• Search for:

• Archives

  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008

Drew Edmondson, a man who wants to be the leader of Oklahoma, is once again using his powers as Attorney General to confuse voters by changing language of ballot initiatives set to be up for a vote in 2010.  You may remember that Edmondson changed the language of the term limits ballot measure making it sound like it did not allow any re-elections.  Well, he’s done it again with two other measures.

Senate Joint Resolution 13 passed overwhelmingly in the Senate (42-2) and the House (78-17) and is now known as State Question 750.  It changes the calculation for the number of signatures needed to put a measure on the ballot, basing it on the last race for Governor in stead of alternating between the last presidential election and the last gubernatorial election.  Here’s what lawmakers wanted you to see on the ballot.

This measure would amend Section 2 of Article 5 of the State Constitution. Under current law, eight percent of the voters must sign an initiative petition for a legislative measure. Fifteen percent must sign for a constitutional amendment. These percentages are based on the state office receiving the highest number of votes at the last General Election. This measure would make the percentage based on the number of votes cast at the last General Election for the Office of Governor.

Seems easy enough to understand, but not to Drew Edmondson who felt it was “not written on the 8th Grade reading comprehension level” and did “not adequately explain the effect of the proposition.  So instead, he offered this language which will appear on ballots in 2010:

This measure amends a section of the State Constitution. The section deals with initiative petitions. It also deals with referendum petitions. It deals with how many signatures are required on such petitions. It changes that requirement.

“Initiative” is the right to propose laws and constitutional amendments.  “Referendum” is the right to reject a law passed by the Legislature.

The following voter signature requirements apply.

8% must sign to propose law
15% must sign to propose to change the State Constitution.
5% must sign to order a referendum.

These percentages are based upon the State office receiving the most total votes at the last General Election. The measure changes this basis. The measure’s basis uses every other General Election. General Elections are held every two years. The Governor is on the ballot every four years. The measure’s basis only uses General Elections with the Governor on the ballot.

The President is on the ballot in intervening General Elections. The measure’s basis does not use General Elections with the President on the ballot.

More votes are usually cast at Presidential General Elections. Thus, the measure would generally have a lowering effect on the number of required signatures.  

 

That’s right, Drew Edmondson took five sentences and turned it into 21 sentences.  What effect do you think that will have?  Do you think that might cause some people to just vote no after getting halfway through it?  Drew Edmondson may be counting on that.

Now let’s look at what the legislature proposed in House Joint Resolution 1014 which passed the Senate 26-22 and the House 65-29.  It’s designed to oppose any effort to take the power of allocating funds away from the State Legislature.  As you can see, it basically states that you can’t base how much Oklahoma spends in an area like education on what other states spend on education:

This measure amends the Oklahoma Constitution. It would add a new Section 55A to Article 5. It relates to the state budget. It relates to the ability of the Legislature to spend money each year. It would allow the Legislature to make decisions about the state budget. The Legislature would be able to decide how much money to spend each year. The Legislature would not be required to spend a certain amount of money for any one government service or function. If this amendment is adopted, the Oklahoma Constitution could not require the Legislature to do this. If this amendment is adopted, the Oklahoma Constitution could not require the Legislature to make spending decisions based on how much money any other state spent.

Again, this seems pretty easy to understand, but not for Drew Edmondson who wants to change it to the following:

This measure amends the Oklahoma Constitution. It would add a new Section 55A to Article 5.  The Legislature designates amounts of money to be used for certain functions.  These designations are called appropriations.  The measure deals with the appropriations process.

The measure limits how the Constitution could control that process.  Under the measure, the Constitution could not require the Legislature to fund state functions based on:

1. Predetermined constitutional formulas,

2. How much other states spend on a function,

3. How much any entity spends on a function.

Under the measure these limits on the Constitution’s power to control appropriations would apply even if:

1. A later constitutional amendment changed the Constitution, or

2. A constitutional amendment to the contrary was passed at the same time as this measure.

Thus, under the measure, once adopted, the measure could not be effectively amended.  Nor could it be repealed.

