Since we're at an indefinite corporatist (C) time-out (impasse) during the special legislative session, I'll post about another Corporate initiative which will further the destruction of our Oklahoma public schools:
U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVoss and the U.S. Department of Education will send $16.5 million in our tax dollars to Oklahoma for corporate charter schools. The Oklahoma Public (Charter) School Resource Center (OPSRC), otherwise known as the Oklahoma Corporate Charter School Resource Center (OCCSRC) will be the recipient of the grant. The federal grant will be used to fund the 20,000 Corporate Charter School students in Oklahoma. The OPSRC (OCCSRC), bills itself as an Oklahoma City-based non-profit that works with charter schools and traditional public schools. It is a non-profit owned by for-profit corporations such as Wal-Mart through The Walton Family Foundation (WFF). The OPSRC is therefore, no doubt, a "for-profit non-profit".
Brent Bushey, the executive director of the OPSRC, is the "rock star" mentioned several years ago by the WFF (not WWF), which would "drown-out" the voices of traditional public school supporters. While I've met Brent Bushey and like him as a person, we disagree about which entities should receive tax dollars. While I believe Oklahoma tax dollars should pay for Oklahoma public services such as roads (DOT), health care, public education, and corrections - Mr. Bushey believes Oklahoma tax dollars should be up for grabs in the private sector as well as for "corporate" charter schools.
The OPSRC brags about working with charter and traditional public schools, as mentioned earlier. There are currently 30 charter schools which are members of the OPSRC in Oklahoma, but an unknown number of traditional public schools. For some reason, their identities have been kept secret, but many traditional public school supporters would like to know who they are? I am now asking Mr. Bushey - "Who are your traditional public school supporters? Please name them..."
Update: EPIC Charter School and the great tax money grab.
Friday, September 29, 2017
Tuesday, September 26, 2017
No Session Monday!
Update and play-by-play call of the Super Bowl of Legislative Sessions: The Budget Balancers kicked-off to the Fitin' Corporatists on Monday at 1:30 PM. The Corporatists scored quickly by introducing two school consolidation bills, HB 1065x and SB 9x. According to the Cooperative Council for Oklahoma School Administration (CCOSA) House Bill 1065x by Representative Bobby Cleveland (C-Norman) and Rep. Jon Echols (C-OKC) requires the State Superintendent of Public Instruction to present a list of every public school district with daily membership of less than 1000 students to the State Board of Education to consider administrative consolidation or annexation of school districts. Districts designated for consolidation must submit a plan by January 1, 2020.
Like all school consolidation bills, HB 1065x will not save money nor put more money in the class-room or raise teacher salaries. It has been introduced by two corporate (not conservative) lawmakers in Cleveland and Echols who have accepted dark support and corporate money to further the corporate charter and private school agenda. If HB 1065x makes it to the full House, look for all Corporate Representatives to vote for it. I think it would be wise for all public school supporters to know if your Republican Representative is a Corporatist... or a Conservative. My own House District 42 Rep. Tim Downing is a documented Corporatist, so will support the bill, no question. His constituent school districts with less than 1000 students include Elmore City-Pernell, Maysville, Paoli, Whitebead, and Wynnewood in Garvin County, and Dibble and Wayne in McClain County. These are the districts which would likely be forced to consolidate or annex should HB 1065x become Law, with the full support of the House District 42 Rep...
Senate Bill 9x by Senator Stephanie Bice (C-OKC) forces administrative services of school districts with an ADM of less than 200 students be consolidated with a contiguous school district by July 1, 2020. Like all other small school consolidation bills, SB 9x will not save money. There are currently about 90 public school districts in Oklahoma with less than 200 students. Many have less administrative costs than much larger districts, and offer a better education to students than many larger districts. All schools with less than 200 students are located in Senate and House districts with many other schools with more than 200 students. (Bear in mind that corporate charter schools with less than 200 students will probably be exempted from consolidation). The primary question for Corporate Senators and Corporate Reps. in deciding whether or not to vote for this consolidation bill, is "Can I get re-elected if I vote for school consolidation?" It's always self-preservation for a Corporate Lawmaker. If most constituents of these Corporatists do not support the one or two "small" public schools in his or her district, then the Corporatists will vote for SB 9x. They will be banking on, literally, that most public school constituents in their respective districts do not care about the schools with less than 200 students. My local District 43 Senator Paul Scott is still questionable as to whether or not he's a Corporatist. On one hand he claims to support our public schools and has not received the dark money support or corporate campaign donations most Corporatists have. Unfortunately, Senator Scott voted for a school voucher bill during the last regular session, so evidence exists that he's a devout Corporatist. Also, Paul Scott has no school districts with less than 200 students, so has no self-preservation reason to oppose SB 9x. We must continue to educate Oklahomans about Corporate Legislators and their school consolidation plans...
Although not a school consolidation bill, House Bill 1002x has nonetheless been introduced to do harm to our local public schools. HB 1002x by Rep. Kevin Calvey (C-Norman) "requires state aid provided to school districts be reduced... (as if cutting appropriations weren't enough), ok, here's the math part that most Legislators can't understand - by a percentage by which the district's ratio of non-teacher staff is less than 18.3% of pupils per non-teacher staff. The measure requires those funds be deposited into a Teacher Pay Enhancement Fund (TPEF) or "Lock Box" (I think we've all heard about lock boxes - the place where dark money is kept for Corporate Lawmakers) with the purpose of providing a teacher pay raise with these re-distributed monies. This Bill is designed to confuse the voting public into believing that Corporate Lawmakers really do want teachers to get a raise, at the expense of non-teachers. If passed into Law, what HB 1002x actually means is this: Schools will reduce what's left of counselors, cafeteria workers, school nurses, librarians, bus drivers, custodians and maintenance workers, teaching assistants, and many more non-teachers (remember coaches are teachers) to comply with the Law. Unfortunately, it will have a devastating effect on students and public schools in general, but it's what they do. Corporatists intend to devastate public schools, so it may pass.
Update: The Corporatists have jumped to an early 21 - 0 lead at the end of the first quarter by introducing at least three public school killing bills - HB 1065x, SOB, I mean SB 9x, and SB 1002x. The Budget Balancers are fighting back, however, so Head Coach Charley McCall of the Fitin' Corporatists has called a time-out to try to thwart the Balancers' momentum - Oklahoma Special Session on Hold...
A re-cap of play before Coach Charlie (C) called timeout, reveals that (C) Lawmakers spent a total 28 minutes over three days taking roll and blocking for corporate interests - and charged Oklahoma tax-payers $90,000 to do so. This total cost amounted to $3214 per minute, or $23 per minute for each Legislator! Pretty high price to pay Lawmakers for doing nothing...
By all accounts the second half of the Special Budget Balancing Session will start on Monday. The Corporatist Lawmakers are currently leading, but the Budget Balancers have made half-time adjustments and many believe they will win, in the end. They claim there will be tax increases for corporations (3 touchdowns if you're keeping score) which will be enough to propel the Budget Balancers to victory. The Corporatists of course claim they will thwart any offensive effort to "end tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations" and preserve victory. Many public school supporters believe the Corporatists may indeed salvage a score, by passing a school consolidation bill. Incorporating public schools has been a goal of corporations for some time now, but public school supporters have avoided this anonymous salvo - up until this session. We'll see what happens...By the way, you can read my opinion of school consolidation at mybackpagewithjimbeckhamblog.blogspot.com...
Update: Not so fast! - Corporatist co-captains McCall (C) and Echols (C) believe there is very little chance the Legislature will re-convene on Monday due to the Corporatists not having time to re-adjust to the Budget Balancers' momentum. They evidently haven't had time to figure out how to thwart the budget balancing efforts to restore fair taxation on corporations and the wealthy (those earning over $200,000 annual salary). Many Corporate Legislators are "going broke" for lack of a paycheck to do nothing, however, so many believe they will re-convene on Monday, have roll-call, draw their $30,000 ($215 each), and then adjourn until further corporate notice...
Update: Lawmakers will presumably start earning a paycheck, again, on October 23. State Senators and Representatives will probably kick-off the second half of the great budgeting game (debate) on Monday, October 23, as many Corporatists are in dire need of a pay-check.
Like all school consolidation bills, HB 1065x will not save money nor put more money in the class-room or raise teacher salaries. It has been introduced by two corporate (not conservative) lawmakers in Cleveland and Echols who have accepted dark support and corporate money to further the corporate charter and private school agenda. If HB 1065x makes it to the full House, look for all Corporate Representatives to vote for it. I think it would be wise for all public school supporters to know if your Republican Representative is a Corporatist... or a Conservative. My own House District 42 Rep. Tim Downing is a documented Corporatist, so will support the bill, no question. His constituent school districts with less than 1000 students include Elmore City-Pernell, Maysville, Paoli, Whitebead, and Wynnewood in Garvin County, and Dibble and Wayne in McClain County. These are the districts which would likely be forced to consolidate or annex should HB 1065x become Law, with the full support of the House District 42 Rep...
