Good article about superdelegates - Ed is an old friend of mine

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8673.html
Superdelegates use power for good, not evil
By: Edward Espinoza
February 25, 2008 04:19 PM EST

There is a lot of talk about us Democratic “superdelegates” and the notion that we will secretly convene to decide the party’s nominee, and in fact, the fate of the world. We’ve been branded as backroom deal makers, “Washington insiders” and moneyed elites. Stephen Colbert questioned whether we have “supermutant powers,” such as the ability to fly.
This heightened attention on Democratic National Committee members — driven by the closeness of the nomination fight between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama — illustrates a perception that fails to approximate reality. Our roles are more akin to that of caretakers, addressing the more mundane needs of conducting party business, rather than that of all-powerful determinants of the Democratic nominee for president.
For the record: I will participate in the nomination process and will fully support the eventual nominee. But it is not my desire to be the sole decider in this process, nor do I think that I will be. Let’s start with a few facts to dispel some popular misconceptions:No presidential candidate currently holds a majority of the 796 superdelegates.
Fewer than 10 percent of the superdelegates are appointed. There are elected officials in the group, but the majority of supers are Democratic activists elected by state Democratic parties.
Most superdelegates are average people with everyday jobs, such as teachers, salespeople, IT professionals and retirees.
We attend DNC meetings twice a year, paying our own hotel and airfare costs (further demonstrating that we do not posses the superhuman ability of flight).
My life is the antithesis of a Washington insider: I earn less than six figures, I went to a state university, I rent. I was elected by the California Democratic Party to represent the voters of my state. I started as a political activist, later serving as president of the California Young Democrats and eventually moving on to work in political campaigns.
But we are now a popular topic on cable TV, in coffee shops and on blogs. Even we DNC members regularly talk about our role and how we should be involved.
Admittedly, life is more interesting these days: We have personal phone calls from former President Bill Clinton, former senators calling on behalf of Barack Obama and sit-downs with the candidates. It is flattering and quite a contrast to the normal routine work of writing campaign plans and party resolutions, conducting constituency outreach and working on the Democratic presidential nominating calendar (I was an active advocate in a two-year effort to move Nevada up in the process).
But while these phone calls and meetings are nice, they are not what ultimately will sway us. We are keenly aware of the responsibility we carry, and we take this role seriously. We listen to voters and are mindful that both majority and dissenting views deserve a voice in the Democratic Party.
We are not unified behind any campaign, and it is highly unlikely that we will fall in lock step behind any one candidate to make a difference in the race.
It is more likely that, if the race remains close, we could cast our votes for a candidate who may otherwise have a narrow delegate lead, in order to create a more decisive nomination. Such a move won’t change the outcome of the race, but it can serve to unify the party and change the momentum and perception of the nominee coming out of the convention.
Or we could be the players on the floor of a brokered convention, helping the states steer through convention rules while avoiding the kind of intramural fights that can rip a party apart, similar to those at the 1968 convention.
No one can say exactly how our roles will play out, but I am firmly convinced that our role will not, and should not, be one that ultimately picks our nominee.
Only a candidate with the support of a unified party can carry Democrats to victory in the fall. And as a superdelegate, I prefer that our role remains part of a cumulative process in which the eventual nominee garners strength from all aspects of the party.
That is to say, in the larger scheme of things, our place is to build unity, discourage any major bloodletting and help the nomination process in a role that is fair, inclusive and, above all, transparent.
Wait — is transparency considered a super mutant power?
Edward Espinoza, a public relations and political strategist from Los Angeles, most recently served as a field director for presidential candidate Bill Richardson. He is currently an uncommitted superdelegate serving in his fourth year on the DNC.

Saying "NO" To Lobbyist Gift Giving

Recently, a bill I authored, HB 2444, was approved by the House Rules Subcommittee on Elections and Redistricting. HB 2444 would ask the state Ethics Commission to create and maintain a voluntary "No Gifts List." Under the bill, lobbyists would be prevented from giving gifts to lawmakers who voluntarily place themselves on the list.

When I asked for your vote to be your State Representative, I did so because I wanted to spend time in the Legislature working for the people, not taking lobbyists gifts and certainly not going through the hassle of returning unsolicted items.

Refusing gifts has proven harder than I expected, as lobbyists kept delivering unrequested items to my office. This became a logistical challenge, since some were left with office staff or even sent in the mail. Other lawmakers have told me of similar frustrations, as they did not want to receive gifts either, and yet items are left at their offices.

