The Enid News and Eagle, Enid, OK

Retired Northern Oklahoma College president Dr. Edwin Vineyard Sr. is the author of the Militant Moderate. He is the author of two textbooks, has held several educational and business posts, and he is a recipient of state and national leadership awards. Dr. Vineyard says, “For most of a long career in public life, it was necessary to exercise restraint in commenting on political matters. Since retirement, I have enjoyed the freedom to do just that.”

A Fine Mess

It was in the old Laurel and Hardy series of 1930’s era movies that the phrase was often muttered at the end of some misadventure, “A fine mess you got us into, Ollie.” Of course, most of the bad stuff had happened to Oliver Hardy, while the divine klutz, Stan Laurel, had bumbled his way into and through the incident.

At this point in the presidential race, the Militant Moderate is prone to want to address the electorate, and the core leadership of both political parties, with that comment, “A fine mess you’ve gotten us into!”

We are left with three candidates in the race. From conversations with friends and acquaintances, as well as polls, all of these are unacceptable to a sizeable segment of the electorate.

Some Democrat friends tell me they will not now vote for Obama if he is the party candidate. Hillary has had a standing disapproval rating in the past of some 35% or 40%. Huge numbers of Republicans are threatening to bolt their party, and stay home or vote for Hillary.

It looks as though this election is shaping up to be one for perception as the “lesser of the evils.” If it carries through that way, then the previously unlikely scenario of the “moderate” Hillary as the November winner could happen – if her surge is not too late.

To support such a conclusion, one must look closely at the reasons for negativity toward each candidate, as well as its strength. This is why we pick Hillary.

Hillary has the higher level of negative numbers, but for shallow reasons. Further, her stronger negative ratings come from Republicans.

Since the preacher eruption linking Obama to the “angry black man” image, his negative numbers have been increasing. More questions arise, “Do we really know him just yet?” Now, sizeable numbers are saying, “I won’t vote if he is the candidate.”

McCain has successfully tied himself the most unpopular president in modern history. Although he seems desirous of separating himself, he still continues to support the same lame policies and decisions on the war, the tax system, the economy. social security, health insurance, etc.

McCain is unwanted by many in his own party. His nice guy image is being dissolved by his own rough style of speaking. His reputation for coziness with lobbyists is public. The compatibility of his temperament and control of the push-buttons of war is questioned. His hawkish manner is scary.

McCain is thought not to be a genuine conservative, but he has taken on all the odoriferous baggage of that wing of the party.

What happens in the fall is still to be determined, of course. Will democrats with strong negative feelings toward Obama, go out to vote against McCain if Obama is the candidate? Will those negative toward Hillary go out to support her, if she is the candidate? The latter appears more likely.

A big question is the effects of the negative campaigning, already raising finances and waiting in the wings to come on center stage for McCain. If a “swift-boat” type blitz hits, as expected, Obama appears to be the least likely of the two democrats to successfully weather that storm.

Thus, if Obama is the democratic candidate, McCain is the likely winner in the fall, regardless of his and his party’s negatives. If by unlikely chance Hillary wins the nomination, then she is the probable winner in the fall. Since she is still the underdog, Democrat success in the fall seems unlikely.

“A fine mess you have gotten us into!” seems an appropriate comment.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

May 05, 2008 01:35 pm

More entries >>>

Things I don't understand

According to the latest polls, 68% of Americans disapprove of the job that President Bush is doing, while 28% approve. Considering the mess we are in at home and abroad, I just don’t understand why 28% would approve of the president’s performance. And, what about that dinky 4% who don’t know what they think?

I have a lot of friends, and some family, who are Republicans. I credit most of them with having good sense, and some seem quite intelligent. But in this same poll Republicans gave Bush a 66% approval rating, and only 32% disapproved of his performance. I shall assume that those disapproving Republicans are the same group that I previously credited with high intelligence. Otherwise, I don’t understand it.

Further, I don’t understand why polls show almost half of the people would vote for a candidate who plans to continue Bush’s policies and his war.

Watching what has been going on at the State Capitol this year causes one to wonder just who voted and elected the majority in the state House or a big part of the Senate. They seem uncomfortable with serving the needs of the people, but comfortable in serving the special interests who lobby them and donate to campaigns.

