With the November 2 election fast approaching, Oklahoma voters must digest the longest list of questions of any state in the nation.
Eleven measures are on the ballot, ten of which are proposed amendments to the Oklahoma Constitution. All but one were sent to the voters by the Oklahoma Legislature; the only one coming from a citizens’ petition is the proposal to raise Oklahoma’s education spending to the regional average, something Republican legislators are loathe to do on their own.
A lot can be learned by understanding who is behind the proposals. Representatives Sue Tibbs and Mike Reynolds cosponsored six of the ten legislative measures, with Leslie Osborn, George Faught and former Tea Party gubernatorial candidate Randy Brogdon signing on to five. Senators Coffee, Ford, Jolley and Sykes and Representatives Duncan, Kern, Randy McDaniel and Terrill endorsed at least three.
In all, 65 of the 149 legislators cosponsored at least one of the measures; 56 of those 65 are Republicans. Only the proposal to increase the Rainy Day fund cap received good bipartisan support. Two other Democrats supported the proposal to lower the number of signatures required for initiative petitions. Other than those two measures, no Democrats cosponsored any of the legislative proposals.
That means that eight of the ten measures submitted by the Legislature are purely part of the Republican agenda to change Oklahoma government.
This legislature doesn’t have a good track record for well-written laws. In March the Supreme Court found one of their bills to be unconstitutional. In 2009, the Court had ruled the same way twice in three months, to no avail. Having ignored earlier admonitions, the Court added, “We are growing weary of admonishing the Legislature for so flagrantly violating the terms of the Oklahoma Constitution. It is a waste of time for the Legislature and the Court, and a waste of the taxpayer's money.”
In August, the Supreme Court agreed with Insurance Commissioner Kim Holland that a bill taxing health insurance claims was unconstitutional, stripping $78 million from an already-tight state budget. Fortunately, federal economic stimulus funds filled the gap, avoiding an expensive special session to fix the problem. But those federal dollars won’t be available forever to cure the incompetence of the Oklahoma legislature.
Several of the state questions will face legal challenges. SQ 746, requiring a voter to produce identification, may conflict with the state constitution, which provides that “No power, civil or military, shall ever interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage by those entitled to such right.” That was one reason Gov. Brad Henry vetoed the proposal when it crossed his desk; the Republicans overrode his veto and placed it on the ballot anyway.
SQ754 includes a provision that claims it cannot be repealed or amended, even if Oklahoma voters unanimously wanted it changed. That’s inconsistent with the Constitution’s original language, which guarantees that the people “have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it.” In effect, Republican lawmakers seek to strip Oklahoma voters of their fundamental right of self-governance. That one will be tied up in litigation for years, when we should be addressing real problems facing Oklahomans.
The same is true for SQ756, by which Republicans seek to deny Oklahomans the benefits of reforms in health care passed by Congress earlier this year. As the ballot language makes clear, under the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, federal law preempts conflicting state law. You can bet there will be lawsuits over this one if it is passed.
The only ones worth their salt, besides SQ744 on funding for common education, are SQ748, SQ750 and SQ757.
SQ748 restructures the eternally-imperfect system of redistricting. If the legislature reaches an impasse over redistricting, the process is entrusted to six bipartisan appointees rather than the current three elected officials who may all be from the same party.
SQ750 would lower the number of signatories required to put a question to the voters by initiative petition. I don’t think it should ever be difficult for Oklahomans to propose changes to their system of government.
SQ757 would increase the amount of the Rainy Day fund from 10% to 15% of available funds, creating a deeper savings account for future tough times. We don’t have money to set aside today, but someday we will, and we need to be prepared.
As for term limits, we have them already. If the voters step up to the plate and do their job, SQ747 is unnecessary. Let the voters decide who they want to serve in public office.
So there you have it. In this humble writer’s opinion, only four questions merit a “yes” vote on November 2 – State Questions 744, 748, 750 and 757. The rest deserve a “no” vote. Hopefully we’ll survive this mind-numbing process until we get a smarter legislature.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Yes on 744, No on 754. Touchdown!
It’s the fourth quarter, and you’re behind by five points. It’s fourth down and long yardage for a first down, much less a touchdown. The clock is ticking. Your only chance is to throw a “Hail Mary” pass. Throw it deep, throw it long. The chance your opponent will intercept the ball is literally a toss-up. But it’s possible that, just maybe, one of your teammates will catch it, hang on to it, and stumble across the end zone for victory.
That kind of last-ditch effort to pull off a miracle is exciting football. But it’s also an apt description for State Question 744, the best-known proposition on Oklahoma’s Nov. 2 ballot.
