1889 Institute: OK taxes and fees are higher than Massachusetts as percentage of GDP

OKLAHOMA’S GOVERNMENT COULD BE SMALLER

Oklahoma’s taxes and fees are higher than Massachusetts’ as a percentage of GDP.

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK (July 7, 2021) – The 1889 Institute has updated “Oklahoma Government Revenues and Spending in Perspective,” a Fact Sheet that compares Oklahoma to the other states in total taxes and fees collected by state and local government as a percentage of the state’s GDP. Oklahoma ranks 13th among the states in how low its governments’ revenues are compared to other states.

The Fact Sheet also looks at state and local government spending in six categories: higher education, public education, public welfare, hospitals, highways, and corrections. Oklahoma spends more of its GDP on higher education than 32 other states, but spends more by this measure than only 9 states on public education.

“In looking at the spending rankings, it’s clear that Oklahoma could spend more efficiently in some areas,” said Jason Lawter, the study’s author and Fiscal Policy Fellow at the 1889 Institute. “This does require discernment, though, given that the state’s road needs may well justify Oklahoma outspending 33 other states in that area,” he said.

Reps. Hardin, Townley worry new State Park fees will lead to decreased tourism

Hardin, Townley Worry Park Fees Will Lead to Decreased Tourism

OKLAHOMA CITY (June 12th) – State Reps. Tommy Hardin, R-Madill, and Tammy Townley, R-Ardmore, today expressed their frustration following the recent announcement by the Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department that state-owned parks would now begin charging parking fees.

“I was extremely disappointed and downright insulted by the answers I received today from Director Winchester on park fees,” Hardin said, “I believe the fees should be put on hold until Tourism corrects the reservation fraud going on and local representation has the opportunity to voice their concerns. Apparently people are making large profits on reservations they make and then resell. The fraud and the proposed fees are taking away the ability of local people to enjoy their state parks.”

State Rep. Grego questions new State Park fees

Grego Questions State Park Fees

OKLAHOMA CITY – State Rep. Jim Grego, R-Wilburton, today said he was in total dismay after learning of the Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department’s plan to start charging fees to enter state-owned parks, which traditionally have been free except for extra amenities.

Rep. Grego worked tirelessly alongside Rep. Johnny Tadlock, R-Idabel, during the past legislative session trying to postpone or eliminate what he is calling a new tax.

“In committee hearings, Tourism Director Jerry Winchester continued to try to sell us his cause,” Grego said. “We introduced House Bill 2884, which would have allowed exceptions from these fees for local citizens. It’s hard for me to understand when a lake was built 90 years ago on donated land and the cost of construction was paid with public funds, that now we are going to charge our citizens a fee to enjoy this body of water.”

Grego said as a child growing up in Latimer County, going to Robber’s Cave State Park’s Lake Carlton was one of the few outings his family of 12 could afford.

Small: Stitt's rapid about-face on Medicaid expansion

A rapid about-face

By Jonathan Small

In the past decade, Republican governors in several states, eager for Obamacare federal dollars but aware their constituents opposed Obamacare, adopted “modified” versions of Medicaid expansion that included very minimal work requirements or premiums.

Almost all subsequently trashed those “conservative” reforms, usually after left-wing groups threatened to sue.

The same pattern can now be seen in Oklahoma, but at a much faster pace. Reportedly at the urging of Vice President Mike Pence and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Seema Verma, Gov. Kevin Stitt told lawmakers Feb. 3 that he wanted Oklahoma to expand Medicaid through a federal waiver that would allow “moderate premiums and work requirements” for the estimated 628,000 able-bodied adults added to the welfare program, similar to Pence’s expansion of Medicaid in Indiana.

But by Feb. 16, Oklahoma Watch reported that Stitt’s deputy secretary of health said the state would actually expand Medicaid on July 1 with no work requirements or cost-sharing provisions. “After that, he said, the state plans to apply for a federal waiver that would incorporate many of the ideas in Stitt’s SoonerCare 2.0 plan,” Oklahoma Watch reported.

