security, a foreign policy that helps strengthen the economy of other countries, a path to citizenship for all undocumented workers currently in the United States, and more worker visas for immigrant workers at all levels.
“We need to focus on all four areas,” she said. “But right now the government is just focused on security. That’s like saying you’re going to cure a sick person and not focus on preventative medicine. It just won’t work.”
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Unreleased report says state funding more than $800 million short
OKLAHOMA CITY — A controversial education study — completed in 2005 but never officially released by the Oklahoma Legislature — paints a dismal picture of state education funding and calls for an influx of more than $800 million in new spending, The Transcript has learned.
Commissioned in 2004, and completed at a cost of $150,230 in April of 2005, the two-part study by Colorado-based Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, was prepared for the Legislative Service Bureau — a state office controlled by the Oklahoma House of Representatives and the Oklahoma State Senate.
The first part of the study, which cost $32,930, was released in November of 2004. That report examined the spending of school districts which successfully met state performance standards.
The second report of the study — entitled “Calculating the Cost of an Adequate Education in Oklahoma,” — analyzed the “adequacy of revenues available to elementary and secondary school districts in Oklahoma” for the 2003-2004 fiscal year.
That portion of the report — finished in April of 2005 but never released — cost $117,300 and says state per-student spending should be increased to almost $7,000 to “ensure school districts have a reasonable chance” to meet state and federal student performance expectations.
Those extra funds, documents show, would amount to more than $844 million.
Records indicate Oklahoma allocated $5,622 per student in education spending for the 2003-2004 fiscal year; during that time, about 618,000 students attended Oklahoma public schools.
But that $5,622 figure, the study said, is $1,367 shy of the amount needed for schools to reach an “adequacy level” — a level which funds “base services” to all kindergarten through 12th grade students and covers additional costs for serving students with special needs — that is, special education, at-risk, and English as a Second Language (ESL) services.
And while some officials say the document is proof the state’s education system is drastically underfunded, others downplay the report and question its data.
Either way, few have seen the second document.
“The study just reinforces the Governor’s view that we have to put more resources in the classroom,” said Paul Sund, a spokesman for Gov. Brad Henry.
Sund confirmed officials in Henry’s office had read the study earlier this year, but only after being shown the study by a television news reporter.
But Lt. Gov. Jari Askins — a member of the House of Representatives in 2004 — said she never saw the study, as did State Superintendent of Public Instruction Sandy Garrett.
“No. That Augenblick study was never made available to me,” Garrett said. “I have not seen it and I don’t think it was released to anyone else.”
Former House Speaker Todd Hiett, who served as House leader during the time the study was completed, did not return phone calls from The Transcript. However, Damon Gardenhire, a spokesman for current House Speaker Lance Cargill, claimed the study’s second part was released.
“I checked, and in fact, the study was made available,” Gardenhire wrote in an e-mail.
Developed using a “professional judgment” approach, the Augenblick study used panels of educators and education service providers to “specify the resources needed” for a hypothetical group of different sized schools and districts.
Forty-four school officials — including Bartlesville physics teacher Granger Meador, who testified Tuesday at a House hearing on merit pay — participated in the study.
Meador said he was disappointed the study was never released. “I was very frustrated,” he said. “But I did get a copy about a year ago.”
Written using data taken from three different panels, the “professional judgment approach is particularly useful” in examining the future costs of schools and districts in meeting state performance standards, Augenblick officials said.
“Oklahoma, like many states uses a ‘foundation-type’ formula as the basis for allocating a majority of the state’s aid to school districts,” the study said. “Under a foundation approach, the state typically determines a fixed amount of revenue per student — the foundation level.”
But those officials say the ‘foundation style’ of funding doesn’t include the state and federal school performance expectations and, because of that, schools don’t receive the funds necessary to properly educate students.
“In many states — including Oklahoma — the determination of the foundation level is based primarily on the total revenue available and does not take into account the state and federal expectations for district and school performance,” the study said. “Such a method for determining the foundation does not reflect the level of resources needed to fully implement standards-based reform.”
