OCPA column: Government shouldn’t discourage work

Government shouldn’t discourage work

By Jonathan Small

To make Oklahoma a place where all people can thrive requires that we make Oklahoma a place where people can work.

Work matters. It provides people with a sense of purpose and self-control even when they face financial stress.

That’s why conservatives are so strongly opposed to government policies that incentivize people to stay on the workforce sidelines. Such polices have severe negative impact on individuals and society as a whole.

Lankford releases Volume 7 of his Waste Book, 'Federal Fumbles'

As Debt Talks Continue, Lankford Releases Waste Book on Ways to Cut Federal Spending

WASHINGTON, DC (May 18th) – Senator James Lankford (R-OK) today released Volume 7 of his federal waste book, Federal Fumbles: Ways the Federal Government Dropped the Ball. As President Biden and Democrats continue to say there is no path for spending cuts to go along with a deal on raising the debt limit, Lankford has outlined in the report waste and inefficiencies in the federal government and offers solutions and recommendations for long-term changes that need to begin immediately.

CLICK HERE to read the report.

“Federal Fumbles: Ways the Federal Government Dropped the Ball is a glimpse at just some of the wasteful spending in the federal government. No one can seriously believe that there is no place in the federal budget to reduce spending. We should prioritize our spending to address areas we can cut in order to pay for important programs for veterans, seniors, children, national security, and more. We can eliminate wasteful, ineffective, or duplicative spending while still caring for the most vulnerable. Federal Fumbles is my starting point to stop complaining and start working on bringing down the national debt.”

CLICK HERE to view the Top 10 list or visit www.lankford.senate.gov/fumbles to read Volumes 1-7.

Lankford Announces Volume 7 of his Waste Book, Federal Fumbles
Lankford: “At what point do we stop and say we've got to be able to fix this?”

WASHINGTON, DC – Senator James Lankford (R-OK) today introduced the Senate to the latest edition of his government waste book: Federal Fumbles: Ways the Federal Government Dropped the Ball. In volume 7 of the book, Lankford outlines numerous examples of waste and head-scratching spending the government has undertaken. In total, Fumbles highlights almost half-a-trillion dollars in misspent federal money, including on wine trails in Napa Valley, the effect of climate change on driving conditions in Ghana, and preserving a secret French butcher language.

Transcript:

Debt is front and center in the national conversation again. It's entirely reasonable. We have a debt ceiling conversation right now about America taking care of our debts and our responsibilities, which we are a responsible nation, we're going to do. But we should also have a grown-up conversation about our spending, to say: are we spending on our priorities, because when you have $31 trillion—actually let me scratch that—$31.4 trillion because $400 billion is not a rounding error, $31.4 trillion in total national debt, we should pay attention to this especially when we're currently adding $1 trillion in new debt every single year, and it continues to accelerate.

Recently someone asked me: when does it get hard? When do we pass the point? And I actually had to painfully say to them: 10 years ago, because in the last 10 years our debts continued to accelerate like a rock rolling downhill, and it's going to be harder to manage this. And at some point, we've got to be able to stop and say inflation’s going up, the challenges that are in our economy are increasing, we're spending almost as much on interest as we are on defense. At what point do we stop and say: we've got to be able to fix this?

Well, I have a perspective. The first step on actually talking about debt and deficit is taking it seriously and saying: what are we spending on that's a priority and what are we spending on that's not a priority? Again, it's not unreasonable to be able to say that’d be nice to do, but we don't have the money to do that. Let's set that aside. And for whatever reason in this town, any time you talk about reducing spending of whatever percentage or whatever amount, everyone freaks out immediately like ‘Oh you can’t. There is no way you can reduce spending in government.”

So, we started seven years ago a habit of our staff, that we produce a book called Federal Fumbles. Every we are we put out the Federal Fumbles guide, and that's just a set of ideas to say these are areas that we believe the federal government’s dropped the ball, that the federal government and our agencies, we had a responsibility to handle American taxpayer dollars prudently and wisely, but that didn't happen.

So we ask the question: is this really what we need to spend for? In a nation that's keeping up with our infrastructure, of our national defense, of education, of so many different expenses, and things that are truly governmental, we ask the simple question: with $31.4 trillion in total debt, is that what we need to spend our dollars on?

Now just to set context because again this is difficult to be able to do, when you talk about millions and billions and trillions, it gets easy to go, ‘Those all sound alike, so they're similar.’ And so people throw out millions of dollars or billions of dollars or trillions of dollars, and you just think, ‘Okay, I don't even understand what this is anymore.’ So I break it down as I have in the past. I break it down to seconds because that's something I can understand.

A million seconds is 12 days—12 days. That's a million seconds. A billion seconds is 32 years. Okay? So there's a big difference between a million and a billion. 12 days and 32 years. A trillion seconds is almost 32,000 years.

So let me knock that past us again. A million seconds is 12 days. A billion seconds: 32 years. A trillion seconds, almost 32,000 years. And to put this into the context of $31.4 trillion in total debt, that is 995,000 years, almost a million years of seconds to get to $31.4 trillion.

The numbers here are large, and they're overwhelming. So, again, why don't we talk about ways that we can actually save money. In my reasonable conversation with Federal Fumbles every year, is just to say let's talk about it. Is this really how we want to be able to spend Americans’ taxpayer dollars?

We’ve set up a top 10 list that we listed out some of the things that we just say, okay, of the 50 different examples, we don't try to go into every spending area but lay out in the guide 50 different examples and ask the question: is this the best way to spend Americans’ dollars? And again we've all got different perspectives on it. I'm just asking the question.