Thus, the need for House Bill 2444. By creating this "No Gifts List," not only will the time and money involved in returning gifts be saved, but I believe the list will put pressure on legislators who do not want to refuse gifts. I believe constituents will demand their lawmakers place themselves on the list. This could be a fantastic tool for minimizing the influence of special interest without having to create a complicated new law.

Several other officials have gone out of their way to make it possible for this bill to have a chance at winning approval. Representative Trebor Worthen, who chairs the committee that approved the bill, courageously agreed to hear and support the bill. Without Worthen's support, the bill would have had little chance of success. In addition, Senator Anthony Sykes is one of the leading advocates of minimizing the influence of special interests over legislative policy. Sykes has agreed to sponsor the bill in the Senate.

And, at the request of Insurance Commissioner Kim Holland, I plan to amend House Bill 2444 to allow statewide officeholders to be placed on the "No Gifts List."

"Even a small token of appreciation can be misconstrued, so this legislation gives us the opportunity to avoid misunderstandings." Holland said. "We need to continually affirm to our public that the work of the Insurance Department is impartial and that our regulatory duties are carried out in a manner that is above reproach. The 'No Gifts List' is simply one more way to demonstrate that commitment." Holland implemented a department-wide "Things of Value" policy upon assuming office, prohibiting the receipt of gifts or meals from anyone regulated by the Insurance Department. She said the "No Gifts List" would complement the agency's internal efforts.

Holland's predecessor in office, Carroll Fisher, was impeached by the Oklahoma House of Representatives, due in part to soliciting and accepting gifts of art work, furniture and kitchen equipment.

Dorman and Corn Want Priority on Disaster Funding

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Contact: State Rep. Joe Dorman
Capitol: (405) 557-7305
E-mail: joedorman@okhouse.gov

Dorman and Corn Want Priority on Disaster Funding

Oklahoma City – State Rep. Joe Dorman and State Sen. Kenneth Corn have filed legislation to secure state matching dollars for Oklahoma’s emergency disasters through a self-executing funding system that will avoid the legislative appropriations process.

House Bill 3087, by Dorman and Corn, requires that money from the state’s Constitutional Reserve Fund (also known as the Rainy Day Fund) be used to provide matching funds for federal disaster relief reimbursement through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The bill establishes that the emergency funding be provided before Rainy Day Fund money is used for any other purpose and be automatically appropriated when the state receives the certification of disaster costs from the federal government.

"This will secure the funding needed to assist Oklahoma families when disaster strikes," said Dorman, D-Rush Springs. "These individuals should not have to wait to rebuild their lives. This should be our number one priority when it comes to tapping our state’s emergency fund."

"The swift reaction from state government can help our communities to rebuild and move forward. I believe that the purpose of the Rainy Day fund is to meet emergency needs," said Corn, D-Poteau. "There is no greater need than coming to the aid of our communities and our people."

Currently, in most cases, the federal government will fund 75 percent of the disaster relief leaving the local with 12.5 percent and the state 12.5 percent.

"The state still owed money from the ice storms of 2000 up until just a couple of years ago when the Legislature finally appropriated the required state portion of the money. That delay left the counties, communities, electric co-ops and many other entities with unpaid bills due to legislative negligence by not providing the 12.5 percent match," said Dorman. "This measure will make sure this never happens again. Communities will not have to wait until we return to session or, as we have seen recently, for years after to finally get their funds."

House Bill 3087 establishes a constitutional amendment that would be voted on by the people of Oklahoma in November. The bill currently sits in the Rules Committee of the House of Representatives. Dorman and Corn have requested a hearing for this legislation from Speaker Chris Benge before the deadline for bills to be discussed in committee.

-30-

FFA/4-H Tax Exemption Gets Committee Approval

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Contact: State Rep. Joe Dorman
Capitol: (405) 557-7305
E-mail: joedorman@okhouse.gov

FFA/4-H Tax Exemption Gets Committee Approval

OKLAHOMA CITY (February 19, 2008) – Legislation declaring FFA and 4-H livestock awards to be tax-free cleared a House subcommittee on Tuesday.

House Bill 3081, by state Rep. Joe Dorman, provides that "any payment received by a person as an award for participation in a competitive livestock show event" will not be considered taxable income under Oklahoma law. Under the legislation, those payments will instead be treated as scholarship awards.