SQ744 is the only question on the ballot that came from an initiative petition; all the rest are creatures of the Republican Legislature. 234,446 voters signed the petition, nearly 100,000 more than the required 138,970 signatures. State questions on the ballot four years ago needed about 440,000 votes to be approved, so there appears to be strong support for SQ744 among voters.
This is, after all, the people’s government. “All political power is inherent in the people; and government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and to promote their general welfare; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it,” says the Oklahoma Constitution. The people have every right to set priorities for public officials. If they want public schools to be funded at the regional average, they should fix that bar and force public officials to construct state government around it.
According to SQ744 supporters, Oklahoma is currently dead last and $1,627 per student behind the regional average. We’re also 49th in the nation. The status quo is obviously not working.
SQ744 would mandate that the Legislature must fund public schools at a rate at least equal to the average spent per pupil by the six states surrounding Oklahoma. If the average from the bordering states drops, Oklahoma must spend the amount it spent the year before.
But we also would deal with the Lake Wobegon effect. In Garrison Keillor’s mythical Minnesota community, all the children are above average, a statistical absurdity. As Oklahoma raises its spending, the regional average would also rise. It’s not just a matter of spending $1,627 more per pupil; it will cost more than that, and even more as other states increase their expenditures to avoid losing ground. It would be an interesting dilemma if each of our neighbors committed themselves to spend more than the regional average.
Aren’t we spending enough on education? After all, Brad Henry’s principal campaign promise was to bring Oklahoma up to the regional average in teacher pay. Surprisingly, over the past two years we’ve cut funding for common education by over $200 million.
Will this mean raising taxes? Probably, along with a good stiff kick in the pants toward reform in state government. But that’s not part of the Republican agenda. So, after SQ744 was circulated, Edmond Sen. Todd Lamb and his buddies put State Question 754 on the ballot. That proposal would cause a constitutional crisis by banning what SQ744 seeks to accomplish. Check. Checkmate.
Interestingly, despite the quote above, SQ754 includes a provision that claims it cannot be repealed or amended, even if Oklahoma voters unanimously wanted it changed. By doing so, Republican lawmakers seek to strip Oklahoma voters of their fundamental right of self-governance. That’s how little they trust the voters.
The mix of State Questions 744 and 754 on the same ballot guarantees protracted and expensive litigation if they both pass. With one mandate pitted against another, eventually the Supreme Court will have to untangle the mess. Voters would be wise to stand up for their right to govern themselves and save a lot of taxpayer dollars by voting no on State Question 754.
As for 744, it’s a good idea. Republican lawmakers have already strangled Oklahoma education too far. We need to educate our children, to give them a solid foundation on which they can begin their lives, so this state can be a better place in which to live. A decent education is one of the fundamental expectations we should have for state government.
But lab equipment and textbooks and computers cost money. SQ744 should end Oklahoma’s cottage industry of bake sales and car washes to pay for pencils and paper.
This is indeed a “Hail Mary” attempt to score a touchdown in the education game. Lawmakers have had 103 years to get it right, and they’ve failed miserably. It’s time for the voters to make their priorities clear by voting yes on State Question 744, and forcing lawmakers to play the game of government by the people’s rules instead of their own.
SQ755 Is Nuts!
State Question 755 is ridiculous. It’s also dangerous.
Why is it up for consideration? When the Republican-controlled legislature approved it for the ballot, the author, State Rep. Rex Duncan of Sand Springs, said in a press release, “Judges in other states and on the federal bench have increasingly turned to citing international law in their court decisions, something I and others feel is grossly inappropriate in a sovereign state such as our own.”
They may feel it’s “grossly inappropriate,” but any first-year law student knows the job of the courts is to interpret the laws under which parties operate. This radical proposition is astonishing and unprecedented in American jurisprudence.
If approved, Oklahoma’s Constitution would require the courts to “uphold and adhere to” the federal and state constitutions, statutes, rules, regulations and common law in making judicial decisions. Sounds good. And, of course, they do that already. But they also rely on the precedent of published opinions, which may end because case law is omitted as an approved source of legal authority.
“The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures,” according to the proposed language, even though our entire legal code is built upon our British legal heritage. “Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia Law.”
There is no single code that contains “international law.” It’s a legal term that refers to the laws and treaties that govern relations between independent nations. It’s not clear from the ambiguous language whether the courts are to ignore the laws of other countries, as opposed to treaties between countries, or what he means by “legal precepts.” But there are differences in legal parlance.
The proposal is also on doubtful constitutional grounds. The Supremacy Clause makes the federal Constitution, laws and treaties the “supreme law of the land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in an 1824 opinion, “In every such case, the act of Congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it."