For instance, last year the State Department did a grant to Ecuador to host 12 drag shows in Ecuador with American tax dollars. Now you may have different opinions in this room on drag shows. I'm just asking the simple question: is the best use of American tax dollars to actually fund drag shows in Ecuador with US tax dollars? I don't believe that it is.

Last year, we actually did a different funding through the State Department that was… actually this was the National Science Foundation. Excuse me, strike that. It seems like a State Department thing. The National Science Foundation last year did a study of butterflies in Europe. So we funded with American taxpayer dollars a butterfly study in Germany where we paid a Swedish scientist to study butterflies in Germany. I'm not real sure why American tax dollars, that was the best use of that, but that was one of the grants done last year.

Last year there was an NEA grant that was done to set up a display in Brooklyn for the Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, which by the way is not even an American band, and I’m not sure why we had to pay federal tax dollars to be able to do that. My simple question as always: why are tax dollars being taken out of Oklahoma to be able to do that?

Always popular, we had an almost, well, $350,000 grant to study smart toilets was one of the grants that we actually paid for with our federal tax dollars last year.

We also had a grant that was done studying colonial Mexican soundscapes. Now I'm sure colonial Mexican soundscapes are fascinating, but we paid for a researcher to travel to Mexico and then to be able to write a series about the sounds of colonial Mexico and how they could be used to be able to influence communities.

We, last year did a study on helmets and seat belts in Ghana to be able to study whether seat belts and helmets were effective for saving lives in Ghana. Can I just go ahead and answer that question for free? Seat belts and helmets are a good idea. They save lives. Free, I can go ahead and give you that advice. How do you know that? Because we've already spent millions of dollars in other studies here in the United States, but instead we spent money in Ghana studying helmets to see if they're actually a good idea there, and amazingly they discovered, yes, they are.

There was also a grant that was done last year—I’ve got to just walk this one through. This was at the Springfield Museum of Art in Missouri. There was a grant on a display, an installation, an exhibit in a museum called Yoko Ono Mends Peace. Now let me just read this to you. It's a simple white room where shattered cups and saucers are placed on a table, and participants are asked to mend the fragments together using common household items like twine, glue, scissors and tape, and the resulting works are displayed on nearby shelves as evidence of the power of collective action. Again, I’m not opposed to fixing broken saucers in a public place and displaying them. All I’m asking is why did Oklahomans work overtime last year to pay their tax bill to fund doing the Yoko Ono white room where people fixed broken saucers? I don't have a good answer for that yet by the way. I’m still trying to be able to get that.

If you like wine country, great, you helped pay for it. One of the highest-income areas in the world is Napa Valley, California—one of the highest income areas in the entire world. The good folks of Oklahoma helped pay for a wine pedestrian trail through Napa Valley, because apparently Napa Valley didn't have enough cash to be able to pay for the eight-mile walking trail through wine country, some of the most expensive real estate in the entire world. So the taxpayers in Oklahoma had to pay for that wine country tour trail.

If you like traveling to Hawaii, enjoy the trip. When you get there, if you go to a farmer's market, you’ll find out that you helped pay for that farmer's market because the farmer's market paid $3.4 million to be able to fund the farmer's market.

If you go to New York City and pay for a very high-dollar ticket to get into a private location in the Metropolitan Opera to be able to watch the opera. You will feel safer, I’m sure, when you go to the Metropolitan Opera because almost three-quarters of a million dollars was given to the Metropolitan Opera in New York to help them install a new fire suppression system with federal tax dollars.

If you like traveling to Paris and you go to a butcher shop in Paris, you may be fascinated to know since the 13th century, apparently butchers in Paris have come up with their own private language. It’s like a super, secret private language in Paris. Fascinating for the French is study, but unfortunately, the Americans taxpayers paid for a study of French  butchers’ private language for fear that it is diminishing and fading away. So the American tax dollars paid for this study in France to study the secret language of butchers in Paris. Can't tell you why.

You may know the story of the—let me see if I can pull this out—the Parable of the Sower. It’s a very famous, biblical story, the Parable of the Sower. Well, this particular version of the Parable of the Sower was actually little bit different. What your tax dollars paid for is actually an event that was done to teach climate futurism and to be able to use the Parable of the Sower from the Bible but to reteach a new religion called Earthseed using the biblical story of the Parable of the Sower in talking about humanity's destiny to be able to leave Earth for other planets. It wasn't the writing of the book. It was a conference for teachers to make sure teachers know how to teach this new version of the Parable of the Sower and about the new religion of Earthseed to their kids. That was done with your tax dollars.

Not leaving Ghana alone, there was also a study done in Ghana last year, not only did we do one on seat belt and helmet studies in Ghana, we did an interview project that was almost $200,000 in Ghana to interview taxicab drivers and truck drivers to ask them about how difficult driving has become with climate change, if it's harder to drive now in Ghana because of climate change. Your tax dollars paid for that.

And if you don't like that I’m discussing anything on climate change, and you may disagree with that, well, perfect because there was also a fund done with your tax dollars and the National Science Foundation to study on how to influence people that disagree with the issue of climate change with a study that was done for $400,000 on ‘pluralistic ignorance gaps in climate change’ and to be able to determine how to speak to people as the study says who are ‘ignorant’ on climate change and to be able to reeducate them on that. So if you disagree on this issue, we are studying on how to reeducate you on this issue.

Last year we also spent $991 million on ‘soft-sided facilities,’ those are called tents, along our border in Mexico. Now, best estimates on this. There's about two million people illegally crossed the border last year. So if you run the numbers on it, we spent somewhere around $500 a person on the tent facility they were processed through just to travel across the border.

Listen, we've got differences of opinion on lots of issues. I'm respectful of that. I understand that the people of Oklahoma don't think like people in other areas of the country. I also understand not everybody in Oklahoma thinks the same way. And I'm respectful of that. But I have yet to find anyone that wants their tax dollars wasted.

