State Question 744

[RecycleMichael]

I am not surprised when other agencies who recieve state funding are opposed to properly funding education. I do not know the merits of every agency.

I do agree that sending out a press release using the word "devastating" is meant to be a scare tactic.

Remember folks, all the surrounding states find enough money to fund roads, hospitals, etc. and still have enough money to pay for their children's education. If they can do it, so can Oklahoma...but it will only happen if you vote yes.

This is a chance to make the legislature fund education properly. Take charge and make them do it. A no vote allows them to fund less important things for political reasons.

Is there one other issue where Oklahoma is 49th in funding? Is there one other issue more important than our children's education?

[guido911]

Is there one other issue more important than our children's education?

Are you freakin serious? And get a grip.

[RecycleMichael]

Are you freakin serious? And get a grip.

good comeback.

[guido911]

good comeback.

Comeback to what? Your over the top, overreacting, freak out over education funding?



As for what's more important; I'll bite:

Finding good paying and permanent employment for the chronically unemployed
Feeding hungry children
Feeding hungry everybody
Finding safe and permanent housing for the homeless
Protecting innocent people from crime
Protecting children from abuse and sexual predators

Personal:
Ending abortion on demand
Ending the death penalty

[Gaspar]

I am not surprised when other agencies who recieve state funding are opposed to properly funding education. I do not know the merits of every agency.

I do agree that sending out a press release using the word "devastating" is meant to be a scare tactic.

Remember folks, all the surrounding states find enough money to fund roads, hospitals, etc. and still have enough money to pay for their children's education. If they can do it, so can Oklahoma...but it will only happen if you vote yes.

This is a chance to make the legislature fund education properly. Take charge and make them do it. A no vote allows them to fund less important things for political reasons.

Is there one other issue where Oklahoma is 49th in funding? Is there one other issue more important than our children's education?

You must know something we don't. 

I will vote YES if you can demonstrate how passage of this measure will "properly fund education."  I'm not asking for amounts or comparisons to other states.  I am asking for the important initiatives that are attached to this funding. . .the "properly" part. 

I've noticed that use of the term properly is the established talking point among the operatives sent out to push support of the measure, however they don't seem to be using the term. . .well. . .properly.  The term "Proper" when referring to such a subject matter as funding, would imply funding within strict limitations to produce an intended outcome.

We have not been presented any limitations outside of existing funding requirements, and they have made no attempt to establish any process for this money.  Basically there is no established goal, and no process to achieve it. My further analysis renders my previous reference to "Underpants Gnome Legislation" mute, because even the Underpants Gnomes had an established goal, be it a vague, Profit.

What improvements are to be made through this funding?
What metrics will be put in place to measure the success of proposed improvements?

I'm glad you mention streets and hospitals.  Funding for both requires research and the establishment of a clear set of initiatives to be achieved.  Performance measures are set in place and goals are clear and well understood. 

I think this is the first piece of proposed legislation I have ever seen that requests a significant shift in spending without offering ANY goal or measurement outside of a comparison to other markets.  More money to throw at the same problems without innovation, only serves to reward the same failure.

So. . . on the subject of "Proper" funding of education, I'm 100% in favor.  All they have to do is show me what they intend to spend the money on and what the goal is.  Even a vague goal is better than nothin!

[swake]

Unions in bed with conservatives?  Say it ain't so!

Swake, sounds a little black helicoptery to me:

Read this then:

http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/penology/news/Union%20Keeps%20Tight%20Rein%20on%20Prisons.htm

There was also a lengthy NPR bit on it as well that I can't find now.

We are #1 or near it in locking people up and just about last in school spending. That needs to be flipped. My father used to the Psychologist at McAlester, he said that even there, at Oklahoma's supermax prison (something most states don't even have) most inmates are there for drugs, and mostly for pot.

[Townsend]

There was also a lengthy NPR bit on it as well that I can't find now.

We are #1 or near it in locking people up and just about last in school spending. That needs to be flipped. My father used to the Psychologist at McAlester, he said that even there, at Oklahoma's supermax prison (something most states don't even have) most inmates are there for drugs, and mostly for pot.

I remember something on NPR about bail bonds and how this practice should be abolished.  It would significantly decrease prison population.  The argument sounded reasonable.

[guido911]

I remember something on NPR about bail bonds and how this practice should be abolished.  It would significantly decrease prison population.  The argument sounded reasonable.

Can you elaborate on that? As posted, it sounds as that after we arrest and charge someone with a crime (and I will qualify the remainder with "petty" crimes since it would be absurd to lump in capital/violent offenses) they should be released.

[swake]

Can you elaborate on that? As posted, it sounds as that after we arrest and charge someone with a crime (and I will qualify the remainder with "petty" crimes since it would be absurd to lump in capital/violent offenses) they should be released.

What is real common is that people get time for a relatively minor offense, dealing pot, burglary, what have you. They go to a medium security prison and do something stupid like get into a fight with a guard, or a fight with another inmate and someone gets hurt. They now are charged with a violent crime adding more time and moving them up the prison ladder. One of the guys at McAlester that my father dealt with was in one of those cells within a cell like from Silence of the Lambs, his original crime? Knocking the head off of a parking meter and stealing quarters. But after fights and escapes and running cons from inside of prison, he was treated like he was Hannibal Lecter and is now in prison for life. I'm sure it wasn't his first offense, but we sent him to prison for stealing $8-10 bucks on a non violent crime and now are spending probably 60-70k per year at least in a supermax specialty prison cell for the rest of his life.