Thus, proposed “conservative” Obamacare/Medicaid expansion was abandoned in near-record time in Oklahoma—about three weeks. Sadly, the rapid abandonment of promises made to Oklahoma voters is what too often passes for government efficiency in Oklahoma.

These events prove Oklahoma’s Medicaid-expansion effort has never been about improving health outcomes or fiscal prudence. Instead, state politicians and special-interest groups cared only about getting federal money.

In the weeks ahead, we will witness lawmakers tap dance around another major Obamacare issue: Embracing Medicaid expansion means Oklahoma must come up with as much as $374 million annually to pay for it at a time the state already faces a shortfall of $85 million. Among the funding idea is, no surprise, a de facto tax increase: a hospital “fee.” The Democratic leader of the Senate had the candor to note that fee (which is being touted by Republicans) will drive up the costs of premiums for Oklahomans. Her GOP counterparts change the topic when that fact comes up.

The results of an Oklahoma embrace of Obamacare are obvious. Taxes will go up and so will health care costs. But health outcomes will remain unchanged, as can be seen by the experience of other states that expanded Medicaid like Colorado, Indiana and Arkansas. Indiana had to spike a teacher pay raise last year due to rising Medicaid costs, and citizens in those states now face higher medical bills, as even left-wing organizations concede in Colorado.

Oklahoma Republicans say they must offer an “alternative” to a Medicaid expansion plan scheduled for a public vote this year, but so far their alternative is almost a carbon copy of the ballot measure. A true alternative would involve rejecting Obamacare and focusing on real solutions, not me-tooism.

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

Chamber: Oklahomans strongly oppose new municipal taxes/fees on paper and plastic

Oklahomans Strongly Oppose New Municipal Taxes, Fees

Taxes, Fees on Paper and Plastic Products Strongly Opposed

OKLAHOMA CITY (April 3, 2019) – A statewide survey conducted by 1892 LLC on behalf of the State Chamber of Oklahoma reveals a supermajority (76%) of registered Oklahoma voters oppose allowing cities and towns to impose new taxes and fees for paper and plastic products. The survey was conducted March 31 and April 1. Legislation (SB 1001) to prevent municipalities from arbitrarily enacting new taxes and/or fees on a variety of consumer products is pending before the Oklahoma House of Representatives.

The survey found that Oklahoma voters are far less likely to vote for candidates who support enacting or increasing taxes and fees on paper or plastic products. Seventy-one (71%) percent of respondents said they are less likely to vote for a candidate who supports increasing taxes on paper or plastic products. When examined by political party affiliation, Republicans are net less likely to vote for that candidate by -76% (Independents net less likely by -43% and Democrats net less likely by -22%).

Voters in all five Oklahoma congressional districts, including the Oklahoma City and Tulsa media markets, are net less likely to vote for a candidate in support of new municipal taxes and or fees.

“We wanted a clearer understanding of how Oklahomans feel about this issue, and the survey reveals that most Oklahomans—from all political parties and in all areas of the state—are strongly opposed to allowing municipalities to enact new taxes and fees on consumer items such as paper and plastic products,” said Mike Jackson, Executive Vice President of Government & Political Affairs for the State Chamber. “Data also confirms that these policies harm local economies and employment, without significant environmental benefit.”

Supreme Court overturns electric/hybrid car tax; Fallin, Richardson comment

Governor Mary Fallin Statement on the Oklahoma Supreme Court Striking Down Electric, Hybrid Vehicle Registration Fee

OKLAHOMA CITY – Governor Mary Fallin today issued the following statement in response to the Oklahoma Supreme Court striking down a registration fee for electric and hybrid vehicles:

 “I’m disappointed with the Oklahoma Supreme Court striking down the registration fee for electric and hybrid vehicles. Fortunately, lawmakers are in special session now working on how to adjust a shortfall of $215 million of state appropriations caused when the state Supreme Court earlier this year struck down a proposed smoking cessation fee.”