This gambit sounds a lot like the Bricker amendments from the 1950s. Ohio Senator John Bricker proposed language that would have expressly prohibited the ratification of any treaty that conflicted with the Constitution. As one conservative Senator argued, “I do not want the President of the U.S. to make a treaty with India which would preclude me from butchering a cow in my own pasture." President Eisenhower fought his own party over the issue and, with the support of Senate Minority Leader Lyndon Johnson, won the defeat of the proposal by one vote in 1954. A subsequent 1957 Supreme Court opinion held that constitutional rights prevail over treaties, and the moot idea disappeared into the history books.
The proposal could also hurt Oklahoma business interests. Oklahoma’s Department of Commerce reports that about 14,000 foreign companies do business in Oklahoma, employing more than 35,000 people. We have two foreign trade zones and ocean-going ports on the Arkansas River. Oklahoma exports exceed $4 billion a year.
In a lawsuit between an Oklahoman and a foreign company, this constitutional amendment might prohibit an Oklahoma judge from “look(ing) to the legal precepts of” a foreign country in order to dispense justice, even if doing so would favor the Oklahoman. It could prevent an Oklahoma judge from considering treaties under which international trade is conducted, or the culture of a signatory to a contract. In effect, Oklahoma could become the only state in the nation incapable of enforcing international business law.
To stir emotions, this proposal throws in a ban on Sharia law, which in many respects parallels Old Testament law. Among the right-wing conspiracy theories circulating on the Internet is that President Obama is Muslim, and that he intends to impose Islamic law in the United States. First of all, of course, neither President Obama nor anyone else has proposed any such thing. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, and the doctrine of separation of church and state prevents a religious code from being made law. And, after all, our laws are written by elected officials like Sen. Duncan and his peers who would stand as vanguards against such a travesty.
At best, State Question 755 is a silly attempt to pander to right-wing xenophobes that would cause chaos in the courts. It demonstrates the poor grasp of basic legal concepts by the legislature, while placing at risk Oklahoma’s international business activity. State Question 755 deserves a prompt “No” vote on November 2.
Why is it up for consideration? When the Republican-controlled legislature approved it for the ballot, the author, State Rep. Rex Duncan of Sand Springs, said in a press release, “Judges in other states and on the federal bench have increasingly turned to citing international law in their court decisions, something I and others feel is grossly inappropriate in a sovereign state such as our own.”
They may feel it’s “grossly inappropriate,” but any first-year law student knows the job of the courts is to interpret the laws under which parties operate. This radical proposition is astonishing and unprecedented in American jurisprudence.
If approved, Oklahoma’s Constitution would require the courts to “uphold and adhere to” the federal and state constitutions, statutes, rules, regulations and common law in making judicial decisions. Sounds good. And, of course, they do that already. But they also rely on the precedent of published opinions, which may end because case law is omitted as an approved source of legal authority.
“The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures,” according to the proposed language, even though our entire legal code is built upon our British legal heritage. “Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia Law.”
There is no single code that contains “international law.” It’s a legal term that refers to the laws and treaties that govern relations between independent nations. It’s not clear from the ambiguous language whether the courts are to ignore the laws of other countries, as opposed to treaties between countries, or what he means by “legal precepts.” But there are differences in legal parlance.
The proposal is also on doubtful constitutional grounds. The Supremacy Clause makes the federal Constitution, laws and treaties the “supreme law of the land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in an 1824 opinion, “In every such case, the act of Congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it."
This gambit sounds a lot like the Bricker amendments from the 1950s. Ohio Senator John Bricker proposed language that would have expressly prohibited the ratification of any treaty that conflicted with the Constitution. As one conservative Senator argued, “I do not want the President of the U.S. to make a treaty with India which would preclude me from butchering a cow in my own pasture." President Eisenhower fought his own party over the issue and, with the support of Senate Minority Leader Lyndon Johnson, won the defeat of the proposal by one vote in 1954. A subsequent 1957 Supreme Court opinion held that constitutional rights prevail over treaties, and the moot idea disappeared into the history books.
The proposal could also hurt Oklahoma business interests. Oklahoma’s Department of Commerce reports that about 14,000 foreign companies do business in Oklahoma, employing more than 35,000 people. We have two foreign trade zones and ocean-going ports on the Arkansas River. Oklahoma exports exceed $4 billion a year.
In a lawsuit between an Oklahoman and a foreign company, this constitutional amendment might prohibit an Oklahoma judge from “look(ing) to the legal precepts of” a foreign country in order to dispense justice, even if doing so would favor the Oklahoman. It could prevent an Oklahoma judge from considering treaties under which international trade is conducted, or the culture of a signatory to a contract. In effect, Oklahoma could become the only state in the nation incapable of enforcing international business law.
