One of the Worst Examples of Wasteful Spending

Once in a while, I run across a law that makes my head hurt. A perfect example of one of these laws is Senate Bill 1347 which was signed into law in 2004. To see the effect of this law, I would suggest a drive down Memorial Road at the site of the new Broadway overpass. You will notice a series of elaborately designed artwork to aesthetically improve the new overpass.

Because I represent a growth area where local officials are desperate to fund the construction of roads, I cannot help but think that had the Transportation Department just been allowed to build a normal underpass without all of the associated artwork, the thousands of dollars wasted could be used to pave miles of desperately needy roads. Does anyone seriously think that the state of Oklahoma roads and bridges is so good that we can waste thousands of dollars with artwork on the new bridges?

Senate Bill 1347 requires that 1.5 percent of a construction budget for new buildings or renovations be spent for artwork. A significant number of the state's new construction projects are funded through millions of dollars of debt. This means that generations of Oklahomans could be trying to pay off the bill that comes with these art projects.

Earlier this year, the Director of the State Department of Agriculture testified before an Appropriation Sub-committee upon which I serve. He can point to the fact that a 5 percent reduction in his agency budget is actually a more significant discretionary spending reduction in percentage terms because he cannot lower the bond payments for his building. He stated that the bond/rent payments for his building were going to be very challenging for his department to deal with.

The department's building was recently constructed according to the requirements set forth in Senate Bill 1347. These requirements necessitated the construction of an outdoor plaza with monoliths carved in granite and an accompanying sculpture. The design reflects the work of the department, from livestock to crops to a larger-than-life plow.

In this day, when government taxation is so high and debt at all levels of government is skyrocketing, in my view it is insane to engage in this type of waste. This unfortunate legislative mandate is forcing state agencies to participate in a wasteful spending spree that will haunt Oklahoma policy makers for years to come. The Legislature should right this wrong and repeal the mandate as soon as possible.

Taking Another Stand for States' Rights

This week, the Oklahoma House of Representatives once again voted to support a House Resolution authored by State Representative Charles Key which sends a message to the federal government regarding states' rights. This is Key’s second proposal which has been necessitated by a previous version approved in the House and Senate, but vetoed by the Governor.

The resolution seeks to reassert Oklahoma’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and according to the resolution’s language, serves as “Notice and Demand to the federal government, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.”

The resolution makes a firm statement on behalf of local control.

I continue to firmly support local control because the ability of the people to make a difference is greatly enhanced when the power to change the law is close to the people.

For instance, people have very little opportunity to make a difference in federal policy. They can call their Congressmen or US Senators, but in the big scheme of things, it is hard for even a federal official to change policy because he/she is only one out of several hundred. This means that people have very limited ability to change unfair federal mandates.

On the other hand, people have a little more ability to change policy at the state level. You can call me as your State Representative and I can have some voice in changing egregious policy, because I am 1 out of 149 legislators. In addition, I can sponsor up to eight bills each year in order to reflect the desires of the people I represent. If a parent or teacher is negatively influenced by a bad state mandate, with a lot of effort we can make a difference.

However, if the power is concentrated at the local level of government, then people have a tremendous voice, because they can easily contact their city councilman, county commissioner or school board member. Rarely do these boards have more than 10 members, so it is quite possible and relatively simple for the affected individual to contact every member of the board to make sure their side of the story is heard. If local officials are not responsive to the values presented, the way for people to change policy at that point is simply by voting for a new local official.

I believe that as much power as possible should be placed in the entities that are closest to the people and I believe this was also an important principle to our founding fathers which is why they attempted to make this concept clear in the Tenth Amendment to our country's Constitution.

Another reason the people have a much greater voice at the local level is because powerful special interests and lobbyists have a tremendous investment in federal and state level politicians. At the local level there is very little influence welded by these groups as they can not afford to invest in every local official.

Unfortunately, years of aggressive federal government expansion has eroded these principles and it is my hope that as more states adopt states' right resolutions and laws, we will see the start of a reversal of this trend.

Federal mandates are affecting our lives in a number of ways and in the future I plan to share some of the examples of how the federal bureaucracy's unfortunate regulations are negatively affecting local residents.

Official English Approved - The Final Month of Session

Last week marked yet another deadline by which the House of Representatives and Senate had to take action on legislation or risk having the legislation not be heard this year.

