Pax Hammericana

Delicious Irony

This from the Electronic Privacy Information Center:

"The Chinese government has announced that it will embed radio frequency
identification (“RFID”) tags into tickets for the 2008 Summer Olympic
Games. The RFID tags transmit data wirelessly and there are questions
about the security of the data, which will include the ticketholder's
passport details, address, and other personal data. In March, The U.S.
State Department issued a travel advisory warning that hotel rooms and
offices may be subject to monitoring and may be accessed without the
consent or knowledge of the occupant.

U.S. State Department Travel Warning About 2008 Olympic Games in
Beijing:

http://epic.org/redirect/statedept_0508.html"

Points for the best smart alek response.

The Most Important Elections We Tend to Forget About

In Oklahoma, Georgia, and many, many other states, citizens have the right to vote on the judges who hold the fate of justice in their hands.  In Oklahoma, this right extends all the way to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.  These individuals are voted on based on a "Retain" or "Do Not Retain" basis.  Presumably, if one of the judicial candidates received a majority of "Do Not Retain" votes, there would be a wide open judicial race. 

I'm not sure anyone actually knows how this would work, because a long-time lawyer informed me last year that this has never happened.  Not once. 

It's time for that to change.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court, in a 8-1 decision, ruled that State Sen. Gene Stipe would not lose his $7000 a month state pension for violating his constitutional oath for committing federal crimes:

"In its ruling, the high court upheld an Oklahoma County judge's decision that Stipe's state pension should not be reduced because of his guilty pleas.

With 54 years of legislative service as a House and Senate member, Stipe, 81, is eligible for a $7,042 monthly pension. The court also upheld a district court ruling that he be paid the cumulative amount of his pension benefits that he should have received since his 2003 retirement; that amount wasn't immediately clear Tuesday."

We found out the number today:  $344,000.  So, for those not immersed in Oklahoma politics, what is this goodly man in trouble for?

"In 2003, Stipe resigned from the state Senate and pleaded guilty to federal violations involving the 1998 congressional campaign of Democrat Walt Roberts, Stipe's protege."

"Federal violations" in this case means soliciting illegal contributions in circumvention of federal election laws.  This is by no means his only offense; his most recent legal troubles have to do with compensation promised to supporters of friends of his in office.  These, of course, are merely the things he was caught for doing in his 54-year career during the heat of Oklahoma's days of good ol' boy politics.

So now the taxpayers of Oklahoma are on the hook for $7,000 per year for the rest of this fine man's life because 8 out of 9 Supreme Court justices said that these crimes did not violate his oath to defend and uphold the state and federal constitutions.  This ruling is perhaps the only thing more heinous than Stipe's actions themselves. 

Yeah! More Taxpayer-Approved Pork!

So, despite massive propaganda in its favor, the good ol' boy deal arranged by the Oklahoma County Commissioners for Oklahoma County to buy the old GM plant and lease it to Tinker Air Force Base barely passed voters with 53% of the vote.

I would imagine that one of the main reasons the vote was as close as it was is that a retired Air Force Brigadier General came out against it. 

These types of arrangements -- local sales tax increases, bond issues, etc. -- are the place for real activism to take root.  These taxes are also the most just, but they are also the proposals most likely to be jammed through without officials being held accountable for their reasoning.  These local issues also rarely have true cost-benefit analysis required or performed, and, worst of all, fishy deals like this pass only because of massive promotion from government officials and low voter turnout. 

For what it's worth, I sent the following letter to The Oklahoman, although it wasn't published:

Dear editors,

I am writing to encourage Oklahoma County voters to vote against the proposed bond issue on May 13^th.  To put it quite simply, the proposal does not pass the smell test.  Three particular questions have been unanswered by the bond advocates: 1) If the proposal is truly expected to raise money for the county, why have the commissioners proposed a general obligation bond, which will raise taxes, rather than a revenue bond, which would pay for the bond out of profits from the deal?  2) Why has no detailed cost benefit analysis been conducted and shared with voters? (The commissioners do have a website on the proposal but offer no details on this question.)  3) Given the condition of Oklahoma County roads, schools, and water and sewage infrastructure, why is the purchase of this plant a better investment than those critical facilities?  Citizens deserve more than a haphazard proposal that sends $55 million toward what looks for all the world like a project that will benefit the few at the cost of the many. 

These questions only point back to the deeper issue that a county government should not be in the business of doing deals that are not financially feasible for the federal government to do on its own – and for that matter, probably should not be owning businesses in the first place.

Sincerely,

Michael Hammer

A Voice of Reason?

Oklahoma's tax revenues came in lower than expected, causing panic among those (including many among my colleagues and current employers) whose agendas can be sustained only by perpetually increasing tax revenues. 

So, what do cash-strapped legislators do when they don't have enough for all their pet projects?  Why, continue to burden future generations with debt, naturally!

In fairness, a bond issue to fund roads is a great idea; it lets major investments be paid out over time.  But once word got out that this could be a huge bond issue -- big enough to hide a few pet projects here and there -- the the sharks started circling the blood in the water. 

Let's hope that commonsense prevails and that the bond issue focuses on those things (roads) that are really important.  Fortunately, the Oklahoman makes roughly the same point -- although even they support adding other projects to the issue (albeit only debts that the state has unpaid from the past). 

Nonetheless, the timing for paying these old debts requires some questioning, as does the Oklahoman's claim that the state should contributed the the universities' (and, as it turns out, primarily OU's) endowed professorships on the grounds that these donors were promised the state would match their contributions.  This may be fair enough, but inquiring minds wonder: who promised the funds?  When?  Under what conditions?  A promise that wasn't made binding with some form of contract is no promise at all -- and certainly not one that can be enforced upon future Oklahoma taxpayers.