In last week’s article I commented on the fact that this is the time of year when policy is already starting to be established for the upcoming session of the Oklahoma Legislature.
I noted that the important issue of property tax reform is set to be discussed as Representative David Dank has once again filed the property tax reform proposal. I also pointed to the encouraging sign that perhaps important legislative process reforms will be initiated following the convening of a task force by House Speaker-elect Kris Steele for that purpose.
I view these as positive first signs and I enjoy writing about them because it is has been my intent to use these articles to provide a special emphasis on positive news as a counter to all of the discouraging news we hear about in politics these days.
However, I feel an obligation to communicate all of the facts both good and bad and a Thanksgiving day news article about this year’s upcoming legislation destroyed some of this optimism and started a firestorm within the House Republican caucus. The article indicated that Steele and other Republican leaders want to place an emphasis on economic issues while reducing focus from frivolous distractions such as the defense of traditional values, immigration reform, second amendment issues, and presumably the related states’ rights legislation. Since when have Republicans considered traditional values issues to be frivolous?
Until now, this type of rhetoric has been used by the Democrats to demonize traditional values legislation and the courageous legislators who advanced it. To have this attitude now being seemingly being endorsed by our own Speaker of the House is devastating.
A follow-up article indicated that one of the issues on which Steele does want us to focus is his proposal to allow government entities to regulate smoking within privately owned businesses. Very few voters voted for the Republicans in order to empower Republicans to allow government to get bigger. It was a shock to realize that our leadership would seem to suggest that we should not focus on the issues which have defined our party but instead should consider allowing government regulation to expand.
Republicans were elected to head up both the legislative and executive branches of state government for first time in state history because the people of Oklahoma desperately want state government to stand up to the federal government. Oklahomans want us to assert our rights under the tenth amendment, stop the insanity being propagated in Washington DC, roll back mountains of government waste and inefficiencies which generations of Democrat office holders allowed to become institutions of state government and which are costing Oklahoma taxpayers so much money in waste, shrink the state tax code so that Oklahoma can compete with states who do not have an income tax for economic growth, defend against the assault on the traditional values which have made our nation great, and remove the government regulations which have built up over the years against our important freedoms such as our second amendment rights.
Along with Oklahomans, I maintain that these issues are not frivolous distractions. Rather, they are the core principles which resulted in Republicans being elected to office. It appears these principles are now under an all-out assault and in the next few months it will be our responsibility as officer holders to stand up and defend them despite efforts by our leadership to do otherwise.
This will be a fight to preserve honestly and integrity. Nearly every Republican campaigned for office on these principles (especially those who represent rural areas where traditional values are extremely important). It is shocking to think that once elected, Republican office holders would break their word and abandon the principles espoused in their campaign materials simply because the powerful special interests in Oklahoma City view them as embarrassing frivolous distractions.
Next week I will provide some insights as to why conservative office holders are especially frustrated by this turn of events.
Showing posts with label oklahoma politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oklahoma politics. Show all posts
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Sunday, April 12, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, December 1, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Moving Ahead with Property Tax Reform
I am happy to report some fantastic news about one of the most needed reforms. Last week the window of time opened when Representatives can file new legislation to be heard during the upcoming session. Those who wish to make a point and provide their legislation with one of the initial House bill numbers are using this as an opportunity to make a strong statement by quickly placing their bills on file.
One of the first bills to be filed was House Joint Resolution 1001. HJR 1001 will be a proposal by Oklahoma City State Representative David Dank. Dank has been one of the leading proponents of one of the most important issues to my constituents. The issue is that of property tax reform. Each year I receive a number of constituent calls protesting the punitive and unfair nature of the ever-increasing property tax assessments that seem to always go up by about 5% with each new issuance.
In 2007, I had to report that while the property tax reform bill had passed the House, it had been killed in the Senate. In 2008, the property tax reform bill was approved in the Senate, but died in the House.
Now, Dank is upping the ante. The proposals of previous years purported to cut the ability of the county assessors to increase property taxes from 5% to 3%. This year, HJR 1001 will attempt to lower the assessment cap to 2%.