Much debate centered around whether or not the Senate would approve a bill that would allow the people to vote on making English Oklahoma's official language. Due to the insistence of the leadership of the House of Representatives, House author Representative Randy Terrill and Senate author Senator Anthony Sykes, House Resolution 1042 was approved shortly before the Senate's deadline.

It appears there was a significant amount of negotiating between the advocates of a "common English" proposal and those who wanted an "official English" distinction. In the end, the compromise proposal states that all official actions of the state shall be conducted in English, except as required by federal law. The proposal would not limit the use, study or encouragement of American Indian languages and also says that an agency cannot be sued if it cannot provide materials in a language other than English.

The Senate approved the proposal by a vote of 44-2 and it now returns to the House where the House will have the option of accepting the Senate amendments sending the proposal to a vote of the people. I would have preferred a stronger version of the bill.

The Senate also approved five House bills of which I am the author, one of which has been signed into law by the Governor, and four other bills that I will request to be assigned to a conference committee. The House approved four Senate bills that I am authoring, with one going a vote of the people and three going into the conference committee process. In the next four weeks I will be very busy working to refine and advance the seven remaining pieces of legislation.

One of the seven remaining proposals, House bill 1294, would allow Logan County road districts to fund their capital projects without using bonded indebtedness. This is a fantastic concept. I believe that all levels of government entities incur debt too often and pay millions of dollars in unnecessary interest. The savings from implementing House Bill 1294 would stay in the people’s pockets where it belongs.

Another interesting aspect about this bill is that it exposes the fact that state statutes tend to encourage public boards to issue bonded indebtedness. If the no-debt concept can be proven to work in a road district, it might be able to be expanded to cities, counties, public trusts and school boards that wish to fund capital improvements. I am excited that both the House and the Senate have approved this idea and hope to be successfull in achieving final passage.

Also, since we are entering the final phase of session, I will be closing my 2009 constituent survey. The survey is available on at www.housedistrict31.com. I would very much appreciate your input and if you have suggestions on topics you would like to see discussed during my 2009 Town Hall meetings, please submit those suggestions with your survey responses.

The Tea Party And Term Limits

The Tea Party and Term Limits

Those who work at the Capitol on a regular basis become rather accustomed to the large number of groups that hold presentations or demonstrations in support of various issues. However, last week, I think a lot of people were caught off guard by the size of the group that showed up to demonstrate against big government spending. Somewhere in the area of 5,000 people took time out of their busy days to attend the event and I believe their message made a difference.

The very next day, state Representative Mike Reynolds pointed to the group's attendance as a reason the Representatives should support an anti-tax proposal the he was introducing. Reynold's anti-tax measure was subsequently approved by an overwhelming bipartisan vote.

Hopefully this is just a small first step as the people attempt to reassert a sense of fiscal discipline over government. I am very excited to see the people's involvement and certainly hope it will continue.

Another exciting event last week was the final passage of Senate Joint Resolution 12, a resolution for term limits for all statewide elected officials. The passage of the resolution will allow the people to vote on the proposed policy at the next general election.

More than 15 years ago, the people decided overwhelmingly to limit the number of years a state legislator can serve because they believe elected officials should be servants. Voters want their leaders to make sacrifices to serve the people and then go and live under the laws they helped enact. Prior to legislative term limits, many career politicians were part of an elite class who made their life in politics. I believe that the people of Oklahoma want their leaders to be citizen legislators who stay in touch with the real world and who are not just building personal political empires.

Now, with the affirmative vote of the people, we will be able to bring this concept full circle. By placing limits on the terms of statewide officials, we will be declaring that there are no positions in state government where a politician can build his own political empire that will last for years.

I enjoyed to opportunity to serve as the House author of this resolution but I recognize that passage only came about with the support of the leadership of the Oklahoma House of Representatives and the Senate and the hard work of other proponents of this idea, including the two citizen groups, Oklahomans for Responsible Growth and Americans for Prosperity.

The two other legislative members who were also responsible for the passage of the resolution were State Senator Randy Brogdon and former State Representative Trebor Worthen. It was Rep. Worthen who conceived the idea and first introduced it in 2005. Worthen invested a tremendous effort in paving the way for the approval of the resolution and did the groundwork necessary to eventually get it passed. Brogdon supported Worthen as the champion of the bill in the Senate.

