McDaniel Seeks to Stop Unemployment Benefit Fraud

OKLAHOMA CITY (January 10, 2012) – State Rep. Randy McDaniel has filed legislation intended to reduce fraud and abuse regarding unemployment benefits.

“It is important to keep unemployment insurance taxes as low as possible. One way to accomplish this goal is to mitigate deceptive practices,” said McDaniel, R-Oklahoma City. “My legislation provides the necessary penalties to deter individuals from gaming the system.”

Under House Bill 2204, those who knowingly continue to receive unemployment benefits after securing a new job would be required to pay back all of the falsely obtained benefits plus a penalty equal to 25 percent of the overpayments.

The money raised by the penalties would go back into the unemployment trust fund which helps keep taxes low, while a portion will be used to pay for fraud investigations.

The bill also requires those who file for unemployment to provide documentation of job search efforts within one week of obtaining benefits.

“The new timeline will make it more difficult for individuals to receive unemployment checks without actively seeking other job opportunities,” McDaniel said. “Unemployment benefits are meant to be a safety net for those truly in need, not a hammock for those who do not want to work.”

The bill also includes a provision that will eliminate paperwork costs in the system. The Oklahoma Employment Security Commission (OESC) will afford employers and unemployed workers the option of receiving e-mail notifications instead of physical paper copies of all documents.

“The e-mail notification proposal continues the government modernization efforts that have saved millions of dollars in unnecessary expense over the past few years,” McDaniel said.

House Bill 2204 can be taken up by lawmakers after the start of this year’s legislative session in February. The measure is expected to be first heard in the Economic Development, Tourism & Financial Services Committee, chaired by McDaniel.

“At the end of the day, small businesses pay the price when we do not weed out double-dealing,” McDaniel said. “By providing for better enforcement, we can ensure helping the truly needy while keeping taxes low for job creators.”

Report outlines comprehensive public safety approach

OKLAHOMA CITY (Jan. 11, 2012) – After more than half a year of intensive analysis and collaboration, a bipartisan group of Oklahoma leaders today released a report on how to reduce violent crime statewide by 10 percent by 2016 and provide post-prison supervision for all felons while containing growth in prison costs.

The report recommends a number of strategic reforms in criminal justice policy  projected to save $249 million over the next decade, making it possible to allocate more than $40 million to local law enforcement agencies to implement proven crime-fighting initiatives while reinvesting additional savings in strengthening victim/witness services, , probation supervision, drug treatment and other programs.

The report is a product of the Justice Reinvestment Initiative, a data-driven analysis of the state’s criminal justice system led by the Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center in partnership with the Pew Center on the States and the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance. The JRI process was guided by a 20-member working group of state and local criminal justice stakeholders established by the governor and legislative leaders following last year’s legislative session.

House Speaker Kris Steele, co-chairman of Oklahoma’s Justice Reinvestment Working Group, plans to carry legislation next session based on the group’s findings.

“Oklahoma has just been given a blueprint for a surgical strike against crime based on comprehensive facts, data analysis and proven strategies. The policy proposals are tough, smart, strategic and fiscally sustainable all at once, so I intend to get to work immediately with all stakeholders to develop legislation based on these findings to consider next session,” said Steele, R-Shawnee. “Throughout this process, the resounding message we’ve heard is Oklahoma must find a better way to address crime if we are truly serious about increasing public safety. We think we’ve found that better way, which is fantastic, given that the path we’ve been on is unsustainable no matter how you slice it.”

Gov. Mary Fallin was among the state leaders who requested that Oklahoma conduct a justice reinvestment analysis of its criminal justice system.

“Increasing public safety is a top priority of this administration. Protecting our citizens and keeping Oklahoma safe is a core function of government and a key component to bringing growth, jobs and families to Oklahoma. For that reason, I am looking forward to reviewing the report and seeing what policy recommendations come out of it,” Fallin said. “I’d like to thank the working group and Speaker Steele for their efforts and for soliciting the input of dozens of elected officials, district attorneys, police chiefs, sheriffs, crime victims and others who have participated in this process. They have done a great job starting this important conversation about public safety and helping our corrections systems to operate in a way that is more efficient and effective.”