The insurance lobby has halted or stalled coverage for the mentally ill, autism, and other catastrophic illnesses which beset a small segment of our people. More tax breaks have been awarded to corporate interests, including the multi-millionaires bringing a washed-up, third-rate basketball team to town.

Women have been loaded with more guilt trips (and doctors with paper work) if they need or want to end a bad pregnancy. This is done for those vocal people who want their own religion put into law, and who want dissenters made into criminals. How in the world did we get to this point?

The tax cutters are still at work, even though the disastrous results of their previous dirty work are already beginning to limit the state’s ability to perform its governing duties. “No new money for anything this year” is the rule, even though the expenses of educating children and college age youth are increasing, highway needs are accumulating, prisons are overflowing warehouses, child abuse and abuse of women is unworked, the mentally ill populate the jails, crime labs are ill equipped, retirements systems are broke, and state and education employees underpaid.

It just does not make sense why voters keep on electing tax cutters, when they should be able to see the inconsistency of that with needs of the people. Where are the statesmen and stateswomen? Don’t we have any?

And, just where did we get those nutty legislators who want to turn college campuses into old west, gunslinger towns? Even Wyatt Earp knew better.

Along come groups desirous of funding bridges and roads and county roads by taking money from education. Of course, they don’t say in their TV ads that they will take the money from schools. I don’t understand why we aren’t paying gas and diesel taxes equal to the surrounding states, if we want road funds. Oil companies and gas stations charge the high prices anyway.

Now the legislature is taking away gambling funds dedicated to scholarships for all students, and putting these into paying bonds for matching endowed chair donations primarily at just OU and OSU. I don’t understand that move, or why it was supported by local legislators from areas where smaller colleges are located. Did anyone ask questions about this?

I don’t understand how the legislature, the regents, the governor, or the college presidents could in good conscience allow college costs on students to escalate to the current level, excluding worthy students who cannot pay the exorbitant fees now charged. There is fault enough to go around for that.

Any person in a leadership position who stood idly by over the last ten or fifteen years and allowed all this to happen is guilty. Artificial barriers, financial or other, erected in the path of access for an academically qualified person into higher education are plainly undemocratic.

The basic tenet of equal opportunity in American democracy demands equal access to higher education.

April 28, 2008 11:32 am

More entries >>>

Mad as hell!

Remember the movie of a decade or two ago entitled something like “Broadcast News?” At one point the lead character becomes so fed up with the injustices and the inanities of that business in America that he put his head out the window and yelled, “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!” Then everywhere others joined in a chorus of protest.

For those of us who have recently paid taxes, there are a couple of questions. “Do you feel good about it? Why not?”

The cartoon this past weekend in our major metropolitan newspaper would give some an easy (too easy) answer. It showed our tax dollars put into a trough with a fat tax hog eager to gobble them up. Our problem is that we do not recognize the tax hogs, or the tax cheats, when we see them.

All those honorable people who are educating the kids in schools, as well as the youth in our colleges, have been labeled as tax hogs by that newspaper in other years. Anyone who works for the public is a tax hog in some minds. Yet citizens are most demanding for public services.

We might be happier about paying our taxes if we thought the system was fair. When a super-billionaire like Warren Buffet admits the unfairness of paying a lower tax rate than his secretary, we know the system is loaded on the side of those with wealth versus those who earn a salary or wages. Sometimes it seems that everybody has an opportunity to cheat on his taxes, except the poor guy (or gal) who draws a paycheck.

The GAO (Government Accountability Office) tells us that 61% of American corporations pay no corporate income taxes, and only 39% of the Dow-sized companies pay a tax. Last year corporations shared only 14% of the national tax burden, as compared with 50% in 1940.

This year the tax on individuals is expected to increase from $1.16 trillion to $1.21 trillion, while the corporate tax will decline from $370 billion to $364 billion. By 2013 experts predict that taxes on individuals will rise to $1.84 trillion, while corporate taxes will drop to $327 billion.

KBR, subsidiary of Halliburton and the largest Iraq war contractor, admits to major reductions in tax obligations and to cutting payroll tax payments to Social Security and Medicare by “hundreds of millions” with a Cayman Island shell office. In fact, The GAO says that 24 of the largest federal contractors use Cayman Island accounts to avoid taxes. Why would we allow such?

Now, if you are not ready to open the window and draw that deep breath yet, consider the fact that our major oil companies received $18 billion dollars in tax subsidies which are no longer needed or appropriate (if they ever were).