Last year, Worthen decided not to seek reelection. Following his departure, I was privileged to step in as the House author of the effort and look forward to seeing the results of the vote on election day.

Adding Even More Debt

Last week, the House approved the issuance of new long-term debt to finance a dam project on the Arkansas River in the Tulsa area. This means that each year, more of your money will be added to the millions of tax payer dollars that are tied down to paying debt and debt interest.

You may remember that last year the Legislature approved a major debt package in the last few days of the legislative session. The Tulsa dam project was one of the issues in this bill. Since that time, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has held that the debt bill was unconstitutional because it "log-rolled" more than one issue into the bill.

I feel that the Court should have also held the bill unconstitutional because it did not allow the people to vote on the bond issuance, which I believe is probably required by our state Constitution in this instance.

In the case of the Tulsa dam project, it is especially egregious because this local project should not involve state dollars. I don't think taxpayers in Logan and Oklahoma Counties should be forced to pay for years on a project that is specific to the Tulsa area. If Tulsa taxpayers want a project in their area, they should pay local taxes for that project.

In fact, the voters in Tulsa were asked to vote on a similar project and they turned it down. So now, unlike some of the recent MAPS improvement projects in the Oklahoma City area which were been paid for with local tax dollars, this key Tulsa area improvement project will be paid for by all Oklahomans.

Adding more debt is especially unwise in a fiscal down year. This debt problem has hit especially close to home this year when the state government will be cutting agency budgets because of the downturn. Recently, agencies’ officials testified to legislative committees about where they would make cuts if the economic downturn forces them to cut their budgets by 5%. Those agencies burdened with long-term debt simply point to the fact that they cannot legally cut their bond payments. In fact, a 5% cut might be more like a 10% to 15% cut in discretionary revenue. In other words, as we have gone through time and more debt has been added to the state government, the ability to shrink government becomes inhibited.

I suppose voters might be able to find comfort in the fact that compared to the federal level counterparts, the long term debt incurrence at the state level is minuscule by comparison.

One of my favorite quotes is from ancient Roman times. "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." In today's world, a great majority of the people have bought into the philosophy that the incurrence of unnecessary debt is no longer something that should be avoided at all costs. I very much disagree with this, and believe that as a society we will pay a heavy price due to the lack of fiscal discipline of our elected officials.

I remain committed to voting against all proposals that incur new debt.

Standing Up for States' Rights

The steps taken in the past few days by Congress to give the federal government nearly 800 billion dollars worth of increased power reminds me of a column I wrote last November. In that article I wrote about the expected expansion of the federal government and how I felt the issue of state's rights could once again be a significant issue in the Oklahoma Legislature this year.

It is important to note that in comparison to state governments, the federal government was created by our founders to be small and limited. This is because the people have a much stronger voice at the state level, whereas the ability of people to effect change is greatly limited at the federal level, and nearly non-existent on the global level of government.

Both political parties have used the expansion of the federal government as a tool to accomplish their various agendas. Now a group of aggressive liberals can use that power not only to move America to the left but to build upon itself and increase in size, making the federal government more expansive and powerful than ever before.

As a result, a bigger federal government will likely be most responsive to those only with enough money and influence to use that power to benefit themselves. This will leave the responsibility for paying for big government to the average taxpayer who cannot afford to invest in lobbyists and politicians in order to manipulate the system for their benefit.

This means that we can expect the federal government to reflect the desires of powerful special interests, liberal politicians and their support groups like ACORN (the possible recipient of 2 billion dollars because of the stimulus bill).

This week the Oklahoma House of Representatives Rules Committee voted unanimously to support House Joint Resolution 1003 authored by State Representative Charles Key. Key's proposal should now be headed to the floor of the House where I look forward to supporting it.

HJR 1003 seeks to reassert Oklahoma’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and according to the resolution’s language, serves as "Notice and Demand to the federal government, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers."

The Tenth Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Representative Key has made it clear that during the last few decades he believes that the Constitution has been hanging by a thread.

While a similar resolution passed with the support of the Oklahoma House during the last session of the Legislature, it appears to have failed to receive a hearing in the Oklahoma Senate. This year, with new leadership in place in the Oklahoma Senate, I am hopeful HJR 1003 will receive a fair hearing.