[Governor's Press Office] Note: House Bill 1449 would have established a $100 fee for the registration of an electric vehicle and a $30 fee for a hybrid vehicle. Revenue from the fees, which was to have gone into effect Jan. 1, would have gone to the state's highway construction and maintenance fund. The measure was projected to raise more than $506,000 for the current 2018 fiscal year, and $1.01 million for the 2019 fiscal year. The measure passed the House, 61-36, and the Senate, 29-11.

Richardson Successfully Overturns Electric Car Tax Increase [*]

Tulsa, OK, October 24, 2017 – Gary Richardson, Republican candidate for Governor,  celebrated the overturning of the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Fee that he challenged in the Oklahoma Supreme Court this summer.

"I am thankful that the State Supreme Court recognized that the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Fee leveed on hybrid and electric vehicles was an illegal tax increase," said Richardson.  Richardson referred to the ruling in favor of the Sierra Club, which challenged the same fee as Richardson did in his suit.

"Oklahoma deserves a leader who puts their words into actions," said Richardson.  "I am the only candidate for Governor who even attempted to stop the tax increases and I'm not even an elected official like some of my opponents.  Imagine what will happen when I get elected as Governor."


[* - I wouldn't call the headline 'Richardson Successfully Overturns' strictly accurate. While Richardson's lawsuit was practically identical in argument to the Sierra Club's, the Court did not rule on his lawsuit, choosing the other instead.]

Turner's 'Conservative View': A Dollar Store Calculator

A DOLLAR STORE CALCULATOR

I have found that one of the handiest things a person can own is a thing that many of us take for granted; a simple hand held calculator can prevent anyone from making a mistake on one’s checkbook when deducting the amounts when we pay our bills. I can remember when calculators first came out they were very expensive, years ago a simple one would set you back $50.00 or more. Now you can go to the local Dollar Tree store and buy a very good one for one dollar. With all of the talk about the special session of the legislature, I think it would be a good idea for all of our legislators and our governor to make a trip to the local Dollar Tree and purchase one. For less than $200.00 each lawmaker could have his or her very own calculator to check the math on the bills they will be voting on. I recently read an article about a fee that will be placed on child support payments in our state, in the next paragraph I will share what has been told to the citizens and I will use my little one dollar calculator to check their math.

The Oklahoma Department of Human Services is ready to begin assessing a 3 percent fee on child support payments, which they say is expected to generate about $1 million to balance its budget. These collections are handled by Child Support Services, a division of DHS. According to the article the fee will begin October 1st and be capped at $10 per month; this fee is in addition to an annual $25 fee once $500 in support is collected and issued to the custodial person. For example, if a custodial person receives $300 a month, after the fee that person now will receive $291 a month.  It needs to be noted that Gov. Mary Fallin approved the new fee at the end of the latest legislative session. According to the agency the money goes toward offsetting the cost of the collection program. It is also claimed that projections show that the average cost will be $4.31 per month and 78,000 cases are subject to the fee. While that all sounds good, get your calculators out and check the math.

We are told that $1 Million will be raised to support the program. If 78,000 cases are subject to the fee multiply 78,000 by $4.31 average cost by 12 months. The answer is $4,034,160 in my book that is just a little over the $1 million we were told it would generate. If it is a $10 fee then 78,000 X $10 X 12 = $9,360,000. The people of Oklahoma are being led to believe that the cost will only be 1 million dollars; in reality at least 4 million dollars will come out of the economy.  This is just one example how government grows into the monster it has become. Once any agency has a revenue stream it will never go down and they will scream to the high heavens to maintain it. During the last session of the legislature far too many of our elected officials spent all of their time coming up with schemes to raise more money. The passing of fees in our state has become nothing short of a plague upon society. It has gotten to the point where I just hate to see the legislature convene, for I know all of us who pay taxes are going to be hit. Instead of just rubber stamping fees like the one I just illustrated, those little Dollar Tree calculators might be a good thing to have in the future.

