To unsubscribe please send an email requesting removal at ModernPatriot@hotmail.com .

Invite your friends to receive the best political cyber-newsletter in Oklahoma. Tell them to subscribe by sending a subscription request to Cadman12@swbell.net or go to www.ModernPatriot.net and click on the email icon.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
M odern P atriot C hronicles
An Eleventh Commandment Free Zone
Vol. 5, Issue 12
October 27, 2006
By Craig Dawkins

State Question 725 is a REALLY BAD Idea
The Other State Questions
Jim Roth Picks a Petty Argument (With Me?)

Copyright@2006, All Rights Reserved
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
POLLS! POLLS! POLLS! POLLS!

Will you support State Question 725?
Yes - It's a good idea.
No - It's a terrible idea.

Go to www.ModernPatriot.net and vote today!!!
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
State Question 725 is a REALLY BAD Idea

First, there's only one reason why "at risk manufacturers" in Oklahoma need to borrow from Oklahoma's taxpayer funded Rainy Day Fund. The reason is that they can't convince the private financial markets to take what is considered a bad risk. Financial markets include investors who take the worst kind of bests if there is a significant chance of survival. Venture capital firms sink millions into losers and only recover losses with successful investments. So this begs the question - WHY would the taxpayers of Oklahoma take a risk the private sector has rejected as a bad risk? (I'll give you an answer for this later.)

Second, manufacturers that are "at risk" are generally industries that cannot compete with more efficient producers. Oklahoma sunk around $6 million into the infrastructure of the Wrangler plant in Seminole, Oklahoma before it relocated its production to Mexico. Old line manufacturers who cannot compete in the global economy deserve to die and go away. Dollars that are wasting away in inefficient companies should be redirected to more productive producers. And that is PRECISELY what private financial markets do. They allocate money into business opportunities where the risk versus return is optimal. Companies that are poorly managed should not be bailed out by taxpayers. Ever.

Third, assuming dollars are taken from the Rainy Day Fund to help an "at-risk" manufacturer. Do shareholders of the manufacturer pay the money back? No. Do Oklahoma taxpayers enjoy any of the equity of the "at-risk" firm? No. But it is a benefit to shareholders of the "at risk" company. What is the reward for Oklahomans versus the risk?

The reward for Oklahoma is contained in the few individuals who remain employed at the firm (assuming they don't leave like Wrangler did) and the owners of the "at-risk" manufacturer. The losers include the competitors of that manufacturer, consumers of government services and everyone who pays taxes in Oklahoma. How do Oklahoma taxpayers lose?

First, they lose because in the event of a real economic crisis there will be a greater need to increase taxes to maintain the rainy day fund as money drains from the fund. Second, if the Rainy Day Fund becomes a gargantuan fund filled with idle dollars, those dollars could be used to fund a tax cut at the State level. Giving Oklahoman's the opportunity to keep more of their own money is a good thing.

Ultimately "at-risk" manufacturers will go broke and Oklahomans will just prolong the financial life of a brain dead company by putting it on taxpayer funded life support. Another issue is that this kind of state intervention in the free markets could violate are trade agreements with other countries.

Lastly, interfering in the free market by rescuing bad manufacturers using Oklahoma Rainy Day Fund money is nothing short of corporate welfare. The chamber crowd doesn't look a gift horse in the mouth. They are using the typical mouth pieces to promote the idea that we need to approve this terrible State Question.

Vote NO on State Question 725!
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
The Other State Questions

Taken from the Oklahoma State Election Board

STATE QUESTION NO. 724 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 339
This measure amends Article V, Section 21 of the State Constitution. That Section deals with State pay to legislators. The amendment restricts State pay to some legislators. The pay restriction would apply to some legislators while in jail or prison. The pay restriction would apply to legislators found guilty of a crime. It would also apply to legislators who plead either guilty or no contest. Affected legislators must return any State pay received for time while in jail or prison.

SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED?
FOR THE PROPOSAL - YES

STATE QUESTION NO. 725 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 340
This measure amends the State Constitution. It amends Section 23 of Article 10. The measure deals with the Constitutional Reserve Fund also known as the Rainy Day Fund. The measure allows money to be spent from the Rainy Day Fund. The purpose of the authorized spending is to retain employment for state residents by helping at-risk manufacturers. Payments from the Fund would be used to encourage such manufacturers to make investments in Oklahoma. All such payments from the Fund must be unanimously approved by three State officers. Those officers are the Governor and the head of the Senate and House of Representatives.
Those officers could only approve payments recommended by an independent committee. Such spending is allowed in years when there is Eighty Million Dollars or more in the Fund and other conditions are met. Such spending is limited to Ten Million Dollars a year. The help given to a manufacturer is limited to ten percent of its in-State capital investments. The Legislature could make laws to carry out the amendment.
SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED?
AGAINST THE PROPOSAL - NO

STATE QUESTION NO. 733 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 341
This measure amends the Oklahoma Constitution. It amends Article 28. This Article deals with sales of alcoholic beverages. Section 6 of Article 28 bans the sale of alcoholic beverages by package stores on certain days. Package store sales of these beverages are prohibited on election days while the polls are open. Thismeasure would remove the ban on sales on election days. If this measure passes, package stores could sell alcoholic beverages on election days.
SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED?
FOR THE PROPOSAL - YES

STATE QUESTION NO. 734 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 342
This measure amends the Oklahoma Constitution. It amends Section 6A of Article 10. This section provides an exemption from property tax. The exemption applies to goods that are shipped into the state, but which do not remain in the state for more than ninety days. This is sometimes known as the freeport exemption.
This measure would allow laws to be enacted. The laws could provide for an application process to claim this exemption. The laws could require the application to be filed by a certain date. The laws could require certain information to be included with the application. The application would be filed with the county assessor.
SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED? FOR THE PROPOSAL - YES
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Jim Roth Picks a Petty Argument (With Me?)

I'm never surprised when petty bickering breaks out at Oklahoma County between elected officials. Whether it's John Whetsel calling Brent Rinehart names or Leonard Sullivan talking trash against Rinehart, or Carolynn Caudill breaking out in a screeching episode against whomever, it's kind of business as usual.

But I must admit that I was quite surprised today when Oklahoma County Commissioner Jim Roth walked up to me today and asked me an odd and rather insulting question. First let me describe the setting. The setting was an ACCO building in Oklahoma City. ACCO stands for Association of County Commissioners of Oklahoma. The purpose of the meeting today was to award full-time workers in the Oklahoma County Commissioner districts safety awards. It is my understanding that these awards are for those were accident free for the year.

The people who were there from commissioner offices were there in support of their districts. So I tagged along for that purpose. I attended the event during my lunch break. After the event, Jim Roth walked up my table and asked me and another coworker a question regarding whether we were being paid today to attend the meeting. Not really understanding his question, I answered that I was being paid today. The question seemed rather odd to me. Why?

Well this was a commissioners' event. I work part time for Commissioner Rinehart. But the Oklahoma County Treasurer's office had several people attend the meeting. The County Human Resource department was present as were other non-commissioner departments. Before I made it out the door, it dawned on me that Roth was asking me if I was being paid for my lunch break. Which of course I wasn't. So when I arrived back at my office at the county, I decided to call Roth and inquire into his question of me and give him a correct answer regarding my lunch break.

I called his office at approximately 1:10 PM asking for his cell number so that I could talk to him. As it turned out he was there. So I asked to speak to him. He told his office secretary that he wasn't available. So I said I would call him back. Later in the afternoon, Roth called me at my office stating that he was returning my call.