Senate Bill 9x by Senator Stephanie Bice (C-OKC) forces administrative services of school districts with an ADM of less than 200 students be consolidated with a contiguous school district by July 1, 2020. Like all other small school consolidation bills, SB 9x will not save money. There are currently about 90 public school districts in Oklahoma with less than 200 students. Many have less administrative costs than much larger districts, and offer a better education to students than many larger districts. All schools with less than 200 students are located in Senate and House districts with many other schools with more than 200 students. (Bear in mind that corporate charter schools with less than 200 students will probably be exempted from consolidation). The primary question for Corporate Senators and Corporate Reps. in deciding whether or not to vote for this consolidation bill, is "Can I get re-elected if I vote for school consolidation?" It's always self-preservation for a Corporate Lawmaker. If most constituents of these Corporatists do not support the one or two "small" public schools in his or her district, then the Corporatists will vote for SB 9x. They will be banking on, literally, that most public school constituents in their respective districts do not care about the schools with less than 200 students. My local District 43 Senator Paul Scott is still questionable as to whether or not he's a Corporatist. On one hand he claims to support our public schools and has not received the dark money support or corporate campaign donations most Corporatists have. Unfortunately, Senator Scott voted for a school voucher bill during the last regular session, so evidence exists that he's a devout Corporatist. Also, Paul Scott has no school districts with less than 200 students, so has no self-preservation reason to oppose SB 9x. We must continue to educate Oklahomans about Corporate Legislators and their school consolidation plans...
Although not a school consolidation bill, House Bill 1002x has nonetheless been introduced to do harm to our local public schools. HB 1002x by Rep. Kevin Calvey (C-Norman) "requires state aid provided to school districts be reduced... (as if cutting appropriations weren't enough), ok, here's the math part that most Legislators can't understand - by a percentage by which the district's ratio of non-teacher staff is less than 18.3% of pupils per non-teacher staff. The measure requires those funds be deposited into a Teacher Pay Enhancement Fund (TPEF) or "Lock Box" (I think we've all heard about lock boxes - the place where dark money is kept for Corporate Lawmakers) with the purpose of providing a teacher pay raise with these re-distributed monies. This Bill is designed to confuse the voting public into believing that Corporate Lawmakers really do want teachers to get a raise, at the expense of non-teachers. If passed into Law, what HB 1002x actually means is this: Schools will reduce what's left of counselors, cafeteria workers, school nurses, librarians, bus drivers, custodians and maintenance workers, teaching assistants, and many more non-teachers (remember coaches are teachers) to comply with the Law. Unfortunately, it will have a devastating effect on students and public schools in general, but it's what they do. Corporatists intend to devastate public schools, so it may pass.
Update: The Corporatists have jumped to an early 21 - 0 lead at the end of the first quarter by introducing at least three public school killing bills - HB 1065x, SOB, I mean SB 9x, and SB 1002x. The Budget Balancers are fighting back, however, so Head Coach Charley McCall of the Fitin' Corporatists has called a time-out to try to thwart the Balancers' momentum - Oklahoma Special Session on Hold...
A re-cap of play before Coach Charlie (C) called timeout, reveals that (C) Lawmakers spent a total 28 minutes over three days taking roll and blocking for corporate interests - and charged Oklahoma tax-payers $90,000 to do so. This total cost amounted to $3214 per minute, or $23 per minute for each Legislator! Pretty high price to pay Lawmakers for doing nothing...
By all accounts the second half of the Special Budget Balancing Session will start on Monday. The Corporatist Lawmakers are currently leading, but the Budget Balancers have made half-time adjustments and many believe they will win, in the end. They claim there will be tax increases for corporations (3 touchdowns if you're keeping score) which will be enough to propel the Budget Balancers to victory. The Corporatists of course claim they will thwart any offensive effort to "end tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations" and preserve victory. Many public school supporters believe the Corporatists may indeed salvage a score, by passing a school consolidation bill. Incorporating public schools has been a goal of corporations for some time now, but public school supporters have avoided this anonymous salvo - up until this session. We'll see what happens...By the way, you can read my opinion of school consolidation at mybackpagewithjimbeckhamblog.blogspot.com...
Update: Not so fast! - Corporatist co-captains McCall (C) and Echols (C) believe there is very little chance the Legislature will re-convene on Monday due to the Corporatists not having time to re-adjust to the Budget Balancers' momentum. They evidently haven't had time to figure out how to thwart the budget balancing efforts to restore fair taxation on corporations and the wealthy (those earning over $200,000 annual salary). Many Corporate Legislators are "going broke" for lack of a paycheck to do nothing, however, so many believe they will re-convene on Monday, have roll-call, draw their $30,000 ($215 each), and then adjourn until further corporate notice...
Update: Lawmakers will presumably start earning a paycheck, again, on October 23. State Senators and Representatives will probably kick-off the second half of the great budgeting game (debate) on Monday, October 23, as many Corporatists are in dire need of a pay-check.
Monday, September 25, 2017
What Makes America Great? or What Makes America Great:
In my opinion, one thing which has made the U.S.A. a great country and unique in the history of the world is high school sports, football in particular. I'm unabashedly biased, as I once coached high school football teams. During the past few weeks in the aftermath of the Houston area's Hurricane Harvey, many local high school football teams continued to practice at damaged stadiums and even continued playing games. Even though high schools cancelled classes, schools such as Refugio, Rockport, and Aransas Pass allowed their football teams to continue. In many cases, high school football was the only hope these schools had. Many teams would go out after or before practice to help clean-up their communities. High school football was the glue that held many rural towns together following this natural disaster, and is part of what makes America great.
Last week, the Blanchard Lions high school football team played the Tuttle Tigers at Oscar Brooks Stadium, home of the Lions. Although Blanchard won (23-14), it was a well-played game which could have gone either way. A "defensive award" was presented to a Lion player after the game which teammates believe represents the tenacity and "never give in" attitude displayed by Nathan Williams, a teammate who drowned last spring while swimming at Chickasha Lake. After the contest The Championship Belt with the number 56 and the word "DOOMSDAY" was given to Reilly Bussey. Nathan Williams was a Blanchard Lion football player who was loyal and committed to his teammates, and his teammates were and are still committed to him (once a Lion, always a Lion). This is also part of what makes America great. True loyalty and commitment to a cause never changes or wains.
The Blanchard Lion teammates of Nathan Williams will never forget him and will always think of him as part of their team. I believe this because of my own experience in losing teammates, even though our team existed long ago. I remember and still think of friends who are no longer with us as teammates, loyal and committed. As a Lindsay Leopard (once a Leopard, always a Leopard) I will always remember teammates who left us too soon. Teammates such as Roger Dodd, Johnny Webb, Jeff Bates, Rick Lawson, and Wayne Todd will always be thought of as Lindsay Leopards by their Leopard family friends, and part of what makes America great.
Last week, the Blanchard Lions high school football team played the Tuttle Tigers at Oscar Brooks Stadium, home of the Lions. Although Blanchard won (23-14), it was a well-played game which could have gone either way. A "defensive award" was presented to a Lion player after the game which teammates believe represents the tenacity and "never give in" attitude displayed by Nathan Williams, a teammate who drowned last spring while swimming at Chickasha Lake. After the contest The Championship Belt with the number 56 and the word "DOOMSDAY" was given to Reilly Bussey. Nathan Williams was a Blanchard Lion football player who was loyal and committed to his teammates, and his teammates were and are still committed to him (once a Lion, always a Lion). This is also part of what makes America great. True loyalty and commitment to a cause never changes or wains.
The Blanchard Lion teammates of Nathan Williams will never forget him and will always think of him as part of their team. I believe this because of my own experience in losing teammates, even though our team existed long ago. I remember and still think of friends who are no longer with us as teammates, loyal and committed. As a Lindsay Leopard (once a Leopard, always a Leopard) I will always remember teammates who left us too soon. Teammates such as Roger Dodd, Johnny Webb, Jeff Bates, Rick Lawson, and Wayne Todd will always be thought of as Lindsay Leopards by their Leopard family friends, and part of what makes America great.
Wednesday, September 20, 2017
Private Schools vs. Rural Public Schools: Game Over...
According to Jonathan Small, President of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (a corporate think tank), it's game over when it comes to comparing student ACT scores of our rural public schools with the private and corporate school competition. Mr. Small writes for The McCarville Report "Scan the academic results of Oklahoma schools (both public and private) especially such indicators as average ACT scores, and you'll notice a worrying trend: the graduates of smaller, rural schools often... rank poorly when compared to their peers in larger, urban and suburban schools." He goes on to opine that it's because smaller, rural schools have fewer "challenging courses" for students than larger schools have, but it's not because rural schools have less money or the parents of students have less money.
