May
29
If only government would do the same
Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
A New York Times article reprinted on CNBC’s website talks about a family in California dealing with a reduction in income due to the husband’s employment for the state. While I’m not exactly sure why it’s considered news that a family has to cut back, it at least shows a difference between how families deal with money issues and how government does.
When a family has less money coming in, it reduces spending. When state government has less money coming in, it gets money from the federal government. When the federal government has less money coming in, it borrows and worries about the cost later.
When a family faces a financial setback, it sets priorities for what it wants to spend money on and finds ways to achieve that by altering spending habits or reverting to an option that doesn’t cost as much. When state government faces a financial setback, it increases funding in some places, cuts in others and makes up the difference with federal money that it will have to fill in later out of its own pocket. When the federal government faces a financial setback, it borrows and worries about the costs later.
See a pattern developing here?
Obviously it’s easier to handle a family budget of less than a$100,000 than it is a state budget of $7-billion or a federal budget of $3-trillion. But there’s also much more room for cutting in a state or federal budget.
Here’s hoping that at some point real soon, the federal government will follow the pragmatic steps taken by families all over the country and examine every expense to determine if it’s needed and if so, whether it can be done for less.
May
28
As you may have heard, California is in a spot of trouble with its budget. Not only is state spending $24-billion more than projected revenues, but an ill-conceived plan of higher taxes was soundly defeated at the polls.
This led the Oklahoma Policy Institute, a local left-wing group, to wonder what Oklahoma can learn from California. I say instead, California should be learning from us.
In their blog posting from yesterday, the institute suggests that part of California’s problem is that it has legislative term limits which reduces the institutional knowledge about the budget and a super-majority is required to raise taxes. That leads the blog’s author to state:
We should be more careful about relying on short-term fixes, making policy through initiatives driven by special interests, and maybe rethink state question 640 and term limits.
Yes, you read that right. According to the Oklahoma Policy Institute, the two things for Oklahoma to learn from California’s problems are eliminating term limits and allowing lawmakers to raise taxes more easily.
It’s easy to compare Oklahoma and California because with a population of 36-million, California is ten times the size of Oklahoma. The budget just passed by the Oklahoma legislature spends just over $7-billion including stimulus funds. California’s current budget spends $103-billion. Do you see the problem there? A state with ten times as many people wants to spend nearly 15-times as much money. THAT is the problem.
Perhaps the most disturbing section of the Oklahoma Policy Institute’s blog post is this one:
California is one of 16 states that requires a super-majority vote to increase taxes. So is Oklahoma, thanks to State Question 640. According to Prah, this requirement makes it harder to modernize the tax code to keep up with the changing economy and growing public expectations.
Apparently “modernizing the tax code” means raising taxes according to the Oklahoma Policy Institute. And I don’t know what the public expects in California, but in Oklahoma it expects government to live within its means and keep taxes low. I imagine that’s why 56% of voters approved State Question 640 in the first place.
Instead of Oklahoma looking to California for lessons to learn, why not have California look to Oklahoma for actions to follow? First, require spending to be no more than 95% of projected revenues so that there is a built-in cushion for difficult economic times. Second, have any surplus funds diverted into a Rainy Day Fund that can only be tapped during an economic downturn, not whenever lawmakers want it. Third, provide some tax relief to help Californians cope with difficult eceonomic times.
And just to show there are no hard feelings, I will point out one area where OFRG and the Oklahoma Policy Institute agree:
The upcoming State Question 744 will give us the opportunity to guarantee funding for education at great potential expense to all of our other public structures.
Although you can eliminate the word potential. State Question 744 would most certainly be a huge expense for all other areas of government, to the tune of $938-million in cuts to non-education agencies.
May
27
Initiative petition reform success!
Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
It’s with great pleasure that we announce Governor Henry has signed Senate Bill 800, an important reform to the initiative petition process in Oklahoma.
In a nutshell, the bill requires that any legal challenges to the wording of a proposed initiative come at the beginning of the process, once it has been filed with the Secretary of State and before signatures are gathered. Too often, a petition would get challenged after time and money had been spent gathering signatures and all that work was thrown out on a legal technicality. By moving that process to the beginning, it ensures that when you’re gathering signatures, it is for a petition that has already passed legal muster.
We commend Governor Henry for signing this common-sense reform. Kudos also go out to the bill’s author, Sen. Anthony Sykes (R-Moore) and Rep. Jason Murphey (R-Guthrie) who carried it in the House.