To stir emotions, this proposal throws in a ban on Sharia law, which in many respects parallels Old Testament law. Among the right-wing conspiracy theories circulating on the Internet is that President Obama is Muslim, and that he intends to impose Islamic law in the United States. First of all, of course, neither President Obama nor anyone else has proposed any such thing. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, and the doctrine of separation of church and state prevents a religious code from being made law. And, after all, our laws are written by elected officials like Sen. Duncan and his peers who would stand as vanguards against such a travesty.
At best, State Question 755 is a silly attempt to pander to right-wing xenophobes that would cause chaos in the courts. It demonstrates the poor grasp of basic legal concepts by the legislature, while placing at risk Oklahoma’s international business activity. State Question 755 deserves a prompt “No” vote on November 2.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Corporate Tax Cut Needed to Spur Growth
There’s a lot of frustration out there about the slow pace of economic recovery. Unemployment remains high, people are unemployed longer than ever before – and if there’s one thing we can’t afford, it’s for people to be out of work. The few available jobs pay lower wages than workers earned in the past. Too many families face foreclosures and empty cupboards. Even if government spends money training people, it won’t do much good if business are not hiring anyway.
Economists have remarked that recent recessions have been increasingly tough to shake off. Corporations that grew too large to fail – once honored as blue chip companies – have been bailed out with billions in tax dollars in order to survive.
Maybe it’s time we concede that capitalism in the United States is chronically ill. Conventional remedies, like lowering interest rates, aren’t solving the problem. I realize this may sound like progressive blasphemy, but maybe we need to drastically cut corporate income taxes for small businesses.
So far, little else has worked. The President’s economic stimulus program has kept the recession from being worse, but there’s been no economic rebound. Strangely, corporations are sitting on about $2 trillion in cash, and banks are flush with money to lend at historically low interest rates. But businesses are skittish about spending money. They’re concerned there won’t be a demand for goods they would manufacture, because unemployment is so high and people are so strapped for cash. Businesses need a shot of confidence to open the taps and circulate more money.
Corporations spend a lot of money finding ways to avoid paying taxes. With lower tax rates, businesses would be less obsessed with tax write-offs and more motivated to manufacture and sell tangible products to make profits the old-fashioned way. They’d also be less likely to subsidize politicians to finagle new loopholes. Isn’t it better for 100 small businesses to have low taxes than to give one corporation with 100 employees a tax break? Isn’t the likelihood of job growth significantly better?
The IRS reported in 2007 that 4.9 million of the 5.9 million corporate income tax filers had assets under $500,000 – truly the “small businesses” that hire the most people and spark the economy most effectively. The 9,317 corporate filers with assets over $500 million each, however, generated over 84% of the corporate tax revenue that year.
So, if we eliminate the corporate income tax on over 5.8 million businesses with assets under $500 million, we’d lose about $7.5 billion in tax revenue. The result would be a remarkable signal to small businesses that good times are ahead. The remaining tax on huge corporations would also meet the Obama administration’s goal of discouraging businesses from becoming “too big to fail.” Gone, too, would be convoluted corporate tax breaks that favor debt over equity and corporations over individuals.
Some would argue this places an undue burden on individual taxpayers. But if the federal government is of, by and for the people, maybe the people ought to be the ones paying for the bulk of it. Maybe tax dollars would become all the more precious for lawmakers to spend. After all, an argument can be made that, if the sheep industry pays $100 million in taxes, they ought to get $100 million in subsidies for the sheep industry. Take that tax away, and so also goes their argument. Tax dollars paid by human taxpayers should benefit human taxpayers.
But the greatest benefit would be that companies would start hiring again. Our tax policies should encourage businesses to create jobs, with living wages. The average salary at Chesapeake is $71,000, and their workers seem pretty content. I suspect most people would rather have a good job and pay modest taxes than be unemployed with a low tax rate; their disposable income at the end of the day is what matters most.
Corporate profits paid as wages to workers and distributed as dividends to stockholders become personal income. As incomes go up, more taxes are paid, which will more than offset the $7.5 billion in lost corporate tax revenue and reduce the deficit. The expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts for wealthy individuals would provide even more tax revenues. As the deficit goes down, optimism improves, more people are hired, more money circulates, and we approach Nirvana.
Brighter minds can work out the details. But the old ways don’t seem to work anymore. If the economy doesn’t turn around, Osama bin Laden will have won his war against capitalism. If someone has a better idea, let’s hear it.
Economists have remarked that recent recessions have been increasingly tough to shake off. Corporations that grew too large to fail – once honored as blue chip companies – have been bailed out with billions in tax dollars in order to survive.
Maybe it’s time we concede that capitalism in the United States is chronically ill. Conventional remedies, like lowering interest rates, aren’t solving the problem. I realize this may sound like progressive blasphemy, but maybe we need to drastically cut corporate income taxes for small businesses.