With new leadership in place in the State Senate and more reform-minded Representatives in the State House, I believe this is the year that Dank's proposal will be successful. Because the reform will require a change in the State Constitution, it will not be sent to the Governor but will instead require the approval of a vote of the people. Dank has indicated that he will contribute a significant amount to fund the campaign to make sure the word gets out to the people prior to the election.
I suspect the measure will have very little trouble passing a test at the polls. During the last legislative session, I included this issue on my constituent survey and the idea had the support of an overwhelming margin of voters.
This year, I will once again look for the opportunity to propose a plan requested by Logan County Commissioner Mark Sharpton. The proposal was approved by the House of Representatives as an amendment to SB 1956 during last year's session, but was later removed in the conference committee process. Had it been successful, it would have indexed each homeowner's homestead exemption to the rate of inflation. Inflation and the rate of property tax assessments have gone up for years, but the homestead exemption has stayed the same. Sharpton's plan would provide additional property tax relief because it would allow the exemption to grow as well.
As your Representative, I have heard your calls for immediate property tax reform. I take that desire very seriously and am happy to support these proposals.
One of the first bills to be filed was House Joint Resolution 1001. HJR 1001 will be a proposal by Oklahoma City State Representative David Dank. Dank has been one of the leading proponents of one of the most important issues to my constituents. The issue is that of property tax reform. Each year I receive a number of constituent calls protesting the punitive and unfair nature of the ever-increasing property tax assessments that seem to always go up by about 5% with each new issuance.
In 2007, I had to report that while the property tax reform bill had passed the House, it had been killed in the Senate. In 2008, the property tax reform bill was approved in the Senate, but died in the House.
Now, Dank is upping the ante. The proposals of previous years purported to cut the ability of the county assessors to increase property taxes from 5% to 3%. This year, HJR 1001 will attempt to lower the assessment cap to 2%.
With new leadership in place in the State Senate and more reform-minded Representatives in the State House, I believe this is the year that Dank's proposal will be successful. Because the reform will require a change in the State Constitution, it will not be sent to the Governor but will instead require the approval of a vote of the people. Dank has indicated that he will contribute a significant amount to fund the campaign to make sure the word gets out to the people prior to the election.
I suspect the measure will have very little trouble passing a test at the polls. During the last legislative session, I included this issue on my constituent survey and the idea had the support of an overwhelming margin of voters.
This year, I will once again look for the opportunity to propose a plan requested by Logan County Commissioner Mark Sharpton. The proposal was approved by the House of Representatives as an amendment to SB 1956 during last year's session, but was later removed in the conference committee process. Had it been successful, it would have indexed each homeowner's homestead exemption to the rate of inflation. Inflation and the rate of property tax assessments have gone up for years, but the homestead exemption has stayed the same. Sharpton's plan would provide additional property tax relief because it would allow the exemption to grow as well.
As your Representative, I have heard your calls for immediate property tax reform. I take that desire very seriously and am happy to support these proposals.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Paying Professional Politicians
A few weeks ago I wrote about a checklist containing the key principles that define an elected official as being one of the people, or as having been co-opted into the system and no longer representative of the people.
In that article I wrote about the importance of opening up access to government affairs using televised public meetings. I think that if we study history we will find that the common theme possessed by most totalitarian governments is secrecy. A closed government has the ability to deceive and trick their own people because there is no way for the people to discover the truth. As such, an important cornerstone of our Republic is openness and ease of access by the people to the affairs of government. Due to the prevalent availability of technology, this openness should be more prevalent than ever. There is a need for our elected officials to allow today's technology to open up government in ways that have not been possible in the past. An important test for those seeking my vote is whether or not they support initiatives to further open up access to the government.
Another item that I believe is important when determining the motives of elected officials is the consideration of how they act regarding their own compensation. I believe that our system of government is designed to run efficiently when members of the citizenry make sacrifices and give up a few years of their life to serve their neighbors by being an elected official. Over the years, however, we have seen the rise of a class of professional politicians. Because salaries for elected officials have become too generous, it encourages people to become politicians as an occupation instead of sacrifice. Those who choose to make it an occupation will often be beholden to special interest groups to keep them in office since they probably view their political careers as a necessity of life, rather than a temporary sacrifice.
