Sep
30
Tulsa City Council to decide on stimulus funds for police
Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
On Thursday, the Tulsa City Council will vote on whether to accept $3.5-million in federal stimulus funds for 18 additional police officers. As is the case with nearly all of the stimulus money, there is a catch.
The stimulus dollars cover the salaries of the officers for three years, but by accepting it, Tulsa would promise to keep the officers for a fourth year at their own expense. That’s estimated at $1.3-million. Plus it would cost the city about $400-thousand to train and equip the officers.
No one doubts that having more officers on the street is a good thing. But the whole reason Tulsa applied for the stimulus funds is because the city can’t afford more officers on its own. In fact, the city can’t afford to pay its existing staff, calling for eight furlough days in its budget.
According to the Tulsa World, the city would have to see a 10% increase in sales tax revenues in order to pay for the officers in the fourth year, unless voters approve more taxes.
It’s not an easy decision to make. But part of the reason the country as a whole is in a financial mess is because too many people, companies and governments were counting on good times and limitless increased revenues to pay for things. Everyone hopes that the economy will be in a much better place in four years, but are you willing to bet $1.7-million on that?
Sep
29
An interesting Twitter post by the Oklahoma Education Association today. In case they delete it (something the OEA has a history of), here is what it said:
RT @mhepner: Funding our Children’s Future: My defense of SQ 744 –the plan to increase education funding http://bit.ly/1n5Ifj
In case you’re not familiar with Twitter lingo, RT means re-Tweet. In other words, the OEA is re-posting something that someone else wrote. Usually this is a tacit endorsement of what that person wrote unless you say so. The re-tweet takes you to the blog of Mickey Hepner who advocates for raising taxes to pay for State Question 744!
If, as these SQ744 opponents claim, we have insufficient tax revenue to fund needed government programs, then the solution is a simple one…raise taxes.
It’s funny how the OEA seems to support raising taxes in this instance when, during last week’s interim study, they claimed that the extra $850-million dollar cost (which the OEA admits is actually $938-million) would simply be made up through an increase in state revenues. That claim, by the way, was refuted by House Fiscal staff who says that any increase in revenue will be eaten up by inflation and increased health care costs and that budget cuts or higher taxes are the only solution.
If the OEA supports tax increases, it should come out and admit it. Otherwise it’s in favor of cutting every agency in state government by 20%, putting thousands of criminals on the streets, raising college tuition and increasing the waiting lists for those with mental health, substance abuse and other problems who need state services.
Sep
28
Local control working in Prue
Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
A recent change in state law that calculates the school year on the number of hours of class instead of the number of days resulted in the Prue School Board changing to a four-day week with longer hours in order to save money on transportation and other costs. The results so far appear to be positive.
It’s another example of how the state can allow districts to be flexible instead of requiring every district to teach the same way. What works for Oklahoma City may not work in Prue and vice-versa. So let the individual districts decide what works best for them.
Here’s hoping the experience of Prue will encourage more districts to take advantage of the flexibility provided by the legislature. And here’s hoping the legislature will try to find more areas of flexibility for districts.
Sep
25
The second day of testimony at an interim study on the effects of State Question 744 on the state budget painted an apocalyptic picture of Oklahoma’s future: criminals roaming the streets, waiting lists twice as long for mental health and substance abuse treatment and colleges cancelling courses and laying off faculty and staff.
First to testify was the Oklahoma Council on Public Affairs. Their point is that the way the federal government calculates the cost of educating a child is flawed. For example, the tax dollars that go into the Teachers’ Retirement Fund are not included. Also, the number of students is determined by Average Daily Membership, not Average Daily Attendance. So apparently it still costs the state money to educate children who aren’t there. OCPA had an independent audit of education spending which came up with an average of $10,942 per child. That’s roughly 50% more than tuition at OU for a year, by the way.
It was pointed out that one possible solution for Oklahoma should SQ 744 pass is reducing the number of children in public schools. This could be done by offering a $4,000 voucher for students to attend a private school. Fewer students in public school would mean the average per pupil would go up with no extra money spent. Do you think that’s what OEA’s membership had in mind when its leadership proposed this scheme?
State Transportation Secretary Gary Ridley was the first agency head to talk about how he would deal with a 20% budget cut which would be needed to free up the money to pay for SQ 744’s mandate. Ridley says not only would ODOT be losing state dollars, but since those dollars are leveraged with federal money, it means $400-million taken out of the eight-year plan, enough to replace 200 crumbling bridges.