Another important initiative petition reform bill is still on the Governor’s desk awaiting his signature. House Bill 2246 increases the time to gather signatures from 90-days to a year, provides some protections for signature gatherers from protesters and creates a task force that will look at the state’s initiative and referendum laws and suggest more improvements for next session.
HB 2246 is a very important bill to get signed because Oklahoma’s 90-day window to gather signatures is the second-shortest in the country. One year is now the standard among states that allow citizen-initiated petitions. Call Governor Henry and let him know you want him to sign House Bill 2246. His number is (405) 521-2342. You can also click here to send him a message through his website. The deadline for the governor to sign the bill is June 7th.
May
20
Flawed budget process rears its ugly head
Filed Under Uncategorized | 1 Comment
Appropriations bills have started getting heard in the House and Senate and it again shows the problem with the way the budget is developed in this state. I lost track of the number of times I heard on the House Floor yesterday complaints that an appropriations bill was too large or too small and the response was “this is what came out of the agreement with the Governor, Speaker and Senate President Pro Tem.”
When you only have three people deciding the budget, you’re going to have more than a hundred others wondering if it’s the best way. By the time it comes up for a vote, nothing can really be changed because adding money in one place would require taking it out of another and you can only deal with one bill at a time. All the time wasted by the legislature this year - meeting only four days a week, nothing happening during Spring Break, sessions lasting an hour or less - could have and should have been spent going over the existing budget to find areas to cut and debating how to spend the limited funds available.
Here’s hoping that lawmakers use the interim to look at other ways to prepare a budget. Preferably one that is more thorough and transparent.
May
19
It’s been a big day in the State house of Representatives for OFRG’s policy agenda. Two important bills that reform the intiative petition process have passed.
One of them, Senate Bill 800, moves on to the governor for his signature. It requires that any legal challenges to a petition’s title happen early in the process. By getting it out of the way early, it ensures that the time and money spent on collecting signatures will not be wasted on a legal technicality. Last-minute legal challenges are a too-common tactic used to prevent a petition from getting on the ballot.
The other, House Bill 2246, has to go to the Senate for a vote before moving on to the Governor’s desk. It has a couple provisions, the most important of which is extending the period to collect signatures to one year instead of 90-days. Oklahoma’s signature collecting period is second-shortest in the nation among states that allow citizen initiatives. Such a short period means that only large, well-funded groups can mass the money and manpower to get an initiative on the ballot. HB 2246 also allows for out-of-state signature gatherers, requires any signature gatherer to register with the Secretary of State’s office and provides some protections to those who gather signatures from protesters that oppose their petition.
Along with term limits, initiative petition reform was a top policy agenda item for OFRG this session and it feels good to see it so close to reality. But it’s not reality yet. You need to let Governor Henry know that the people deserve better access to their fundamental right of petitioning their government.
Call the Governor’s office at (405) 521-2342 or, in Tulsa at (918) 581-2801. You can also message the governor by clicking here. Tell him to sign Senate Bill 800 and House Bill 2246!
May
18
Workers Comp Judges reform one step closer to a vote of the people
Filed Under Uncategorized | 1 Comment
Since the Governor vetoed the idea, the people will have the final say over whether Worker’s Compensation judges should be subject to Senate Confirmation after being nominated. We called on the Governor to sign the original legislation, but he declined, claiming it would lead to a highly-politicized gridlock as seen with how federal judgeships are handled.
The only problem with that, of course, is that right now, every other state judge faces some sort of accountability whether it’s the direct election of District Judges or the appearance of Supreme Court and Civil Appeals Court judges on the ballot to retain their position.
Despite the Governor’s veto of the previous bill, the measure to put it on the ballot did receive bipartisan support. Now it goes to the Senate where we hope it passes just like the original bill did. Then it will be up to the people to decide how government should operate: the same old way or with a bit more accountability.
We’ll take more accountability.
May
15
You may have noticed that there is one week left in this legislative session and we still have no budget to look at. Oklahoma is also on the list of states that has not submitted a plan on how to spend so-called stabilization funds. Those two problems are related.
It’s the use of federal stimulus money that is holding up the budget process and because there’s no budget, no plan could be sent to Washington. Instead of passing a state budget based on projected state revenue and adding federal stimulus money for one-time expenses, we hear that Governor Henry wants to load up the budget with federal dollars. Not only would that take away an excellent opportunity to get rid of wasteful spending in state government, it would end up growing state government with money that won’t be available next year. That means either more drastic spending cuts for 2011 or some sort of revenue increase to fill in the gaps.