Don Millican, a business leader who is chairman of the Oklahoma Christian University Board of Trustees, co-chaired the working group along with Speaker Steele.

“This plan presents innovative strategies that can improve return on investment for the shareholders of this state, who are ultimately Oklahoma’s taxpayers,” Millican said. “Having just undergone the most comprehensive criminal justice system analysis in state history, my hope now is to see these proposals put into law, not put on a shelf.”

The policy recommendations in the report address a number of gaps within Oklahoma’s criminal justice system that were revealed through JRI’s comprehensive analyses and over the course of more than one hundred meetings involving approximately 350 experts and stakeholders around the state.

The report suggests the state can close those gaps by reinvesting a portion of state dollars that would have otherwise been spent on the growing prison population in strategies that research demonstrates will be more successful in increasing public safety. The proposed reinvestment is $6 million in the first year and up to $13 million annually until fiscal year 2021. The reinvestment would go to law enforcement grants, increased funding for victim and witness services in DA’s offices, more effective probation supervision and additional substance abuse treatment.

Specific findings and recommendations in the report include:

·        Help local law enforcement prevent violent crime with state grant funding for technology, overtime, crime analysis, and community partnerships. Unstable funding and increased demand has forced many agencies to simply triage calls for service rather than working proactively to prevent crime.

·        Require supervision for all felony offenders following their prison sentences. Currently, 51 percent of people exiting prison do so with no supervision.

·        Increase availability of substance abuse treatment. There is inadequate access to programs for people on supervision who are determined to be at a high-risk of reoffending and who have acute substance abuse problems.

·        Improve support provided to crime victims and witnesses through district attorneys’ offices. Victim-witness coordinators are key service providers that assist crime victims through the judicial process, but fluctuations in federal funding and local cuts have strained capacity in some jurisdictions.

Marshall Clement, division director for state initiatives at the CSG Justice Center, said the policy framework could increase public safety while constraining the growing cost of Oklahoma’s criminal justice system.

“This process began as a corrections initiative, but it’s become something much more comprehensive. Through this process, Oklahoma has crafted a statewide public safety plan to reduce violent crime, hold offenders more accountable, and control prison costs,” Clement said.

If legislation based on the report is successful, Oklahoma will join more than a dozen other states, including Texas, Kansas and North Carolina, that have successfully used the Justice Reinvestment Initiative to increase public safety by reallocating resources to address serious public safety threats, reduce recidivism and contain costs.

“Oklahoma is demonstrating to states everywhere how to bring together stakeholders and generate effective solutions,” said Richard Jerome, manager, Pew Center on the States’ Public Safety Performance Project. “This framework does a great job of showing how an inclusive, research-based process can produce policies that will cut crime and costs.”

“This data-driven, justice reinvestment approach allows a state to utilize the most up-to-date strategies in criminal justice while using existing funding and resources. That is a critical element in any bipartisan effort of this scale,” said Denise O’Donnell, Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance in the U.S. Department of Justice.

Sykes responds to federal appeals court ruling on State Question 755

Sen. Anthony Sykes today offered the following comment on the Court ruling upholding an injunction against SQ 755, which would prohibit state courts from considering Sharia law.
“On Tuesday the federal appeals court in Denver attempted to silence the voice of 70 percent of Oklahoma voters. At some point we have to decide whether this is a country of by and for the judges, or of by and for the people. How far will the people let them go? This ruling is right along with legalizing abortion and forced busing of school children.”
“The issue raised by this constitutional amendment is very simple – you are either for Sharia law or you are against it.”

“This is just the first battle in an ongoing effort. Although the courts have attempted to silence the voice of the people, I won’t let that happen. I’ll continue fighting to restore government to the people.”