I consider it an honor to support Rep. Key's efforts in this regard. But, it is also going important for the state to refuse to participate in new inappropriate federal programs such as the apparent expansion of the welfare program included in the stimulus bill. No doubt advocates of Oklahoma's participation in this scheme will say that we must bring in new federal dollars by adding more welfare recipients. I say it is time to stand up to the federal government and it's latest expansions.

Sponsoring Additional Term Limits

I am a big supporter of Oklahoma's term limit laws.

There is little doubt that term limits on Oklahoma legislators was a
key factor in the breaking up of the "old guard" political machine
that used to dominate Oklahoma politics.

Those of us who are fighting to put an end to the abuses of the past
face an increased likelihood of success, due in part to the fact that
there are many new elected officials who have taken office in the past
few years. Many of these individuals have not been corrupted by the
political process. Unlike some of their predecessors, they are not
career politicians. Oklahoma's term limit law allows all
representatives and senators to serve a maximum of only twelve years
in the Legislature. After that, they are under a lifetime ban from
ever again holding office in the Legislature.

This new generation of representatives and senators is fulfilling one
of the important visions of our nation's founding fathers: the concept
of a government in which an average citizen dedicates a few years of
his or her life to representing the people as a citizen/statesman. At
the end of his/her term of office, the legislator returns to the real
world to live under the laws he or she helped create. This ensures
that legislators will be more representative of the people, rather
than becoming a class of the political elite.

As a result of the term limits law, the Legislature is very different
than it was just a few years ago. Gone are many of the "old guard"
power bosses who tightly maintained the status quo. These politicians
could have stayed in office almost indefinitely and they held powerful
committee chairmanships where they would bottle up reform-minded
legislation. They have been replaced by a group of energetic
professionals, many of whom wish to enact pro-growth policies in order
to change Oklahoma for the better. And, should some succumb to the
temptation to become part of the status quo, they will inevitably be
replaced because of term limits.

I think all Oklahomans should take pride in the fact that Oklahoma was
the first state to pass a legislative term limits law, and this year I
am honored to serve as the House Author for Senate Joint Resolution
12. SJR 12 is sponsored by in the Senate by Senator Randy Brogdon and
would allow the people to vote on expanding Oklahoma's term limit laws
to include statewide elected officials. A House version of the bill
will be carried by Representative Mike Jackson, meaning there will be
two opportunities for the effort to be successful this year.

I have written about a term limits bill in two previous years, but
unfortunately it was narrowly defeated both times. Now, because of
term limits, yet another wave of freshman representatives and senators
have been elected, and they have ensured the appointment of a new
leadership team in the State Senate that will undoubtedly support the
idea.

I think this is a good sign for the future because it demonstrates the
commitment of Oklahoma's new leaders to continued reform. It is also
important to remember that none of this would have been possible
without the people of Oklahoma taking the initiative to pass the first
term limit proposal through the initiative petition process.

As your Representative, I will continue to advocate for this important reform.

Opposing Debt in a Debt-Happy Society

If you are like me, you are very upset by the recent actions of the federal government. Under the false pretense of an economic stimulus, they are using the economic downturn to approve yet another nearly trillion dollars of debt! The latest "stimulus" bill consists of a tremendous amount of political pork, some of which is no doubt designed to help the organizations that put the current office holders in power. This is just the latest (and worst) in a series of actions taken by the federal government over the past few years that are unimaginably irresponsible.

We have come to a time in our nation's history when our leaders are actually purporting to be able to partially eliminate a downturn in the market. Markets naturally have ebbs and flows and it is to be expected that every few years there will be another downturn. There are many who are now in power who seem to have put aside the perspective provided by hundreds of years of history to such an extent that they really believe the government is powerful enough to prevent an economic downturn. Do we really want a government that views itself like that?

I believe this attitude has been reflected in recent years by British Prime Minister Gordan Brown who, while not one of our government officials, has received much attention for his reported pronouncement that the cycle of boom and bust had been brought to a halt in his country. Today, instead of admitting he was wrong in talking about the economic downturn, Brown points to the fact that this is a global recession. Brown's claims bring forward the frightening spectacle that in order to truly end boom and bust, governmental action on a global scale may be necessary.

In the meantime, gone are the days when it seemed that our leaders were willing to talk about balancing the budget, cutting spending, and addressing the looming crisis of the depleted social security fund. As national politicians have recently demonstrated all too well, it is very easy for politicians to spend now what will be someone else's debt in the future.