Are you are mad about gas prices? Perhaps oil and gas people among the few who are not. Add in all those who believe the oil company propaganda, of course, and include those who think gas prices are high because of big taxes or environmental regulations.

Major blame for oil prices goes to the oil cartels that control supplies from the Middle East and other world areas. Crafty oil market speculators are big time problems, leeching money while performing no service.

But do not take the oil companies out of the equation. Record annual profits in the tens of billions do not indicate clean hands. The oil companies are profiteering on the world market conditions at the expense of the people.

According to Malcolm Berko, syndicated business page columnist, Exxon “owns” 29 billion barrels of oil and at $100 a barrel that inventory is worth $2.9 trillion. He says that oil cost Exxon $5.45 per barrel. He goes on to give similar statistics for Chevron and Shell. “Those companies have a profit of over $95 a barrel, and they will fight to maintain that margin and the favorable tax treatments on their enormous profits per barrel,” he says.

This is an election year. There is a chance for the people to be heard, if they open their windows and yell loud enough.

But it will have to be really loud to overcome the decibels coming from the television sets with advertisements paid for by those who profit from favorable political treatment and profiteering advantages.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

April 18, 2008 08:51 am

More entries >>>

Tainted heroics

TAINTED HEROICS?

In the year 1854 Alfred Lord Tennyson wrote an epic poem called “The Charge of the Light Brigade.” Many of us studied this in school, and some of us have reviewed it from time to time, enjoying the words, rhyme, and meter, while pondering the bittersweet tragedy of misdirected valor. Let us recall a few excerpts from that wonderful piece.

“Forward the Light Brigade!
Charge the guns,” he said;
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
“Forward the Light Brigade!”
Was there a man dismayed?
Not tho’ the soldier knew
Someone had blundered;
Their’s not to make reply,
Their’s not to reason why,
Their’s but to do and die;
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

This poem came around the end of the Crimean War. Most scholars now question the wisdom of that war. It began as a dispute between the western Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church over control of holy sites in Palestine, a territory of the Ottoman Empire. Then came France and Russia championing opposite religious causes. The resultant war extended to the British and the Turks. The British landed forces on the Crimean peninsula in the Black Sea bent upon capturing the Russian seaport of Sevastopol. The charge of the Light Brigade was a skirmish in that conflict.

The Crimean War accomplished little except to change administration of the holy sites to the Catholics, but it set the stage for the emergence of Florence Nightingale as the heroine establishing of the great humanitarian profession of nursing. But of the Light Brigade, Tennyson writes on:

Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of the six hundred.

When can their glory fade?
Honor the charge they made,
Honor the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred.

Somebody blundered, the poet tells us, and the soldiers knew it. Yet they charged into the mouths of the cannon, and their ranks were decimated – needlessly. They followed orders, not reasoning why, and bravely they died. Tennyson extols their glory, albeit in a futile action.

Although the glamour of war has been discounted in this last century, the question still arises: “Is there honor in bravery in a foolhardy action?”

In an American tragedy, the Confederate army under General Lee had advanced northward into Pennsylvania in 1863 with a momentum toward an early decisive victory which would bring a negotiated peace leaving the South separate. At Gettysburg Generals Lee and Longstreet ordered General Pickett’s division to charge up Cemetery Hill into the face of furious fire from established Union positions. The charge almost succeeded, but after huge casualties it was beaten back.

General Pickett lost half of his 12,500 man division in just two hours that day in what has since been termed as a strategic blunder by General Longstreet and the legend of the South, General Robert E. Lee.

The question arises: “Does the strategic error of the tactic diminish the heroism of the men in Pickett’s charge?

In the present time we are faced with similar human tragedies in the conduct of an unpopular war. Although more than 60% of our people favored that war in the light of what we were told by our leaders at the beginning, more than 60% of us now regard the war as a gross mistake by our nation’s leaders.

We are experiencing the return of soldiers from this war, some maimed physically and some mentally. We are experiencing the return of some in caskets, four thousand of them. We feel the sorrow of families, because we have experienced the same tragedies ourselves in previous wars.

Now the question arises: “Are these men who served, who suffered, and who died, deserving of honor, although their duties were performed in a war of which most of us disapprove?”

The answer to all of our questions is, of course, a resounding: “Yes!”