What went on during this call was rather bizarre. First, I cleared up my answer to him regarding my lunch break and then I asked why he chose to ask me the question given the rather significant number of people in attendance from non-commissioner offices. He answered that he thought my behavior was "unprofessional" during the meeting. The only thing that I did during the meeting was hoop it up for my OSU Cowboys during the event. It was a rather light hearted event with several people getting gag gifts and food awards. It wasn't a serious somber event deserving of silent tranquility.

Now after he responded with his "unprofessional" statement about my behavior, he didn't clarify what behavior I exhibited that was "unprofessional" other than to say he was disrupted by it. However, he apparently has read some of my writings because he went on to say that he was concerned that I was being paid during a time where he didn't like my behavior and that with all of my railing against government waste and abuse that I shouldn't be hypocritical about it. Hmmm…He wasn't concerned about those who were in attendance from non-commissioner departments however. Hmmm….Again.

Well with that I simply said once again that he is entitled to his opinion to which he sarcastically said, "Thank you." After I got off the phone with him, I had quite a chuckle about his remarks regarding my behavior as did others who were there. I would certainly apologize for my behavior if there were a reason to apologize for my boisterous support of my OSU Cowboys. But even giving him the benefit of the doubt regarding his opinion of my behavior, there really isn't an explanation for his questioning my coworker who sat there the entire time in virtual silence. So what gives……Hmmm again…

Well you see, life's been a bit difficult for the good ol' boys lately at Oklahoma County. Oklahoma County Sheriff John Whetsel has been having some bad press lately regarding alleged jail abuses. My last newsletter exposed an event surrounding Roth, Whetsel and Jeff McMahan regarding a ploy to keep an SAI audit from the two Republican Commissioners while exempting most of Whetsel's county owned vehicles from the audit. I have, apparently, gotten under his skin in some manner. And I suspect that the reason he went after my coworker was because of the professionalism brought to the work by that person in the name of county reform.

It's kind of an unspoken rule that you leave staff alone. But Roth has crossed that line. That's really unfortunate. But starting a petty argument with me is not real intelligent on his part. I'm just a lowly part time employee trying to help out Commissioner Rinehart in reforming Oklahoma County. I'm just a small cog in a very large wheel. Roth is the golden boy. The chamber of commerce jewel. The pride of the gay community. He's raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for his reelection from across the entire United States. Why he would waste time on little ol' me is quite perplexing indeed.

Frankly, unlike many, I couldn't care less about his sexual orientation. It is just not my problem or concern. Roth is a very knowledgeable fellow about county government. He is very well dressed and fashionable. He is highly thought of around the chamber crowd, Democrats and some Republicans. He's confident and cocky. And you know what……He's still entitled to his opinion.

And so am I.

My opinion is that he needs to be less emotional about things or people he doesn't like. In reality I often see a different person than the public persona politicians are able to portray or be inflicted with. My opinion is that Roth's good guy public persona is not well deserved but rather carefully crafted by him and his fans which include most of the writers at The Oklahoman, KTOK and television news outlets. There's a kind of activist energy that surrounds it.

How else can six county elected officials (including Roth) reject public budget meetings in favor of private meetings, crafting their own shadow budget in the darkness, free of the scrutiny of the Open Meetings Act. Free to wheel in deal behind the scenes. No minutes, no video, no record, and no political risk. It's just bad policy. Why aren't media people asking the probing questions regarding the possible violation of the Open Meetings Act. And IF there's not a violation of the letter of the law, isn't there a violation of the intent of the Open Meetings Act? Does the media care? No…Now that's curious indeed isn't it.

Perhaps like The Oklahoman, I should put out a plea for someone to file a complaint with the Attorney General and the State Ethics Commission. But would that really do any good given the connection between McMahan, Roth, Whetsel and Edmondson? Probably not. Which leads me to the sad conclusion of this story.

Even a powerful County Commissioner like Jim Roth shouldn't pick petty fights with subordinates of people they don't like. It's just a bit "unprofessional."