The 2016 average ACT scores for all Oklahoma schools was recently released by the State Department of Education and may be examined at oklahomawatch.org. Oklahoma Watch states that "You can analyze the table (average schools' scores) to see if scores in your county, or the state as a whole, tended to be lower among schools with higher poverty rates, defined as the percentage of students on free or reduced-price lunches."
We may determine if Mr. Small is correct in assuming that average ACT scores are not related to funding levels, but related to "school excellence" as judged by the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA). The "average composite ACT scores" for listed schools in McClain County are as follows: Blanchard - 22.0, free or reduced lunch 42%; Newcastle - 21.6, free or reduced lunch 20%; Washington - 21.3, free or reduced lunch 28.8%; Purcell - 21.2, free or reduced lunch 42.4%; Wayne - 20.8, free or reduced 69.3%; Dibble - 18.7, free or reduced 42.1
The best, most scientific method of examining and analyzing the OCPA's assertions would be to randomly select larger, urban or suburban schools, and compare the average ACT scores and poverty rates with randomly selected smaller, rural schools. However, we won't randomly select schools in either group, but "cherry pick" schools for both groups, since private schools regularly pick students for inclusion. The OCPA also usually "cherry picks" data for analysis, so, in the spirit of cherry picking, we'll select specific private schools to analyze ACT scores and compare to the data above from McClain County public schools.
Casady - 27.3, Bishop Mcguinness - 25.2, Heritage Hall - 24.8, Regent Prep - 29.1, Holland Hall - 27.6, Cascia Hall - 26.6
After comparing the private school ACT scores with the McClain County school ACT scores, it appears that Mr. Small is correct in his assumption that student education in urban and suburban (private) is better than student education in small and/or rural schools. After all, he has the proof - just look at the six private school ACT scores compared to the six McClain County school ACT scores!
The free or reduced price lunch percentages are not provided by the private schools, but it is assumed that they are 0% free or reduced for all privates. As a matter of fact, if a correlation co-efficient analysis were conducted for all schools represented, it would be a safe bet that the poverty rate for both private and public schools are directly correlated to ACT scores. This means that the wealthier the parents of students are, the higher the school ACT scores. Also, the amount of money available for schools and spent for students is probably also directly correlated with student performance as ascertained by ACT scores. Mr. Small and his ilk at the OCPA expect the public to believe just the opposite - that ACT scores are directly correlated with a school's performance, and that private schools are just better than public schools. After all, the evidence indicates that private schools are superior to public schools.
The name of the game for the OCPA and their corporate allies is to prove that private schools are better than public schools, so public schools can be weaned away from public tax dollars and privates can compete for tax dollars... They must convince the public, however, and the Oklahoma public is a little smarter than the OCPA thinks...
The 2016 average ACT scores for all Oklahoma schools was recently released by the State Department of Education and may be examined at oklahomawatch.org. Oklahoma Watch states that "You can analyze the table (average schools' scores) to see if scores in your county, or the state as a whole, tended to be lower among schools with higher poverty rates, defined as the percentage of students on free or reduced-price lunches."
We may determine if Mr. Small is correct in assuming that average ACT scores are not related to funding levels, but related to "school excellence" as judged by the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA). The "average composite ACT scores" for listed schools in McClain County are as follows: Blanchard - 22.0, free or reduced lunch 42%; Newcastle - 21.6, free or reduced lunch 20%; Washington - 21.3, free or reduced lunch 28.8%; Purcell - 21.2, free or reduced lunch 42.4%; Wayne - 20.8, free or reduced 69.3%; Dibble - 18.7, free or reduced 42.1
The best, most scientific method of examining and analyzing the OCPA's assertions would be to randomly select larger, urban or suburban schools, and compare the average ACT scores and poverty rates with randomly selected smaller, rural schools. However, we won't randomly select schools in either group, but "cherry pick" schools for both groups, since private schools regularly pick students for inclusion. The OCPA also usually "cherry picks" data for analysis, so, in the spirit of cherry picking, we'll select specific private schools to analyze ACT scores and compare to the data above from McClain County public schools.
Casady - 27.3, Bishop Mcguinness - 25.2, Heritage Hall - 24.8, Regent Prep - 29.1, Holland Hall - 27.6, Cascia Hall - 26.6
After comparing the private school ACT scores with the McClain County school ACT scores, it appears that Mr. Small is correct in his assumption that student education in urban and suburban (private) is better than student education in small and/or rural schools. After all, he has the proof - just look at the six private school ACT scores compared to the six McClain County school ACT scores!
The free or reduced price lunch percentages are not provided by the private schools, but it is assumed that they are 0% free or reduced for all privates. As a matter of fact, if a correlation co-efficient analysis were conducted for all schools represented, it would be a safe bet that the poverty rate for both private and public schools are directly correlated to ACT scores. This means that the wealthier the parents of students are, the higher the school ACT scores. Also, the amount of money available for schools and spent for students is probably also directly correlated with student performance as ascertained by ACT scores. Mr. Small and his ilk at the OCPA expect the public to believe just the opposite - that ACT scores are directly correlated with a school's performance, and that private schools are just better than public schools. After all, the evidence indicates that private schools are superior to public schools.
The name of the game for the OCPA and their corporate allies is to prove that private schools are better than public schools, so public schools can be weaned away from public tax dollars and privates can compete for tax dollars... They must convince the public, however, and the Oklahoma public is a little smarter than the OCPA thinks...
Monday, September 18, 2017
Legends of the Fall: the 1950's and 1960's
I'm currently working on a publication which will highlight the 1950's and 1960's Lindsay Leopard football teams. Last year, we ran a column which detailed the 1970's Leopard Legends of the Fall because the Lindsay Leopard football teams had a higher percentage of "wins" than any class-2A team in the state of Oklahoma. One would tend to believe that several state titles must have been won by those Leopards, but it was not to be. Although in many fans' opinion - the '70 Leopards or the '73 Leopards were probably the best of the best - neither team won a title. The '70 Leopards came the closest, losing to the Nowata Ironmen (14-12) in a heart-breaker.
Unlike their Leopard descendants, the Legends of the '50's and '60's won four state titles - 1955, 1958, 1962, and 1963, so could lay claim to the best decades of Lindsay High School football. In a couple months, we'll highlight the top players and coaches of the '50's and '60's Lindsay Leopard football teams, but we'll go a little farther. We will compare and contrast those Legends of the Fall with the '70's Legends, and provide a hypothetical check list (much like is done in newspapers nowadays comparing the strengths and weaknesses of two opposing teams to predict a winner). We will compare the relative strengths, position by position, of the best players from the '50's and '60's to the best players from the '70's, and place a check mark next to the position(s) which may have the advantage. The opinions of the fans who are familiar with all these players will be considered when giving the advantage to the earlier teams... or the later teams. We will be soliciting those opinions over the next several weeks, as to who belongs to the Legends of the '50's and '60's. After listing those players, we will solicit opinions as to which decades the advantage belongs... and play the hypothetical game.
Unlike their Leopard descendants, the Legends of the '50's and '60's won four state titles - 1955, 1958, 1962, and 1963, so could lay claim to the best decades of Lindsay High School football. In a couple months, we'll highlight the top players and coaches of the '50's and '60's Lindsay Leopard football teams, but we'll go a little farther. We will compare and contrast those Legends of the Fall with the '70's Legends, and provide a hypothetical check list (much like is done in newspapers nowadays comparing the strengths and weaknesses of two opposing teams to predict a winner). We will compare the relative strengths, position by position, of the best players from the '50's and '60's to the best players from the '70's, and place a check mark next to the position(s) which may have the advantage. The opinions of the fans who are familiar with all these players will be considered when giving the advantage to the earlier teams... or the later teams. We will be soliciting those opinions over the next several weeks, as to who belongs to the Legends of the '50's and '60's. After listing those players, we will solicit opinions as to which decades the advantage belongs... and play the hypothetical game.
The Super Bowl of the Legislature: Corporatists Vs. Budget Balancers
There is a war that will be fought beginning September 25 at the state capitol. The war will determine which state taxes will increase for Oklahoma tax payers, and which state taxes will not. It's a fairly safe bet that taxes on Oklahoma citizens will increase, as our do-nothing Corporate Legislators have no choice but to raise taxes.
I think it depends on what the definition of is, is. The definition of a tax for a Corporatist Legislator is a "regressive tax" or a tax which affects middle-income earners more than it does the wealthy or corporate interests. Examples of regressive taxes are sales taxes, user fees, income taxes, and property taxes for individual property owners.