So far, little else has worked. The President’s economic stimulus program has kept the recession from being worse, but there’s been no economic rebound. Strangely, corporations are sitting on about $2 trillion in cash, and banks are flush with money to lend at historically low interest rates. But businesses are skittish about spending money. They’re concerned there won’t be a demand for goods they would manufacture, because unemployment is so high and people are so strapped for cash. Businesses need a shot of confidence to open the taps and circulate more money.
Corporations spend a lot of money finding ways to avoid paying taxes. With lower tax rates, businesses would be less obsessed with tax write-offs and more motivated to manufacture and sell tangible products to make profits the old-fashioned way. They’d also be less likely to subsidize politicians to finagle new loopholes. Isn’t it better for 100 small businesses to have low taxes than to give one corporation with 100 employees a tax break? Isn’t the likelihood of job growth significantly better?
The IRS reported in 2007 that 4.9 million of the 5.9 million corporate income tax filers had assets under $500,000 – truly the “small businesses” that hire the most people and spark the economy most effectively. The 9,317 corporate filers with assets over $500 million each, however, generated over 84% of the corporate tax revenue that year.
So, if we eliminate the corporate income tax on over 5.8 million businesses with assets under $500 million, we’d lose about $7.5 billion in tax revenue. The result would be a remarkable signal to small businesses that good times are ahead. The remaining tax on huge corporations would also meet the Obama administration’s goal of discouraging businesses from becoming “too big to fail.” Gone, too, would be convoluted corporate tax breaks that favor debt over equity and corporations over individuals.
Some would argue this places an undue burden on individual taxpayers. But if the federal government is of, by and for the people, maybe the people ought to be the ones paying for the bulk of it. Maybe tax dollars would become all the more precious for lawmakers to spend. After all, an argument can be made that, if the sheep industry pays $100 million in taxes, they ought to get $100 million in subsidies for the sheep industry. Take that tax away, and so also goes their argument. Tax dollars paid by human taxpayers should benefit human taxpayers.
But the greatest benefit would be that companies would start hiring again. Our tax policies should encourage businesses to create jobs, with living wages. The average salary at Chesapeake is $71,000, and their workers seem pretty content. I suspect most people would rather have a good job and pay modest taxes than be unemployed with a low tax rate; their disposable income at the end of the day is what matters most.
Corporate profits paid as wages to workers and distributed as dividends to stockholders become personal income. As incomes go up, more taxes are paid, which will more than offset the $7.5 billion in lost corporate tax revenue and reduce the deficit. The expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts for wealthy individuals would provide even more tax revenues. As the deficit goes down, optimism improves, more people are hired, more money circulates, and we approach Nirvana.
Brighter minds can work out the details. But the old ways don’t seem to work anymore. If the economy doesn’t turn around, Osama bin Laden will have won his war against capitalism. If someone has a better idea, let’s hear it.
Oklahoma knows oil gushers
BP’s out-of-control oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico isn’t the first to grab the world’s attention. In fact, one of the most infamous blowouts was right here in Oklahoma.
The Oklahoma City oil field became the largest oil producer in the United States after it was discovered in 1928. In fact, until oil was found in the Middle East, the Oklahoma City field was the largest known oil reserve in the world.
The Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Company had been poking around looking for black gold in Oklahoma County for 27 years. Finally, after 25 dry holes and having spent $400,000, ITIO hit a gusher on December 28, 1928 which blew five thousand barrels of oil in the first 24 hours. That well eventually produced more than a million barrels of oil.
But that discovery well was nothing compared to what happened on March 26, 1930.
A few miles further south, near present-day I-240 and Bryant Avenue, ITIO was drilling another well on the farm of Vincent and Mary Sudik. Tired roughnecks forgot to fill the hole with mud before starting to pull 25 tons of pipe that, unknown to them, had pierced the top of the Wilcox sand 6,741 feet below them. The pipe began vibrating. Then came a roar, heard in Purcell 30 miles away, that permanently deafened some of the workers. The joints of pipe were shot like toothpicks into the air by gas that had built up over millions of years, waiting for this day to be released.
Thus was born the Wild Mary Sudik well. For the next eleven days, she vented 200 million cubic feet of gas and up to 75,000 barrels of oil a day. When the wind came from the south, oil coated downtown Oklahoma City and the state capitol building 10 miles away; when it shifted from the north, an oily mist rained down on Moore and Norman. Housewives couldn’t hang their laundry outside; fires and pilot lights were prohibited, and land and air traffic was rerouted.
The scene attracted worldwide attention. Newsreel photographers arrived by train, and their films were shown in theaters around the globe. Twice-daily national radio reports kept the world updated. The coverage, for eleven days, was every bit as extensive in its day as the BP Gulf oil gusher is today.