Russell Turner is a businessman, farmer, and conservative Republican activist from Adair County, where he served one term as county commissioner. Russell has written his weekly column, 'The Conservative View', for many years. If you wish to contact him or subscribe to his weekly email list, he can be reached at rdrepublican@windstream.net.

Oklahoma Supreme Court strikes down cigarette tax

In a swift and unanimous decision, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the Cigarette Tax Smoking Cessation Fee passed by the state legislature and signed by Governor Fallin violated the Oklahoma Constitution.

Here's the summary from the opinion (which can be read in full at this link):

Petitioners, who are manufacturers, wholesalers, and consumers of cigarettes, challenged Senate Bill 845, alleging that it is a revenue bill enacted outside of the procedure mandated in Article V, Section 33 of the Oklahoma Constitution. The parties agree that the passage of SB 845 did not comply with Article V, Section 33; so the case turns on whether SB 845 is the kind of "revenue bill" that Article V, Section 33 governs. Applying the test we have utilized since 1908, we conclude that the primary purpose of Sections 2, 7, 8, and 9 of SB 845 is to raise new revenue for the support of state government through the assessment of a new $1.50 excise tax on cigarettes and that, in doing so, SB 845 levies a tax in the strict sense. As such, Sections 2, 7, 8, and 9 of SB 845 comprise a revenue bill enacted in violation of Article V, Section 33 and are unconstitutional.

The scathing opinion was written by Justice Patrick Wyrick, the newest addition to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, and came less than 48 hours after the Court heard oral arguments on the case.

Some nuggets from the opinion:

[ś22] As a threshold matter, Petitioners present compelling contextual evidence in support of their claim that the Legislature's primary purpose in enacting SB 845 was to raise new revenues. The State Respondents urge us to ignore that evidence, and understandably so; it strongly indicates SB 845's passage was motivated by the Legislature's need to raise revenue so that it could satisfy its constitutional obligation to enact a balanced budget. We agree that a measure's purpose must be measured by its actual operation and effect, rather than by any legislator's statements as to what motivated his or her vote for the measure. But this dispute over the relevance of contextual evidence is ultimately of no consequence because SB 845's text-and text alone-conclusively demonstrates that the primary operation and effect of the measure is to raise new revenue to support state government.

More:

[ś42] The position taken by the State Respondents is, in this regard, extraordinary. In their view even a measure that explicitly levies a massive new tax, can evade Article V, Section 33's "revenue bill" requirements so long as the tax is enacted for a "regulatory" purpose. In this respect, the State Respondents are willing to go even further than the House of Representatives because, under their view, even a measure which explicitly levies a new excise tax on cigarettes - like the four failed House measures - could have been enacted with a bare majority vote. This is so, insist the State Respondents, because the purpose of the new $1.50 assessment has always been to discourage smoking. The logical end point of this position is that the Legislature can impose by bare majority any tax whose purpose is to discourage behavior disfavored by the government. One can imagine the gasoline tax being doubled "to reduce traffic congestion and wear and tear on our roads, the costs of which are overburdening the Department of Transportation," or the income tax on the top 1% being tripled "to reduce the societal ills that arise from income disparities among our citizens." Surely the people did not intend that the Legislature could blatantly tax them without complying with Article V, Section 33, by merely wordsmithing their bills to describe some "regulatory" purpose for the tax. Thus, we reiterate that whether a measure is "intended to raise revenue" must be the overarching consideration in determining whether a measure is a "revenue bill." If so, the Legislature must either muster enough votes to satisfy Article V, Section 33, or submit the measure to the people for their approval.