If we have issues about the justification for a war, then we take that up with those who made that decision. If we have issues about the foolhardiness or futility of a battle tactic, then we take that up with those who planned and directed that strategy. Our high regard for those who serve is not diminished by the mistakes of their leaders.

But the converse is also true. Our high regard for those who serve, and for those who suffer, does not extend to support for leaders in what we see as a mistaken war. Don’t ask us to behave as though we do. We shudder at the sight of such. We are not unpatriotic if we don’t!

The futile, but brave charge of the Light Brigade brought no honor to their officers or to the government that sent them there. The bravery of Pickett’s men brought no honor to their generals, or to the questionable cause of the Confederate government.

The sense of duty demonstrated by those who are assigned for long months in Iraq under hazardous conditions reflects honor upon them, but none to government that sent them there.

April 10, 2008 03:35 pm

More entries >>>

An early presidential prediction

Evaluating the political scene at this time, the Militant Moderate is ready to project the winner. Meet your new president – John McCain.

Mind you, conditions do change, and with those the predictions also change. Nevertheless, at this point in time (as we pundits are prone to say), it looks like John McCain is a winner in November. Put your money on McCain.

“Why such a prediction so early?” one might ask. “Why have you chosen McCain as the winner?” you might add. “What is wrong with the winner of the Hillary and Obama contest?” you could continue.

Democrats have a way of shooting themselves in the foot. This time they have they done so in narrowing the choice – to two non-traditional candidates, both of whom would enter the general election carrying negative baggage. No finalist is a traditional, middle-of-the-road candidate.

Further, as it now appears, the more mainstream of the two finalists is behind. The more liberal candidate is ahead, and the centrist candidate is behind. The voters of this country do not normally elect liberal candidates to be president, not recently anyway.

Obama is now the favorite to win the nomination. In so doing, he has alienated a large segment of the democrat voters, who are unlikely to give him enthusiastic support in the fall. The same would be true if it turns out the other way around.

The “Swift boater” groups have already raised millions and will raise much more before fall. They will run interminable ads featuring Obama’s outspoken church pastor condemning America. These ads will also feature his wife’s statement about only lately finding something to be proud of in America. The picture of his not saluting the flag will be everywhere. There will be other allegations and insinuations.

His statements about not wearing the flag lapel pin will be exploited. One wonders why he did not come right out and say, “Because the republicans have made that lapel pin a symbol of support for the Iraq War.” Lots of people resent that, and they would understand.

Some of us are appalled at the degree to which voters are influenced by emotion rather than by logic. Sometimes they seem oblivious to their own self interests – to those of the common citizen. Instead they tend to vote based upon emotional issues extraneous to the real problems facing government and the nation’s welfare.

No one knows this better than the special interest advertisers, who are allowed to ply their trade under loopholes left by the law passed in the guise of campaign reform. Before the political season is over Mr. Obama will look like a black Muslim of foreign allegiance, named Hussein, plotting with his liberal followers to overthrow the Christian government of the United States and turn the country over to Arab terrorists.

Voters will then forget all the woes brought upon the nation by eight years of republican rule. They will overlook the misbegotten war, after McCain softens his position by saying that we will exit as soon as the time is right. People will be misdirected away from the problems of budget deficits, rising national debt, recession, mortgage foreclosures, and the economic trauma of the lower and middle classes.

The voters will be brainwashed away from concerns for universal health insurance and health care, hearing fears of socialized medicine from “Harry and Louise” ads again. Fears of terrorists, fears of big government, fears of Social Security going broke, and all kinds of other fears will be used as smoke screens to obscure the real problems of this country.

“Good old” John McCain will then come across as the solid, fatherly type who will look after us if we just trust him and his friends to keep on running the country for us. People will vote him into office as a hedge against all those wild-eyed liberals in Congress like Nancy Pelosi.

And, folks, that is the way the story from the political tea leaves reads today.

April 01, 2008 05:42 pm

More entries >>>

The audacity of hate

Hope is indeed an audacious attribute in the American society, especially in these times. Perhaps hope has always been an audacious spirit in any and all ages.

Surely there are rarely ever periods which tend to generate hope, although some may be more conducive to the emergence of that feeling than others. This has not been a time which stimulates hope. Neither has this been an era which nourishes hope that is spontaneously generated amongst us.

