Editorial roundup
Nov. 25:
The Tulsa World on federal funding for the dwindling Picher Housing Authority:
When it comes to federal spending, $135,000 isn't all that much money. But that doesn't mean it should be wasted on something that's not needed.
And surely just about everyone would agree that with just three units occupied at the housing complex, the Picher Housing Authority doesn't really need the money.
Thank goodness a couple of members of Oklahoma's congressional delegation were paying close attention to stimulus-fund distributions and noticed that the Picher authority was set to receive the money.
The Picher housing complex, readers will remember, is in one of the towns that is nearing ghost-town status because of a voluntary buyout program that has left it virtually uninhabited. The federal-state buyout program has enabled most residents to move away from the Ottawa County mining district that is laden with lead-contaminated mining waste and undermined by a labyrinth of unstable caverns. The historic lead and zinc mining area, now known as Tar Creek, is one of the nation's worst environmental disasters.
The Picher Housing Authority didn't seek the stimulus money but was scheduled to receive some nonetheless because every active housing authority in the country was on the recipient list.
The authority has until March to develop a plan for spending the money. If no plan is submitted, the funds will go back to the government.
Authority Director John Sparkman said only three of the complex's units are occupied, and they're expected to be vacated soon. He is trying to relocate the authority to a nearby town but whether that will occur is uncertain at this point.
U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., and Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla., are keeping an eye on the funds. This summer, they asked government officials to put a hold on the money and to be informed if there is any change in the status of the funds.
Unless the money can be used for some justifiable housing needs elsewhere, we ought to just give the money back. There's certainly no justification for spending the money in Picher, unless it's on clean-up work.
Nov. 25.
The Claremore Progress on the economy:
During the 1992 presidential campaign, strategist James Carville hung a sign inside the Little Rock, Ark. campaign headquarters for Bill Clinton that said, "the economy, stupid." The future president's campaign then used the phrase "it's the economy, stupid" to shine the light on the fact that in tough economic times, the federal government should be working to stabilize the economy rather than dealing with fringe issues.
This theme resonated with the American people enough to unseat a formerly popular President, George H.W. Bush. President Bush had experienced approval ratings above 90 percent 18 months before losing his bid for re-election.
Today's economy is worse by all measures, yet the only notable activity in Washington focuses on fringe issues with solutions that could further damage the economy. Washington politicos have been patting themselves on the back for orchestrating a "jobless recovery." Call me crazy, but without job creation, those who think we are recovering are watching the wrong data.
Economists and pundits who recognize that government spending was the only driving force behind the economic data that found the recession to be over have since debunked the announcement last month that the recession ended.
This country has unemployment rates hovering at ten percent, and experts predict that trend will get worse before it gets better. Washington wants us to accept this as "a new normal." If this is the best our beltway policy makers see the economy, then we need new policy makers.
There are always solutions. Our government can incentivize businesses and entrepreneurs to create jobs. Jobs improve the economy. The economy then creates more jobs. Businesses hire people when it is financially beneficial to their bottom line. Businesses cut jobs when their costs are so high that they can no longer afford their existing staffing levels. ...
We need to get our work force back on the time clock, earning wages, buying goods, services, and homes they can afford, as well as saving for the future again.
I rarely agree with James Carville, but his 1992 sign is as true today as it was back then: "It IS the economy, stupid."
Nov. 25
The Lawton Constitution on school uniforms for public school students and teachers:
Why not school uniforms for students and teachers? Lawton school board president Donna Ronio offered some good reasons at a recent school board meeting to support adopting uniforms. Superintendent Barry Beauchamp noted that no such policy would be enacted without a great deal of research and public input. Maybe public input should be separated into those with children in school and those with none.
Ronio listed her top reason as safety: It would identify intruders — those in the school building who are not students, she said.
She added it would also ease gang problems, improve discipline, lessen peer pressure to buy expensive clothing items, encourage school spirit and make less obvious the socio-economic differences between students. Some board members did not agree.
Moms and dads might even like it because the excuse that teens have nothing to wear to school would disappear because they would know exactly what they are going to have to wear, at least most days. It could well be easier on the family budget, too.
School board members might consider one day, like casual Friday in the business world, when uniforms would not have to be worn.
Of course, there has been some rolling of the eyes about Ronio's suggestion. There are arguments about freedom of choice and expression, constitutional rights and too much government authority that need to be made. Such a debate would be a good learning experience. It would allow the children to learn at an early age about all of those issues, pro and con. Do they apply to minors?
While they're at it, maybe it's time to talk about uniforms for teachers, too. Visit a school and you might find that it's hard to tell teachers and pupils apart. We have all read about unfortunate liaisons between teachers and pupils, so maybe if teachers dressed more professionally and appeared more as authority figures rather than peers, liaisons would be less of a problem and teachers would get more respect.
Uniforms? Let's have the debate, or expect the people with money to send their children to private schools.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