More:

[ś49] Lastly, were we to hold otherwise, the distinction between fees and taxes-and thus the protections against taxation provided by Article V, Section 33-would be meaningless. The State Respondents tell us that this is a common refrain from those raising such challenges, and one we should thus ignore. But despite any prior false alarms, this cry of "wolf!" rings true. If this quintessential excise tax can be transformed into a fee merely by calling it a fee and adding some regulatory gloss to the measure enacting it, then the promise of Article V, Section 33-a promise made to citizens in 1992 when they went to the polls and enacted the amended version-will be an empty one. The "tax relief" to be expected from the requirement that all "future bills 'intended to raise revenue' . . . be approved by either a vote of the people or a three-fourths majority in both houses of the Legislature" will have been illusory. And that, we think, would be an abject failure to carry out "the manifest purpose of the framers and the people who adopted it." 

Read the full opinion here.

This end result was very clear to anyone who was not dead-set on raising taxes on Oklahomans this past legislative session. The constitutional provisions regarding raising taxes are not rocket science, they're crystal clear, and it is beyond the pale that the Legislature (with some exceptions) and Governor sought to so blatantly violate the Constitution and the will of the people of Oklahoma.

If this measure was not struck down, the Legislature would have been given unlimited ability and power to raise taxes. The Supreme Court made the absolute right decision.

Third lawsuit filed over last-minute tax hikes

House Bill 2433 passed in the final hours of the legislative session, putting $123M more in taxes on Oklahomans through adding a 1.25% sales tax on vehicle sales, in addition to other taxes already charged on sales. That measure is now being challenged in court by the Oklahoma Automobile Dealers Association, Battison Honda and Caitlin Cannon of Ponca City.

This becomes the third lawsuit filed that challenges the constitutionality of several last-minute tax hikes passed by the Legislature last month.

The first lawsuit was on the $257M cigarette tax Smoking Cessation Fee (SB 845). The second suit was filed by Republican gubernatorial candidate Gary Richardson, challenging HB 1449 (~$1.4M electric/CNG fuel tax), HB 2348 ($4.4M-$11M standard deduction freeze), and HB 2433 ($123M auto sales tax).

Rep. Faught: "Role reversal at the State Capitol"

From State Rep. George Faught (R-Muskogee) on Facebook:

This session, we have seen a role reversal here at the State Capitol. Republicans from the Governor on down have proposed new and higher taxes, ultimately passed on to the citizens of this State, while the Democrats are opposing these increased taxes merely for political posturing. There are some of us who have been against these new revenue measures from the beginning of session. We have not been obstructionists, but delivered our fiscal policies to our leadership to avoid these new taxes. We have won some battles by keeping even worse ideas from coming forward, and we have lost other battles. The goal is to continue to grow those who are committed to sound policies that we as Republicans should adhere and to remain an effective voice. I am reminded of what the late Labor Commissioner Mark Costello always reminded me: "A fee is nothing more than a tax by another name".

Today is the next-to-last day of this year's legislative session. This week, I've been wearing a red tie to symbolize my continued opposition to raising taxes on Oklahoma workers and businesses, my objection to unconstitutionally raising taxes in the final week of session, my intent to uphold the wishes of Oklahoma voters, who just six months ago overwhelmingly rejected higher taxes, and to express my support of the Republican platform principles of limited government and lower taxes.

We can and must do better.

SoonerPolitics.org reports that, like Rep. Faught, some of the other conservative members of the legislature have been wearing red ties to demonstrate their solidarity with Republican platform principles. David Van Risseghem, editor of SoonerPolitics, called it the 'Red Tie Brigade of Conservatism'.

House JCAB passes $381M in "new revenue"

The House Joint Committee on Appropriations and Budget met late this evening and, among other measures, passed two bills that raised over $381,000,000 in new revenue.

SB845: Creates the “Smoking Cessation Act of 2017”. Bill proposes to assess a fee of $1.50 per pack of cigarettes to be paid by the wholesaler. Estimated Fiscal Impact: $257,841,000

HB2433: Bill proposes to amend the sales tax exemption for motor vehicles to provide that a portion of the state sales tax levy (1.25%) will apply to sales of motor vehicles. Estimated Fiscal Impact: $123,383,000

How this gets around the State Constitution Article 5, Section 33 (SQ640) is beyond me:

The Conservative View: Word Games and Your Money

This week's Conservative View, by Adair County Commissioner and conservative activist Russell Turner (R-Stilwell).