I strong disagree with the ability of any officer holder to vote for a raise for him/herself. While I cannot think of one instance where a raise is necessary, if a raise is needed, then at the very least, the raise should not take effect until the next term of office. In addition, any proposal for a raise should be voted on by the people at the same time the official is up for re-election. I think this concept would make an elected official think twice before asking for an unnecessary raise.
I enjoy following government affairs in other states. One of the recent national stories in the news has been the effort of the Louisiana Legislature to greatly increase their own compensation. I was especially excited to see how the people of Louisiana spoke up in opposition to the plan and forced the governor to veto the idea under the threat of recall. This event follows a similar effort conducted by the Pennsylvania Legislature which had to reverse a pay increase. This was, however, not accomplished in time to pacify the outrage of the citizens who proceeded to vote a number of the legislators out of office.
The next time a politician asks for your vote, please be sure to ask him/her how they feel about their compensation. If they are willing to make a sacrifice in order to serve their fellow citizens, their hearts are probably in the right place.
In that article I wrote about the importance of opening up access to government affairs using televised public meetings. I think that if we study history we will find that the common theme possessed by most totalitarian governments is secrecy. A closed government has the ability to deceive and trick their own people because there is no way for the people to discover the truth. As such, an important cornerstone of our Republic is openness and ease of access by the people to the affairs of government. Due to the prevalent availability of technology, this openness should be more prevalent than ever. There is a need for our elected officials to allow today's technology to open up government in ways that have not been possible in the past. An important test for those seeking my vote is whether or not they support initiatives to further open up access to the government.
Another item that I believe is important when determining the motives of elected officials is the consideration of how they act regarding their own compensation. I believe that our system of government is designed to run efficiently when members of the citizenry make sacrifices and give up a few years of their life to serve their neighbors by being an elected official. Over the years, however, we have seen the rise of a class of professional politicians. Because salaries for elected officials have become too generous, it encourages people to become politicians as an occupation instead of sacrifice. Those who choose to make it an occupation will often be beholden to special interest groups to keep them in office since they probably view their political careers as a necessity of life, rather than a temporary sacrifice.
I strong disagree with the ability of any officer holder to vote for a raise for him/herself. While I cannot think of one instance where a raise is necessary, if a raise is needed, then at the very least, the raise should not take effect until the next term of office. In addition, any proposal for a raise should be voted on by the people at the same time the official is up for re-election. I think this concept would make an elected official think twice before asking for an unnecessary raise.
I enjoy following government affairs in other states. One of the recent national stories in the news has been the effort of the Louisiana Legislature to greatly increase their own compensation. I was especially excited to see how the people of Louisiana spoke up in opposition to the plan and forced the governor to veto the idea under the threat of recall. This event follows a similar effort conducted by the Pennsylvania Legislature which had to reverse a pay increase. This was, however, not accomplished in time to pacify the outrage of the citizens who proceeded to vote a number of the legislators out of office.
The next time a politician asks for your vote, please be sure to ask him/her how they feel about their compensation. If they are willing to make a sacrifice in order to serve their fellow citizens, their hearts are probably in the right place.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Bringing Down the Veil of Secrecy
Bringing Down the Veil of Secrecy
Have you ever spoken to an elected official and left the encounter with the distinct impression that he/she no longer represented the people but had instead become a status-quo politician? Sometimes you can almost see "government as usual" in their eyes as they make the excuses that indicated they are now part of the problem and not the solution. A few months ago, I was asked to define the tipping point when an elected official makes that leap from representing the people to representing the status-quo (becoming "one of them"). This has inspired me to develop a checklist, a set of clearly definable principles, that I believe differentiates between those who have become defenders of the system and those who are still part of the people living under the system.
One of the most important components on this list is that of enabling more government transparency. Defenders of the government as usual system will make up excuses for why people are not allowed to see what is going on in government. Representatives of the people will work hard to institute new ways of allowing the people to see and understand what is happening.