People literally work overtime to be table to feed their families. They’re working two or three jobs, and in April, when they pay their taxes, they want it to go to roads and infrastructure and national security. And what we reveal in Federal Fumbles is, yeah, some of that was done, but also some of that was also done because we lacked oversight and things were wasted and thrown out the door.

We did a multi-thousand page omnibus bill at the end of last year that literally no one had read—no one. There were no committee hearings in the Senate on appropriations at all last year, and trillions of dollars were spent and no one knows what they were spent for.

We try to bring: here's some of the ways that Americans’ taxpayer dollars are spent. And I’m not just complaining about it. We bring this up to say: what are we going to do about it? Are we going to do more oversight and to ask more questions and to spend money on what’s our priorities and to not spend money on what's not. So we put out Federal Fumbles, and you can go to the website, Lankford.senate.gov,  and be able to download it and be able to look at it. But the goal of this is to get all of us thinking about $31.4 trillion in federal debt. Can we focus on spending on priorities and target areas that are not.

Small: OETA doesn’t need state subsidies

I've enjoyed a lot of OETA/PBS content over the years; nature programs, historical documentaries, chilren's shows, classic films on the OETA Movie Club. My wife and I really enjoy the geneological show Finding Your Roots.

But here's the thing. Is it really the proper role of government to fund public broadcasting? I don't think it is. OETA, and PBS, and NPR - all of them can function apart from taxpayer funding. In the wake of Gov. Stitt's veto of OETA's reauthorization, a lot of media stations and personalities have decried the move. Perhaps they could step up to the plate and fund OETA/PBS much like C-SPAN is funded by the cable industry.

Here's a column by OCPA President Jonathan Small on the matter:

OETA doesn’t need state subsidies

By Jonathan Small

Gov. Kevin Stitt’s decision to veto reauthorization of the Oklahoma Educational Television Authority (OETA), the state’s Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) entity, has critics acting as though the sky is falling and that Big Bird is on his last legs.

Neither view is true. Big Bird will still be around even without Oklahoma government funding, as proven by the fact that 14 other states do not provide direct state funding to PBS stations. There are no reports of children aimless wandering the streets of those states without access to any educational programming.

Lankford, Cotton file bill to defund Homeland Security's "Disinformation Board"

Lankford, Cotton, Colleagues Lead Effort to Defund Homeland Security’s “Disinformation Board”

WASHINGTON, DC (May 3rd) – Ahead of a hearing in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) tomorrow with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Senator James Lankford (R-OK), Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR), and their colleagues introduced legislation to stop federal funds from being used to establish a DHS Disinformation Governance Board.

"Who's at church?" CDC tracked millions of phones for pandemic compliance

Bombshell report from Motherboard: the Centers for Disease Control "bought access to location data harvested from tens of millions of phones in the United States to perform analysis of compliance with curfews, track patterns of people visiting K-12 schools [and churches], and specifically monitor the effectiveness of policy in the Navajo Nation," according to documents obtained by the tech blog.

State Reps call on AG O'Connor to challenge Biden's 'Disinformation Governance Board'

Phillips Calls on AG O'Connor to Challenge Biden's Disinformation Governance Board

OKLAHOMA CITY (May 3rd) – Rep. Logan Phillips, R-Mounds, has requested that Oklahoma Attorney General John O'Connor challenge the constitutionality of the Biden Administration's recently announced Disinformation Governance Board.

OCPA: Afghanistan debacle is big government in action

Afghanistan debacle is big government in action

By Jonathan Small

The ongoing debacle in Afghanistan has become a military rout, international humiliation, and humanitarian crisis for the United States. But it’s also a lesson in the fallacy of thinking bigger government is better government.

It’s notable that many stories of successful rescues from Afghanistan are the result of private individuals and organizations acting independently of the U.S. government. That’s not surprising. Independent actors respond to changing circumstances … by changing tactics. With big government, the tendency is to stick with a flawed process regardless of outcomes and any change in course must first wade through a morass of red tape.

Big government is also plagued by hubris. Those in charge too often think they really are smarter than the average citizen and stubbornly insist their choices are best. Thus, when President Joe Biden was asked about the sight of Afghans desperately clinging to the outside of aircraft to escape and plummeting to their deaths, he dismissively responded, “That was four days ago, five days ago.”

1889 Institute: Can Government Legally Force You to Close Your Business? Yes.

Can Government Force You to Close Your Business?

by Mike Davis, 1889 Institute

(March 23, 2020) 1889 Institute takes no position on whether any or all of these measures are warranted or necessary, or whether their economic fallout would inflict more human suffering than they prevent. We are simply evaluating whether they are legal. 

With the unprecedented (in the last 100 years at least) reaction surrounding the outbreak of Covid-19, questions that few living legal scholars have considered are suddenly relevant.

• Can a quarantine be ordered? 
• Can a mass quarantine, lockdown, or “cordon sanitaire” be ordered?
• Can businesses be ordered to change their behavior? 
• Can businesses be ordered to close?
• Can state governments order these measures?
• Can local governments order these measures?

My legal brief addresses these issues from a statutory point of view; it is clear that state law gives the governor and mayors broad authority in a state of emergency. They must, of course, do so in a neutral way that they reasonably believe will help prevent the spread of infection. They cannot order quarantine of registered voters from the opposite political party while their own supporters remain free to go about their lives as usual. Nor could they nationalize the auto industry and force them to build tanks when the emergency is a microscopic virus. The less certain question is whether there is constitutional authority for extreme measures like quarantines.