Usurpation of the Constitution

On December 23, 2011 President Obama sent a letter to congress titled Statement by the President on H.R. 2055. In the letter he writes “The Congress has also included certain provisions in this bill that could interfere with my constitutional authorities in the areas of foreign relations and national security. Section 113 of Division H requires the Secretary of Defense to notify the Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress 30 days in advance of "any proposed military exercise involving United States personnel" that is anticipated to involve expenditures of more than $100,000 on construction. Language in Division I, title I, under the headings International Organizations, Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities, disallows the expenditure of funds "for any United Nations peacekeeping mission that will involve United States Armed Forces under the command or operational control of a foreign national," unless my military advisers have advised that such an involvement is in the national interest, and unless I have made the same recommendation to the Congress. In approving this bill, I reiterate the understanding, which I have communicated to the Congress, that I will apply these provisions in a manner consistent with my constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.”

According to the United States Constitution Article1 Section 8 Congress alone has the power "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; to raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years".

With respect to authority as Commander in Chief, Article 2 Section 2 states “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States”.

The constitution is clear that the congress has the power to send the military to war and to make appropriations for the military, not the president. I fail to see how this could interfere with his constitutional authorities.

However, in 2001 John Yoo wrote an opinion titled "THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM". in it he concluded "In light of the text, plan, and history of the Constitution, its interpretation by both past Administrations and the courts, the longstanding practice of the executive branch, and the express affirmation of the President's constitutional authorities by Congress, we think it beyond question that the President has the plenary constitutional power to take such military actions as he deems necessary and appropriate to respond to the terrorist attacks upon the United States on September 11, 2001. Force can be used both to retaliate for those attacks, and to prevent and deter future assaults on the Nation. Military actions need not be limited to those individuals, groups, or states that participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon: the Constitution vests the President with the power to strike terrorist groups or organizations that cannot be demonstrably linked to the September 11 incidents, but that, nonetheless, pose a similar threat to the security of the United States and the lives of its people, whether at home or overseas. (32) In both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution, Congress has recognized the President's authority to use force in circumstances such as those created by the September 11 incidents. Neither statute, however, can place any limits on the President's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response. These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make." This claim gives the president the power to use military force whenever he deems necessary. Is this what the constitution says?

John Jay, the first chief justice of the United States, noted in Federalist No. 4 that “absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal.”

James Madison, widely known as the father of the Constitution, might have been more skeptical. “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.... [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and ... degeneracy of manners and of morals.... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

When they drafted the Constitution, Madison and his colleagues wrote their skepticism into the text. In Britain, the king had the authority to declare war, and raise and support armies, among other war powers. The framers expressly rejected this model and gave these powers not to the president, but to Congress.

The Constitution does make the president “commander in chief,” a title President Bush often invokes. But it does not have the sweeping meaning he suggests. The framers took it from the British military, which used it to denote the highest-ranking official in a theater of battle. Alexander Hamilton emphasized in Federalist No. 69 that the president would be “nothing more” than “first general and admiral,” responsible for “command and direction” of military forces.

We have heard a lot lately about the president making statements about usurping congressional authority, including items on youtube. In recent remarks he said “Now, I’ve said I will continue to look for every opportunity during the course of this year to work with Congress to move this country forward and create jobs.  But we can’t wait. When Congress -- whenever this Congress refuses to act in a way that hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, I’ve got an obligation as President to do what we can without them. I’ve got an obligation to work on behalf of you and the American people. I’m not going to let members of Congress put party ideology ahead of the people that they were elected to serve -- not when there's this much at stake.”

Again at Shaker Heights High School in Ohio on January 4^th 2011 he said “But when Congress refuses to act, and as a result, hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, then I have an obligation as President to do what I can without them. “ This is clearly in response to his appointment of Richard Cordray without the approval of congress.

"The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing."

John Adams

"We the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts--not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

Abraham Lincoln

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation."

President James Madison (1751-1836) speech, Virginia Convention, 1788

Coates files bill to create Guest Worker Program

Coates files bill to create Guest Worker Program

Press Release

In an effort to stimulate Oklahoma’s economy and allow the state to be more competitive with out-of-state companies, Sen. Harry Coates filed the Oklahoma Guest Worker Program Act Monday. Senate Bill 995, which is similar to Utah efforts, would allow illegal immigrants to legally work in the state providing a boost to sales and tax revenues. The bill will stop workers from continuing to flee to surrounding states such as Texas as well as attract hundreds of workers back to jobs that are chronically unfilled in the state.