"Students don’t make money on the animals they show," said Dorman, D-Rush Springs. "This is truly an educational opportunity given to these kids and it’s ridiculous to require some 16-year-old 4-Her or FFA student to file taxes on a prize."

The checks received by students involved in competitive livestock shows can range from a few hundred dollars at local events to tens of thousands at national events.

However, Dorman noted that the cost of breeding, caring and showing the animals "usually far exceeds the amount of prize money the kids may win, if they do win."

Carolyn Doyle, FFA Sentinel for the Elgin FFA, told state lawmakers the bill would allow students to make their dollars stretch further.

"Most of the kids in our FFA chapter pay for their animals and feed, and any money we make at a show is usually the only income generated to pay for our projects," Doyle said. "If we have to pay income tax on those awards, we won’t be able to do as much. FFA students are not getting rich off our projects and we want to be able to do more with our limited resources."

By declaring the prize money will be treated as a scholarship and therefore tax exempt under state law, legislators will indirectly exempt the prizes from federal taxation as well because of an existing federal tax exemption for scholarships and awards (Code Sec 117 Reg. 1.117-1).

"The federal tax code clearly exempts scholarships and awards," Dorman said. "House Bill 3081 will dictate that these livestock show prizes will be classified as Scholarships and Awards and, therefore, nontaxable at both the state and federal level. That doubles the benefit for Oklahoma’s FFA and 4-H students."

Dorman filed House Bill 3081 at the request of Elgin FFA instructor Jerry Renshaw and Mike Doyle, a CPA and father of two students who show animals in Elgin.

House Bill 3081 passed out of the House Revenue and Taxation Subcommittee on a unanimous vote. It now advances to the full House Appropriations & Budget Committee.
-30-

Is This Why College Tuition Costs Keep Going Up?

Can you imagine a situation in the private business world where one part of the business was allowed to issue millions of dollars of debt without approval from the board of directors? Certainly it would not be long before that business would simply cease to exist. No doubt it would be driven into bankruptcy by out-of-control employees who spend without check or balance.

Yet that is exactly what is occurring in state government. The Regents for Higher Education are issuing millions of dollars of bond projects without the approval of the legislature. The projects not only indebt state government to paying off the principal of the debt, but the unnecessary interest as well.

In fact, it appears that in the last 8 years, more than 250 million dollars have been issued by the Regents in debt. Currently, around 180 million of this is still waiting to be paid back. The money has been requested for use on projects as varied as athletic score boards to golf course maintenance equipment.

Recently, a courageous member of the Council of Bond Oversight asked his board to seek an Attorney General’s opinion on the constitutionality of the Regents to issue this kind of debt. Unfortunately, not enough members of his board voted to support his effort, and it failed.

I believe this is yet another step by a run-away big government bureaucracy to continue to indebt the people, while placing the tab for these expenditures on the backs of future generations. Those who spend our money will immediately benefit without having to give thought to the consequences of dealing with the interest that will accumulate over time on the debt they issued.

When dealing with their personal budgets, many people realize the important concept of going in debt only for emergency circumstances. This common sense principle should be applied to the government as well.

The government should certainly not be placing us in debt for score boards and golf course maintenance equipment. And most definitely, those who should be making the decision of whether or not to incur this indebtedness should be the elected representatives of the people; not unelected bureaucrats.

Perhaps this “spend-happy” attitude explains why Oklahoma’s college tuition has been increasing so rapidly over the past few years.

I will be the House of Representatives author of a Senate Bill by Senator Patrick Anderson to greatly limit the ability of the Regents to issue this type of debt. Anderson has worked hard to expose this inappropriate spending and I certainly appreciate being able to sponsor his bill in the House.

Should Anderson’s bill not meet with success this year, I am sure that either Anderson or myself will file the request with the Attorney General to provide an opinion on the constitutionality of the Regents’ ability to issue this debt without the approval of the legislature.

Raise Taxes to Cut Taxes?

By Senator Jay Paul Gumm, D-Durant

Hello again, everybody! Legislative committees in both the Senate and House of Representatives continue consideration of the hundreds of bills filed for 2008.

As committees approve bills, and refer them to the full Senate or House, we get a better idea of the nature of this session, and it is a mixed bag. Not every bill filed is good for Oklahoma; in fact, some are quite bad for our state, and a big part of my job as your senator is to help kill those bills that would be bad for our state and its people.

One of the worst proposals on the table this year is a measure that would begin to “sunset,” or systematically end, many of our state’s tax exemptions. The result would be a systematic tax increase for a broad spectrum of Oklahoma business activities. In fact, if enacted as presented, it would by far be the largest tax increase in Oklahoma’s history.