Commissioner Terri White with the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services says a 20% cut is the kind of thing she worries about at night. She says there would be two choices: affect the fewest people by cutting services to those that need the most expensive treatment or affect the most people by cutting lower-cost services that help prevent problems from becoming expensive. She says waiting lists for residential drug treatment, for example, would be “in the thousands” instead of the hundreds it is right now. And she says the drug court program which is one-quarter of the cost of incarceration, would have to be cut, increasing the prison population.
But that population would already be forced to decrease according to Neville Massey with the Department of Corrections. She says a 20% cut in funding would mean closing eight or nine prisons and releasing more than 8,000 criminals. And since Oklahoma doesn’t have that many low-security prisoners, it would mean some of those in medium-security facilities would be let loose. And if a crime wave results? Well unfortunately, the Department of Corrections would not be able to handle more prisoners.
The Health Care Authority is another agency where state cuts would lead to a loss of federal dollars. CEO Mike Fogarty says a 20% cut in state money would mean $196-million lost plus an additional $343-million in federal funds! So because the state would be forced to spend an additional $850-million on education, it would be losing $540-million in health care dollars alone! How could this possibly be a good thing for Oklahoma?
The Department of Public Safety said that a 20% cut to free up money for State Question 744 would mean over a hundred troopers taken off the streets and a similar number of civilian jobs lost. That means reducing the hours or even closing some driver’s test stations that are already dealing with large crowds. And according to DPS Commissioner Kevin Ward, there is “no doubt highways would not be safer.”
At the Department of Human Services, the effect of the cuts would be larger than in many agencies because some of the programs it has can’t be cut under federal law. Director Howard Hendrick says $95-million of the agency’s $485-million dollar budget would be off-limits, meaning that programs funded with the rest of the money would be cut more than 20%. He says the waiting list for developmentally disabled services would double, “not a pretty picture anybody wants for our state.”
Except, apparently, the OEA.
The final agency head to testify was Higher Ed Chancellor Glen Johnson. His rosy picture of a 20% cut would mean higher tuition, fewer course offerings and faculty and staff layoffs. There would be less money for scholarships, no money for student jobs and buildings paid for with bonds issued in 2005 would have no money for operating them.
As Appropriations and Budget Chairman Ken Miller pointed out in his closing statements, if OEA had included a tax increase to pay for State Question 744, there’s no way it would pass. And if the question included whether voters would approve a 20% cut across-the-board for all agencies except education to pay for it, it would fail miserably.
Thanks to Rep. Leslie Osborn and Rep. Randy McDaniel for requesting this interim study. We hope it provides enough information for Oklahoma voters so they will see the true cost of State Question 744 and realize that it provides the worst possible future for the state.
Sep
23
Thursday morning, the House Appropriations and Budget Committee will again hold a hearing on the effects of State Question 744 on the state’s budget. If you can’t be at the meeting, have no fear because OFRG will be there!
Just like on Tuesday, we’ll provide live, real-time updates on the testimony on Twitter. Follow us at twitter.com/OFRGnews. All of our tweets will use the #744 hashtag so you can join in the conversation by using it in your replies as well. Afterwards, we will again have a blog post with some of the more interesting comments. So it will almost be like you were right there!
Tomorrow’s meeting promises to be an interesting one since representatives of some of the agencies that would face significant cuts if SQ 744 passes will be there to testify. We heard on Tuesday that to make up for the estimated $850-million that would be shifted to Common Education, all agencies would have to take a 20% cut. It will be interesting to hear what Higher Ed, Corrections, DHS and others have to say about what a 20% cut would do to state services.
Sep
23
No sunshine in Congress
Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
It was the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis who famously said that “sunshine is the best disinfectant.” That must mean it’s pretty cloudy and infected in Congress as once again, attempts to require a three-day reading period before voting on a bill have been defeated.
It seems like such a simple concept: Lawmakers need to read a bill and know how much it will cost before voting on it. But somehow, that gets turned into “fundamentally a delay tactic” according to Massachusetts Senator John Kerry.
Sorry that we’re such sticklers for wanting to know the details of a bill, Senator. Especially in light of the last couple measures rushed to a vote that were hundreds of pages long and cost taxpayers well over a trillion dollars.
If the bill is worthy now, it will still be worthy in a couple weeks when a financial analysis is complete and people have had time to read all the fine print. Something this important and this expensive should NOT be rushed.