After two failed attempts, the third try to cap Wild Mary was successful. An estimated 800,000 barrels of oil were lost, and 211,589 barrels of oil were recovered from ponds and ditches. Thousands of acres of oil-soaked land had to be plowed under, and hundreds of buildings had to be repainted. Once tamed, the Mary Sudik well would eventually produce 5 million barrels of oil.
Wild Mary was only the most famous of hundreds of wells that tapped into the Oklahoma City oilfield. She was not the last gusher, either. Seven months later the No. 1 Stout ran wild for three days, gushing between 60,000 and 75,000 barrels a day. It was finally capped using lessons learned on Wild Mary.
Wild Mary was only the most famous of hundreds of wells that tapped into the Oklahoma City oilfield. She was not the last gusher, either. Seven months later the No. 1 Stout ran wild for three days, gushing between 60,000 and 75,000 barrels a day. It was finally capped using lessons learned on Wild Mary.
By this time pools of oil were stored behind earthen dams all over Oklahoma City. One of those dams collapsed, spilling a layer of oil three inches thick onto the North Canadian River. Besides killing fish and birds, the river actually caught fire, with flames blazing forty feet into the air. Black smoke was visible from Enid. Two bridges were destroyed, and damage reached as far downstream as McLoud.
The Oklahoma story is best understood in the context of a nascent industry. Problems arose because drillers didn’t know better. Blowout preventers and drilling mud were recent innovations, and nobody expected the gas pressure to be that intense. A moratorium on production was imposed, not because of the environmental impact, but because the production glut caused the price of oil to drop below 15 cents a barrel. Once the price rose above $1 a barrel, drilling was allowed to resume.
Now, 80 years later, the oil and gas industry is dealing with another gusher, this time a mile beneath the Gulf of Mexico. While we don’t yet know exactly what caused it, we do know that safety and cleanup considerations have lagged behind our zeal to find new domestic sources of energy. There’s still a little too much of the wildcatter’s vinegar in a dangerous and dirty business that can cause widespread and long-lasting harm. And, while redundant precautions will add to the cost of drilling, they’re necessary until we can transition to cleaner and safer fuels. Ignorance is no longer an excuse, especially when the stakes are so high and the rewards so lucrative.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Why I'm Not Supporting Drew Edmondson for Governor
A number of my friends and relatives have wondered why I’m not supporting Drew Edmondson for Governor this year. After serving as an Assistant Attorney General for eleven years, most of those in the Edmondson era, and campaigning for him in two elections, it seemed natural that I would support his run for Governor. Well, I’m not, and here’s why.
In June of 2006, Drew called me into his office at the State Capitol and threatened me with my job if I didn’t vote the way he wanted on the Oklahoma Democratic Party State Central Committee, where I served as State Secretary. He launched into a paranoid tirade about his political enemies, dating as far back as his campaign for Congress against Mike Synar. He even shared his opinion that people dealing with mental health issues should just “get over it.” In a monologue littered with “F” bombs, he made it clear that he wasn’t interested in the facts, but was operating on raw emotion.
Could he have handled the situation differently? Sure. It was obvious he didn’t have all the facts, and that somebody had gotten him riled up. The meeting should never have taken place in the State Capitol; in fact, he said “this conversation never took place,” so it was obvious he knew better. Moreover, it should never have resulted in a job-related ultimatum. I was always careful to separate my duties as an Assistant AG from my political activities, and I expected the same from my boss.
I left that meeting with a markedly different opinion of Drew Edmondson. This wasn’t the conscientious friend of the people, in the mold of my hero Ed Edmondson, that I thought he was. This was a cold, calculating, and ruthless political operative who saw conspiracies and enemies where none existed. (The issue he ranted about never came before the Central Committee, as I assured him it would not.) This was a chameleon who could be your best friend when it suited him or your worst nightmare when it did not. Whatever the circumstance, Drew looks out for Number One, and Number One must always be vindicated.
It’s been a challenge to separate my emotions from a rational analysis of this situation. But it’s clear to me that someone with that kind of personality has no business in the Governor’s office. Sure, it’s a political position, and it’s a tough world out there. But the best leadership is to encourage others to excel in the tasks assigned to them, and creates a healthy work environment. There should be no need for a superior to stoop to threats of termination to leverage an employee, especially over empty rumors and gossip.
We also need a Governor who listens to both sides in gathering facts and making decisions, someone who doesn’t fly off the handle and jump to paranoid conclusions. He (or she) has to be able to sort out when they are being played by others for their own political gain, and look at what ought to be done in a given situation. Being the State’s Chief Executive requires better than what Drew demonstrated to me.
Furthermore, we don’t need a Governor who thinks people who are dealing with life’s many challenges should just “get over it.” Does that apply to veterans with post-traumatic stress syndrome as well, or consumers who have been wronged by predators, or crime victims? All these folks for whom Drew has claimed to be a champion for all these years – was that just a sham as well? Should they just “get over it” too?