Because of the tremendous size of government, there are now countless boards and commission spending billions of our taxpayer dollars with little oversight from the people. Today, most people are so tied down with the necessities of life, work, family, church, etc., that they have little time to attend the countless number of meetings where their money is being spent. They are forced through no fault of their own to blindly trust these boards and commissions to do the right thing even though hardly anyone is there to watch them work.
I have felt the answer to this problem is televised government and made it a top issue as Guthrie City Councilman. The Council agreed to televise meetings on Guthrie's public service television channel and, thanks to the work of Lance Crenshaw, the Guthrie telecast is probably one of the best in the state. The Council also approved a policy to allow other government entities to provide recordings of their meetings to the Guthrie public service channel as well.
As State Representative, one of my biggest policy initiatives has been to work on televising state government proceedings. I am optimistic that this effort will meet with success.
In addition to televising state government, I believe it is time to look at requirements for those public entities who have public service television channels, such as school boards and city government. I believe these entities should, at the very least, televise video recording of their meetings. With the minimal cost of a video/digital recorder, there is no longer any valid reason for them to keep the public in the dark.
Several years ago, by a one vote margin, both the Logan County Board of Commissioners and the Logan County Medical Center Public Trust (both of which vote on spending millions of taxpayers dollars) voted not to produce and play videos of their meetings on the Guthrie public service channel. I hope both boards will revisit this unfortunate decision, as I feel those who truly represent the people should never fear public disclosure.
In the meantime, two excellent examples of recorded local government meetings are available online at cityofguthrie.com and okahomacounty.org.
Have you ever spoken to an elected official and left the encounter with the distinct impression that he/she no longer represented the people but had instead become a status-quo politician? Sometimes you can almost see "government as usual" in their eyes as they make the excuses that indicated they are now part of the problem and not the solution. A few months ago, I was asked to define the tipping point when an elected official makes that leap from representing the people to representing the status-quo (becoming "one of them"). This has inspired me to develop a checklist, a set of clearly definable principles, that I believe differentiates between those who have become defenders of the system and those who are still part of the people living under the system.
One of the most important components on this list is that of enabling more government transparency. Defenders of the government as usual system will make up excuses for why people are not allowed to see what is going on in government. Representatives of the people will work hard to institute new ways of allowing the people to see and understand what is happening.
Because of the tremendous size of government, there are now countless boards and commission spending billions of our taxpayer dollars with little oversight from the people. Today, most people are so tied down with the necessities of life, work, family, church, etc., that they have little time to attend the countless number of meetings where their money is being spent. They are forced through no fault of their own to blindly trust these boards and commissions to do the right thing even though hardly anyone is there to watch them work.
I have felt the answer to this problem is televised government and made it a top issue as Guthrie City Councilman. The Council agreed to televise meetings on Guthrie's public service television channel and, thanks to the work of Lance Crenshaw, the Guthrie telecast is probably one of the best in the state. The Council also approved a policy to allow other government entities to provide recordings of their meetings to the Guthrie public service channel as well.
As State Representative, one of my biggest policy initiatives has been to work on televising state government proceedings. I am optimistic that this effort will meet with success.
In addition to televising state government, I believe it is time to look at requirements for those public entities who have public service television channels, such as school boards and city government. I believe these entities should, at the very least, televise video recording of their meetings. With the minimal cost of a video/digital recorder, there is no longer any valid reason for them to keep the public in the dark.
Several years ago, by a one vote margin, both the Logan County Board of Commissioners and the Logan County Medical Center Public Trust (both of which vote on spending millions of taxpayers dollars) voted not to produce and play videos of their meetings on the Guthrie public service channel. I hope both boards will revisit this unfortunate decision, as I feel those who truly represent the people should never fear public disclosure.
In the meantime, two excellent examples of recorded local government meetings are available online at cityofguthrie.com and okahomacounty.org.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Working To End Taxpayer Funded Abortions
This week the Oklahoma House of Representatives took action to again send to the Senate and the Governor an important pro-life measure. Senate Bill 139 (SB 139), authored by Oklahoma City Democrat Rebecca Hamilton, would stop the use of taxpayer money from funding almost all abortions. SB 139 is very similar to Senate Bill 714, which passed both the House and the Senate earlier in the session but was later vetoed by the Governor.