Those familiar with the 1889 Institute and our goal of limited, responsible government may be surprised to hear that we answer most of these questions with a “yes.” There really is not much to debate about whether someone in government has the powers listed. Quarantine powers have been part of the general police power since before Christopher Columbus’s famous voyage. America’s founders would not be surprised that the quarantine power was being invoked today, but rather at how sparingly the power has been used in the last century.

When evaluating whether government actors may take an action, both statutory and constitutional authority must be considered. Statutory authority is fairly clear. State and federal statutes give broad quarantine powers to federal, state, and local officials.

Read the rest of this article here.

OCPA: To combat coronavirus, unleash the private sector

To combat coronavirus, unleash the private sector

By Jonathan Small

The emphasis on “public distancing” to combat the COVID-19/coronavirus should not be mistranslated into an edict to stop caring or taking necessary action. These are the times we must all commit ourselves to extraordinary personal responsibility and individual initiative. We must be courageous, not fearful. We must be wise, not obstinate. We must be a good neighbor, not an isolationist. We must be innovative and not captive. We must be compassionate and not self-centered.

Our policymakers will need to increase, not decrease, our reliance on private-sector solutions and this challenge will require government to modernize and innovate.

To some, that will sound counterintuitive. Surely at a time like this, critics will say, we need to ignore what the private sector can do and trust big government more than ever. But Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden noted the failures of big government in a recent debate when it was suggested government-run health care was needed to stop the coronavirus.

“With all due respect to Medicare for all, you have a single-payer system in Italy,” Biden said. “It doesn’t work there.”

Solutions from the private sector are helping significantly. In Colorado, which has a Democratic governor, the state waived regulations so medical professionals licensed in other states could immediately become licensed in Colorado, expedited the process for those currently seeking a medical license in-state, and expanded the ability of medical professionals other than current doctors and nurses to test for COVID-19.

If you reduce regulation, you can increase supply. Government has the opportunity during these challenging times to embrace this reality.

Similarly, in Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, lifted regulations so trucks delivering alcohol can also haul grocery supplies. Shortages in some grocery stores were not simply the product of mass purchases, but also regulations that restricted supply.

In Oklahoma, Gov. Kevin Stitt has issued similar executive orders waiving red tape as well.

At the national level, President Trump has tapped major businesses to make testing for coronavirus both easier and more efficient.

Unfortunately, these common-sense approaches often run counter to some of the loudest voices. Thus, some suggest we need bigger government, an approach that would require tax increases at a time economic contraction was already underway in Oklahoma. Such moves would set us back as a state, not speed recovery.

Instead, Oklahoma’s economy needs several pro-growth policy reforms to prevent long-term devastation from the simultaneous assault of the COVID-19 response and the oil production maneuvers between Saudi Arabia and Russia.

Oklahoma needs pro-growth tax relief and tax reform—including reforms to increase capital, such as building crowdsource funding infrastructure in Oklahoma, and expansion of tax credit programs that promote innovation and effectiveness in education and work-force training. These reforms are necessary, and the sooner they are enacted, the better for all Oklahomans.

These are the times when everything gets put into perspective, and we must prioritize what is most important. I have every confidence Oklahomans will lead the way.

Jonathan Small serves as president of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs.

1889 Institute: sell state assets to shore up underfunded pensions

SELL STATE ASSETS TO SHORE UP UNDERFUNDED PENSIONS

The state unnecessarily owns enough assets to close the funding gap in public employee pensions.

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK (January 22, 2020) – The 1889 Institute has published “Leveraging State-Owned Assets to Fund Pensions and Meet Other Long-Term Funding Challenges.” It makes the case for the sale or lease of assets owned by the State of Oklahoma as a way to fund important items like underfunded pensions, infrastructure, and bonded indebtedness. The paper identifies almost $6 billion in assets the state could liquidate and lays out a process to ensure maximum returns and protection for taxpayers.

“Oklahoma can significantly strengthen public employee pensions and make progress meeting other long-term funding challenges if it properly leverages valuable assets it already owns,” said the study’s author, Ben Lepak, 1889 Institute’s Legal Fellow. “Much of this property would be put to better use in the private sector, is not currently taxed, and costs the state money in the form of maintenance expenses,” he said.

In the study, Lepak identifies seven state-owned assets as top candidates for monetization or transfer, including the Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust (TSET), the Grand River Dam Authority, and Oklahoma’s turnpikes. The study estimates the seven assets listed are worth $5.7 billion, which the state could dedicate to long-term funding needs.

“Our largest pension system, the Teachers’ Retirement System (TRS), faces over $6.5 billion in unfunded liabilities,” Lepak noted. “Transferring the TSET endowment to TRS would do a great deal to ensure our teachers receive the pensions they’ve been promised.” In addition, Lepak notes that TSET receives annual payments typically in excess of $50 million from tobacco companies, which exceeds TSET’s annual operating expenses.

The study also emphasizes the need for strong policy guidelines in the monetization process to ensure the best result. Among the principles recommended are transparency policies to prevent favoritism and cronyism, placing final decision-making authority outside of the agency controlling the property in question, and using the newly-created Legislative Office for Fiscal Transparency.

“I am proposing to establish a process that enables the state to make regular, clear-eyed decisions about its balance sheet and the best use of limited resources,” Lepak said. “The assets noted in the study are just a starting point. The state should regularly evaluate its assets and sell items it probably shouldn’t have owned in the first place.”

About the 1889 Institute
The 1889 Institute is an Oklahoma think tank committed to independent, principled state policy fostering limited and responsible government, free enterprise and a robust civil society. The publication, “Leveraging State-Owned Assets to Fund Pensions and Meet Other Long-Term Funding Challenges” can be found on the nonprofit’s website at https://1889institute.org/fiscal-policy.