In Oklahoma, state officials have unfortunately given in to the same temptation. Issuing long-term debt is often considered by state officials as a way to handle short-term concerns. For years, Oklahoma officials have issued new debt and have done so by using the excuse, "Everyone else is doing it and we don't have as much debt as they do."

This issue hit especially close to home when agencies' officials testified recently to legislative committees about where they would make cuts if the economic downturn forces them to cut their budgets by 5%. Those agencies burdened with long-term debt simply point to the fact that they cannot cut their bond payments, and in fact, a 5% cut might be more like a 10% to 15% cut in discretionary revenue. In other words, as we have gone through time and more debt has been added to the state government, the ability to shrink government becomes inhibited.

This is why I have maintained and will continue to maintain a strict policy of voting against all new issuance of debt.

More Opportunities Created By The Budget Shortfall

Last week I wrote about how the projected government shortfall is an opportunity to reduce the size of government and to apply technological advances to state government. This action will have the effect of providing improved customer service. A budget shortfall will force legislative leaders and agency officials to do what they would have not taken the time to do when state government largess was increasing. It is actually in a downturn when money is less plentiful that taxpayer accountability and customer service may improve.

I consider it the primary responsibilities of the government modernization effort not only to introduce ideas for reform, but also to clear away the statutory roadblocks that prevent the application of money saving processes.

But there are other vital roles for the modernization effort.

It is very important for those who are committed to the modernization of state government to undertake the effort of documenting savings enabled by technological upgrades. Over the years, state agencies have realized a considerable savings because of these upgrades. There have been millions of dollars worth of savings realized by government agencies such as streamlined procurement process savings and lower technology costs such as falling telecom rates.

One of the items I found interesting when I was new to the appropriations process was the fact that agencies hardly ever came before the Legislature to notify us of the savings and to ask that it be returned to the taxpayers. Instead, agencies mostly focused on explaining the need for, and the fantastic benefits that would result from new programs if only the Legislature would expand their budgets.

By documenting the millions of dollars saved in the past few years through the application of new technological processes, the government modernization effort can assist with fair and strategically targeted agency spending reductions that target and eliminate wasteful spending habits.

This documentation process is not an easy task. In fact, as you might imagine, agency officials may be reluctant to divulge the savings and are more than happy to make legislators earn their pay by figuring out where your tax dollars are being spent.

Another great opportunity afforded by the government modernization effort is that of transparency. One big challenge is to ensure that state government purchasing officials are able to review and analyze all government spending and then use that data to allow state purchasing officers to leverage better contracts.

Having this data accessible will not only save money, but it may very well become possible to allow the people to review this data online. Hopefully this tool will allow the review of each and every purchase made, the date and time of the purchase (so you can see which agencies are desperate to use up their budget at the end of the fiscal year in an effort to justify their funding), and the reason for purchase.

These are a few of the projects that I am looking forward to being an advocate for during the upcoming legislative session.

Changing the Way Government does Business

If you listen to or read the various news stories regarding Oklahoma's budget situation, you might have received the false impression that a budget shortfall is a negative circumstance poised to cause all sorts of harm and confusion.

By some estimates, state government spending will be $300 to $500 million less this year than last year. Those who have an appreciation for big government see this as a very unfortunate event because they know that government will most likely be required to shrink in size this year.

I believe the shortfall presents the Legislature with a most exciting opportunity not only to cut through bureaucratic waste and make government more cost effective, but also to streamline and modernize government services so as to provide much improved customer service to the people.

For me, the past few weeks have been some of the busiest since I have been in the Legislature. Since receiving the appointment to head the House Standing Committee on Modernization, I have enjoyed the opportunity to encourage the progress of the House Modernization agenda. Last week, the House held an interim study which demonstrated the many opportunities to save taxpayers dollars and provide better service to the people of Oklahoma through better practices and the implementation of new technologies. At the same time, House Republicans have announced that government modernization will be a part of the 2009 House Republican agenda.

Based on the state's revenue shortfall, there is an obvious opportunity for spending reductions. This provides the occasion to modernize government. Those who have argued for less government spending in the years ofsurpluses have usually been swimming upstream. However this year, most will agree that it is absolutely necessary for the state to use technology to reduce the workload and free up state government positions.