The Senate has twice attempted to override the Governor's veto of Senate Bill 714, but both attempts fell just one vote short of the two-thirds majority needed. Because the Senate could not override the veto, the bill was bottled up in the Senate and the House did not get to vote on the override attempt.
SB 139 offered an opportunity for those of us in the House to again press the issue that taxpayer resources should not be used for abortions. It is important for us to take action, not just because it is the right thing to do, but because of the groundswell of public support for this policy. I have received more calls in support of Senate Bill 714 than any other bill this year. It is clear that people do not want their tax dollars used to destroy life and they are demanding the government take action.
In order to entice the Governor to sign this measure, authors of the bill have used almost identical language as that in Senate Bill 714, with slight changes in wording. This new language may be instrumental in chipping away support from Senators who until now have been willing to back the Governor's veto.
In order for SB 139 to pass the House, it faced the difficult hurdle of two procedural votes requiring approval from two-thirds of the members of the House. Tony Lauinger, State Chairman of Oklahomans For Life, stated that these were the most important pro-life votes of the year. Each vote passed by a margin of one vote and I was pleased to cast my vote to help insure passage.
During the upcoming two weeks, your continued support of ending the policy of taxpayer funded abortions will be vital to the success of SB 139. Thank you for calling my office with your concerns. Please continue to contact the Governor and your Senator as well.
As always I may be contacted on the web at www.housedistrict31.com or on the phone at 557-7350.
The Senate has twice attempted to override the Governor's veto of Senate Bill 714, but both attempts fell just one vote short of the two-thirds majority needed. Because the Senate could not override the veto, the bill was bottled up in the Senate and the House did not get to vote on the override attempt.
SB 139 offered an opportunity for those of us in the House to again press the issue that taxpayer resources should not be used for abortions. It is important for us to take action, not just because it is the right thing to do, but because of the groundswell of public support for this policy. I have received more calls in support of Senate Bill 714 than any other bill this year. It is clear that people do not want their tax dollars used to destroy life and they are demanding the government take action.
In order to entice the Governor to sign this measure, authors of the bill have used almost identical language as that in Senate Bill 714, with slight changes in wording. This new language may be instrumental in chipping away support from Senators who until now have been willing to back the Governor's veto.
In order for SB 139 to pass the House, it faced the difficult hurdle of two procedural votes requiring approval from two-thirds of the members of the House. Tony Lauinger, State Chairman of Oklahomans For Life, stated that these were the most important pro-life votes of the year. Each vote passed by a margin of one vote and I was pleased to cast my vote to help insure passage.
During the upcoming two weeks, your continued support of ending the policy of taxpayer funded abortions will be vital to the success of SB 139. Thank you for calling my office with your concerns. Please continue to contact the Governor and your Senator as well.
As always I may be contacted on the web at www.housedistrict31.com or on the phone at 557-7350.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Murphey Legislative Program
Murphey Legislative Update
2/21/2006
One of the most important issues before the legislature this year is Governor's Brad Henry's proposal to issue $663,362,000 of new bonded indebtedness.
I feel strongly that state government should avoid long-term debt. I believe it is irresponsible for politicians to saddle citizens with millions of dollars of debt and debt interest and then allow the bill to come due in the future when they are no longer in office. This places debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren. It also makes it difficult to reduce the size of government because government will be forced to keep taxes high in order to pay the debt and interest.
What seems particularly egregious about the Governor's proposal is the fact that in a year when state government will have approximately $250,000,000 new dollars to spend, there is a move to incur millions of new debt.
Of additional concern is that the Governor's proposal attempts to use this debt to fund non-capital items. Traditionally, government bonds are issued for capital projects such as the construction of buildings. However, in his budget proposal, the Governor appears to be seeking the authority to spend a sizable percentage of this debt on non state-owned capital items. This is money that will disappear into government bureaucracy, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill for years to come.
It is also important to remember that the Oklahoma Constitution prohibits the government from going into debt. However, years of creative interpretation by the judiciary have made it possible for those who advocate for public debt to open up a Pandora's box of spending.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)