One last effort to convince you to vote yes on 744

[RecycleMichael]

I am obsessed with this state question mostly because of the ridiculous campaign by the No forces. They have embarrassed me with a campaign poorly designed and executed.

I will start with the players. The Chamber and the local paper are both headed by people who have their kids in private schools. In fact, I haven't talked to a single person opposed to this measure who has kids in public schools. I am sure there are some, but the overwhelming percentage of the actual campaigners all have their kids in either Cascia Hall or Holland Hall. Of course they don't want to fund private schools with their tax dollars.

Secondly, the campaign has a tag line of  "the answer is always no." This is no mistake. They mean always. It isn't the merits of this bill or the accountability of the funding or even the budgetary impact on other state agencies. It is "ALWAYS VOTE NO ON SCHOOL FUNDING."
Always. That just astonishes me.

Thirdly, the fear campaign is so over the top. Passage of the bill doesn't mean less funding for other state services. It doesn't say we have to raise taxes. Those might both happen, but the legislature will decide that, not this bill. This bill doesn't close prisons and let 8,400 prisoners loose on society like the vote no people claim in a commercial. It doesn't mean laying off 125 state troopers like the vote no website says.It doesn't mean dramatic tuition hikes at state universities like the opponents say. Using fear factors for a campaign to keep underfunding our schools is just plain slimy.

Don't listen to the NO voices. This bill means a better school system and smarter kids. It means the legislature will be told that they have to fund schools to at least the average of what other state's legislatures have been able to do. Send them a message. Their priorities are wrong and we need to fund schools. They haven't so we the voters will make them . 

[PonderInc]

I certainly support increased funding for our public schools, and I'm even happy to be taxed for it.  (It's an investment that pays off.)  Here's my concern: Doesn't OK have a law prohibiting tax increases beyond a certain amount?  Are our hands tied?  Will state legislators have the guts to implement a tax increase to fund this measure? (I don't think so.)

The other thing that annoys me is that I want our legislators to legislate.  If they would do their job instead of pandering to out-of-touch ultra-conservatives, we wouldn't be voting on SQ 244 in the first place.  We would already have recognized that education funding is an investment.  If we had legislators with any sort of brains, they wouldn't have been cutting taxes during the good years, b/c they would have recognized that those dollars are our future.  (To be invested in our future--yes, spent!--and to provide cushion during hard times.)

[Gaspar]

Since this bill offers no spending structure for the funds, how can we be sure that the money won't be spent on teaching Sharia Law in the classroom?  Huh? 

[RecycleMichael]

The only state law I know about limiting tax increases is a 5% limit on property taxes.

[RecycleMichael]

Since this bill offers no spending structure for the funds, how can we be sure that the money won't be spent on teaching Sharia Law in the classroom?  Huh? 

I can't argue against that logic. I will just bang my head against the table instead.

[jamesrage]

I am obsessed with this state question mostly because of the ridiculous campaign by the No forces. They have embarrassed me with a campaign poorly designed and executed.

I will start with the players. The Chamber and the local paper are both headed by people who have their kids in private schools. In fact, I haven't talked to a single person opposed to this measure who has kids in public schools. I am sure there are some, but the overwhelming percentage of the actual campaigners all have their kids in either Cascia Hall or Holland Hall. Of course they don't want to fund private schools with their tax dollars.

Secondly, the campaign has a tag line of  "the answer is always no." This is no mistake. They mean always. It isn't the merits of this bill or the accountability of the funding or even the budgetary impact on other state agencies. It is "ALWAYS VOTE NO ON SCHOOL FUNDING."
Always. That just astonishes me.

Thirdly, the fear campaign is so over the top. Passage of the bill doesn't mean less funding for other state services. It doesn't say we have to raise taxes. Those might both happen, but the legislature will decide that, not this bill. This bill doesn't close prisons and let 8,400 prisoners loose on society like the vote no people claim in a commercial. It doesn't mean laying off 125 state troopers like the vote no website says.It doesn't mean dramatic tuition hikes at state universities like the opponents say. Using fear factors for a campaign to keep underfunding our schools is just plain slimy.

Don't listen to the NO voices. This bill means a better school system and smarter kids. It means the legislature will be told that they have to fund schools to at least the average of what other state's legislatures have been able to do. Send them a message. Their priorities are wrong and we need to fund schools. They haven't so we the voters will make them . 

Where is this money going to come from to maintain the same level at what the surrounding states have if there are no tax increases? Are we just going to be like California and just screw and go into debt if our politciains decided to not decrease the funding of something else?Of course I am sure that instead of answering the questions you will call me a name or ask if I have kids that go to public school or some other totally unrelated question that doesn't have squat to do with funding.  Insinuating that the No on 744 campaign is dishonest or is using fear mongering is just blatantly dishonest on your part. It doesn't take a math nerd to figure out that something is going to have to be cut or that taxes will have to be increased with a bill dictating what must be spend on education.

[waterboy]

i hadn't decided on this issue until the really slimy negative ads began to run. Then I figured it was the same old anti education, anti tax, anti progress groups that were against it. So, I figured to vote for it and force the legislators to really increase funding, not just play slight of hand like they did with lottery and casino revenues.

But my mom says the bill was written by Republicans in the legislature. Could it be they are using this bill to enable the most ignorant bill ever proposed? The one that proposes a change to the constitution to not allow such funding of issues based on nearby state averages with the bonus provision that it can never be repealed?

Who came up with these two bills anyway?

[RecycleMichael]

Are we just going to be like California and just screw...?

I just don't know how to answer that question.

[bokworker]

Michael, can the question of just how we calculate the amount of money spent on education be answered? Put another way, does spending money on administration costs count as spending money on education? If I felt that this law would put money directly in the classroom I would have an easier time getting behind it. If it does nothing more than protect an education system that, in my view, is inefficient in how it spends dollars already then I am still a "no" vote.

[RecycleMichael]

This bill does not address that.

I am in agreement that there is inefficiency in our schools. I also see that same waste of money in Higher Ed, state prisons, the state highway department, etc.

I would love to see our next governor address these problems.

[Red Arrow]

Secondly, the campaign has a tag line of  "the answer is always no." This is no mistake. They mean always. It isn't the merits of this bill or the accountability of the funding or even the budgetary impact on other state agencies. It is "ALWAYS VOTE NO ON SCHOOL FUNDING."

I have to disagree with you on this.  I think it is always vote no on 744,  NOT always vote no on school funding.

[RecycleMichael]

Always implies more than one time to me.

[Conan71]

It's a bad bill. Re-write it with a funding mechanism, mandate percentages which go to the classroom, put performance incentives in it, and provide a comprehensive review process to stem waste and consolidate redundant school systems and it would pass

And yes I have a daughter in public schools

[Red Arrow]

Always implies more than one time to me.

You  know the saying "vote early, vote often".  Always vote no on 744.
 

[GG]

The most hotly debated of the 11 state questions on Tuesday's statewide ballot appears headed for defeat, according to the latest Oklahoma Poll.


State Question 744, which would require an annual funding increase of as much as $1.7 billion for common education, was opposed by two-thirds of those surveyed last week by SoonerPoll.com.

Just three months ago, in July, the results were exactly the opposite - two-thirds of those surveyed supported the measure.

Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=262&articleid=20101030_16_A1_CUTLIN207957

According to this Tulsa World story, 744 is not going to pass.