“Since the passage of House Bill 1804, we’ve seen a mass exodus of undocumented immigrants who have taken up residence in Texas and other surrounding states where they pump millions of dollars into those economies,” said Coates, R-Seminole. “House Bill 1804 did little more than put Oklahoma companies at a disadvantage by sending dedicated, knowledgeable workers to competing companies in other states. Losing that workforce has been devastating for many of Oklahoma’s industries including agriculture, energy and construction.”

Coates explained that out-of-state companies are now coming to Oklahoma, competing for and winning contracts with the workforce that was driven out of the state by HB 1804. He pointed to the 2010 hail storms in Oklahoma City where much of the repair work was performed by Texas companies, simply because in-state businesses could not supply an adequate workforce.

“While the authors of HB 1804 perhaps originally had good intentions, we’re seeing that the bill has put millions of dollars in the pockets of out-of-state companies who have eagerly welcomed the workforce we chased away,” said Coates. “Until the federal government steps up and passes meaningful immigration reform, we’re only shooting ourselves in the foot by not figuring out a way to keep these workers, who contribute so much to our economy.”

Under Coates’ bill, the state Department of Labor would administer the program which would allow undocumented individuals, 18 years of age or older, to stay in the state legally if they purchase a guest worker permit for $2,000. Individuals would also have to find a guest worker program sponsor who would agree to hire them as well as provide them with basic health insurance coverage. Should a worker lose his or her job, they would have 30 days to find another employer to sponsor them.

In order to be eligible, workers would have to agree to a criminal background check and not have a felony on their record. They would also have to provide a residential address as well as a phone number in order for officials to be able to keep in contact with them.

SB 995 would also establish an immediate family permit that would provide protection to the immigrant’s immediate family members including spouses and children. Each family member would be required to purchase a permit for $500.

Coates explained his bill would accomplish several things. First, it would provide a way for undocumented individuals to legally work here and provide for their families as well as contribute to Oklahoma’s economy. Second, it would allow the state to track illegal immigrants. Next, it would hold businesses that hire undocumented individuals accountable and mandate severe penalties for those who do not follow the law. Businesses found violating the new law would face a $5,000 fine, per individual, for each incident of noncompliance. Lastly, it would provide health benefits to undocumented workers, saving taxpayers from having to pay for the medical costs of emergency room visits. Often that is the only place illegal immigrants can get medical care being that doctors are constitutionally required to treat anyone seeking help regardless of their citizenship status.

“The federal government won’t take care of the immigration issue so it’s up to the states. This program is about supporting good, hardworking people and their families while avoiding any financial burden on taxpayers. All they want is to earn a living and provide for their families and this bill would help them do that without fear of being deported,” said Coates. “By stimulating our local economies this program will generate additional jobs and business opportunities for all Oklahomans. It’s a win-win for the state and these families.”

The federal government would need to grant a waiver to allow for the Oklahoma Guest Worker Permit Program.

Difference between Oklahoma and Utah Guest Worker Program legislation:

- SB 995 requires an employer sponsor

- SB 995 dictates permit fees and penalties for noncompliance

- SB 995 limits the definition of immediate family to spouses and children

- SB 995 allows for revocation of permits for workers convicted of a felony as well as any immediate family members convicted of a felony

Additional notes on the bill

The person applying for the permit will be covered by a basic health insurance plan, and agree to have no medical debt that is past due during the term of the permit; and provide evidence satisfactory to the Department that the undocumented individual will not drive a motor vehicle in the state.

An application fee of $2,000.00 and a $2,000.00 for the guest worker permit; and an application fee of $500.00 for each qualifying immediate family member for an immediate family member permit must be paid.

The permit lasts two years.

The author Senator Coates is a construction consultant whose firm operates throughout the United States and the Caribbean. He has worked in the construction industry for more than 40 years.