The definition of a tax for conservative (not corporate) Republican Legislators and conservative Democrats is a "progressive tax" or a tax which affects the wealthy (not many Oklahomans) and Corporate Interests equally with middle-income earners. Examples of "progressive taxes" are all corporate taxes (wind energy, oil and gas production), corporate income tax (of which there is none), and corporate property tax.
The "battle lines" are now being drawn and the sides chosen for the Corporatist Legislators on one side, who only want to raise "regressive taxes" to fill the budget hole and Conservative Republicans and Democrats on the other side, who want the tax increase spread out out among all tax-payers, corporate, wealthy, and middle-income earners.
It will be very interesting how this "war" plays out beginning September 25, and just which tax-payers will eventually bear the burden.
Update: The Oklahoman Editorial Board has chosen its side in the "battle to balance the state budget", and it has taken the side of the Corporatist Legislators. The Edit. Board has stated that Governor Fallin is amiss in suggesting that the Legislature address all budgetary issues, instead of just the cigarette tax revenue stream. It (the board) implies that our mathematically challenged Legislators lack the concentration level required to focus on multiple budgetary issues instead of only one. I agree with the Board's assessment on this issue, but I don't agree with the board's apparent motivation for "spelling out" why Governor Fallin is wrong about wanting the Legislature to fix the state budget on multiple levels. Corporate Legislators only wish to re-instate the cigarette tax because the tax is regressive. They do not want to create any revenue stream for state services that would increase taxes on the wealthy and corporate entities or restore lost corporate welfare revenue. Any type of Legislative action which would be progressive, would cut those (C) Legislators own revenue streams.
Update: After watching The Vietnam War by Ken Burns this past week on OETA, it reminds me of just how serious war is, and anything else by comparison is only a game.
My high school football coach, Joe Tunnell, who became Oklahoma's winningest high school football coach in 2009, put games in perspective for his team in 1967 (his first year at Lindsay High School). It was a year (1967) that the United States was heavily involved in the Vietnam War, and tensions between Russia and the United States were at its worst (Cold War). Many Americans thought the next War would inevitably be between the U.S.S.R. and the United States of America. In November of 1967, the Lindsay Leopards had just been beaten (slaughtered) by the Clinton Red Tornadoes, 35 - 7. Clinton was led by Coach Jim Frazier, and future Collegiate and NFL players such as Roy Bell. In the Leopard locker room at Red Tornado Stadium immediately following the game, Coach Tunnell addressed his downtrodden Leopard players. He did not say "Keep your heads up, you played a good game". Coach Tunnell only made one statement to his team: "Just remember one thing - if we ever go to war with the Russians, those guys (implying the Red Tornadoes) are on our side".
So, now, I'll be analogizing the Capitol Corporatists verses the Budget Balancers as only a game, and not a war... We'll start with the head coaches for each team: For the "Fitin' Corporatists, the Speaker of the House and Head Coach Charles McCall has recently banished several team members, including Leslie Osborn, to the Budget Balancers team. He leads a formidable cast of Corporatists into battle, whom we'll mention later. The Budget Balancers Head Coach Mary Fallin was recently traded from the Corporatists to the Budget Balancers by the (C) team owners - The Corporate Budget Busters. She has only recently been in favor of a balanced state budget, much to the disappointment of the Corporate Lawmakers on her former team. The edge for "Head Coach" goes to Charles McCall of the Corporatists as he has much more money to work with.. (I mean work for).
The quarterback for the Budget Balancers, Scott Inman, the House minority leader, has championed for a long time that state taxes should be spread out among all taxpayers - the wealthy, corporate, middle class, and include all types of taxation - sales, property, income, and intangibles. Inman is highly intelligent, but seems to lack the persuasiveness enjoyed by most Corporate quarterbacks, including the present Corporate quarterback, Ray Carter, who is also an editorialist for the Daily Oklahoman. Carter, a strange Corporate player, but talented nonetheless, believes he is the "Tom Brady" of Corporate quarterbacks. Many Budget Balancers believe if Ray Carter is the all-star quarterback he believes he is, then his spouse Jennifer is the Giselle Brady of Corporate quarterbacks. Many others, however believe that Giselle is the real quarterback, and Ray is just the "water boy" for the team. The nod for the top quarterback, nonetheless, must go to Ray Carter and the "Fitin' Corporatists because of his knack for influencing other team members.
The Corporatists have suffered all season long from team members being charged and convicted in many cases for sex crimes and "embezzlement crimes". The Four Horsemen of Corporatism - Shortey (C), Downing (C), Loveless (C), Marlatt (C) are all proven corporate team players, but only Downing remains on the team as the other three have been suspended. This type of corporate behavior has cost the corporatists dearly, but not dearly enough - as they still have the "edge" over the Budget Balancers. Corporate Legislators' name of the game is more money for themselves and their Corporate team owners, and not in winning for Oklahoma citizens. They certainly believe they've won the Super Bowl of special legislative sessions, even if they lose. It's a win-win for Corporate Lawmakers, because they will be paid $30,000 per day while in session, and will cry about losing - all the way to the bank.
The edge in the Super Bowl of Sessions (kick off is Monday, September 25) must go to the Corporatists! They win, even if they lose.
A play-by-play analysis of the game will be provided on this Blog, beginning Monday, so stay tuned...
I think it depends on what the definition of is, is. The definition of a tax for a Corporatist Legislator is a "regressive tax" or a tax which affects middle-income earners more than it does the wealthy or corporate interests. Examples of regressive taxes are sales taxes, user fees, income taxes, and property taxes for individual property owners.
The definition of a tax for conservative (not corporate) Republican Legislators and conservative Democrats is a "progressive tax" or a tax which affects the wealthy (not many Oklahomans) and Corporate Interests equally with middle-income earners. Examples of "progressive taxes" are all corporate taxes (wind energy, oil and gas production), corporate income tax (of which there is none), and corporate property tax.
The "battle lines" are now being drawn and the sides chosen for the Corporatist Legislators on one side, who only want to raise "regressive taxes" to fill the budget hole and Conservative Republicans and Democrats on the other side, who want the tax increase spread out out among all tax-payers, corporate, wealthy, and middle-income earners.
It will be very interesting how this "war" plays out beginning September 25, and just which tax-payers will eventually bear the burden.
Update: The Oklahoman Editorial Board has chosen its side in the "battle to balance the state budget", and it has taken the side of the Corporatist Legislators. The Edit. Board has stated that Governor Fallin is amiss in suggesting that the Legislature address all budgetary issues, instead of just the cigarette tax revenue stream. It (the board) implies that our mathematically challenged Legislators lack the concentration level required to focus on multiple budgetary issues instead of only one. I agree with the Board's assessment on this issue, but I don't agree with the board's apparent motivation for "spelling out" why Governor Fallin is wrong about wanting the Legislature to fix the state budget on multiple levels. Corporate Legislators only wish to re-instate the cigarette tax because the tax is regressive. They do not want to create any revenue stream for state services that would increase taxes on the wealthy and corporate entities or restore lost corporate welfare revenue. Any type of Legislative action which would be progressive, would cut those (C) Legislators own revenue streams.
Update: After watching The Vietnam War by Ken Burns this past week on OETA, it reminds me of just how serious war is, and anything else by comparison is only a game.
My high school football coach, Joe Tunnell, who became Oklahoma's winningest high school football coach in 2009, put games in perspective for his team in 1967 (his first year at Lindsay High School). It was a year (1967) that the United States was heavily involved in the Vietnam War, and tensions between Russia and the United States were at its worst (Cold War). Many Americans thought the next War would inevitably be between the U.S.S.R. and the United States of America. In November of 1967, the Lindsay Leopards had just been beaten (slaughtered) by the Clinton Red Tornadoes, 35 - 7. Clinton was led by Coach Jim Frazier, and future Collegiate and NFL players such as Roy Bell. In the Leopard locker room at Red Tornado Stadium immediately following the game, Coach Tunnell addressed his downtrodden Leopard players. He did not say "Keep your heads up, you played a good game". Coach Tunnell only made one statement to his team: "Just remember one thing - if we ever go to war with the Russians, those guys (implying the Red Tornadoes) are on our side".
So, now, I'll be analogizing the Capitol Corporatists verses the Budget Balancers as only a game, and not a war... We'll start with the head coaches for each team: For the "Fitin' Corporatists, the Speaker of the House and Head Coach Charles McCall has recently banished several team members, including Leslie Osborn, to the Budget Balancers team. He leads a formidable cast of Corporatists into battle, whom we'll mention later. The Budget Balancers Head Coach Mary Fallin was recently traded from the Corporatists to the Budget Balancers by the (C) team owners - The Corporate Budget Busters. She has only recently been in favor of a balanced state budget, much to the disappointment of the Corporate Lawmakers on her former team. The edge for "Head Coach" goes to Charles McCall of the Corporatists as he has much more money to work with.. (I mean work for).