Wow!  That’s a mouthful!  What the legislature said in nine sentences, it takes Drew Edmondson 15 including the five numbered phrases.

You tell me which is easier for an 8th grader to comprehend.  Does the Attorney General have a panel of 8th Graders ready at a moment’s notice to read the language?  And if less than half of them can’t understand it, he changes it? 

Is it just an arbitrary way for a politician to try to confuse the matter or is it Drew Edmondson trying to defeat ballot measuers he opposes before they even get to a vote of the people?

An interesting story in The Washington Post today about whether the American taxpayer will break even on its bailout/takeover of General Motors.  The answer is yes, provided the company becomes worth more than it ever has.  And somehow, this is supposed to happen by 2012.

The Post then showed graphically how this would come about:

According to the article:

The company’s own internal analysis, prepared by Evercore Partners and presented to the company’s board on May 31, shows how the government could recover its investment. According to that presentation, the equity value of the company in 2012 will range from $59 billion to $77 billion. If the stock value rises to the high end of that range, the U.S. could recover all of its investment.

If GM is only three years away from becoming worth more than it has ever been (at its peak in 2000, the company’s stock was valued at $56-billion), why did the government have to bail it out in the first place?

Makes you wonder if Oklahoma taxpayers will be getting a nice dividend check in the mail once GM makes all this money.  It also makes you wonder if the government can do so well with GM why the deficit can only be cut in half by 2012 instead of eliminated altogether.

It’s kind of a shame when countries that were under Communist rule just 20-years ago are taking actions that put America to shame, but Hungary is cutting income taxes.  Not only that, but the government will be reducing its budget deficit from 3.9% of GDP to 3.8%.  By comparison, the U.S. budget deficit this year is expected to be over 10% of GDP thanks to bailouts and stimulus packages.

Oklahoma could stand to learn from Hungary as well, especially in light of some left-wing groups calling for the abandonment of already planned tax cuts and using Rainy Day Funds to increase state spending.  Just like Oklahoma families have to do more with less during a recession, so should the government. 

In a little over a month, Oklahoma will celebrate yet another Back-to-School Sales Tax Holiday.  Some lawmakers were so scared of this idea that they made sure there was a safety net in place so that if tax collections in a county dropped during that weekend, the state would make up the difference.  Do you know how much the state has paid out for that safety net?  Zero.  Eliminating the sales tax on certain clothing items actually resulted in an increase in spending on all items, including those that are taxed.

Hard to believe, then, that the first reaction to a recession is to either raise taxes or increase government spending.  Hungary has the right view at the moment that tax cuts and less spending are the answer and the U.S. and Oklahoma would do well to follow its lead.

The saying in the computer programming world is that there are three options: fast, accurate and cheap and you can choose two.  This comes to mind as Congress is planning a vote tomorrow on a 1,200 page Energy Bill that has been developed behind closed doors.  That’s about the same length as the stimulus bill which was also passed hastily and was by no means cheap.

What purpose could it possibly serve to pass this on Friday as opposed to Monday or next Friday or after Labor Day?  Don’t get me wrong, I’m all in favor of lawmakers working hard and getting things done, but not at the expense of voting on a bill they - or the public - haven’t read.

Reading a page a minute, it would take 20-hours just to read the entire bill.  And that doesn’t count the time it takes to comprehend something like a cap-and-trade proposal for emissions.  It’s not unlike Oklahoma’s budget process where a few legislative leaders and the Governor’s office craft a budget deal and present it to the public in the last week of the session when there’s no time for a debate or meaningful discussion.  It completes a task, but is certainly not a very open process that allows for public input.

The planet is not going to burn to a cinder in the next couple months if Congress waits until September to vote on the Energy Bill.  Let’s get a final version out there for everyone to read, take a couple months to look at its effects and then bring it up for a vote.  Otherwise, there’s a good chance the bill will be fast, but not very accurate and by no means cheap.

More information has come in to OFRG about federal stimulus money being spent in Oklahoma.