AFP Challenges Congress to End the "Corporate Welfare Horror Show"

Rated “O” for Outrageous Waste of Money

AFP Challenges Congress to End the "Corporate Welfare Horror Show" 

October 29th, 2019 -- Americans for Prosperity today will deliver each member of Congress with a Halloween treat, a horror movie poster urging them to oppose the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank and the renewal of the so-called “tax extenders.” As part of the multimillion-dollar effort to Unrig the Economy and level the playing field for every American to succeed, the group is also launching a digital video and ads in Washington, DC and across targeted states.

As part of their on-the-ground advocacy efforts, AFP delivered a letter to Congress today, urging them to oppose the EX-IM Bank and tax extenders.

AFP's Corporate Welfare Horror Show movie trailer:


AFP-OK State Director John Tidwell issued the following statement:

“Corporate welfare is a practice that truly scares Oklahomans. With the Export-Import Bank and ‘zombie’ tax-extenders up for reauthorization, we’re encouraging our congressional delegation to lead and reject these crony, unfair programs.”

Heritage: With Budget Deal, Trump’s Fiscal Legacy No Different Than Obama, Bush

Winfree: With Budget Deal, Trump’s Fiscal Legacy No Different Than Obama, Bush

WASHINGTON — Tonight, Secretary Mnuchin and Speaker Pelosi released the final details of their backroom deal to bust through 2011 Budget Control Act caps and raise the debt ceiling. Paul Winfree, director of the Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, released the following:

In a rare moment of fiscal discipline, Congress’ passage of the Budget Control Act (BCA) in 2011 placed caps on discretionary spending. Since its passage, Congress has routinely violated the spending caps with no regard for the consequences. This latest deal effectively renders the BCA dead. 

On top of the new spending, the deal suspends the debt limit for the next two years, piling on as much as $2 trillion more in debt. Hitting the debt limit ought to be a wake-up call for lawmakers to confront our nation’s unsustainable spending. Instead, many in Washington will celebrate the increased spending from BCA’s demise. But anyone concerned about the nation’s fiscal health should be alarmed. 

This deal comes less than four years after President Trump campaigned to balance the budget by cutting spending and after his administration produced three budgets to move toward fiscal sustainability. Few forces would threaten the president’s pro-growth agenda more than $22 trillion in debt fueled by unchecked government spending. If President Trump takes this deal—the worst in a decade—his fiscal legacy will be no different than the Obama and Bush administrations that he has criticized.

OCPA statement on Medicaid expansion ballot initiative

Statement from Jonathan Small, president of the Oklahoma Council for Public Affairs, on the filing of a ballot initiative to put Medicaid expansion on the ballot. 

“There isn’t support in the Legislature or the public for forcing Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion in Oklahoma for a simple reason: It prioritizes spending billions of taxpayer dollars on welfare benefits for able-bodied, working age adults, many of them single working-age men, over providing care for the truly needy. Nationwide, expansion programs have crowded out care for the aged, blind, disabled, pregnant women and children.

“Rather than spend Good Friday contemplating one of the most consequential events in history, as most Oklahomans did, expansion supporters engaged in a political stunt. The petition is meant to bluff state lawmakers into passing an expansion program they know is a bad idea. Lawmakers should stick with their gut and continue opposing this plan. The Obamacare Medicaid proposal is a massive expansion of welfare that will add 628,000 able-bodied adults to Oklahoma’s welfare rolls and could put working families on the hook for a state share of $374 million annually.

“Make no mistake, expanding Obamacare in Oklahoma will result in the state seeing the same problems as every other state that has gone down this path. Enrollment levels will be far higher than what expansion supporters predict, at significantly higher costs, to achieve significantly lower outcomes than promised. If you doubt it, just look at states comparable to Oklahoma that expanded Medicaid. Cost overruns in Arkansas have topped $1.4 billion, and Kentucky’s ranking on health outcomes remains low, despite Kentucky spending far more taxpayer money on Medicaid.

“States across the country that have expanded Medicaid have had to resort to tax increases, and the same fate awaits Oklahomans should Medicaid expand. And the growing costs of Medicaid will endanger funding for other government services like education and public safety.

“Furthermore, making a welfare program a constitutional right, regardless of funding changes at the federal level or shifting needs in Oklahoma, is bad policy, and Oklahomans understand this.

“We are confident that significant opposition will rise in the coming days as the serious flaws in this proposal become evident. Rather than expand Medicaid, state lawmakers need to pursue the real solutions already available to address Oklahoma’s health care challenges, protect state and federal taxpayers, and protect the state’s most vulnerable citizens.”

House and Senate GOP optimistic, House Dems sour on Stitt's State of the State

Senate President Pro Tempore Greg Treat (R-OKC)

Pro Tem Greg Treat comments on Governor Stitt’s state of the state speech

OKLAHOMA CITY – Senate President Pro Tempore Greg Treat, R-Oklahoma City, on Monday commented on Governor Kevin Stitt’s State of the State address.

“Governor Stitt gave a great speech where he laid out a clear vision to provide accountability, transparency, and results. Senate Republicans are focusing on these issues too through our agenda that includes budget transparency, government accountability, education investment and reform, and furthering criminal justice reform. There is a renewed sense of optimism and excitement at the Capitol and I think the governor’s speech today is reflective of that. I expect much more cooperation this year between the Senate, the House and the governor which is good for Oklahoma. Senate Republicans are excited about the 2019 session and look forward to working with Governor Stitt, and the House to put Oklahoma on the path to top 10,” Treat said.

House Minority Leader Emily Virgin (D-Norman)

Minority Leader Responds to Governor’s STOTS 

OKLAHOMA CITY – House Minority Leader Emily Virgin, D-Norman, released the following statement today in response to the Gov. Kevin Stitt’s State of the State Address:

“We certainly appreciate Governor Stitt’s tone during his speech today. For the first time in many years, there is a sense of optimism in the Capitol, and the governor and his team are a big reason for that. However, at some point, for the optimism to matter, we need to start talking about real policies.

