Brian Altenhofel's blog

Supporters of Oklahoma's State Question 744 have a so-called fact-checking site. (They don't deserve an ounce of linkjuice from me.)

I have never seen a political website so full of blatant half-lies. I call them half, because technically they are true, but really they are lies.

For example, the website states that "SQ 744 does not mandate cuts in other state services." Technically they're right, it doesn't mandate cuts in state services. The website also says that "SQ 744 DOES NOT impose or raise any taxes." Once again, technically they're right.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled the fee imposed by HB 2437 as an unconstitutional tax today in Holland v. State by a 6-3 margin. The bill violated two provisions of State Question 640 by being passed during the final five days of the legislative session and not receiving support by a three-fourths majority in both chambers.

Too bad the dolts we have elected as our State Representatives and Senators were partly relying on this fee in the flawed state budget. I'm awaiting a full opinion to be published (if there is one) to comment on the teeth this case holds as a precedent to future underhanded attempts by our legislators such as this.

The Oklahoma Watchdog has an article with some comments from the Republican candidates currently engaged in a runoff for the nomination for state Insurance Commissioner.

For those who don't know, Nick's Law is proposed legislation to mandate that insurance companies cover the medical expenses of autistic children. As you have probably figured out, I firmly oppose any government mandate on what insurance companies cover.

The oral arguments in the case against the new health insurance fee in Oklahoma are being heard today. This is in response to a law that was passed in the closing days of the legislative session to add a 1% fee to all claims paid by private insurers.

In effect, the new fee is actually a tax, especially since the intended purpose of the law is to generate revenue to support the Oklahoma Medicaid program.

Insurance Commissioner Kim Holland is arguing that the law in unconstitutional because it was passed during the final five days of the legislative session and failed to receive the required three-fourths supermajority in the House and Senate. Both of those provisions are clearly stated in the Oklahoma Constitution and were added by a vote of the People through State Question 640 in 1992.

From the Tulsa World:

The composite scores have remained fairly static since 2006, improving only .2 points between 2006 and 2007 and remaining steady since then, according to the ACT organization's annual Condition of College and Career Readiness report for 2010. The same is true for the national composite score, which has varied only a few tenths of a point from its current average of 21.0 since 2006.

Now, proponents of State Question 744 will likely tell you that this is exactly why we need to increase education spending (while likely crippling the rest of the budget). However, this graphic from the Andrew J. Coulson of the Cato Institute shows otherwise:

From Time Magazine:

Although the American strain of Islamophobia lacks some of the traditional elements of religious persecution — there's no sign that violence against Muslims is on the rise, for instance — there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that hate speech against Muslims and Islam is growing both more widespread and more heated. Meanwhile, a new TIME–Abt SRBI poll found that 46% of Americans believe Islam is more likely than other faiths to encourage violence against nonbelievers. Only 37% know a Muslim American. Overall, 61% oppose the Park51 project, while just 26% are in favor of it. Just 23% say it would be a symbol of religious tolerance, while 44% say it would be an insult to those who died on 9/11.

This is just a reminder to those that vote in primaries that the runoffs are on Tuesday. You can cast early ballots beginning today.

I encourage everyone to get out and vote!

In American Atheists, Inc. v. Duncan, the Tenth Circuit ruled that the practice of the Utah Highway Patrol erecting 12-foot crosses as roadside memorials to fallen troopers is unconstitutional under the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The Republican appointee panel "conclude[d] that the cross memorials would convey to a reasonable observer that the state of Utah is endorsing Christianity."

The reason they drew such a conclusion is because the crosses displayed the logo of the Utah Highway Patrol very prominently. I have not had time to read the opinion yet, so I may or may not comment later. However, the images of the crosses are on the final pages of the above linked PDF.

From the Korea Times:

The U.S. government opposed South Korea’s bid to sell hundreds of thousands of aging U.S. combat rifles to American gun collectors, a senior government official said Thursday.

The ministry announced the plan last September as part of efforts to boost its defense budget, saying the export of the M1 Garand and carbine rifles would start by the end of 2009.

The U.S. administration put the brakes on the plan, citing “problems” that could be caused by the importation of the rifles.

Here it is from the Edmond Sun:

New Castle (Pa.) — Like the rest of the country, Oklahoma has been facing a time of economic challenges. Many families in our state are struggling to make ends meet and lawmakers at the state Capitol faced the daunting task of balancing the budget amid record shortfalls.

He goes on to commend legislators for their handling of this year's immense budget shortfall. I don't think there is any reason why our legislators should be commended. In fact, they should all be reprimanded for their mishandling of the budget. We're set up to be worse off next year, and we'll be devastated if SQ744 passes.