Prison bonds a sensible move
IN discussing a bond issue proposal to fund repairs in Oklahoma prisons, state Sen. Roger Thompson told his colleagues, “It’s been a long time since we’ve done any type of upkeep inside of our institutions.” That’s putting it mildly.
The Department of Corrections for years has taken what agency Director Joe Allbaugh calls a “baling wire and pliers” approach to infrastructure, because the Legislature’s annual appropriation has gone primarily toward finding ways to house a steadily growing inmate population.
As a result, as the DOC’s budget request for this year noted, maximum-security Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester now needs $14 million in upgrades, including new sewer, water and gas lines. At Jackie Brannon Correctional Center in McAlester, the estimated repair bill is $17.2 million. Those are just two examples.
Senate Bill 1590, by Sen. Kim David, R-Porter, and Rep. Kevin Wallace, R-Wellston, is a $116.5 million bond issue for DOC. The bill won easy approval in the Senate and passed 62-29 in the House.
The fact the GOP-controlled Legislature, which for several years rejected calls for any bond issues, approved this one may indicate that members are warming to the idea of using bonds to finance infrastructure upgrades. It certainly is a sign that they can no longer ignore the duress the DOC is under. Both are encouraging.
Attacking the opioid problem
The Legislature deserves credit for approving a series of bills designed to help fight the opioid problem in Oklahoma. Efforts led by Sen. A.J. Griffin, R-Guthrie, Rep. Tim Downing, R-Purcell and Attorney General Mike Hunter led to seven bills being sent to Gov. Mary Fallin, six of them this week. The legislation stemmed from the work of an attorney general’s commission on opioid abuse. Among the bills approved this week were House Bill 2931, which creates electronic prescribing for all schedules of drugs, and Senate Bill 1367, which creates a “Good Samaritan” law that provides immunity from prosecution for those who call to report an overdose. Griffin says she believes the commission’s work will “serve as a blueprint on a national level that states struggling in a similar way can use to save lives.” Kudos.
Targeting speech
College administrators have taken their lumps, and rightfully so, for impeding open debate on college campuses through speech codes and excessive regulations designed to prevent airing of opposing opinions (particularly conservative viewpoints). Apparently municipal leaders in South Bend, Indiana, want to duplicate that flawed college approach to free speech. Mayor Pete Buttigieg, a Democrat, recently vetoed a rezoning measure that granted a pregnancy resource center (which promotes alternatives to abortion) permission to open a new location by a proposed abortion clinic. “I don’t think it would be responsible to situate two groups, literally right next to each other, in a neighborhood, that have diametrically opposed views on the most divisive social issue of our time,” Buttigieg proclaimed. His suggestion to the contrary notwithstanding, government action targeting a group based solely on the content of its constitutionally protected free speech is not cause for celebration.
No laughing matter
The news from last weekend’s White House Correspondents’ Association dinner focused on the unfunny roast offered by comedian Michelle Wolf. Wolf savaged members of the Trump administration, particularly White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders, in a performance criticized by many for its vulgarity and mean-spiritedness. Journalist and author Judith Miller noted that another victim of the evening was the dinner’s overarching purpose — to celebrate the work done by journalists. “All but forgotten in the Wolf flap is the staggering danger journalists face covering the news each day in many parts of the world,” Miller wrote at City Journal. She said 81 reporters were killed last year and more than 250 were jailed. On the night of the correspondents’ dinner, 10 journalists died in a bombing in Afghanistan for which the Islamic State claimed credit. That’s no laughing matter.
Why they like Trump
As Barack Obama once said, elections have consequences. It’s reported the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is investigating Hawaii for its efforts to force pregnancy centers to provide information on abortion. States that receive certain federal funding are legally prohibited from compelling medical personnel to engage in activities that violate religious beliefs. The Alliance Defending Freedom, representing pregnancy centers, filed a complaint with HHS. In its letter of response, the HHS Office of Civil Rights wrote it “has determined that it has sufficient authority and cause to investigate the allegations …” ADF legal counsel Elissa Graves countered that, “No one should be forced to provide free advertising for the abortion industry — least of all pro-life pregnancy centers.” Some wonder why social conservatives have generally backed President Trump despite his personal flaws. The administration’s action in this case is one reason why.
Defying stereotype
The state government of California has veered ever more into liberal extremes, particularly when it comes to regulation. But even California has its limits, it seems. Recently, legislation was filed to require that homeschooling families report the names and addresses of all homeschooled children. The Desert Review, which covers the Imperial Valley in Southern California, reports the bill prompted “hundreds, perhaps thousands” of homeschooling advocates to attend a committee hearing on the bill and voice their opposition. Those individuals “traveled across the state and waited for hours to make their voices heard.” Ultimately, the bill didn’t receive a vote. Opponents “included a number of professionals, state-credentialed teachers, and self-described progressives and liberal Democrats,” the Desert Review reported. Put simply, California lawmakers quickly realized that homeschool families defy stereotyping and that a vote to target them would not necessarily be consequence-free for re-election efforts.
Playing with fire?
Oklahoma politicians, including some Republican lawmakers, have taken to arguing taxes don’t impact business decisions, and tax increases don’t harm economic activity or affect business location decisions. The people making this argument should note what’s happening in Seattle. The Seattle City Council is considering imposing a “head tax” of 26 cents per hour per employee up to $500 maximum per employee per year. The tax would be imposed only on companies with $20 million or more annually in taxable gross receipts. Amazon, one of the world’s largest companies, would pay an estimated $20 million. Amazon has responded to this proposal by halting all planning on a massive construction project scheduled in downtown Seattle, and may sublease space it previously planned to occupy in another downtown building. Up to 7,000 Seattle jobs may be on the line. Perhaps Amazon is bluffing. But then again, perhaps Seattle politicians are playing with fire.