Sep
22
OFRG attended today’s first interim study hearing on the effects of State Question 744 on the state’s budget. You can read our Twitter stream during the meeting here.
Some of the highlights of the testimony:
Businessman Phillip Busey talked about the need for an integrated educational system that includes Common Education, Higher Ed and Career Tech, but when asked about Career Tech or Higher Ed having to be cut by 20% to give the funding to Common Ed, he said there’s “always a risk in change.” He said businesses find efficiencies when faced with tight budgets and government should be held to the same standard, but when asked point blank if he thought there was $1-billion in efficiencies to be made in the state busget to pay for State Question 744, he said “I don’t know.” Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the plan.Lynn Stockley, a counselor at Booker T. Washington High School in Tulsa was asked whether SQ 744 takes the power of determining education spending out of the hands of legislators and responded, “We have begged and begged for years. It’s a last-ditch effort because we haven’t gotten results. It takes it out of your hands, but it’s come down to: How else are we going to get the funding?”
Elizabeth Vaughan, a school nurse at Nathan Hale High School in Tulsa was asked whether it was fair that agencies like Mental health would be cut to pay for SQ 744. Vaughan’s response? ”We will always have mental health problems in state, but success starts with education of our children.”
OEA Associate Executive Director Joel Robison had some of the most interesting comments. When asked if the calculation of the regional average of per-pupil spending included Oklahoma in the region, Robison responded, “No, because that would lower the average.” He went on to say that when comparing yourself to others, you don’t include yourself.
It’s also important to point out Robison’s testimony that although Oklahoma education spending will be tied to the regional average, state spending would not be allowed to go down if the regional average went down. So apparently the regional average is only important when it comes to raising state spending.
The OEA also rejects the notion that passage of SQ 744 would require either a tax increase or spending cuts. Robison argues that because it would be phased in over three years, there will be enough growth in revenue to pay for it. He points to the fact that over the last 25 years, the state has averaged a 5% growth in revenue each year. What Robison neglected to point out is that inflation wipes out some or all of that revenue gain and that if you look at the past ten years, revenue growth has been much slower.
Rep. Ken Miller, the chair of the committee, pointed out that everyone always talks about how teachers are rushing to Texas, yet Texas has the second-lowest per-pupil spending rate in the region, just $300 higher than Oklahoma’s rate.
State Treasurer Scott Meacham testified, but only to the current economic situation. He did not offer and was not asked for his opinion on what State Question 744 would do to the state budget. A missed opportunity indeed.
Mark Tygret with the fiscal staff of the State House of Representatives provided some scary numbers on what would happen under State Question 744. He disputed OEA’s assertion that growth in revenue would pay for the increase in education spending, calling it “rather risky” to depend on growth of the economy alone.
He says to cover the $850-million estimated cost, lawmakers would have to either cut spending or raise taxes. He estimated the spending cut at 20% across the board for every state agency including those like Higher Ed, Corrections, DHS and the Health Care Authority that were not cut in the current budget. He added that if revenue were to be raised instead of spending cut, it would raise income taxes by 34% or sales taxes by 38% to get the required amount of money. That, of course, assumes that businesses and people wouldn’t leave or change spending habits because of the higher taxes.
Shari Weber, former Majority Leader in the Kansas House of Representatives, talked about how an education spending mandate affected her state. She says the state budget doubled, significant cuts to services were made and the largest tax increase in state history was implemented. Despite this, no significant improvement in student achievement resulted.
The interim study will continue on Thursday with some state agency heads talking to the committee on how they would deal with such large budget cuts. Again, OFRG will be there and will be giving live updates throughout the hearing via Twitter.
Sep
21
Important interim study this week
Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
The House Appropriations and Budget Committee this week will hold two hearings on what happens to the state budget should State Question 744 get approved by voters. SQ 744 is a referendum spearheaded by the Oklahoma Education Association which would require that Oklahoma spend as much on education per pupil as the average of surrounding states. The interim study was requested by Rep. Leslie Osborn (R-Tuttle) who has been working hard to try to raise awareness about the devastating effect SQ 744 will have.
If you think the state is facing budget problems now, just imagine what would happen under State Question 744. By the OEA’s own admission, SQ 744 would force the state to spend $938-million more on education than the $2.5-billion it does right now. SQ 744 does NOT have a funding mechanism, so paying for that cost would mean either raising taxes (which would require another vote of the people or a supermajority in the legislature) or slashing spending to every other state agency by 20-25%. You heard right, every other agency in state government would be cut more than 20% on top of cuts that are happening now.