“We love that the governor brought up criminal justice reform, but the only new policy idea he clearly proposed or endorsed was an additional $1.5 million to Women in Recovery, which is great but hardly the answer to the problems facing our criminal justice system.

“On education, we will certainly support a $1,200 teacher pay raise, but we did not hear the governor's plan for increased classroom funding. We must focus on getting more funding into the classroom. Increasing teacher pay, without also providing funding to reduce class sizes and ensure that our schools have the resources available to educate, leaves out a crucial component of improving education for our students.

“Unfortunately, we received fewer details on how the governor expects to address Oklahoma’s healthcare crisis. It is hard for our caucus to understand how we can have a conversation about healthcare without first talking about the rural hospitals that have shut down or filed for bankruptcy. Furthermore, not accepting federal Medicaid funds based on what might happen in the future with another governing body is a ridiculous stance to take when Oklahomans are dying. If the governor is against expanding Medicaid, he should own it and offer a different vision for insuring the 200,000 Oklahomans that the expansion would cover.

“Finally, in his speech, Governor Stitt said ‘The government does not create wealth, only the private sector can. In my administration, every policy decision will promote a healthy economy.’

“This is simply untrue and is disrespectful to the men and women who serve in our state government. The truth is that growth comes through a partnership between private and public sectors. You can’t have a trucking company without roads, and as 2008 showed, you can’t have a mortgage company without government regulation.

“Moving forward, we want to work with this governor, and we think there is room to do that in areas of Criminal Justice Reform, Education, and hopefully healthcare.”

House Speaker Charles McCall (R-Atoka)

House Speaker Charles McCall on Stitt's State of the State

“Governor Stitt outlined a conservative, pro-economic growth plan for Oklahoma that demands accountability and efficiency from our government while also addressing the needs of our core agencies. House Republicans share those goals, and we are ready to work with Gov. Stitt, our Democratic colleagues in the House and Senate leadership to accomplish those priorities.

“We support reforms that give the governor more control over the executive branch and that provide the Legislature more resources to ensure taxpayer dollars are being used as intended and agency programs are meeting the needs of our citizens. We also believe Oklahoma’s teachers should be the highest paid educators in the region, and real reforms that put more money into the classroom and improve student outcomes are necessary. We recognize our current healthcare system is not working for our low income and rural citizens, and we need an affordable Oklahoma solution that gives more people access to care and meets the unique needs of our population. We are proud of recent bipartisan efforts to reform our criminal justice system, and we intend to continue that momentum with policies that reduce the number of non-violent offenders in our prison system while ensuring that violent criminals meet justice.

“We believe those ideas are shared by the majority of Oklahomans, and we are ready to work together to move our state forward and make Oklahomans more prosperous.”

1889 Institute: End locksmith licensing

1889 INSTITUTE CALLS FOR END TO MOST LOCKSMITH LICENSING

Only 15 states regulate locksmiths; only Oklahoma requires a locksmith to be 21

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK (December 19, 2018) – The 1889 Institute, an Oklahoma state policy think tank, has published “Locksmith Licensure in Oklahoma”. It finds no public interest justification for the continued licensure of locksmiths. Only 15 states regulate locksmiths, with five of these requiring only registration. Of the 10 states that license locksmiths, only Oklahoma requires a locksmith to have reached the age of 21 in order to be licensed.

“One wonders if the Oklahoma legislature believes that this state is unique in harboring young hoodlums itching to use the cover of locksmithing as a way to commit crime,” said Michael R. Davis, attorney, Research Fellow for the 1889 Institute, and author of the report.

This latest short study, or Policy Prescription, from the 1889 Institute explains that neither of two conditions that must simultaneously exist to justify occupational licensing are present for locksmiths. These questions are, first, that there must be real, significant risk for patrons, and, second, there must be little or no market and legal incentives for service providers to take proper precautions.

The 1889 Institute has repeatedly found that when Oklahoma licenses an occupation, it imposes the most onerous conditions in the nation. For funeral directors and embalmers, it imposes high barriers for practitioners to move in from other states. Only Oklahoma requires electrologists to have a bachelor’s degree. Oklahoma does not accept training hours from out-of-state cosmetology schools. This state is one of only 15 that licenses pedorthists. The Institute has not found licensing to be warranted for any of these occupations.

The 1889 Institute has produced several publications regarding occupational licensing, including “The Need to Review and Reform Occupational Licensing in Oklahoma,” “Policy Maker’s Guide to Evaluating Proposed and Existing Occupational Licensing Laws,” and “A Win-Win for Consumers and Professionals Alike: An Alternative to Occupational Licensing.”

These reports lay out, in detail, the intellectual and policy justifications for eliminating many of the occupational licensing laws in Oklahoma and other states. Unfortunately, the Oklahoma legislature has yet to act on any of these recommendations.

About the 1889 Institute
The 1889 Institute is an Oklahoma think tank committed to independent, principled state policy fostering limited and responsible government, free enterprise and a robust civil society. The publication, “Locksmith Licensure in Oklahoma,” and other reports mentioned, can be found on the nonprofit’s website at http://www.1889institute.org/licensing.html.

1889 Institute, Goldwater Institute publish alternative to occupational licensing

1889 INSTITUTE, GOLDWATER INSTITUTE JOINTLY PUBLISH PAPER

There’s a better way to ensure occupational quality—without relying on the government.

OKLAHOMA CITY (November 15, 2018) – Today, the government plays the role of granting occupational licenses to professionals, supposedly to protect consumers and ensure quality services. But as a new paper jointly published by the Goldwater Institute (Phoenix, AZ) and the 1889 Institute shows, there’s a better, modern alternative to the government-run system that benefits consumers and professionals alike.