The quarterback for the Budget Balancers, Scott Inman, the House minority leader, has championed for a long time that state taxes should be spread out among all taxpayers - the wealthy, corporate, middle class, and include all types of taxation - sales, property, income, and intangibles. Inman is highly intelligent, but seems to lack the persuasiveness enjoyed by most Corporate quarterbacks, including the present Corporate quarterback, Ray Carter, who is also an editorialist for the Daily Oklahoman. Carter, a strange Corporate player, but talented nonetheless, believes he is the "Tom Brady" of Corporate quarterbacks. Many Budget Balancers believe if Ray Carter is the all-star quarterback he believes he is, then his spouse Jennifer is the Giselle Brady of Corporate quarterbacks. Many others, however believe that Giselle is the real quarterback, and Ray is just the "water boy" for the team. The nod for the top quarterback, nonetheless, must go to Ray Carter and the "Fitin' Corporatists because of his knack for influencing other team members.
The Corporatists have suffered all season long from team members being charged and convicted in many cases for sex crimes and "embezzlement crimes". The Four Horsemen of Corporatism - Shortey (C), Downing (C), Loveless (C), Marlatt (C) are all proven corporate team players, but only Downing remains on the team as the other three have been suspended. This type of corporate behavior has cost the corporatists dearly, but not dearly enough - as they still have the "edge" over the Budget Balancers. Corporate Legislators' name of the game is more money for themselves and their Corporate team owners, and not in winning for Oklahoma citizens. They certainly believe they've won the Super Bowl of special legislative sessions, even if they lose. It's a win-win for Corporate Lawmakers, because they will be paid $30,000 per day while in session, and will cry about losing - all the way to the bank.
The edge in the Super Bowl of Sessions (kick off is Monday, September 25) must go to the Corporatists! They win, even if they lose.
A play-by-play analysis of the game will be provided on this Blog, beginning Monday, so stay tuned...
Friday, September 15, 2017
Update: Lawyer Enrichment Stonewalling...
The Blanchard Lions football team is off to a great start with three wins and no losses, and currently ranked eighth in Class 4A. The Lions first true test as to how good they really are will be Friday night in Blanchard against the Tuttle Tigers. The game will probably match the speed and stealth of the Lions against the strength and brute force of the Tigers. Probably a toss up..
Just as school voucher bills such as Senate Bill 560 are considered by many to be Corporate Enrichment Bills, there are (justice reform) reform bills such as House Bill 1482 (sponsored by Representative Scott Biggs (C) of Chickasha and Representative Tim Downing (C) of "parts unknown", Purcell or Norman) that must be classified as Corporate Lawyer Enrichment Bills. (A double "reform" means no reform). Recently, Biggs and Downing have attempted to repeal important prison reform measures (SQ 780 and 781) approved by Oklahoma voters last November by sponsoring the lawyer enrichment measure - HB 1482. The citizen approved measures 780 and 781 allowed potential drug felony charges to be re-classified as misdemeanors, there by reducing Oklahoma's record setting incarceration rate for both men and women. (Oklahoma leads the nation for incarcerating women and is second for men). The over-incarceration of Oklahomans is both financially unsustainable and unjustified. The state funding saved by reducing our prison population will go to treatment programs for those convicted of drug crimes. To most Oklahomans, including Governor Mary Fallin, this (reducing our prison population) only makes sense, but to prosecuting attorneys and defense attorneys, it makes no sense at all. When a potential illegal drug offender is charged with a felony, as opposed to a misdemeanor, all involved attorneys make more money. Many people agree that the name of the game for attorneys is more money. Defense attorneys earn more money when defending against felony charges and attorneys justify their job when prosecuting felony charges, hence the classification of House Bill 1482 as a Lawyer Enrichment Bill.
Representatives Biggs (C) and Downing (C), (their official party is (R), but are labeled (C) because there is a distinction between conservative Republicans and corporate Republicans) have now taken their enrichment efforts to a new level, by conducting a non-scientific (bogus) survey of Oklahomans which they hope will justify their actions for repealing or holding up important justice reform measures - as evidenced in the fall-out with Governor Fallin. In the "falling-out" photo, Biggs explains his "lawyer enrichment" position while Downing encouragingly looks on.
House Bill 1482 was not the only "Enrichment Bill" enrolled by (C)'s during the last Legislative session. Senate Bill 560, a school voucher bill, would have directed Oklahoma tax dollars to a Lawmakers choice of private or corporate charter school. The bill, sponsored by Senator Rob Standridge (C) of Norman, would have diverted public school funding to privates and charters (many of which are out-of-state and international) and away from our local public schools. It (SB 560) passed out of a Senate committee on a 9 to 8 vote (nine (C)'s voted in favor, while eight Republicans and Democrats voted against the bill), but did not get a vote on the Senate floor - so died. SB 560 is known by many as a Corporate Enrichment Bill since, if passed into Law it would have "enriched" corporate education groups such as the American Federation for Children AFC). The AFC Legislator Action Fund would then "launder" the public school tax dollars acquired, and send some of it back to the supportive state Senators (C) and Representatives (C). I'm quite sure all (C)'s will get a piece of the taxpayers pie.
Enrichment bills such as HB 1482 and SB 560 will most certainly rear their ugly heads during the 2018 Legislative session, as any bill is never completely dead. It is what they do, and why the Corporate Lawmakers at the capitol continue to "beat the drums" for more money...
Update: Scott Biggs and Tim Downing on the Hotseat for "Lawyer Enrichment Bills" - Scott Biggs (C) appeared on Scott Mitchell's News 9 Hot Seat Sunday, for a rundown of just how his "corrections reform" stonewalling will benefit highly paid state attorneys.
Not only did Biggs (C) and Downing (C) try to pass HB 1482 which would have effectively repealed their constituents will (SQ 780 and 781), but Biggs blocked several other justice reform bills (too numerous to identify) last session. These bills were supported by conservative Republicans such as Governor Fallin, but not supported in the Corporate Enrichment community, so Biggs (as Chair of a House "Justice" committee) blocked all from being heard on the House floor. He said it was in the interest of his not understanding what the difference between a violent crime and a non-violent crime is... or the difference between is and is, is. Nonetheless, Bigg's and Downing's blockage of the corrections reform measures was in the name of lawyer enrichment.
Scott Biggs has subsequently sent a survey to 150 Oklahoma citizens in hopes of getting answers for himself on just what the difference between a "dangerous" felony and a non-violent crime. He hopes to use the survey answers during the next Legislative session to get a bill passed, which like HB 1482, will support lawyer enrichment. I only have a few questions concerning "the survey", which can be accessed on nondoc.com, like "Was the survey only sent to 150 lawyers?" I would say the answer is probably yes. The list of crimes to be labeled as "serious" or "not so serious" is almost 700 in number, so, "will anyone other than an attorney complete and return it?" I would say - probably not. We will continue to watch Lawyer Enrichment Bills sponsored by Scott Biggs (C) and Tim Downing (C) as next session unfolds, whether they be concerning "corrections reform" or "public school reform".
Just as school voucher bills such as Senate Bill 560 are considered by many to be Corporate Enrichment Bills, there are (justice reform) reform bills such as House Bill 1482 (sponsored by Representative Scott Biggs (C) of Chickasha and Representative Tim Downing (C) of "parts unknown", Purcell or Norman) that must be classified as Corporate Lawyer Enrichment Bills. (A double "reform" means no reform). Recently, Biggs and Downing have attempted to repeal important prison reform measures (SQ 780 and 781) approved by Oklahoma voters last November by sponsoring the lawyer enrichment measure - HB 1482. The citizen approved measures 780 and 781 allowed potential drug felony charges to be re-classified as misdemeanors, there by reducing Oklahoma's record setting incarceration rate for both men and women. (Oklahoma leads the nation for incarcerating women and is second for men). The over-incarceration of Oklahomans is both financially unsustainable and unjustified. The state funding saved by reducing our prison population will go to treatment programs for those convicted of drug crimes. To most Oklahomans, including Governor Mary Fallin, this (reducing our prison population) only makes sense, but to prosecuting attorneys and defense attorneys, it makes no sense at all. When a potential illegal drug offender is charged with a felony, as opposed to a misdemeanor, all involved attorneys make more money. Many people agree that the name of the game for attorneys is more money. Defense attorneys earn more money when defending against felony charges and attorneys justify their job when prosecuting felony charges, hence the classification of House Bill 1482 as a Lawyer Enrichment Bill.