And though Henry’s office said the study underscored the governor’s call for increased education funding, Gardenhire questioned the report’s validity.
“Other studies reach different conclusions,” Gardenhire said. “And other states are experiencing fiscal problems because of similarly flawed studies by Augenblick.” Gardenhire added the study’s conclusions were “questionable at best since the firm (Augenblick) was clearly a tool of the NEA.”
Other education leaders disagree.
Oklahoma Education Association president Roy Bishop said the study confirms why the teacher’s union recently sued then-House Speaker Hiett and Senate Pro Tempore Mike Morgan.
“Not releasing the second study sends a terrible message to the people of Oklahoma,” Bishop said. “It says that our legislative leaders don’t want the public to see this because they have not funded our educational system adequately.”
Bishop said lawmakers withheld the study “because of the huge amount” of money involved.
“There’s an agenda out there to make sure taxes are cut and to reduce growth revenue and this study would have put a serious issue on the table for discussion and they don’t want to deal with that.”
Bishop also criticized claims that both parts of the study had been released.
“I don’t believe that,” he said. “If they were out there, why wouldn’t they bring them up? Why bury it? Why hide it?”
Commissioned in 2004, and completed at a cost of $150,230 in April of 2005, the two-part study by Colorado-based Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, was prepared for the Legislative Service Bureau — a state office controlled by the Oklahoma House of Representatives and the Oklahoma State Senate.
The first part of the study, which cost $32,930, was released in November of 2004. That report examined the spending of school districts which successfully met state performance standards.
The second report of the study — entitled “Calculating the Cost of an Adequate Education in Oklahoma,” — analyzed the “adequacy of revenues available to elementary and secondary school districts in Oklahoma” for the 2003-2004 fiscal year.
That portion of the report — finished in April of 2005 but never released — cost $117,300 and says state per-student spending should be increased to almost $7,000 to “ensure school districts have a reasonable chance” to meet state and federal student performance expectations.
Those extra funds, documents show, would amount to more than $844 million.
Records indicate Oklahoma allocated $5,622 per student in education spending for the 2003-2004 fiscal year; during that time, about 618,000 students attended Oklahoma public schools.
But that $5,622 figure, the study said, is $1,367 shy of the amount needed for schools to reach an “adequacy level” — a level which funds “base services” to all kindergarten through 12th grade students and covers additional costs for serving students with special needs — that is, special education, at-risk, and English as a Second Language (ESL) services.
And while some officials say the document is proof the state’s education system is drastically underfunded, others downplay the report and question its data.
Either way, few have seen the second document.
“The study just reinforces the Governor’s view that we have to put more resources in the classroom,” said Paul Sund, a spokesman for Gov. Brad Henry.
Sund confirmed officials in Henry’s office had read the study earlier this year, but only after being shown the study by a television news reporter.
But Lt. Gov. Jari Askins — a member of the House of Representatives in 2004 — said she never saw the study, as did State Superintendent of Public Instruction Sandy Garrett.
“No. That Augenblick study was never made available to me,” Garrett said. “I have not seen it and I don’t think it was released to anyone else.”
Former House Speaker Todd Hiett, who served as House leader during the time the study was completed, did not return phone calls from The Transcript. However, Damon Gardenhire, a spokesman for current House Speaker Lance Cargill, claimed the study’s second part was released.
“I checked, and in fact, the study was made available,” Gardenhire wrote in an e-mail.
Developed using a “professional judgment” approach, the Augenblick study used panels of educators and education service providers to “specify the resources needed” for a hypothetical group of different sized schools and districts.
Forty-four school officials — including Bartlesville physics teacher Granger Meador, who testified Tuesday at a House hearing on merit pay — participated in the study.
Meador said he was disappointed the study was never released. “I was very frustrated,” he said. “But I did get a copy about a year ago.”
Written using data taken from three different panels, the “professional judgment approach is particularly useful” in examining the future costs of schools and districts in meeting state performance standards, Augenblick officials said.