Proponents of ending those exemptions have been clear: they want to raise taxes so they can cut taxes – primarily for the wealthiest among us. I know; it does not make sense to me, either. This proposal would be a “tax shift” that is potentially devastating for many Oklahoma businesses and jobs. It could drive up food prices for you and me, but more on that in a moment.

This notion of “tax shifting” – from an economic development standpoint – troubles me greatly. In essence, ending these exemptions would be breaking a promise we made to businesses that have invested in our state and our people.

Businesses relocate or expand into a state based on a set of promises. New and existing businesses that make new investments and create new jobs do not deserve to have the rug pulled out from under them by eliminating exemptions on which they depend.

For those of us in rural Oklahoma, the idea to sunset these exemptions should be especially troubling. Agriculture is one component of our economy that benefits from these tax exemptions. I believe it would be very poor policy for Oklahoma to turn its back on this pillar of our state’s economy, a segment of the economy on which we all depend for life itself.

I like the bumper sticker that says, “If you eat, you are involved in agriculture.” Removing the tax exemptions enjoyed by the agriculture industry would make it harder for our farmers and ranchers to make a living; it also could raise food prices we all pay at the grocery store. Some would do all that just to cut taxes for the very wealthy.

Oklahoma should keep its promises. Because of that, I will oppose this measure at every turn. It is a bad idea that ultimately would cost all of us much more than it potentially might save.

Thanks again for reading the “Senate Minute,” have a great week and may God bless you all.

Open Door Policy - February 18, 2008

I hope everyone had a warm weekend with the weather that blew in. I know several of the sporting events and meetings in the area had to be cancelled due to road conditions. I got to see some great basketball this weekend and I got to see several friends at the Lawton Public School Elementary Principal meeting and the REAP check presentations for Caddo and Grady Counties . We also had a very nice fundraiser to benefit Michelle Watson on Saturday night. Should you wish to make a donation to assist her, there is an account is set up at First National Bank & Trust at the Chickasha and Cyril branches.

Another meeting that occurred this past weekend was between me, Democratic Leader Danny Morgan and members of the State Career Tech staff. We discussed opportunities that could benefit businesses in our area with additional training for students that would place them in immediate employment. This is a fantastic program that is available and I hope we will see some educational opportunities awaiting welders in Southwest Oklahoma .

On Monday, the House passed HR 1051 which establishes a committee to study and investigate the actions of Jeff McMahan, the State Auditor and Inspector. This was unanimous except for the absence of one member from the floor at the time of the vote. The committee will now meet to review evidence and see if there is further action that should be taken towards an impeachment. This will likely take some time to review all the facts before a vote will occur.

Last Friday, another piece of legislation that was of importance to the state was heard on the House floor. HB 3111 by Ron Peterson, R-Tulsa, would provide that any future insurance mandate passed by the legislature would require it to sit over for a minimum of two years, have an actuarial study paid for by an outside source to see how much insurance costs would rise and if passed within one year, require a 75% vote of the legislature rather than the simple majority. This bill, an attempt to reduce required coverage of such things as autism, colorectal screenings and assistance for Phenylketonuria (PKU), was passed 53 to 46. Two Republicans crossed over to join all 44 Democrats in voting against this bill.

I debated against this bill on several points. This legislation takes away the authority of legislators to determine in a year if one of these mandates is necessary. It is also under the assumption that we cannot make a decision that is not emotional on the subject of mandates. Another point is that an actuarial study done by an outside source (usually the insurance company) will not be unbiased as would something prepared by our House Staff.

Another argument we heard that I disagree with is generally businesses would be opposed to these mandates. I think most businesses would want these screenings to make sure an employee is healthy and on the job, and if something is detected, it will be caught early and less time would be required for missing work. The final point I stand by is that I personally feel some of these health screenings should be covered by insurance to catch and prevent life-threatening illnesses.

It is an honor to represent your views at the State Capitol. If you wish to contact me and discuss one of these or another issue, I can be reached at my office in Oklahoma City toll-free at 1-800-522-8502, or directly at 1-405-557-7305. My home number for work is 1-580-476-2626. My e-mail address is joedorman@okhouse.gov at work. My mailing address is PO Box 559 , Rush Springs , OK 73082 and my website is www.joedorman.com on the Internet. Thank you for taking time to read this column and I look forward to seeing you soon.