Representatives Biggs (C) and Downing (C), (their official party is (R), but are labeled (C) because there is a distinction between conservative Republicans and corporate Republicans) have now taken their enrichment efforts to a new level, by conducting a non-scientific (bogus) survey of Oklahomans which they hope will justify their actions for repealing or holding up important justice reform measures - as evidenced in the fall-out with Governor Fallin. In the "falling-out" photo, Biggs explains his "lawyer enrichment" position while Downing encouragingly looks on.
House Bill 1482 was not the only "Enrichment Bill" enrolled by (C)'s during the last Legislative session. Senate Bill 560, a school voucher bill, would have directed Oklahoma tax dollars to a Lawmakers choice of private or corporate charter school. The bill, sponsored by Senator Rob Standridge (C) of Norman, would have diverted public school funding to privates and charters (many of which are out-of-state and international) and away from our local public schools. It (SB 560) passed out of a Senate committee on a 9 to 8 vote (nine (C)'s voted in favor, while eight Republicans and Democrats voted against the bill), but did not get a vote on the Senate floor - so died. SB 560 is known by many as a Corporate Enrichment Bill since, if passed into Law it would have "enriched" corporate education groups such as the American Federation for Children AFC). The AFC Legislator Action Fund would then "launder" the public school tax dollars acquired, and send some of it back to the supportive state Senators (C) and Representatives (C). I'm quite sure all (C)'s will get a piece of the taxpayers pie.
Enrichment bills such as HB 1482 and SB 560 will most certainly rear their ugly heads during the 2018 Legislative session, as any bill is never completely dead. It is what they do, and why the Corporate Lawmakers at the capitol continue to "beat the drums" for more money...
Update: Scott Biggs and Tim Downing on the Hotseat for "Lawyer Enrichment Bills" - Scott Biggs (C) appeared on Scott Mitchell's News 9 Hot Seat Sunday, for a rundown of just how his "corrections reform" stonewalling will benefit highly paid state attorneys.
Not only did Biggs (C) and Downing (C) try to pass HB 1482 which would have effectively repealed their constituents will (SQ 780 and 781), but Biggs blocked several other justice reform bills (too numerous to identify) last session. These bills were supported by conservative Republicans such as Governor Fallin, but not supported in the Corporate Enrichment community, so Biggs (as Chair of a House "Justice" committee) blocked all from being heard on the House floor. He said it was in the interest of his not understanding what the difference between a violent crime and a non-violent crime is... or the difference between is and is, is. Nonetheless, Bigg's and Downing's blockage of the corrections reform measures was in the name of lawyer enrichment.
Scott Biggs has subsequently sent a survey to 150 Oklahoma citizens in hopes of getting answers for himself on just what the difference between a "dangerous" felony and a non-violent crime. He hopes to use the survey answers during the next Legislative session to get a bill passed, which like HB 1482, will support lawyer enrichment. I only have a few questions concerning "the survey", which can be accessed on nondoc.com, like "Was the survey only sent to 150 lawyers?" I would say the answer is probably yes. The list of crimes to be labeled as "serious" or "not so serious" is almost 700 in number, so, "will anyone other than an attorney complete and return it?" I would say - probably not. We will continue to watch Lawyer Enrichment Bills sponsored by Scott Biggs (C) and Tim Downing (C) as next session unfolds, whether they be concerning "corrections reform" or "public school reform".
Wednesday, September 13, 2017
Corporatists... Are They Really Dirtbags?
Over thirty Oklahoma educators ran for state senate and house seats during the 2016 elections. They were made up of Republicans (R), Democrats (D), and Independents (I), but most were soundly defeated at the polls - as they were running against well-funded Corporatists (C). In many voters' opinions, the recent rise in corporativism as a political philosophy, has given corporatists the right to be considered a separate political party. The C's were mostly funded by Dark Money groups such as the American Federation for Children (AFC) and its "mini-me", the Oklahoma Federation for Children (OFC). Betsy DeVos, AKA Cruella DeVille, the current U.S. Secretary of Education was the executive director for the AFC in 2016, and poured over $200,000 into state corporate campaigns in an effort to defeat the public school educators. The executive director for the OFC, Jennifer "Dirtbags" Carter, also ran mud-slinging attack ads against the Oklahoma educators to the tune of over $100,000 to help defeat them. Jennifer acquired the nickname "Dirtbags" after tweeting that several public school educators were "dirtbags", for criticizing out-of-state voucher corporations. Mrs. Carter was actually Janet Barresi's "mini-me" as Barresi's Chief of Staff before she was fired. Actually, they were both fired from their previous jobs, but who better to sling mud than a dirt bag? OK, I digress, enough of the rhetorical dry humor...
One candidate who ran for the House District 46 seat (Norman) on November 8, 2016, was Jacob Rosecrats (D), a teacher from Norman. He was thrashed soundly by Scott Martin (C), the incumbent, by 4000 votes. As with most of the other (R)'s, (D)'s, and (I)'s running in the 2016 elections, the (C) took full advantage of his "dark money", and won. A few months ago, Scott Martin decided he'd had enough of the elected official life, quit, and joined the private sector. The District 46 House seat, now being vacated, was opened for another election. Jacob Rosecrants, not being a quitter, decided to run again for the seat. House District 46, a traditionally Republican leaning district since 1995, has been quietly leaning more and more Corporatist since Martin was elected several years ago.
Long story short: Many conservative Republicans and Democrats realized this transformation from primarily (R)'s as District 46 officeholders, to (C)'s, and so promptly voted Rosecrants into office on September 12, 2017. Conservative Republicans have begun to realize that Corporatists are quite liberal, even to the left of liberal Democrats. It's been a well kept secret that Corporatism is not conservative, since the mainstay of Corporatists is Corporate Welfare.
Corporatists disguised as conservative Republicans in other Senate and House districts would do well to note the shellacking that Rosecrants (D) handed to Chambers(C), as a result of voters becoming aware of the (C)'s agenda - the funneling of Oklahoma public school tax dollars to private and corporate charter schools, mostly out-of-state or international. We'll say it again, all is not lost, a teacher has defeated a corporatist! or a public school supporter has defeated a "voucher wolf"!
One candidate who ran for the House District 46 seat (Norman) on November 8, 2016, was Jacob Rosecrats (D), a teacher from Norman. He was thrashed soundly by Scott Martin (C), the incumbent, by 4000 votes. As with most of the other (R)'s, (D)'s, and (I)'s running in the 2016 elections, the (C) took full advantage of his "dark money", and won. A few months ago, Scott Martin decided he'd had enough of the elected official life, quit, and joined the private sector. The District 46 House seat, now being vacated, was opened for another election. Jacob Rosecrants, not being a quitter, decided to run again for the seat. House District 46, a traditionally Republican leaning district since 1995, has been quietly leaning more and more Corporatist since Martin was elected several years ago.
Long story short: Many conservative Republicans and Democrats realized this transformation from primarily (R)'s as District 46 officeholders, to (C)'s, and so promptly voted Rosecrants into office on September 12, 2017. Conservative Republicans have begun to realize that Corporatists are quite liberal, even to the left of liberal Democrats. It's been a well kept secret that Corporatism is not conservative, since the mainstay of Corporatists is Corporate Welfare.
Corporatists disguised as conservative Republicans in other Senate and House districts would do well to note the shellacking that Rosecrants (D) handed to Chambers(C), as a result of voters becoming aware of the (C)'s agenda - the funneling of Oklahoma public school tax dollars to private and corporate charter schools, mostly out-of-state or international. We'll say it again, all is not lost, a teacher has defeated a corporatist! or a public school supporter has defeated a "voucher wolf"!
Friday, September 8, 2017
Profitability - The Death of Oklahoma Public Schools...
Many opinion commentaries concerning our Oklahoma public schools have been contributed by Benjamin Scafidi to the Oklahoman newspaper, as well as other like-minded publications around the country. Ben Scafidi has a Ph.D. from the University of Virginia and is the director of the Education Economics Center in the Coles College of Business at Kennesaw State University, in Georgia. He teaches business students "how to make money" at the expense of our public schools. Scafidi is an extremely intelligent Education Economics professor at Coles College of Business and no doubt a polished politician as well. He is probably much smarter than any public school teacher or administrator in Oklahoma, including yours truly (I'm only a hick cattle rancher in the hills of Rush Creek), but I have questions for Dr. Scafidi: What interest does a business professor from Kennesaw State University in Georgia have in our Oklahoma public schools? Why does Scafidi seem to be obsessed with proving that our Oklahoma public schools are terrible? and Why is Scafidi obsessed with taxpayer funded school vouchers?