“Oklahoma, like many states uses a ‘foundation-type’ formula as the basis for allocating a majority of the state’s aid to school districts,” the study said. “Under a foundation approach, the state typically determines a fixed amount of revenue per student — the foundation level.”
But those officials say the ‘foundation style’ of funding doesn’t include the state and federal school performance expectations and, because of that, schools don’t receive the funds necessary to properly educate students.
“In many states — including Oklahoma — the determination of the foundation level is based primarily on the total revenue available and does not take into account the state and federal expectations for district and school performance,” the study said. “Such a method for determining the foundation does not reflect the level of resources needed to fully implement standards-based reform.”
And though Henry’s office said the study underscored the governor’s call for increased education funding, Gardenhire questioned the report’s validity.
“Other studies reach different conclusions,” Gardenhire said. “And other states are experiencing fiscal problems because of similarly flawed studies by Augenblick.” Gardenhire added the study’s conclusions were “questionable at best since the firm (Augenblick) was clearly a tool of the NEA.”
Other education leaders disagree.
Oklahoma Education Association president Roy Bishop said the study confirms why the teacher’s union recently sued then-House Speaker Hiett and Senate Pro Tempore Mike Morgan.
“Not releasing the second study sends a terrible message to the people of Oklahoma,” Bishop said. “It says that our legislative leaders don’t want the public to see this because they have not funded our educational system adequately.”
Bishop said lawmakers withheld the study “because of the huge amount” of money involved.
“There’s an agenda out there to make sure taxes are cut and to reduce growth revenue and this study would have put a serious issue on the table for discussion and they don’t want to deal with that.”
Bishop also criticized claims that both parts of the study had been released.
“I don’t believe that,” he said. “If they were out there, why wouldn’t they bring them up? Why bury it? Why hide it?”
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
COMMENTARY: Cleveland County residents will have to solve jail problem themselves
For several years now, Cleveland County’s Board of Commissioners has struggled with the county’s ever-increasing jail population.
The issue has bounced back and forth for quite a while, and then, in 2006, state officials began to increase the pressure on the county to reduce its inmate population.
Built to hold 177, the jail’s population has hovered near or over the 200 mark for quite a while.
Twice, jail inspectors have threatened to fine the county huge amounts or close the jail if something wasn’t done to reduce the number of inmates there.
Some measures have helped.
The county has agreements with other counties for the housing of prisoners, and a new county drug court has helped to reduce the inmate population — slightly.
But the county’s biggest problem is the offspring of two attitudes which have reduced the necessary funds available to run the facility and, at the same time, increased the number of crimes the public can be put in jail for.
Call it I-don’t-want-to-pay meets Tough-on-crime.
To make matters worse, state lawmakers — who would rather spend their time trying to micromanage county government instead of trying to solve statewide issues — tried to strong arm commissioners with a couple of silly laws which did nothing more than generate political fodder for re-election campaigns.
So Cleveland County’s Commissioners have, for several years now, been stuck squarely in the middle.
And you can rest assured they don’t like being there.
Various solutions have been proposed — expanding the current jail, which is located in downtown Norman; constructing a second facility on a 30-acre plot of land along Franklin Road, near the York International plant; or building another facility in Lexington next to the state prisons there.
Each idea has its good and bad components.
But the problem is very few people want to do any listening. Most, instead, just want to whine and moan about how they don’t want to pay for a jail or how it shouldn’t be build “in my backyard.”
This while they also want to lock people up for everything ranging from first time drug offenses to $50 bogus checks.
Well, gang, we’ve now reached that point where our collectives backs are against the wall.
Something has gotta’ give.
Unless county officials can find a location, and come up with a mechanism to fund the construction of a new jail, they’ll be forced to expand the old one.
Norman’s downtown merchants are not too hip on having a jail dominate their skyline and the folks who live in the country near Franklin Road don’t want the jail on their side of town.