Since Oklahoma’s “share” of the stimulus is over $2-billion, you can see that spending that on growing government will far outstrip the means to fill it in with state money next year. Heck, even the $575-million in “stabilization” funds would be difficult to make up simply by growing the economy in one year.
This an example of failed leadership by Governor Henry and State Treasurer Scott Meacham to create this problem over a desire to accept stimulus money. It would be far better to reject the funds that can’t be used for one-time expenses and be an example to other states of fiscal responsibility. The state is approaching the point of no return. Failure to get a budget in the next week could result in a special session or even a shutdown of state government.
All because the federal government decided to spend well beyond its means.
May
14
Here at OFRG, we understand that lawsuit reform has been a contentious issue for many years, so getting to a point where there’s a bill with bipartisan support is a good thing. But it is also important that one provision of the bill be closely monitored to protect taxpayers as much as possible.
As mentioned in our statement, the bill creates a task force that will look at how to pay for a $20-million indemnity fund. The legislature recommends an insurance policy cover the amount with premiums paid for with tax dollars.
Our statement was meant to bring attention to the issue of the caps on non-economic damages and the indemnity fund idea which would pay for damage awards inexcess of $400,000. OFRG wants to make sure that as the Task Force meets, it takes into consideration the use of tax dollars and tries to minimize it as much as possible.
We want to make the state more business-friendly while at the same time protecting taxpayer dollars.
May
13
Broken record
Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
I’ve lost track of how many times we have called for changes to the state budget process. But with 10-days left in the legislative session* there is still no budget agreement to scrutinize and debate. So all we have to talk about is the process, not the actual budget.
A familiar refrain I hear is that because of federal stimulus dollars being involved, the budget process is that much harder. But that should not be the case.
In order for a stimulus to actually stimulate, it has to be above and beyond the state budget, not a part of it. The state budget should be prepared as if there is no federal stimulus money available at all. And then what federal money does come in should go towards one-time spending.
What I fear is that stimulus money is going towards keeping existing projects alive. While perhaps a noble intent, the problem will come next year when those federal stimulus dollars aren’t there anymore and the state will have to pick up the tab.
If you’re setting your family budget based on winning the lottery, you are in for a shock. And if you’re setting up the family budget for next year assuming you’re going to get the same bonus that the boss is giving you this year, that’s a mistake, too.
The State Department of Transportation did a wonderful job preparing for stimulus money. It listed projects it was going to do with the money, projects above and beyond what was already in the works for this year. ODOT is not assuming that more money is coming next year.
The legislature has known since the end of February how much money would be available to spend from state revenues. It should develop it’s budget based on that and add federal stimulus money only where it can be used for one-time projects. If they’d done that, the budget could have even made the April 1st deadline for education funding.
(*note that the legislative session is supposed to run until the last Friday in May, but both the House and Senate passed resolutions to pack it up a week earlier this year in order to meet for the mandated 16 weeks instead of 17)
May
12
On Monday, state lawmakers held a press conference heralding a compromise on lawsuit reform. But the fine print may end up costing state taxpayers. The article in the Oklahoman explains it this way:
The agreement sets a noneconomic cap of $400,000 for all negligence cases, but the cap may be lifted if a judge or jury determines there’s a permanent physical injury, some kind of catastrophic injury or gross negligence or recklessness, Coffee said.
HB 1603 called for a noneconomic cap of $300,000 in negligence cases.
In cases involving physicians, the cap will be lifted by the same criteria but must be found “by a clear and convincing evidence,” which is a higher standard, Coffee said.
If the cap is lifted, the measure would have a delayed effective date of May 1, 2011, Coffee said.
Plans call for the state to set up an indemnity fund that would pay jury awards above the $400,000, he said. An annual cap would be $20 million, he said.
Rep. Daniel Sullivan, R-Tulsa, said a task force is being formed to look at the state possibly buying a $20 million insurance policy to provide money for the indemnity fund. The policy’s premiums would be paid with state general revenue funds, he said.
The annual cost of the premiums is not known.
So let me get this straight… somebody sues a company and is awarded a million dollars in non-economic damages. Instead of the negligent company paying the million, the company pays $400-thousand and the state pays $600-thousand? And if the award is $10-million, then the state is out $9.6-million?
And what happens to the state’s premiums when it has successive years of paying out the entire $20-million? I certainly hope we get answers to questions like the cost of the premiums well before this bill comes to the floor for a vote. This sounds like state lawmakers trying to get some sort of tort reform passed just so they can trumpet an accomplishment at the expense of the taxpayer.
-
Homepage
