I've read several news articles detailing how our state representatives voted (yes or no), but no opinions as to the reasoning behind the "no" votes. Of course with any rejected budget deal, there are winners and losers. Oklahoma Watch reports the losers in the latest House rejected budget are the Education Community, Health-Care Community, and Republicans. The winners in this latest rejection are Oil and Gas, Big Tobacco, and Anti-Tax Republicans. One may ask how Republicans in general may be losers, but Anti-Tax Republicans are winners. In my opinion, the answer lies in the comment of one Anti-Tax Republican when asked why he voted No - He said: "If my constituents don't like the way I voted, they can vote me out" , presumably at the next scheduled state elections. He knows that, sadly, only about 30% of public school employees who are registered voters - actually vote, and of that 30% - about half are registered Republicans who will vote for him anyway. His opinion, and he's probably correct - is that he won't lose any votes in his next election. Anti-Tax voters elected him, and Anti-Tax voters will re-elect him - you can count on it.
My State Representative, Tim Downing of District 42 (Garvin and McClain County) voted No on the budget deal which would have provided teachers a $3,000 pay raise. He also stated that he would be voting No on the one-cent sales tax question for a $5,000 teacher pay raise, back in 2016. Mr. Downing, like the Anti-Tax Republican described above, knows that he will win re-election to office, no matter what his position is concerning public schools, state services, and teacher issues. This is both a disturbing and depressing fact for most teachers and other state service providers, but it is a fact.
Everyone remember the two teachers in the "vote no" on SQ 779, TV ad? Like many other teachers, they believed there was a better way to fund teacher pay raises than raising the sales tax for working folks, and the legislature would soon find it. Mr. Downing, like most Anti-Tax Republicans, knows that only about 30% of teachers vote (BadVoter.org) and some of those who actually do vote, supported him (followthemoney.org). By the way, following the money trail can lead to some other very interesting conclusions as to who and which entities Mr. Downing answers to. The facts speak for themselves, whether one believes it's a good thing... or bad. A high ranking public school official even went so far as to say that Mr. Downing will bring meaningful solutions to the challenges we face in education, and not just colorful rhetoric (like me, I guess). Tim will support our teachers and stand with parents to fight for what really matters in our schools... I'm honored to support Tim Downing for state House. The same official may now have a change of mind, since she thanked those House members voting yes on the budget for a teacher pay raise. Then again, maybe not, since the same high ranking public school official has endorsed other anti-public school and anti-teacher candidates in the past, all while insulting public school candidates for office. Public school supporters remember the stand that public service supporter, Representative Corey Williams made last week, as he chided the Corporate House Speaker for trying to force a bad budget bill through the House. At one point, Mr. Williams turned to the House Speaker's Chief of Staff (who pulls in a $156,000 salary as the real "boss") and asked "How's oil and gas?", apparently emphasizing what many people already know.
Nonetheless, the same high ranking public school official who endorsed Tim Downing - endorsed Corey Williams' opponent, another public service hater.
So, the answer to the original question of why many legislators voted "no" on the budget plan which provided a $3,000 pay raise for teachers is simple - They know it probably won't hurt their re-election chances..
Update: Seven House members who voted "yes" on a previous budget bill which included sales tax increases on cigs, fuel, and beer (all regressive taxes), voted "no" on the recent budget bill. The only difference in the two budget bills, was that the 2nd one, voted last week, included a "gross production" tax increase, which taxes the wealthy and corporate at a rate equal to the poor and middle-income earners. Representative Bobby Cleveland of House District 20 is closest to my home, so I'll ask him - "Representative Cleveland - You voted 'yes' on the bill that increased regressive taxes, but 'no' on the bill that increased the gross production tax on oil and gas corporations - Why the switch?"... Many of your constituents are waiting for your answer...
Update: Bobby Cleveland has gone on the record as to his reasons for helping to exacerbate the state budget catastrophe - in the Norman Transcript. His reason for voting "no" is "corruption in a lot of state agencies". He then goes on to say that mental health, corrections, and ODOT are agencies exempt from his "corruption" claim, which leaves the State Department of Education as the only public service agency which may be corrupted, along with the Department of Tourism (headed by Lieutenant Governor Lamb) and one more. So, there's our answer as to why Cleveland voted "no", but he still hasn't answered as to why he voted "yes" on the first budget bill (same tax increases).
Update: Another reason that Corporate House members voted "No balanced budget" was that the "fix" was in. Conservative Republican Representative Leslie Osborn claimed that her fellow Republican House members (corporate only) had secretly met (sounds like the we hate girls club of the Little Rascals, only it's the we hate state service agencies club), to discuss which members would vote "yes" and which members would vote "no", while still ensuring the bill would fail. This conspiracy could explain why Dapper Dan, the House Speaker voted "yes", but several of his co-conspirators voted "no". Dapper Dan could then say "See, I'm not a minion of the oil overlords, because I said 'Eat this YES vote, overlords!" His fellow corporate cronies would then get the heat for choking our public service agencies...
No comments:
Post a Comment