One important opportunity that must be taken advantage of is the combination of all of the state's licensing and permitting entities into a user friendly, web based portal. Currently, very few of the state agencies provide this option. However, during the recently concluded study, we heard testimony regarding the success of one agency who has implemented this reform.

The State Board of Medical Licensure is saving $20,964 per year because of an online professional license renewal system. Due to the implementation of the online system, this common sense reform freed up about two full time employees because staff time was cut by fifty percent. It also appears that 99% of the license renewals now occur online.

Can you imagine how the improvement in customer service in this system can be implemented with all of the other licensing systems to form one easily accessed entity? How about the millions of dollars of savings that will be realized if this was accompanied with the reform of centralizing the licensing system into one location, instead of having it spread across a large number of state agencies?

The shortfall is not a bad thing. Rather, it can be a great opportunity and challenge that should motive state government to do what should have been done many years ago. State government should be using technology to provide a more friendly service at a reduced cost to taxpayers. As Chairman of the House Modernization Committee, I am very much looking forward to meeting this challenge.

Giving our Money to the Corrupt

Two weeks ago I wrote about a future discussion in the Legislature between those who believe Oklahoma can improve economically by reducing the size of government and lowering taxes, and those who feel that Oklahoma should continue to develop a wide array of giveaways in the name of economic development.

As State Representative, I have observed that whenever a new problem crops up, it takes very little time for people to look to government to provide a solution. All too often they fail to account for the fact that if government expands to provide the solution, it will make politicians more powerful, and better enable those who wish to use this power for inappropriate or counterproductive purposes.

In the case of economic development, those who advocate for giveaways to incentivize business will point to the problem of economic blight and ask for the government to take away our taxpayers dollars, give that money to politicians or bureaucrats to control, and then give them the power to determine who receives the benefit.

A prominent example of this type of abuse has been alleged in the state of Illinois. Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is accused of trying to strong-arm the Chicago Tribune into firing critical editorial writers by leveraging his power to help give the Tribune millions of dollars.

Formed in 2003 by Governor Blagojevich, the Illinois Finance Authority is probably similar to any number of Oklahoma boards and commissions. Basically, the Illinois Finance Authority can act on behalf of the government, but it functions much like a private enterprise. Their goal appears to have been to issue taxable and tax-exempt bonds, make loans and invest capital to help local government, businesses, education, health care, not-for-profit organizations, agri-industry, etc. via market-specific financial services.

The Chicago Tribune owned an asset that it needed to sell: Wrigley Field in Chicago. The governor is accused of advocating for the Illinois Finance Authority to take control of the stadium's title so the Tribune would not have to pay capital gains tax on the sale. This would potentially save the company about $100 million. Because of these savings, there would be more incentive for the Tribune to sell the stadium to the government instead of a private enterprise.

On the surface, the Finance Authority appeared to be able to meet any number of needs that its supporters felt should be met by the government acting in this capacity. In reality, however, it appears the Finance Authority was the governor's tool to wield an enormous amount of inappropriate influence over the people.

I feel the people are much better served by a smaller government which enacts low taxes that are fair to everyone. Keeping taxes high allows the politicians to create these complicated entities that can do much more harm than good. In this case, it appears that the Finance Authority may not only have enabled an allegedly corrupt politician, but may also have warped the free market process. It appears to have promoted an environment in which corruption could flourish. How many other examples of this type of abuse are occurring across the nation but are simply not being exposed?

This reaffirms my opposition to efforts in Oklahoma to extend power and money to these types of organizations in the name of economic development.

Two Approaches to Growth

Recent comments by former Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating and the transition of leadership in the Oklahoma Senate have once again brought focus to an important change that needs to occur sooner rather than later.

In a radio interview conducted last month, Keating stated he'd like to see the new Legislature repeal the state income tax. Keating explained that while he was governor, he heard constantly from business people and others that the repeal of the income tax would stimulate business growth in Oklahoma.

In 2004 and 2005 during an economic upturn, legislative changes in the House of Representatives made it possible for some tax reforms to occur and as a result, the first steps were taken towards eliminating this punitive tax.

Other states also appear to be enacting tax reforms, as a recently released report from the Tax Foundation shows that Oklahoma's tax burden has moved up to being the 19th highest in the nation.