We can do better than that. And that’s why I’m supporting a better candidate for Governor.
- Walter Jenny Jr.
In June of 2006, Drew called me into his office at the State Capitol and threatened me with my job if I didn’t vote the way he wanted on the Oklahoma Democratic Party State Central Committee, where I served as State Secretary. He launched into a paranoid tirade about his political enemies, dating as far back as his campaign for Congress against Mike Synar. He even shared his opinion that people dealing with mental health issues should just “get over it.” In a monologue littered with “F” bombs, he made it clear that he wasn’t interested in the facts, but was operating on raw emotion.
Could he have handled the situation differently? Sure. It was obvious he didn’t have all the facts, and that somebody had gotten him riled up. The meeting should never have taken place in the State Capitol; in fact, he said “this conversation never took place,” so it was obvious he knew better. Moreover, it should never have resulted in a job-related ultimatum. I was always careful to separate my duties as an Assistant AG from my political activities, and I expected the same from my boss.
I left that meeting with a markedly different opinion of Drew Edmondson. This wasn’t the conscientious friend of the people, in the mold of my hero Ed Edmondson, that I thought he was. This was a cold, calculating, and ruthless political operative who saw conspiracies and enemies where none existed. (The issue he ranted about never came before the Central Committee, as I assured him it would not.) This was a chameleon who could be your best friend when it suited him or your worst nightmare when it did not. Whatever the circumstance, Drew looks out for Number One, and Number One must always be vindicated.
It’s been a challenge to separate my emotions from a rational analysis of this situation. But it’s clear to me that someone with that kind of personality has no business in the Governor’s office. Sure, it’s a political position, and it’s a tough world out there. But the best leadership is to encourage others to excel in the tasks assigned to them, and creates a healthy work environment. There should be no need for a superior to stoop to threats of termination to leverage an employee, especially over empty rumors and gossip.
We also need a Governor who listens to both sides in gathering facts and making decisions, someone who doesn’t fly off the handle and jump to paranoid conclusions. He (or she) has to be able to sort out when they are being played by others for their own political gain, and look at what ought to be done in a given situation. Being the State’s Chief Executive requires better than what Drew demonstrated to me.
Furthermore, we don’t need a Governor who thinks people who are dealing with life’s many challenges should just “get over it.” Does that apply to veterans with post-traumatic stress syndrome as well, or consumers who have been wronged by predators, or crime victims? All these folks for whom Drew has claimed to be a champion for all these years – was that just a sham as well? Should they just “get over it” too?
We can do better than that. And that’s why I’m supporting a better candidate for Governor.
- Walter Jenny Jr.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Government Faces New Threat From Corporations
The recent blowout in the Gulf of Mexico is on everyone’s minds these days. President Obama, under public pressure to take action against the oil and gas industry, recently announced he wants to trim tax incentives for the oil and gas industry. He may face new hurdles in doing so because of the new-found political powers of corporations.
The industry is doing well today because public policy supports the exploration for new domestic energy sources. BP’s drilling in the Gulf was part of that effort. Now that they enjoy robust incentives, the industry probably won’t give them up willingly. Try taking a bone away from a bulldog. He’s not inclined to let you have it.
In January the Supreme Court overturned provisions of federal campaign finance law which limited corporations and unions from spending money directly in campaign advertising. Under the aegis of free speech, the decision “unleashes the floodgates of corporate and union general treasury spending” in political campaigns, as Associate Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissent.
Corporations are creatures of statute; the Constitution doesn’t mention them at all. So how did corporations start getting treated on par with human beings?
In a quirk of American judicial history, in 1886 a court reporter slipped language into a Supreme Court decision headnote that implied corporations were entitled to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Nobody caught it, and subsequent courts started citing the case as law.
Granted, the First Amendment broadly says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” But as Justice Stevens saw it, the Founding Fathers “had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind.”
Federal election restrictions on corporations date back to 1907, when Congress banned all corporate contributions to candidates. The Senate Report on the legislation at that time observed that the “evils of the use of (corporate) money in connection with political elections are so generally recognized that the committee deems it unnecessary to make any argument in favor of the general purpose of this measure. It is in the interest of good government and calculated to promote purity in the selection of public officials.”
How could a corporate heavyweight influence a political campaign?
Take the case of Hugh Caperton and behemoth Massey Coal Company. Caperton, owner of another small coal company, sued Massey in West Virginia for fraud and breach of contract, and in 2002 won a $50 million judgment. (Yes, Massey is the same coal company where 29 miners died in an explosion two months ago.) In 2004, Massey’s CEO, Brent Benjamin, spent $3 million of his own money to help unseat a West Virginia Supreme Court justice. Massey then appealed the jury verdict and won 3-2, with the new justice voting in its favor. On review, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the new justice should have recused himself from the Massey appeal.