Ben Scafidi will probably not answer these questions, and before we attempt to answer them - it's a fact, Dr. Scafidi is in the business of teaching students and business owners "how to make profits". It's also a fact that politically - the Republican Party Platform for public schools is private school vouchers for all students (PSVAS). In order to be politically correct, the Republican Party refers to it as "school choice". Private school choice for State Legislators (PSCSL) or PSVAS is also part of the platform of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA). The OCPA bills itself as a conservative "think tank", except for public schools - of which it is very progressive. Many true conservatives agree with this OCPA political assessment.
Dr. Scafidi is also a senior fellow for EdChoice, a pro-voucher group which encourages State Legislators around the nation to pass legislation which benefits private and corporate charter schools, and a regular contributor to the OCPA. The drumbeat for private school vouchers by organizations such as EdChoice and the OCPA has been long and steady, but has increased significantly as of late because they see the 2018 Oklahoma Legislative Session as an opportunity to snag taxpayer dollars in the form of pro-voucher legislation. The pro-voucher groups utilize false implications, innuendos, and rhetoric, if not outright lies - to get their message across. They also employ professors and fellows such as Ben Scafidi to intentionally mis-analyze data and convince the public that public schools are failing, and the only answer to our failing public schools is to de-fund them. One way that Scafidi and his ilk use to dis-credit public schools is to try to turn school employee groups against one another, such as in his article Oklahoma's (missing) $8,872 teacher pay raise. Scafidi's innuendo is "because public schools spend too much money on non-teacher expenses, teachers cannot get a pay raise". He says that Oklahoma teachers would have received a pay raise, were it not for the fact that schools hired too many administrative and support personnel. He falsely implies that schools don't need counselors, librarians, school nurses, custodians, bus drivers, teacher assistants, cafeteria workers, superintendents, etc..., and could have given the "saved money" by eliminating them - to teachers. In another article, Scafidi writes "Oklahoma state law tries to hold down administrative expenses in public schools. That is a great idea in theory, but does it result in the hiring of more teachers instead of hiring other staffers? The short answer is no." The fact of the matter is schools are required by law to keep administrative expenses below 6% (for a school the size of Blanchard)of total expenditures. A couple years ago, the law was changed requiring schools to keep administrative expenditures below 6% to below 5%. It was thought this change would result in schools giving teacher pay raises, but it did not. (By the way, Blanchard schools administrative expenses are 2.05% of total expenditures). For Scafidi to say that "Oklahoma state law tries to hold down administrative expenses" misleads the public to believe that state law cannot hold down administrative costs - It clearly does. Scafidi goes on to ask ... does it result in the hiring of more teachers instead of hiring other staffers? implying that if schools just had lower administrative expenses, they could hire more teachers. Scafidi does not lie, but encourages the public to believe something that's just not true.
In another article by Scafidi, The Failure of Public Schooling in One Chart, he implies that since our public schools are failing, we may as well send our tax dollars to private and for-profit corporate charter schools. Scafidi is definitely a sharp, polished politician, but the same kind of politician who convinced the public to send federal tax dollars to "suitcase farmers" (eastern farming corporations) back in the 1930's in order to create the Oklahoma Dust Bowl. Scafidi's article could have been written by an eastern politician and entitled The Failure of Oklahoma Farming in One Chart.
I think all three questions posed at the beginning of this post can be answered now with only one word - Money. As a matter of fact, the motivating interest for all corporatists, whether Democrat or Republican, is the almighty Dollar - which may result in the death of our public schools. The rise of corporativism (corporatism) may also result in the death of conservatism in the Republican Party, as more and more Republicans continue to be "bought off" by corporate interests. So, the interest a business professor from Kennesaw University in Georgia has for Oklahoma Public Schools is not "a better education for our public school students", but the profitability of Oklahoma public schools. The "corporate suitcase farmers" of the Oklahoma Dust Bowl (eastern corporate farmers) were only interested in the profitability of our Oklahoma topsoil, just as the "corporate suitcase educators", such as Dr. Scafidi, are only interested in the profitability of Oklahoma public schools. We know what the end result of the suitcase farmers was, but still don't know what will happen as a result of suitcase educators' actions???
Ben Scafidi will probably not answer these questions, and before we attempt to answer them - it's a fact, Dr. Scafidi is in the business of teaching students and business owners "how to make profits". It's also a fact that politically - the Republican Party Platform for public schools is private school vouchers for all students (PSVAS). In order to be politically correct, the Republican Party refers to it as "school choice". Private school choice for State Legislators (PSCSL) or PSVAS is also part of the platform of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA). The OCPA bills itself as a conservative "think tank", except for public schools - of which it is very progressive. Many true conservatives agree with this OCPA political assessment.
Dr. Scafidi is also a senior fellow for EdChoice, a pro-voucher group which encourages State Legislators around the nation to pass legislation which benefits private and corporate charter schools, and a regular contributor to the OCPA. The drumbeat for private school vouchers by organizations such as EdChoice and the OCPA has been long and steady, but has increased significantly as of late because they see the 2018 Oklahoma Legislative Session as an opportunity to snag taxpayer dollars in the form of pro-voucher legislation. The pro-voucher groups utilize false implications, innuendos, and rhetoric, if not outright lies - to get their message across. They also employ professors and fellows such as Ben Scafidi to intentionally mis-analyze data and convince the public that public schools are failing, and the only answer to our failing public schools is to de-fund them. One way that Scafidi and his ilk use to dis-credit public schools is to try to turn school employee groups against one another, such as in his article Oklahoma's (missing) $8,872 teacher pay raise. Scafidi's innuendo is "because public schools spend too much money on non-teacher expenses, teachers cannot get a pay raise". He says that Oklahoma teachers would have received a pay raise, were it not for the fact that schools hired too many administrative and support personnel. He falsely implies that schools don't need counselors, librarians, school nurses, custodians, bus drivers, teacher assistants, cafeteria workers, superintendents, etc..., and could have given the "saved money" by eliminating them - to teachers. In another article, Scafidi writes "Oklahoma state law tries to hold down administrative expenses in public schools. That is a great idea in theory, but does it result in the hiring of more teachers instead of hiring other staffers? The short answer is no." The fact of the matter is schools are required by law to keep administrative expenses below 6% (for a school the size of Blanchard)of total expenditures. A couple years ago, the law was changed requiring schools to keep administrative expenditures below 6% to below 5%. It was thought this change would result in schools giving teacher pay raises, but it did not. (By the way, Blanchard schools administrative expenses are 2.05% of total expenditures). For Scafidi to say that "Oklahoma state law tries to hold down administrative expenses" misleads the public to believe that state law cannot hold down administrative costs - It clearly does. Scafidi goes on to ask ... does it result in the hiring of more teachers instead of hiring other staffers? implying that if schools just had lower administrative expenses, they could hire more teachers. Scafidi does not lie, but encourages the public to believe something that's just not true.
In another article by Scafidi, The Failure of Public Schooling in One Chart, he implies that since our public schools are failing, we may as well send our tax dollars to private and for-profit corporate charter schools. Scafidi is definitely a sharp, polished politician, but the same kind of politician who convinced the public to send federal tax dollars to "suitcase farmers" (eastern farming corporations) back in the 1930's in order to create the Oklahoma Dust Bowl. Scafidi's article could have been written by an eastern politician and entitled The Failure of Oklahoma Farming in One Chart.
I think all three questions posed at the beginning of this post can be answered now with only one word - Money. As a matter of fact, the motivating interest for all corporatists, whether Democrat or Republican, is the almighty Dollar - which may result in the death of our public schools. The rise of corporativism (corporatism) may also result in the death of conservatism in the Republican Party, as more and more Republicans continue to be "bought off" by corporate interests. So, the interest a business professor from Kennesaw University in Georgia has for Oklahoma Public Schools is not "a better education for our public school students", but the profitability of Oklahoma public schools. The "corporate suitcase farmers" of the Oklahoma Dust Bowl (eastern corporate farmers) were only interested in the profitability of our Oklahoma topsoil, just as the "corporate suitcase educators", such as Dr. Scafidi, are only interested in the profitability of Oklahoma public schools. We know what the end result of the suitcase farmers was, but still don't know what will happen as a result of suitcase educators' actions???
Tuesday, September 5, 2017
Conservative Republicans Verses Corporate Republicans
I believe a clear separation has developed between conservative Republicans and corporate Republicans in the Oklahoma State Legislature. A conservative, by definition - is one who saves as opposed to spending tax dollars, believes in upholding the U.S. Constitution as well as the Oklahoma Constitution, and believes in retaining traditional public institutions such as our public schools.
A corporatist, by definition - is one who believes in corporate welfare (tax breaks for the rich and famous corporations) and spending tax dollars on progressive pet projects such as out-of-state corporate and private education. The progressive corporatist believes in changing the Constitution to fit his corporate ideas and does not believe in traditional social institutions such as our public schools.