[Townsend]

Can you elaborate on that? As posted, it sounds as that after we arrest and charge someone with a crime (and I will qualify the remainder with "petty" crimes since it would be absurd to lump in capital/violent offenses) they should be released.

It was long and distinguished (insert pop culture joke here) but mostly it was about smaller time criminals (petty theft, pot) getting thrown in jail instead of being released on their own recognizance because a judge thought they would be able to bond out when they couldn't come up with the 10%.

If the bondsmen didn't exist, the judge would let them out until their court date. 

IOW, they'd be in jail until court, get fired from their job, lose their home, family, etc and never be able to pay their fines and go to jail.

An example was a contractor who was down on his luck and stole a $12 blanket on a cold night from a large retailer who prosecutes on every theft.  He'd been held for many months waiting on his hearing because he couldn't come up with the $300 bond he needed to get out.  If the bond system didn't exist he most likely would've been released and could work to pay his fines, pay for the blanket, etc.  Instead he was in jail waiting.  That was a very expensive blanket for him and the taxpayer.  The bondsmen are cool with it though.

[guido911]

It was long and distinguished (insert pop culture joke here) but mostly it was about smaller time criminals (petty theft, pot) getting thrown in jail instead of being released on their own recognizance because a judge thought they would be able to bond out when they couldn't come up with the 10%.

If the bondsmen didn't exist, the judge would let them out until their court date. 

IOW, they'd be in jail until court, get fired from their job, lose their home, family, etc and never be able to pay their fines and go to jail.

An example was a contractor who was down on his luck and stole a $12 blanket on a cold night from a large retailer who prosecutes on every theft.  He'd been held for many months waiting on his hearing because he couldn't come up with the $300 bond he needed to get out.  If the bond system didn't exist he most likely would've been released and could work to pay his fines, pay for the blanket, etc.  Instead he was in jail waiting.  That was a very expensive blanket for him and the taxpayer.  The bondsmen are cool with it though.

My concerns about bail reform are flight risk and witness intimidation, which on their face are concerns about public safety. It would only take one of these incidents to undo any reform such as that apparently advocated by NPR.  Incidentally, I have personally observed several instances of petty offending pretrial detainees unable to make bail and wind up in a far worse situation--including one case where the detainee was killed. So, I do see Swake and Townsend's point.

[Conan71]

Read this then:

http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/penology/news/Union%20Keeps%20Tight%20Rein%20on%20Prisons.htm

There was also a lengthy NPR bit on it as well that I can't find now.

We are #1 or near it in locking people up and just about last in school spending. That needs to be flipped. My father used to the Psychologist at McAlester, he said that even there, at Oklahoma's supermax prison (something most states don't even have) most inmates are there for drugs, and mostly for pot.

Both articles cite California's prison system.  I have not found yet whether DOC guards are union or not.  If anything, I might lend credence to a decentralization of the system due to pet projects by legislators to get prisons built to help bring employment to struggling areas or to help the construction lobby.

Our priorities are interesting.  During the DA elections, people gripe about how Tim Harris is an impotent prosecutor because there's a revolving door of criminals in and out of the DL Moss and the DOC.  Then there's the other side of the coin when it comes to prisons eating up too much money which could go to education: we incarcerate far too many people.  It's also funny that communities don't want prisons on their front lawn, but they don't seem to mind the jobs they bring.

We can't have it both ways. Either we have less DOC funding and higher repeat crime rates, or vice versa (I'm not pointing a finger at you, this is simply a logical conversation to bring this up in).

If you were at my desk all day, you'd actually find it rather impossible to believe that we are only 49th in education spending in the US since one in about every three construction projects which come out on the construction trade wires are public school projects.  Everything from safe rooms, to heating and cooling upgrades, to performing arts centers, new classroom buildings, renovations of wings or entire schools, and stadiums.  There's a lot of construction money being spent on school districts.  Perhaps we need to quit funding PAC's, expensive energy overhaul programs, stadium improvements, etc and fund teachers instead.  Perhaps we should review an objective study on what is an acceptible class size for various grades and subjects and look at how we can consolidate facilities and classrooms.

One problem we do have is sprawl within agencies like DOC and our school systems and large administrations.  Perhaps this will become a lesson to those who don't blush at the thought of large government and how that can prevent us from funding the areas which really should matter.  We eat up a ton of money on administration in government, but they are usually good paying jobs so apparently that makes it even less important to people to cut the size of government.

[Townsend]

It would only take one of these incidents to undo any reform such as that apparently advocated by NPR. 

Woops, maybe I should make clear that it was a story on NPR...I should've made that more clear.  My apologies.  I can't say NPR was supporting the position.  Just that the story was there.

[guido911]

Woops, maybe I should make clear that it was a story on NPR...I should've made that more clear.  My apologies.  I can't say NPR was supporting the position.  Just that the story was there.

This was my bad. I misread what you posted.

[RecycleMichael]

Comeback to what? Your over the top, overreacting, freak out over education funding?

I am not freaking out. I am passionately writing about something I fell strongly about.

You have your personal issues, I have mine.

I respect your opinion despite your lack of respect for anyone else's.