The Department of Human Services wrote:

$12,529,217.00 of the $19,548,083.75 is the refund of Federal Medicaid Assistance Program [FMAP] from Oklahoma Health Care Authority (OHCA) for the quarter ending Dec. 31, 2008.  Based upon a state legislative resolution, this funding is earmarked to fund shortfalls in appropriation for state fiscal year 2010, not this year.  (Effective April 1, 2009, the state matching rate changed because of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act [ARRA], resulting in a lower state share match that will also be used to fund shortfalls in State Fiscal Year 2010).  
 
$7,018,866.75 of the $19,548,083.75 is additional Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funding that went directly to SNAP client in April.  These funds are part of the 13.6 percent increase in SNAP benefit payments that started April 1, 2009.
 
Additional refunds will be received of FMAP by OHCA for the quarters after Dec. 31, 2008 and also ARRA funding based upon unemployment percentages for all quarters since Oct. 1, 2008.  These funds will also be earmarked to fund shortfalls in appropriation for state fiscal year 2010.
 
OKDHS continues to receive ARRA funding for SNAP support reimbursement in regular federal draw downs.  These funds will fluctuate based on client service usage.

The Department of Corrections also conacted OFRG about its very small stimulus award:

We received the $7,412 from the Healthcare Authority reflecting a retroactive adjustment of the State’s Medicaid FMAP for the quarter ending December 31, 2008. The Healthcare Authority has notified us to not expect to receive any similar additional funds. In other words,  the federal legislation reduced the amount necessary for state match on Medicaid for calendar year 2009 after the fact, we received a credit.

OFRG also talked with the State Department of Education about its stimulus dollars.  There is a lot of information on the DOE website about the stimulus dollars it has received.  It will also be issuing quarterly reports with the next one due sometime after June 30th.  We welcome this transparency by the Department of Education, but also hope that there is accountability that the money is being spent by the districts on one-time expenses and not continuing operations.

The biggest problem OFRG had with the state accepting federal stimulus funds is its use to plug budget shortfalls instead of using it for one-time expenses above and beyond the budget.  There will come a time when federal dollars are no longer available and the state will have to make up for that if the money is used to plug holes.  That puts future budgets in peril.  We still have questions about the stimulus money and will continue to ask questions and post the answers we get here, so check back daily!

An editorial in today’s Tulsa World discusses how fees are being raised as a way to get more money for state government.  It notes that legislation from the just-concluded session will raise an extra 58-million in revenue, some of that from new fees.  The last sentence is a key one, though:

As long as current tax policy doesn’t provide for adequately funding essential services, there will continue to be creative and unusual, even debatable, efforts to find the money somehow.

So even if you assume that essential services are not adequately funded, how is the state going to cope with a massive redistribution of funding that would be required if State Question 744 is passed?  What will happen to DHS, the Department of Corrections or SoonerCare if the state is forced to take $938-million out of the rest of the budget to give to the Department of Education?  Since you can’t raise taxes without a supermajority in the legislature or a vote of the people, what kind of fees would have to go up if the HOPE Initiative passes?

Look at what’s happening in California and you can get an idea.  Health care for children may be gone.  The tax deduction for dependents is being cut by 67%.  All of this could be headlines in 2011 with an Oklahoma City dateline instead of Sacramento if State Question 744 passes.  A shift of $938-million represents more than 13% of the state’s budget (including federal stimulus funds).  And when you consider that Common education is about 36% of the budget already, it means that every other agency would have to take a cut of more than 20%. 

What would that do to tuition at OU and OSU?  What would that mean for state prisons?  How many bridges currently planned for replacement would have to wait indefinitely?

OEA tries to put the HOPE Initiative in a good light, but how can you support it when it means a 20% cut for every other state agency?

(Note: The $938-million figure comes from the OEA’s own FAQ page on State Question 744 and is 10% higher than the original figure given of $850-million)

A New York Times article from Sunday talking about the budget problems states are facing barely mentions Oklahoma, and then only to indicate “small but painful” cuts that are being made around the country.  Better to be listed for reducing hours at museums than for having to raise the income tax by 16% like Pennsylvania or raising the sales tax by 25% like the Governor of Massachusetts proposes.