Conservatives wanted to balance the state budget by cutting Legislator spending, but corporatists want to balance the budget by raising taxes on middle class Oklahomans, as evidenced in the auto tax increase (under no circumstances do corporatists want to increase taxes for the wealthy and their corporate bosses).
Last week, the Oklahoman Editorial Board - which is considered conservative, criticized the Republican "supermajority" in the House and the Senate for greasing the skids for potentially billions in tax increases, so must shoulder all resulting responsibility. In my opinion, most of the Republicans in the House and Senate are high tax corporatists, not conservatives. The Oklahoman Editorial Board, with which I frequently disagree, has hit the nail on the head in this opinion piece. The "line in the sand" between conservatives and corporatists at the State Capitol has never been more clear. The upcoming "special session" for the Legislature will make the distinction and difference in political philosophies, conservatism or corporativism, even clearer.
A corporatist, by definition - is one who believes in corporate welfare (tax breaks for the rich and famous corporations) and spending tax dollars on progressive pet projects such as out-of-state corporate and private education. The progressive corporatist believes in changing the Constitution to fit his corporate ideas and does not believe in traditional social institutions such as our public schools.
Conservatives wanted to balance the state budget by cutting Legislator spending, but corporatists want to balance the budget by raising taxes on middle class Oklahomans, as evidenced in the auto tax increase (under no circumstances do corporatists want to increase taxes for the wealthy and their corporate bosses).
Last week, the Oklahoman Editorial Board - which is considered conservative, criticized the Republican "supermajority" in the House and the Senate for greasing the skids for potentially billions in tax increases, so must shoulder all resulting responsibility. In my opinion, most of the Republicans in the House and Senate are high tax corporatists, not conservatives. The Oklahoman Editorial Board, with which I frequently disagree, has hit the nail on the head in this opinion piece. The "line in the sand" between conservatives and corporatists at the State Capitol has never been more clear. The upcoming "special session" for the Legislature will make the distinction and difference in political philosophies, conservatism or corporativism, even clearer.
Friday, September 1, 2017
State Rep. Michael Rogers (R) Decries School Funding Facts As "Fake News"
An article by Ben Felder, newsok.com/declining-school-funding-fake-news-says-state-rep/article/5562242, Declining school funding? 'Fake news says state rep, details that an e-mail sent by State Rep. Michael Rogers (chair of the state House common education committee) to his Republican colleagues decries that "reports of declining state funding for public schools" is fake news. "Fake News" is also known as bald faced lies, so in effect, Representative Rogers is saying that public school officials have been lying to the Oklahoma public about cuts to state public education. In other words, Mr. Rogers wants the public to believe that Oklahoma Lawmakers have not cut state dollars going to public schools by almost 27% since 2010, which leads the nation (we're number one!). He also wants his colleagues in the House to believe that Oklahoma has not cut school funding by $233.20 per student since 2009. Mr.Rogers tells his colleagues that "...we (the Legislature) have increased funding per pupil since 2010". This statement by Mr. Rogers is not only a "lie", but a lie he hopes his fellow House members will pass on to their constituents. The facts state otherwise. Mr. Rogers evidently has not taken the math course Advanced Gazintas for the mathematically challenged, or he would know Lesson #1 - naught plus naught is still naught, and $3275.60 in 2009 - $3042.40 in 2017 = +$233.20 less per student. It was probably the + in the + $233.20 which made Rep. Rogers think that state funding "has increased" since 2009... No, I think that Mr. Rogers is really very intelligent, so he wants his Republican colleagues in the House to spread the word to their constituents that "school funding is actually up!". Many Republicans will not lie for Rep. Rogers, but many will. Many Republican House members will also pass this lie on, to their unsuspecting public.
Update: Representative Michael Rogers (R) has doubled down on his "fake news" claims. Rogers, a self-professed gazinta expert and chairman of the House Common Education Committee, responded to recent news stories regarding an e-mail sent to members of his Republican caucus labeled "fake news". A math legend in his own mind, Rogers said the email was in direct reference to "false educational funding data" released last spring by the Oklahoma State School Boards Association (OSSBA) Executive Director Shawn Hime and the Cooperative Council of State School Administration (CCOSA) that claimed Oklahoma 'ALEC Corporate Legislators' cut education funding by $1 billion dollars. Rogers said "When I first saw these 'mathematically advanced' numbers last spring, I reached out to Mr. Hime, asking him to show me 'gazinta' numbers supporting his claim. He sent a breakdown showing how he used 'advanced' cumulative math to come up with the figure." The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and Mr. Rogers are still trying to reconcile Hime's numbers using only fuzzy gazintas, as Rogers said "I showed how the 'Corporate' Legislature would be up nearly $2 billion dollars (not $1 billion dollars down) in education funding" had Mr. Hime only used "fuzzy gazintas" instead of advanced mathematical techniques. Mr. Rogers ended his latest "fake news" release by saying "I will continue to fight for students and parents and won't be bullied or silenced for wanting to have an open honest conversation on education funding and how we can improve it." Translated from political rhetoric into an honest statement, Mr. Rogers means that "I will continue to fight for the corporate control of our public schools and won't be bullied or silenced by honest straightforward facts".
I'd like to issue a challenge to Mr. Rogers or any other corporate Oklahoma Legislator to publically debate the school funding issue. You may come down to KBLP 105.1 FM in Lindsay, at 8:30 AM on any Monday morning, and we'll discuss it "live" on the air... By the way, my "local lawmakers" Representative Tim Downing and Senator Paul Scott, have a "standing invitation".
It's now Tuesday, September 12, exactly 12 days since issuing the invitation to answer constituent questions about the "fake news" of education cuts by state lawmakers. We still only hear "crickets chirping" instead of meaningful answers from Representative Downing and Senator Scott. They both have the option of either confirming Representative Roger's claims that education cuts are "fake news" or confirming that funding cuts to our public schools are indeed real. Downing and Scott have no doubt seen the invitation, but have refused to respond thus far, leading one to believe that they just don't want to discuss the issue. It's not surprising they won't answer constituent questions about school funding or other public school issues though, since Mr. Downing failed to answer any public school questions while campaigning for his seat. Stay tuned and I'll tell everyone when one finally responds...
Update: Representative Michael Rogers (R) has doubled down on his "fake news" claims. Rogers, a self-professed gazinta expert and chairman of the House Common Education Committee, responded to recent news stories regarding an e-mail sent to members of his Republican caucus labeled "fake news". A math legend in his own mind, Rogers said the email was in direct reference to "false educational funding data" released last spring by the Oklahoma State School Boards Association (OSSBA) Executive Director Shawn Hime and the Cooperative Council of State School Administration (CCOSA) that claimed Oklahoma 'ALEC Corporate Legislators' cut education funding by $1 billion dollars. Rogers said "When I first saw these 'mathematically advanced' numbers last spring, I reached out to Mr. Hime, asking him to show me 'gazinta' numbers supporting his claim. He sent a breakdown showing how he used 'advanced' cumulative math to come up with the figure." The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and Mr. Rogers are still trying to reconcile Hime's numbers using only fuzzy gazintas, as Rogers said "I showed how the 'Corporate' Legislature would be up nearly $2 billion dollars (not $1 billion dollars down) in education funding" had Mr. Hime only used "fuzzy gazintas" instead of advanced mathematical techniques. Mr. Rogers ended his latest "fake news" release by saying "I will continue to fight for students and parents and won't be bullied or silenced for wanting to have an open honest conversation on education funding and how we can improve it." Translated from political rhetoric into an honest statement, Mr. Rogers means that "I will continue to fight for the corporate control of our public schools and won't be bullied or silenced by honest straightforward facts".
I'd like to issue a challenge to Mr. Rogers or any other corporate Oklahoma Legislator to publically debate the school funding issue. You may come down to KBLP 105.1 FM in Lindsay, at 8:30 AM on any Monday morning, and we'll discuss it "live" on the air... By the way, my "local lawmakers" Representative Tim Downing and Senator Paul Scott, have a "standing invitation".
It's now Tuesday, September 12, exactly 12 days since issuing the invitation to answer constituent questions about the "fake news" of education cuts by state lawmakers. We still only hear "crickets chirping" instead of meaningful answers from Representative Downing and Senator Scott. They both have the option of either confirming Representative Roger's claims that education cuts are "fake news" or confirming that funding cuts to our public schools are indeed real. Downing and Scott have no doubt seen the invitation, but have refused to respond thus far, leading one to believe that they just don't want to discuss the issue. It's not surprising they won't answer constituent questions about school funding or other public school issues though, since Mr. Downing failed to answer any public school questions while campaigning for his seat. Stay tuned and I'll tell everyone when one finally responds...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)