That the spirit of hope should arise, find form, and spring free from a religious hearth of hostility is most certainly an anomaly.

The nation has been exposed over and over to the anger in those video sermons from Chicago. Those simply do not play well among most citizens, not even among those who have made an effort to understand and to empathize with the harsh history of the Black experience in this land. Perhaps they are particularly disappointing to some of the latter.

At this crucial juncture in the political history of America, the audacity of hate has trumped the audacity of hope.

At least momentarily, this is so. Will that be a transient triumph?

In seeking to express the pent up anger of his race, the Reverend presents an incongruous picture. A marine veteran himself, he screams venom at the country for which he cared enough to serve. His personal actions and history do not portray a subversive.

One finds much hyperbole in these speeches, unfortunately a pattern of exaggeration in rhetoric which characterizes too many writings and verbalizations in the political arena. It appears that a certain flair for drama and oratory is also demonstratively present.

It is said that the Reverend spoke from the heart of an historically oppressed people. He is credited with speaking from the angst of generations of victims. However, this is no longer viewed as the reality of today by most.

Instead the Reverend’s angry shouts are viewed as just that. Their content is offensive. These are seen as perpetuating hostilities and differences, rather than as being useful toward social change.

Unfortunately, these utterances will no doubt be employed to generate similar emotions on the opposite pole during the political season ahead.

Hate speech is hate speech, no matter who is delivering it, in what environment, or from what motives or history. If we are intolerant of hate speech from any social sector, then we must be intolerant of hate speech from all social sectors.

Out of the ashes of such fires, will the phoenix of hope rise again -- audaciously?

March 24, 2008 09:00 am

More entries >>>

A crusader brought down

A

Bringing down Eliot Spitzer was quite an accomplishment for the feds in the Bush administration. Let us overlook for a moment the fact that it was indeed Mr. Spitzer himself who was caught arranging a meeting with a prostitute, and the negatives that entails. Let us look for a moment instead at just how and by whom this feat was accomplished.

Who did it? How? Why? Perhaps the answers are not all in, but some are.

If we had confidence that our federal system of justice works objectively and free of political considerations, then we would not now be raising questions.

But we need to be reminded of the backdrop of the unsettled controversy over politicized U.S. District Attorneys, the Attorney General’s resignation, and departure of Rove from the White House.

Evidence indicates that the prosecution powers of district attorneys had been perverted into political vendettas against democratic politicians in key races. Congress cannot get its subpoenas or contempt citations enforced by the Bush Justice Department to ferret out the details.

The prior democratic governor of Alabama is in prison on what appears to media analysts as trumped up charges and crooked political prosecution. Media observers are calling for his release, and discipline for those involved in that process. This, too, is a part of the backdrop.

Now, what are we told about how Mr. Spitzer’s indiscretions with the prostitution organization were found? Was there some local investigation of the prostitution ring where his name appeared as was true of other similar political cases in Washington? No?

Then just how did all this start? Was Mr. Spitzer a federal target? The answer is “Yes,” acknowledged by government spokespersons.

Apparently the laws designed to track drug money, organized crime activity, and tax evasion are applicable to any of us writing checks or transferring cash in amounts of $5,000 (or perhaps less). So, the IRS and the Justice Department can use this law selectively to snoop on public figures and any private citizens upon whom they desire to keep check. They admit doing so for Mr. Spitzer, a government figure.

This “routine” IRS check, which we had believed happens selectively to criminals or randomly to everybody, led to calling in the Justice Department and the FBI to launch a full scale investigation of these transactions, including a wiretap of the governor’s telephones, monitoring his e-mail mails, and text-messaging surveillance.

Sure enough, with all these resources brought to focus on Mr. Spitzer and his private affairs, they eventually wound up with his voice endangering the nation by arranging for services to be provided at the Mayflower Hotel.

Do we really believe that Mr. Spitzer has been caught and is probably guilty of procuring services of prostitutes as alleged? Sure.

Do we believe that his bank just happened to report Spitzer’s account for suspicious activity without a flag? Do we believe that federal tax officials just happened to be looking over his bank reports and spotted Mr. Spitzer’s transactions accidentally?

Do we believe that the IRS involves the whole federal machinery to investigate any and all such transactions for just anybody? Do we believe that Mr. Spitzer’s prominence as a democrat political leader had nothing at all to do with his records being examined, or with full federal investigative and prosecutorial power being brought to focus his personal affairs?