Senate Task Force on Comprehensive Tax Reform completes final report

OKLAHOMA CITY –The task force charged with recommending reforms in Oklahoma’s tax system has completed its work. Copies of the report were given to Gov. Mary Fallin, President Pro Tempore Brian Bingman and Speaker Kris Steele on Friday.

Senator Mike Mazzei served as Co-chair of the task force. He told the governor and legislative leaders that as they and members of the Legislature consider the panel’s proposals, it was his hope that the taxpayers of Oklahoma would be the main priority throughout the process.

“The non-partisan Tax Foundation has rated Oklahoma’s overall tax structure 30th in the nation when rating our job creation environment,” said Mazzei, R-Tulsa. “We must transform the tax code; it is simply wrong when a special interest group benefits from an obsolete or ineffective tax preference at the expense of hardworking Oklahomans who deserve to keep more of their hard-earned income.”

The report includes recommendations on reforms which will enable reductions in the top income tax rate from 5.25 to 4.75 percent over a two-year period as well as reducing corporate income taxes from 6 to 5 percent. Additional recommendations would offset those reductions through the elimination of select tax credits and a thorough review of existing tax preferences with an expectation of reduction or elimination of a number of tax credits.

Sen. Rick Brinkley, R-Owasso, served as Vice-chair of the task force.

“These reforms are aimed at simplifying tax law and reducing rates for individuals and businesses,” Brinkley said. “The overall goal is to grow our economy while continuing to make crucial investments in core government services such as education, transportation and public safety,” Brinkley said.

The final recommendation of the task force stresses that other important reforms must be examined should the Legislature consider making Oklahoma a no income tax state.

Throughout the interim, the task force heard from a variety of speakers, including representatives from the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, the Oklahoma Policy Institute, the National Conference of State Legislatures, state and local chambers of commerce, economists, specialists in tax and business law and the National Federation of Independent Business.

“I want to thank the members of the task force and all those who participated for their hard work throughout this process,” Mazzei said. “This report is a blueprint that will benefit Oklahomans while attracting the jobs and businesses that will result in the kind of economic development necessary to boost per capita income and quality of life throughout our state.”

Federal Government Overreach Setting Record with Proposed Talking & Texting Ban

Terrill: Federal Government Overreach Setting Record with Proposed Talking & Texting Ban

OKLAHOMA CITY (December 15, 2011) – Federal efforts to force states to ban all forms of talking and texting while driving, regardless of circumstances, disrespects the ability of citizens to govern themselves, state Rep. Randy Terrill said today.

“The U.S. Constitution makes clear that the federal government has specifically enumerated and limited powers with all other issues relegated to state governments,” said Terrill, R-Moore. “If this talking and texting initiative stands, then is there anything out of bounds for the federal government?”

Terrill’s comments came in response to reports that the National Transportation Safety Board is attempting to coerce all states into imposing total bans on texting, emailing or chatting while driving.

“States certainly have the power to take up this issue and enforce those laws within their borders,” Terrill said. “However, the federal government’s recent efforts to bully, harass, intimidate and threaten states into taking particular actions must stop.”

According to the Associated Press, 35 states and the District of Columbia already ban texting while driving, and another nine states ban hand-held cell phone use. In addition, 30 states ban all cell phone use for beginning drivers.

“Clearly, this issue is not being ignored by state lawmakers, and it obviously is not a proper function of the federal government, so I have to ask why the current federal administration would prioritize texting bans over its actual duties, such as national security.”

It is believed the National Transportation Safety Board’s recommendations could ultimately be imposed by withholding federal road funds from states that do not comply with the federal edict.

Terrill noted the proposed talking-and-texting ban follows passage of the deeply unpopular federal health care law, which independent studies have shown will increase consumer costs and reduce access to quality health care.

“In my adult lifetime, I have never seen the federal government overreach to the extent we are seeing today,” Terrill said. “From the passage of ObamaCare, to the federal government suing states that enforce federal immigration laws within their borders, to this national talking and texting ban, it seems there’s no area of our lives that the federal government is not trying to control – all at the expense of our personal freedom and liberty as well as states’ rights.”