The story is rife with examples of states that are still wrangling over a budget that is due by July 1st, lawmakers at odds over tax increases and spending cuts and state workers forced to take days off without pay.

Is anything like that happening in Oklahoma?  No, thanks to fiscally conservative budgeting and lawmakers that look at the consequences of state spending.  Oklahoma is not perfect.  There is plenty of waste in the budget that can be trimmed.  But looking at the state of the rest of the country, it makes you think we’re on the right track.

Rome wasn’t built in a day, but apparently health care reform only needs a couple months.  President Obama has said he would like a vote on health care reform by Labor Day.  Haven’t we learned over the past year that rushing into somthing with a potential price tag of a trillion dollars or more is not the best solution?

Mike Seney with the State Chamber of Commerce points out in an op-ed today that one of the ideas under consideration for paying for any health reform would be taxing individuals for their employer-paid premiums.  Not only is this something that President Obama derided when he was running for the office, it would violate his promise that 95% of Americans would not see a tax increase since obviously many of the 95% would fall under this new tax.

The debate over health care did not start on Inauguration Day, it’s been going on for many years.  But to come up with a bill in just a few short months seems very short-sighted.  Social Security, for instance, started with a committee of five cabinet officials in the summer of 1934 and did not get passed until the summer of the following year. 

Health care seems a bit more complex than the idea of workers paying into the Social Security system, so it seems that a little more time and a LOT more discussion needs to happen.  That includes hearing ideas from all sectors and all political beliefs.

Oklahoma’s Open Books website is a great source to see how your tax dollars are being spent, but it’s only as good as the information provides.

For example, you can search the vendors registered with the state and see that the first listed, **EBSCO SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES, has been paid $9,250.60 by Eastern Oklahoma State College.  But that’s as far as the information goes.  Taxpayers have no idea what the money actually paid for.  And aside from contacting the university and asking, we may never know.

Which is why we need Open Books 2.0 that has more information about what the money was spent on.  At the very least, the accounting code used for the purchase should be included.  This shouldn’t be too difficult to include since every vendor already has to register with all of the codes applicable to what it sells.  Accounting codes would at least tell us that the money was spent on office space rental, architecturals services or entertainment.  Wouldn’t you want to know if a state agency was spending millions of dollars on entertainment?

In a perfect world, the actual invoice would be included on Open Books so that not only could we see that the state bought computer equipment, we could make sure it was getting a good deal on it.  Oklahoma is at the first level of transparency, but taxpayers want to know more and right now, the state isn’t making that information accessible to them.

A recent editorial in the Tulsa World talked about plans by the Public Service Company of Oklahoma (PSO) to look at variable rate pricing for electricity customers.

We applaud PSO and its parent company, American Electrical Power (AEP), for taking this step and we look forward to hearing a discussion of the issue in front of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.

The way most utilities work now, customers are charged a flat rate, not knowing that the electricity they use at night costs less because of lower demand.  If there is more transparency in pricing, customers have the option of changing their habits in order to take advantage of lower rates.  That means more money in their pockets and less of a burden on the utility during peak hours.

This is not a government mandate, this is a private company choosing to let customers have more control.  Government should allow them to do that.

Next Page →

• Homepage

  • OFRG Homepage
  • 
  
  
  

  • Blogroll

    • McCarville Report
    • OCPA Blog
    • Brandon Dutcher
    • Choice Remarks
    • Batesline
    • Musings of a Muskogee Politico
    • Ron Black
    • GetRightOK.com
    • Fort Hard Knox (Oklahoma)
    • Red Dirt Report
    • Fair and Biased
    • Okie Campaigns
    • Oklahomily
    • Tara Lynn Thompson
    • The Wynn Blog
    • Spotlight OK

  • OFRG RSS feed

  • Follow OFRGnews on Twitter!