It would take a huge measure of credulity to answer “yes” to these questions. But if we cannot answer “yes” with any certainty, then we must raise the more significant questions of selective prosecution and political subversion of the federal regulatory and justice system.

If indeed the federal justice system has again been brought to bear upon either a guilty or an innocent individual for personal, partisan, or political reasons, then this is by far the most serious offense involved.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

March 20, 2008 02:47 pm

More entries >>>

Enough to make a body ill

Mr. Bush and Candidate McCain appearing together on the portico at the White House was enough to make a body ill. The mere possibility of another four years of a Bush-lite in the White House is enough to strike fear in the hearts of even the braver among us.

Although the two still look mismatched, awkward, and uncomfortable together, Candidate McCain in his “acceptance” speech earlier went right down the line endorsing Mr. Bush’s policies, proposals, and actions.

He endorsed the invasion of Iraq to rid the world of Saddam Hussein, and even said he thought there had been some Al Quida there. (Weapons of mass destruction weren’t mentioned.) He endorsed the rejected Bush plan for trashing Social Security and Medicare. He endorsed the status quo in health insurance, but would try to make costs affordable to more people.

He advocated tax cuts and favors for the rich and for business in order to create jobs (for peon workers). He praised global free trade, but did not mention it bringing our workers’ standard of living down to the lowest common denominator.

He says that if we stop occupying Iraq and leave, then that is “surrendering.” We may have to keep troops there a hundred years, he has said.

What is there not to like about Candidate McCain, if you are a Bush republican? Where did we get the idea he was different?

Candidate McCain has revealed himself to be a great disappointment to many moderates in his party, and to us moderates of the other party as well.

Other than problem utterances of his own, allegations have been published regarding excess companionship with a female lobbyist. Admitted facts about a corps of lobbyists engaged in running his campaign may be even more shocking to those who thought McCain to be Mr. Clean.

Perhaps having lobbyists imbedded with a candidate might not be so unusual, if this were not the purportedly squeaky clean John McCain. These make his “holier than thou” stance toward lobbyist activity with others appear to be just a false public persona.

The New York Times was much criticized for breaking the story, yet independent journalists have confirmed most of the allegations.

Newsweek interviewed two sources of its own and write that they were told that McCain’s staff had indeed warned him about his frequent association with the female lobbyist whose client had business with his committee. Newsweek also confirmed that staff had warned the female lobbyist away, prompting an angry response.

It was said that in Washington journalists are friendly with politicians to get an inside news story, and politicians are friendly with journalists in order to spin their stories. Further, it is said that lobbyists are friendly with politicians in order to get support for their clients, and politicians are friendly with lobbyists in order to get campaign donations.

The thrust line is that if you want a real friend in Washington, get a dog.

All this appears to support the notion that there is indeed a cloud of corruption around our government in Washington. To pretend somehow to be above it, or immune to it, may readily expose one to the charge of hypocrisy.

Candidate McCain’s defensive public statements that the lobbyists who are staffing his campaign are honorable people might be true. When he says that he has never betrayed the public trust in his activities and association with lobbyists, in spite of evidence such as his letters, witnesses, and other statements to the contrary, that might also be true. It may be true that Candidate McCain has never been, nor will he ever be, influenced in his performance of duties by any of this.

It does, however, strain the limits of credulity.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

March 10, 2008 05:41 pm

More entries >>>

HB 2075 By Rep. Mike Jackson

Retired educators should thank Rep. Mike Jackson of Enid for his efforts to get a good COLA bill passed this session. He has just pushed HB 2075 through the sub-committee on retirement laws and, even more importantly, out of the major House committee on Economic Development and Financial Services.

Using research and proposals from the Council of Retired College and University Presidents of Oklahoma, Rep. Jackson introduced HB 2075 in the last session of this biennium. The bill rested for a year in committee as required by current procedures for COLA legislation.

In cooperation with this writer, who serves as the Council’s executive secretary, and its legislative chairman, Dr. Joe Stuckle of Enid, the bill was rewritten and has emerged as a committee substitute. Both Rep. Jackson and the presidents’ council officers are highly pleased. The retired educators’ association has also endorsed the Jackson bill, along with other COLA bills.

The distinguishing feature of the bill is a tiered COLA system with those retired longest receiving the highest percentage raises.