I believe there will be two distinctly different trains of thoughts to emerge in the Legislature on the subject of tax reform.

The first approach is represented by those who know that Oklahoma must eliminate taxes in order to be competitive for new business. This is fair for all parties involved because the tax code would keep taxes low for everyone, thereby keeping the incentive for growth.

The other viewpoint is represented by those who believe that in order for Oklahoma to grow, it must keep taxes at current levels and create a number of incentives and tax loopholes to compete in an ever-growing war between the states over who can offer the best giveaways to prospective new employers.

The second approach is rife with potential for corruption and abuse. The people who have the power to hire lobbyists and finance politicians' campaigns will use this system to make sure they receive incentives at the taxpayers' expense, while small businessmen and average people will not be able to afford to make this same "investment." Worse yet, this approach will be subject to the same abuse that has been exposed in the past, when several Oklahoma's legislators were prosecuted for using similar programs to funnel money for personal benefit.

This approach also keeps an elite class of legislators, bureaucrative central planners and their friends in a very powerful position since they have the power to determine who succeeds and who fails, instead of success being dependant upon the hard work of individuals. If taxes are simply reduced across the board, the power of the elite is much more limited.

During the next two years, I am committed to working hard to expose the inefficiencies in state government so that spending cuts and comprehensive tax reform can occur sooner rather than later.

Putting A Stop To Inappropriate Lobbyist Giving

One of the issues about which I have felt the most strongly has been the inappropriate nature of special interest influence over policy makers. One of the foremost manifestations of the inappropriate influence has been the ability of these special interests to give personal gifts to legislators.

I do not believe it is any more appropriate for a lobbyist to give a gift to a legislator than it would be for an attorney to give a gift to a judge who was ruling on a case in which the attorney was a party. In both cases the gift giver receives a direct benefit from the decision of the recipient.

As such when I sought election to the legislature I did so on a platform of not taking personal gifts or contributions from lobbyists or the groups that hire lobbyists.

When I first entered the legislature just two years ago this inappropriate giving was nearing an all time high point. In 2007, over $150,000 of personal gift giving was reported by lobbyists. This number was probably just a percent of the total gift giving as a significant amount of gift giving probably did not meet reporting requirements.

Following the 2007 session, I proposed that if gift giving is going to continue to be allowed at the very least there should be a "No Gift List" on which legislators could opt in in order to demonstrate to the people that they did not want to be a part of the status-quo. I also figured this proposal would allow the people to hold their legislators responsible when it is time for re-election.

I believe there are a significant number of legislators who do not support the gift giving policy who will opt in to the "No Gift List" if they are given the opportunity.

Also, following the 2007 session the Ethics Commission took the fantastic step of proposing to place a cap of $100 dollars on the amount of a gift that a lobbyist can give to a legislator. This proposal could have been disapproved by the legislature. However, in a move that is a credit to the leadership and membership of both the House and Senate there was no effort in the legislature to stop this proposal.

As a result this new limit is now taking effect and I believe it will substantially cut down the amount of gift giving that will occur in the upcoming session. Progress has already been made, as in 2008, lobbyists' gift giving dropped to just over $80,000.

Now the Ethics Commission is meeting again to hopefully take another step forward in stopping this inappropriate practice. I believe the Commission will vote for a proposal that will either ban gift giving or possibly create the "No Gift List" that will allow the people to better hold their legislators accountable.

All of this progress would not have been possible without the work of some people who are taking the idea of accountability in government very seriously. One of them is Ethics Commissioner John Raley. Raley has been the driving force in asking his commission to consider these reforms.

Another is Guthrie resident and Rose State political science professor John Wood. Professor Wood has diligently worked to bring innovative reform proposals before the Commission which has certainly helped to frame the debate on this issue. It is a real honor to have a local Guthrie resident making such a big difference for government reform.

However, this progress will not come without opposition. The state Chamber of Commerce appears to be launching a campaign to prevent the ban and it seems that legislation will be introduced to roll back the new limit.

I will be sure to keep you updated about the progression of this important reform.

Preparing For The Expansion Of Government

Last Friday, I attended a meeting of House Republicans in order to elect new officers for the next session of the legislature.

There were more representatives in the room than ever before as the people voted to elect sixty-one Republicans up from fifty-seven and chose not to remove a single GOP incumbent.