In their new report, A Win-Win for Consumers and Professionals Alike: An Alternative to Occupational Licensing, Byron Schlomach, director of the Oklahoma-based 1889 Institute, and the Goldwater Institute’s Christina Sandefur and Dr. Murray Feldstein explain that private certification would produce information benefits for consumers and service providers without the existing government monopoly on licensing.

“If you’ve ever used Yelp to find a good restaurant, or Angie’s List to find a good plumber, then you know how important it can be to get accurate information about sellers and products. Occupational licensing is supposed to provide that—a confirmation that the seller will provide a reliable product or service—but that often doesn’t happen without other costs, like reduced supply, higher prices, and compromised quality,” Schlomach said.

The paper proposes private certification as an alternate solution to government licensing. Private certification provides the best of all worlds: It protects consumers from fraud, encourages the creation of reliable sources of shorthand information to help both professionals and consumers, and it gives privately certified sellers the incentive to keep their quality high in order to keeps their certification credible.

A model bill included in the paper offers a voluntary system to complement the existing traditional occupational licensing process. It would allow private certifying organizations to register with the state, privately certify individuals to practice an occupation according to the organization’s practices, and employ modern technology, including consumer-rating systems using smartphone applications, to protect consumers. Such a system would create an element of competition, allowing certifying organizations to vie to provide the highest-quality credential.

The paper can be found here, with additional work on occupational licensing here.

1889 Institute calls for restructuring boards and commissions

1889 INSTITUTE CALLS FOR RESTRUCTURING BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

Potential for corruption is currently baked in

OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. (May 29, 2018) – The 1889 Institute, an Oklahoma state policy think tank, has  published “Baked-In Corruption: The Need to Reform Boards and Commissions.” It argues that legislatures give too little thought to the institutional structures of boards and commissions. Special interests are given outsize representation on bodies intended to regulate those very interests. The result is that the regulated become the regulators. Legislatures must stop creating governance structures where conflicts of interest, self-dealing, and groupthink are to be expected.

The report criticizes licensing boards in general. It also calls out the Health Department Board, recently wracked by scandal, the Health Care Authority, which defends implausibly high Medicaid enrollments, the Oklahoma Bar Association, and various education-related boards.

“It’s really surprising that so little thought is given to how boards and commissions are constituted,” said the study’s author, Dr. Byron Schlomach, economist and Director of the 1889 Institute. “We’ve essentially given licensing boards, health boards, and educational boards a license to self-deal,” he said.

Schlomach went on to say that the report is less about any specific board or set of boards than it is about carelessness when it comes to institutional structure. “This is not an Oklahoma-only thing,” he said. “This report criticizes institutional arrangements that prevail nationwide, where legislatures are talked into creating institutional structures that can do real harm to their constituents,” said Schlomach.

Recommendations in the report include:

• more straightforward governance, eliminating some boards and commissions and putting one person in charge; 
• replacing current board/commission members with informed and educated members of the general public not directly involved in the industry regulated; 
• greater reliance on market competition; and 
• creating incentives for private self-regulation. 

About the 1889 Institute
The 1889 Institute is an Oklahoma think tank committed to independent, principled state policy fostering limited and responsible government, free enterprise and a robust civil society. The publication, “Baked-In Corruption: The Need to Reform Boards and Commissions,” can be found on the nonprofit’s website at http://www.1889institute.org/regulation.html.

Engle: A Cornett However...

A Cornett However...

By Richard Engle

I was at an event and got stuck talking to a musician. I am not musically inclined, so to make conversation, I asked him about the difference between a trumpet and a cornet. Knowing me he responded, “A Trump-ette is likely to be conservative, a Cornett however...”

I live in Oklahoma City and have during the entire tenure of Mick Cornett as Mayor. We have had occasion to visit before and during his terms in office. He is a nice guy. He is intelligent and he has strong communication skills. He is not a conservative by any definition.

Some will say he was a good manager of our city. Well, we have a city manager to do that. They can point to the recent MAPS projects, but should note that they are built with funds from a tax increase he supported, but the city is now faced with the costs of operation of those projects and little to nothing was done to prepare for those costs. In the waning days of his final term another tax increase was passed at his urging and those funds may well be used to plug the gap in his planning.

The most important project in the recent MAPS plan is the convention center. Any observant citizen of the city will know that it has been mired in problems and delays. He cannot be credited with a success in this matter.

His campaign seems to be taking credit for the Thunder. Nearly all of us are pleased to have a big league team, and more that they are finding success. As the team is a private business, and an expensive one, the credit should first go to the investors who bought a team in Seattle and then moved them to Oklahoma. Second, if a public entity is to be credited, the state legislature made a significant “investment” in the team. Finally, the person most directly involved in the city government’s role in getting the team here is former State Senator David Holt who has now succeeded Cornett at City Hall. Holt even wrote a popular book entitled, Big League City.

There may be little opportunity for a mayor to establish conservative credentials, but there are opportunities for the opposite. As Mayor, Mick Cornett wrote a letter to Congress to discourage any repeal of the “Affordable Care Act” also known as Obamacare. In his letter he says, “The effects of repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will be most heavily felt at the local level, so it is our responsibility to protect the citizens of our cities and metro areas. The new GOP plan is bad for cities, bad for people who live in cities and bad for people who provide healthcare in cities.” He continued by stating that “healthcare is not a privilege; it is a human right.”

It should be noted that this was not a simple note to a single member of Congress. This was a formal and public letter from the U.S. Conference of Mayors and Cornett was the primary signatory and the head of the organization.

Does it need to be stated that conservatives do not favor Obamacare?