The logic of that was revealed in the retired presidents’ study of fairness and equity in benefits being received by retirees of different ages. Younger teachers recently retired are receiving much higher benefits than older retirees with similar lengths of experience.

Teaching salaries have risen, but COLA’s have not kept up with increasing health costs or general inflation in the cost of living for retirees. Living on TRS stipends is more difficult for older retirees.

Recognizing an inequitable situation from their research, the retired presidents group has been trying for several years to get changes made in the way COLA’s are granted. Rep. Jackson has been willing to assist them by carrying their proposals into the legislative arena.

Although this year’s session is far from over, and HB 2075 has a long way to go to survive among other retirement bills, Rep. Jackson’s efforts should be appreciated by retired educators. Mike says that it doesn’t matter whose bill survives, as long as it is a good one for retirees.

We appreciate Mike’s attitude and his helpfulness.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

March 04, 2008 06:12 pm

More entries >>>

College access

Some thirty years ago, as an activist college president and member of the national Task Force on Rural Community Colleges, the Militant Moderate was chosen to write the task force report as well as a later summary report in the Community College Journal. In one of the more poignant passages of these reports, this author penned these words:

“Equal opportunity in a democracy depends upon equal access to higher education.”

Our point of relevance was, of course, that equal access to higher education required the geographic availability of open-door, two-year colleges, including those areas more remote and sparsely populated. Research had shown that living within 25 miles of a two-year college greatly increased the percentage of high school graduates attending college and ultimately graduating. And a noticeable difference was found even within a 50 mile radius of a two-year college.

It was just such a convergence of circumstances, research, and populist philosophy that brought public higher education to Enid, Oklahoma.

For decades state board policy had prohibited junior colleges from taking courses off campus, while allowing upper level colleges and universities to do so. In the early 80’s board policy allowed off-campus courses, but at penalties to campus budgets. Private institutions were shielded from local competition by public colleges until the 1980’s.

During Mr. Bert Mackie’s term as a state regent, this president pointed out to him that research showed Enid had a lower percentage of graduates attending college than some other similar cities not in the protected shadow of a private college. Mr. Mackie seemed concerned, checked the statistics with the Vice Chancellor, and was shown that he had been told correctly.

Then came the question of what to do. Northern was ready to bring courses to Enid if allowed to do so with state support.

In contemplating ways to make higher education more available to all socio-economic classes in Enid, several conversations ensued involving Regent Mackie, the Chancellor’s office, local leaders, President Struckle of Northwestern, and myself at NOC.

The result was the Oklahoma Higher Education Center operated under the auspices of the state board. Northern provided lower division courses, Northwestern provided the upper division, and OSU was invited to participate at the graduate level but did not do so.

Since my retirement in 1990, other events and changes have transpired. To the credit of both local and institutional leadership people, Enid now has the services of a branch of Northern and a branch of Northwestern.

To the discredit of later state regents’ leadership and the poor stewardship of the legislature and intervening governors, Enid students still lack universal access to higher education.

Why is there a lack of access? It is because of the failure to provide state support and the resultant monstrous inflation in student costs allowed. Enid students, younger or non-traditional, are finding it hard to afford the tuition charges levied against them by the state.

Only certain students are eligible for OHLAP or federal assistance. Many are not. The state has gone backward in assuring access, particularly for middle class students. Mushrooming student costs should be made an issue in state elections this year.

To the degree that any are denied access to higher education for financial reasons, then to that same degree there is a lack of equal opportunity in Enid and in America as a whole.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

February 26, 2008 09:26 am

More entries >>>

A Fine Mess

Things I don't understand

Mad as hell!

Tainted heroics

An early presidential prediction

The audacity of hate

A crusader brought down

Enough to make a body ill

HB 2075 By Rep. Mike Jackson

College access

Need extra income?
Deliver the Enid News & Eagle!

Featured Coupons
Featured Advertisers

Popular business directory searches

A Fine Mess

Things I don't understand

Mad as hell!

Tainted heroics

An early presidential prediction

The audacity of hate

A crusader brought down

Enough to make a body ill

HB 2075 By Rep. Mike Jackson

College access

Need extra income?Deliver the Enid News & Eagle! Featured Coupons Featured Advertisers

Popular business directory searches

Need extra income?
Deliver the Enid News & Eagle!

Featured Coupons
Featured Advertisers