The group unanimously re-elected Tulsa Representative Chris Benge as speaker. I believe Benge had earned the confidence of the Representatives with his friendly down to earth demeanor that makes it easy for them to express their opinions and engage in honest dialog about the issues they feel strongly about.

I also believe that Benge and many in the legislature are committed to using the stronger than ever conservative leadership in Oklahoma's legislature to do what we can in order to keep the obvious upcoming expansion of the federal government in as much check as possible.

You are probably aware of the recent massive expansion of the federal government which will now be firmly in control of liberal politicians who will no doubt use that power to aggressively advance an agenda that is in direct opposition to the values of many Oklahomans.

It is important to note that in creating the Constitution our nation's founding fathers designed the federal government to be small and limited in comparison to state governments. They knew that the people have a much stronger voice at the local level whereas the ability of the people to affect change is greatly limited at the federal level of government.

However, over time under both Republican and Democrat administrations both parties have used the federal government as a tool to accomplish their various agendas.

As a result the federal government has become very powerful. Now, a group of aggressive liberals can use that power not only to move America to the left but to build upon itself and increase in size, making the federal government more expansive and powerful than ever before.

As a result a bigger federal government will likely be the most responsive to those only with enough money and influence to use that power to benefit themselves. This will leave the responsibility for paying for the big government to the average taxpayer who cannot afford to invest in the high-powered lobbyists' and politician's campaigns in order to manipulate the system for their benefit.

This means that in the upcoming years we can expect the federal government to reflect both the desires of the powerful special interests and the liberal politicians who seek to forever change our nation.

During the last session of the Oklahoma Legislature the House of Representatives voted to support House Joint Resolution 1089 by a 92-3 margin. HJR 1089 sought to reassert Oklahoma's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and, according to the resolution's language, is "serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates."

The Tenth Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The author of the legislation stated, "The more we stand by and watch the federal government get involved in areas where it has no legal authority, we kill the Constitution a little at a time. The last few decades, the Constitution has been hanging by a thread."

While this resolution passed with the strong bi-partisan support of the Oklahoma House it appears to have failed to receive a hearing in the Oklahoma Senate. This year, with a new more conservative leadership in the Oklahoma Senate I am hopeful that legislation such as HJR 1089 will receive a fair hearing.

Making English our Official Language

The House General Government and Transportation Committees recently passed an important measure that would make English the official language of the State of Oklahoma. SB 163 is authored by Representative Randy Terrill (Moore), with the assistance of Representative George Faught (Muskogee), who proposed a similar measure last year.

There was strong debate over the bill; it passed in the committee by a vote of 11 to 5.

It is important to note that this proposal doesn't mean people can't learn or speak other languages; it simply means the official business of state government would have to be conducted in the English language.

The bill proposes to prevent the taxpayers from having to pay for services such as driver's license tests in other languages. The argument is that if a person is unable to comprehend driver's license tests, he/she probably poses a safety concern because he/she will be challenged to understand street signs, instructions from English-speaking police, etc. The passage of this bill would also allow taxpayers to avoid the cost of publishing state documents in other languages, or providing services in multiple languages by using translators.

The issue became of added importance after a recent complaint was filed against the Department of Public Safety. The complaint was filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and alleges that the department did not offer a graphics driver's test to individuals whose native language was Farsi.

Approximately thirty other states have already taken similar steps to ensure that English is the official language.

Hopefully the passage of the bill will in some small way address the problem facing our society of the large number of people coming to the United States to access our prosperity, some of whom obviously having no intention of adapting to our culture or learning the English language.

Even though the bill purports to make exceptions for Native American languages, the bill is opposed by Native American groups. I think it is unfortunate, however, that the bill makes an exception for these languages, because I do not feel that the taxpayers should ever be saddled with paying for the cost associated with printing materials in any language other than English.

When Senate Bill 163 is sent to the full House, I will be sure to vote for it.

If the bill is approved by both the House and the Senate, the voters will have the final say on this issue, because it is a constitutional amendment. All constitutional amendments must be approved by the people; your opportunity to vote on the proposal would be in November of this year.

If you would like to provide your feedback on this matter, please feel free to visit www.housedistrict31.com and complete my 2008 Constituent Survey. I am asking House District 31 constituents to weigh in on this and a number of other issues. According to the most recent tally, 91% of respondents are in favor of making English our official language.