What of other issues of import to conservatives? Cornett has no record nor known stated opinions or policies that could be considered pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment, or favoring smaller government. Regarding the final matter, he is quite proud of his expansion of government in Oklahoma City. His tenure as Mayor, the longest in city history, did not include a single significant improvement in efficiency or cost reduction in city services.

The other GOP candidates have variant levels of conservative credentials. Mick Cornett not only lacks the same, he has abundant evidence of the opposite.

No one who votes for Mick Cornett will have any cause to consider themselves to be a conservative, and if the OKGOP nominates him it abolishes the moniker “conservative” from its description.

Richard Engle is a longtime conservative Republican activist, a former city councilman, and businessman.

1889 Institute calls for end to most social worker licensing

1889 INSTITUTE CALLS FOR END TO MOST SOCIAL WORKER LICENSING

Risk to the public is non-existent 

OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. (April 25, 2018) – The 1889 Institute, an Oklahoma state policy think tank, has published “Social Worker Licensure in Oklahoma.” It finds no public interest justification for the continued licensure of social workers who are not clinical social workers. Very few social workers practice their trade outside of some level of supervision. Most states, like California, do not require social workers with only a bachelor’s degree, especially those who work under supervision, to have a license the way Oklahoma does.

This latest short study, or Policy Prescription, from the 1889 Institute explains that neither of two conditions that must simultaneously exist to justify occupational licensing are present for social work. These are, first, that there must be real, significant risk for patrons, and, second, there must be little or no market and legal incentives for service providers to take proper precautions.

“While social work has become a valued profession now that corporations and government have taken on the work of family and charity, we never needed priests and family to be licensed when they did the same sort of work,” said Dr. Byron Schlomach, economist, Director of the 1889 Institute, and co-author of the report.

The 1889 Institute has produced several other publications regarding occupational licensing, including “The Need to Review and Reform Occupational Licensing in Oklahoma” and “Policy Maker’s Guide to Evaluating Proposed and Existing Occupational Licensing Laws.” These two previous reports lay out, in detail, the intellectual and policy justifications for eliminating many of the occupational licensing laws in Oklahoma and other states.

About the 1889 Institute
The 1889 Institute is an Oklahoma think tank committed to independent, principled state policy fostering limited and responsible government, free enterprise and a robust civil society. The publication, “Social Worker Licensure in Oklahoma,” and other reports mentioned, can be found on the nonprofit’s website at http://www.1889institute.org/licensing.html.

Spiropoulos: Frustrated and fed up

Frustrated and fed up

by Andrew Spiropoulos

Gov. Mary Fallin has had enough. She is frustrated with a legislature that cannot muster sufficient votes to enact even popular policies like taxing tobacco or increasing teacher pay. I know how she feels. I’m frustrated too.

I’m frustrated that, for seven years, the governor never came forward with a comprehensive and detailed plan to reform the size and structure of our dysfunctional state government. For almost two decades, Oklahoma’s conservative political and policy leaders have studied, proposed, and pleaded for reform of our bloated, unmanageable executive branch, our costly excess of poorly managed public school districts and state higher education institutions, and parasitic patchwork of crony-capitalist tax credits and exemptions.

Why didn’t Gov. Fallin dust off an excellent study of the executive branch commissioned by Gov. Frank Keating while she was lieutenant governor? Instead, despite possessing both public attention and the considerable resources of the state administrative apparatus, she passively passed the cup of leadership to a leanly staffed, part-time legislature. And then she was shocked when nothing got done.

I’m frustrated that the governor doesn’t understand or explain how she successfully presided over an era of great prosperity and how conservative efforts to limit and reform government played a critical role in swiftly lifting us out of a recession caused by a deliberate economic attack on our energy industry.

Unlike at the end of the 1980s, when wrong-headed state policymakers compounded our economic suffering by significantly raising taxes during a recession, this time conservative legislative leaders successfully fought off most efforts to raise economically harmful taxes, kept spending down, and afforded private enterprise time and capital to recover. The governor, and business leaders who should know better, consistently confuse the prosperity of state government with that of its people. It’s fine that state tax revenue has finally started to rise, but it’s more important that we’ve regained all the jobs we lost in the recession. Any candidate who can’t comprehend that our good news far outweighs the bad doesn’t deserve your vote.

I’m frustrated that the governor doesn’t understand either that education spending has risen, not fallen, during her term or that there’s no reason to believe that, absent significant reform, increased spending leads to improved achievement. I’m fed up with conservative leaders who sat mute while the education establishment and left-wing propagandists disguised as policy analysts and journalists fed the public a buffet of readily refutable lies about declining budgets while districts chose to spend money on anything other than raising teacher pay. Worse yet, these lies drowned out the news that the few reforms, like the Reading Sufficiency Act, we’ve barely managed to preserve have begun to work. The well of public discourse concerning education is now so poisoned with myth that I’m not sure rational conversation is possible.

I’m frustrated that the governor repeatedly passed on opportunities to lead the charge for bold conservative reform while Wisconsin’s Scott Walker or Indiana’s Mitch Daniels, facing challenging, even vicious, political environments, cut spending, demonstrably improved agency management, expanded school choice, and reformed both the state health care and higher education establishments. Gov. Fallin and her staff had repeated opportunities to consult and learn from these successful leaders, but they never did.

Oklahoma has moved beyond the point where a winning personality, good intentions, and vaguely conservative beliefs are enough to lead. We need our Walker or Daniels.

Andrew Spiropoulos is the Robert S. Kerr, Sr. Professor of Constitutional Law at Oklahoma City University and the Milton Friedman Distinguished Fellow at the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs. The views expressed in this column are those of the author and should not be attributed to either institution. Originally published in the Journal Record.