Then, there’s the problem with building a facility in Lexington. Law enforcement officials don’t like that idea because of the logistics of moving prisoners back and forth.
But, again, the fact remains that something has to be done.
And it has to happen soon.
So here’s my suggestion: Call a huge, well-publicized countywide meeting at say, the fairgrounds.
Get all the interested parties in the same room. If they don’t come they are forever banned from complaining.
Then, lock the doors and don’t let anyone out until they reach a decision.
Since Oklahoma isn’t Dickensonian London there are no workhouses or treadmills. We’re out of dungeons — thankfully, we haven’t got to the point where we’re executing people for DUI.
But we’re close.
So reason and common sense are going to have to play a major role in where and when and how the county builds and pays for a new jail facility.
We’re also going to have to expand the use of alternative and community-based sentencing.
Political games, rhetoric and a one-sided attitudes are not going to solve the problem. It’s going to take brainwork and some well though out ideas by citizens of Cleveland County.
Because if we don’t do something soon, the state will.
And I promise you that solution will cost far more than any of us can imagine.
The issue has bounced back and forth for quite a while, and then, in 2006, state officials began to increase the pressure on the county to reduce its inmate population.
Built to hold 177, the jail’s population has hovered near or over the 200 mark for quite a while.
Twice, jail inspectors have threatened to fine the county huge amounts or close the jail if something wasn’t done to reduce the number of inmates there.
Some measures have helped.
The county has agreements with other counties for the housing of prisoners, and a new county drug court has helped to reduce the inmate population — slightly.
But the county’s biggest problem is the offspring of two attitudes which have reduced the necessary funds available to run the facility and, at the same time, increased the number of crimes the public can be put in jail for.
Call it I-don’t-want-to-pay meets Tough-on-crime.
To make matters worse, state lawmakers — who would rather spend their time trying to micromanage county government instead of trying to solve statewide issues — tried to strong arm commissioners with a couple of silly laws which did nothing more than generate political fodder for re-election campaigns.
So Cleveland County’s Commissioners have, for several years now, been stuck squarely in the middle.
And you can rest assured they don’t like being there.
Various solutions have been proposed — expanding the current jail, which is located in downtown Norman; constructing a second facility on a 30-acre plot of land along Franklin Road, near the York International plant; or building another facility in Lexington next to the state prisons there.
Each idea has its good and bad components.
But the problem is very few people want to do any listening. Most, instead, just want to whine and moan about how they don’t want to pay for a jail or how it shouldn’t be build “in my backyard.”
This while they also want to lock people up for everything ranging from first time drug offenses to $50 bogus checks.
Well, gang, we’ve now reached that point where our collectives backs are against the wall.
Something has gotta’ give.
Unless county officials can find a location, and come up with a mechanism to fund the construction of a new jail, they’ll be forced to expand the old one.
Norman’s downtown merchants are not too hip on having a jail dominate their skyline and the folks who live in the country near Franklin Road don’t want the jail on their side of town.
Then, there’s the problem with building a facility in Lexington. Law enforcement officials don’t like that idea because of the logistics of moving prisoners back and forth.
But, again, the fact remains that something has to be done.
And it has to happen soon.
So here’s my suggestion: Call a huge, well-publicized countywide meeting at say, the fairgrounds.
Get all the interested parties in the same room. If they don’t come they are forever banned from complaining.
Then, lock the doors and don’t let anyone out until they reach a decision.
Since Oklahoma isn’t Dickensonian London there are no workhouses or treadmills. We’re out of dungeons — thankfully, we haven’t got to the point where we’re executing people for DUI.
But we’re close.
So reason and common sense are going to have to play a major role in where and when and how the county builds and pays for a new jail facility.
We’re also going to have to expand the use of alternative and community-based sentencing.
Political games, rhetoric and a one-sided attitudes are not going to solve the problem. It’s going to take brainwork and some well though out ideas by citizens of Cleveland County.
Because if we don’t do something soon, the state will.
And I promise you that solution will cost far more than any of us can imagine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