Benjamin did nothing illegal; it was his personal cash. But now corporations like Massey will be able to spend their own money in similar efforts, effectively buying legislative seats to protect their interests.
To fix the Gulf oil leak, BP alone claims to have $5 billion in available cash, $5 billion in bank credit lines and an additional $5 billion in standby credit facilities. That’s a lot of firepower held by one of many oil companies, some of which could possibly be directed toward fall elections in the best interests of stockholders. The general public has neither the cohesiveness nor the cash to respond.
Justice Stevens conceded in his dissent that lengthy and expensive lawsuits like Caperton’s might catch some of the worst abuses. “This will be small comfort to those States that, after today, may no longer have the ability to place modest limits on corporate electioneering,” he added. And the effects may be irreparable, as we may learn on the Gulf coast.
What’s next? Justice Stevens wrote, “Under the majority’s view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech.”
But corporations won’t need to go there. They now have more subtle and more effective ways to protect their interests. Unless Congress acts first, corporations may target members of Congress who side with the President in efforts to trim back corporate welfare to the oil and gas industry.
The very people who cry for smaller government forget that a weak government cannot provide the safeguards we expect – from national security to the regulation of offshore oil drilling, subordinated debentures and Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi schemes to name but a few. Everyone wants small government until they need a big strong government. By then, it’s too late.
In 1816 Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Apparently, we have failed.
The industry is doing well today because public policy supports the exploration for new domestic energy sources. BP’s drilling in the Gulf was part of that effort. Now that they enjoy robust incentives, the industry probably won’t give them up willingly. Try taking a bone away from a bulldog. He’s not inclined to let you have it.
In January the Supreme Court overturned provisions of federal campaign finance law which limited corporations and unions from spending money directly in campaign advertising. Under the aegis of free speech, the decision “unleashes the floodgates of corporate and union general treasury spending” in political campaigns, as Associate Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissent.
Corporations are creatures of statute; the Constitution doesn’t mention them at all. So how did corporations start getting treated on par with human beings?
In a quirk of American judicial history, in 1886 a court reporter slipped language into a Supreme Court decision headnote that implied corporations were entitled to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Nobody caught it, and subsequent courts started citing the case as law.
Granted, the First Amendment broadly says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” But as Justice Stevens saw it, the Founding Fathers “had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind.”
Federal election restrictions on corporations date back to 1907, when Congress banned all corporate contributions to candidates. The Senate Report on the legislation at that time observed that the “evils of the use of (corporate) money in connection with political elections are so generally recognized that the committee deems it unnecessary to make any argument in favor of the general purpose of this measure. It is in the interest of good government and calculated to promote purity in the selection of public officials.”
How could a corporate heavyweight influence a political campaign?
Take the case of Hugh Caperton and behemoth Massey Coal Company. Caperton, owner of another small coal company, sued Massey in West Virginia for fraud and breach of contract, and in 2002 won a $50 million judgment. (Yes, Massey is the same coal company where 29 miners died in an explosion two months ago.) In 2004, Massey’s CEO, Brent Benjamin, spent $3 million of his own money to help unseat a West Virginia Supreme Court justice. Massey then appealed the jury verdict and won 3-2, with the new justice voting in its favor. On review, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the new justice should have recused himself from the Massey appeal.
Benjamin did nothing illegal; it was his personal cash. But now corporations like Massey will be able to spend their own money in similar efforts, effectively buying legislative seats to protect their interests.
To fix the Gulf oil leak, BP alone claims to have $5 billion in available cash, $5 billion in bank credit lines and an additional $5 billion in standby credit facilities. That’s a lot of firepower held by one of many oil companies, some of which could possibly be directed toward fall elections in the best interests of stockholders. The general public has neither the cohesiveness nor the cash to respond.
Justice Stevens conceded in his dissent that lengthy and expensive lawsuits like Caperton’s might catch some of the worst abuses. “This will be small comfort to those States that, after today, may no longer have the ability to place modest limits on corporate electioneering,” he added. And the effects may be irreparable, as we may learn on the Gulf coast.
What’s next? Justice Stevens wrote, “Under the majority’s view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech.”
But corporations won’t need to go there. They now have more subtle and more effective ways to protect their interests. Unless Congress acts first, corporations may target members of Congress who side with the President in efforts to trim back corporate welfare to the oil and gas industry.
The very people who cry for smaller government forget that a weak government cannot provide the safeguards we expect – from national security to the regulation of offshore oil drilling, subordinated debentures and Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi schemes to name but a few. Everyone wants small government until they need a big strong government. By then, it’s too late.
In 1816 Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Apparently, we have failed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