That means $200-million less for Higher Education. What will that do to tuition rates at state colleges and universities? How many classes will have to be cancelled and faculty or staff laid off to make up for that loss?
The Health Care Authority would lose $170-million. DHS would lose $110-million and the Department of Corrections would see a $100-million drop. In fact, you could eliminate the entire Public Safety and Judiciary component of the state budget ($802-million in FY 2010) and still not save enough to pay for State Question 744.
The interim study will be held at the State Capitol in room 412-C on Tuesday AND Thursday from 10am to 4pm. Some of those scheduled to testify are the OEA, State Treasurer Scott Meacham and agency heads from the Department of Transportation, Higher Ed, DHS and Corrections. OFRG will be attending the meeting and providing updates through Twitter (twitter.com/OFRGnews) and this blog, so if you can’t attend in person, you’ll still be able to follow the testimony.
Sep
18
At last! State updates stimulus funds received by agencies
Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
For the past several months, the state’s recovery website has only listed 13 agencies that received stimulus funds and even for those, the totals were only through April 30th. Well, that has changed now and the list is updated through August 31st:
| Oklahoma State Agency | ARRA Funds Received through 8/31/2009 |
|---|---|
| Oklahoma Military Department | $74,995.00 |
| State Arts Council | $76,700.00 |
| Department of Corrections | $55,738.71 |
| Department of Commerce | $5,794,131.37 |
| District Attorneys Council | $16,414,796.00 |
| Department of Education | $134,238,562.58 |
| Employment Security Commission | $39,423,835.93 |
| Dept of Environmental Quality | $3,092,386.00 |
| State Bureau of Investigation | $25,000.00 |
| Department of Health | $2,069,737.00 |
| Department of Transportation | $92,037,795.38 |
| Office of Juvenile Affairs | $430,353.00 |
| Mental Health & Substance Abuse Services | $1,619,449.00 |
| Physician Manpower Training Commission | $261,330.00 |
| JD McCarty Center | $239,311.00 |
| University of Oklahoma | $34,659.05 |
| OSU College of Osteopathic Med | $627,757.00 |
| Dept of Rehabilitation Service | $198,217.37 |
| Health Care Authority | $258,411,759.96 |
| University Hospitals Authority | $5,358,336.00 |
| Department of Human Services | $72,650,784.51 |
| Water Resources Board | $1,118,693.28 |
| Governor’s State Fiscal Stabilization Funds | $39,770,566.43 |
| Grand Total | $674,024,894.57 |
At OFRG, we are very happy to see this update; something we have sought for months now. It obviously gives a much larger picture of what has been going on and allows for more research to be done on the funds before the first reporting period comes next month. That’s something OFRG is committed to doing.
The list above represents about a quarter of the roughly $2.5-billion in federal stimulus funds expected to come into the state. But it should be noted that much of that is already accounted for, either through the budget or as direct payments to agencies by the federal government. With three times as much set to come in over the next year or so, it’s important to be able to track those dollars.
Sep
16
$850-Billion is still a lot of money
Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
The U.S. Senate finally has a health care reform plan, but it’s still quite costly at $856-billion over ten years. That’s assuming that you believe it’s possible for the government or any entity to predict what will happen to inflation, mortality rates, medical technologies, etc. over the next ten years.
Montana Senator Max Baucus who wrote the bill says it’s deficit neutral which sounds like a good thing, but really isn’t. Deficit neutral just means that it expands government, but finds ways to (supposedly) pay for it. In this case, about $500-billion would come in cuts to government-run health care. The other $350-billion or so would come through higher taxes and fees.
The biggest portion of those fees is a 35% surcharge on insurance premiums that cost $8,000 or more for an individual or $21,000 for a family. It would also require that individuals have health insurance, penalizing those without thousands of dollars as well. Businesses with more than 50 employees would have to pay a fee per employee to the government if they do not offer health insurance.
So the concept of deficit neutrality is based on a lot of assumptions. We have to assume that the costs will not rise any more than predicted, that Congress will actually make the $500-billion in cuts and that taking another $350-billion out of the economy through tax increases doesn’t make the economy worse. That doesn’t sound like a gamble worth taking.
-
Homepage
