Federal control of Tulsa police
Why is the federal government paying the salaries of Tulsa policemen?
After Tulsa laid off 124 officers because of a $10 million-shortfall, 35 are being hired back and will be paid with a $3.2 million grant from the federal administration.
No doubt, President Obama will add these 35 officers to his list of “jobs he created or saved.”
Those jobs were temporarily eliminated for a variety of reasons:
• A shortfall in sales tax revenue due to the national recession.
• A refusal by the Fraternal Order of Police to accept a 5.2 percent pay cut and other concessions and to stick with the contract it negotiated with the city last summer (the firefighters took the deal and no one was laid off).
• Poor planning by ex-mayor Kathy Taylor and the city finance department when they didn’t cut the budget last summer in anticipation of the recession hitting Tulsa.
Now, Tulsans will be sending in more money to the federal government in higher taxation to pay for money to come back to pay police.
That is not only inefficient but it transfers power from our local government to federal bureaucrats. No one in Washington, D.C., should be telling us how to run our police department, how much to pay officer and so on.
But now, thanks to a 10-year history of fiscal mismanagement, Tulsa is forced to turn over more control of the government to the Obama Administration.
Is this what the God-fearing, conservative citizens of Tulsa really want?
Liberals want more liquor sales
Sen. Tom Adelson, D-Tulsa, and Sen. Andrew Rice, D-Oklahoma City, want to make it easier for Oklahomans to get a drink of alcohol.
Adelson and Rice tried to push through a vote on a constitutional amendment that would liberalize Oklahoma’s liquor laws. It would have allowed stores like WalMart to sell strong beer and wine. Right now, anything with an alcohol content of 3.2 percent or more can only be sold in liquor stores. There are some exceptions for wineries.
Get this – Rice said this move would update antiquated liquor laws and is slowing economic growth because some large grocery stores won’t come to Oklahoma unless they can sell booze.
What Rice and Adelson really want is no restrictions on alcohol sales. Do you think any industry lobbyists have broached the topic with these two liberal legislators?
Amazingly, fellow Democrats Debbie Leftwich (Oklahoma City) and Sean Burrage (Claremore) voted against Adelson and Rice. Sen. Randy Brogdon, R-Owasso led the fight to kill the resolution.
Why shouldn’t retailers be able to sell beer and wine when and wherever they want?
America tried prohibition and it didn’t work.
Society has a duty to restrict things that hurt people. And alcohol can hurt people – not only those who drink but their families, their employers, their friends and motorists.
There is a good reason why you can’t walk into a convenience store and order a cocktail. Common sense tells us that you should not be allowed to drive your car on public streets while drinking alcohol.
Selling booze in every store in town creates more problems than it solves. Rice and Adelson and their ilk got casino gambling. Now they want the booze to flow. What’s next? Legalized prostitution?
This should not be put to a public vote because the liquor industry would spend millions to get a yes vote. This is not a democracy – we are a republic. You could have a vote to give every Oklahomans a new bass boat and that would pass easily but it’s not good government.
Thank God for Sen. Randy Brogdon and other courageous legislators.
Another round of Obamacare
President Obama has released his version of Obamacare.
His health care plan includes federal funding of abortion.
White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer told Roll Call that President Barack Obama will keep “an open mind to additional ideas” at the recent “bipartisan” health care meeting.
U.S. Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., does not seem to be buying it.
“House Republicans welcome any good-faith effort to start over on health care reform,” he said, “but the bill President Obama unveiled is just more of the same government-run insurance, mandates and taxes the American people have overwhelmingly rejected.”
House Republicans have their own alternative. It would include Hyde Amendment language, which bans the use of federal funds to pay for most abortions.
Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life Action, said the president is breaking a promise to the American people that no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.
“Unless they (the administration) include specific legislative language banning the use of federal funds for abortion,” she said, “they will be establishing taxpayer funding for abortion. Today was the president’s opportunity to keep his word.”
Stay tuned – the fight for socialized medicine is far from over.