The Conservative View
by Russell Turner

Word Games and Your Money

I have heard it said that nothing will get your attention faster than someone getting into your pocketbook. In the case of our state legislature, any time that they start funding more programs it is of special interest to me. Our citizens who are on the receiving end of those programs fail to understand that the money our legislators are spending can only come from one source, that source is the taxpayers of the state of Oklahoma. Several years ago the voters of Oklahoma voted yes on State Question 640, it was meant to slow down the ever increasing taxes that could be imposed upon the citizens of Oklahoma.

The Oklahoma Constitution states that revenue-raising measures cannot be passed in the final five days of the legislative session and that tax increases must receive three-fourths support in both the House and Senate or be sent to a vote of the people. Since the passage of SQ 640, the State Legislature has routinely passed user fees instead of taxes upon the citizens to supposedly get around SQ 640. In the final days of the last legislative session, HB 2347 was passed which would have levied a 1-percent tax on insurance payments, increasing the cost of health care for working families by $78 million per year. Fortunately the bill was challenged in court saying it was enacted unconstitutionally. House Bill 2437 was approved in the final week of session and did not receive the support of a supermajority in either chamber of the Legislature. The Supreme Court’s decision ruled that the provider fee is in fact a tax and issued an order blocking enforcement of the health care tax. State Rep. Mike Ritze, one of only two doctors serving in the Oklahoma Legislature, was quoted as saying, “House Bill 2437 would have added to the already heavy tax burden facing Oklahoma citizens, we need to reduce taxes on Oklahomans, not increase them, and calling a tax a ‘fee’ does not make it easier for the taxpayers.”

Anyone who tells you that getting involved in politics does no good needs to take a good look at the effects that SQ 640 had on our state. I, and people from all parts of the state, took of our time and carried petitions to get SQ 640 on the ballot in the first place; one percent doesn’t seem like much, but without SQ 640 Oklahomans would have had 78 million dollars less every year and that is one word game we all can understand. 

If you wish to contact Russell Turner, or want to subscribe to his email loop, email him at rdrepublican@windstream.net. 

The Conservative View: Champagne Taste & Beer Pocket Book

This week's Conservative View, by outgoing Adair County Commissioner Russell Turner (R-Stilwell). [Russell recently lost his reelection bid in the Republican primary on July 27th]

The Conservative View

by Russell Turner

Champagne Taste & Beer Pocket Book

If you are like most people, whenever you open a phone bill you will be astonished by all of the fees that are tacked on the basic service of your bill. Many times the bill will increase 50 to 60% over what you thought you would have to pay. Government is always looking for some kind of fee to raise more revenue. It is a sad fact that we Americans can be the most gullible people on the earth. We listen to all of the absurd promises that some politician makes and never question where the funds will come from to finance the big promise. We Americans have a bad habit of wanting something and not wanting to pay for it. I was taught a long time ago that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Back when the current financial problems started, there were cries about the mess that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in. The main problem with those lending institutions was that the government was pressuring lenders to make loans to people that were buying more house than they could afford or were unable to pay back the loan in the first place. I recently read about a proposed fee that will affect all home buyers in this country.

The U.S. Treasury Department is considering a new mortgage fee to fund the backstops it gives for loans purchased through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Analysts say the fee may be up to 1.5 percent of the borrower's mortgage, which would be a big increase from the current 0.25 percent that both Fannie and Freddie currently charge mortgage borrowers. This 1.5% fee could be in addition to the current .25%. To put it into perspective, if you obtain a mortgage for $300,000 you could see an additional fee of up to $4,500 ... and the additional cost would just keep rising with the size of the loan. For any of you that thought the bailouts and stimulus spending didn’t cost anything, this new fee blows that conclusion away. 

Buying a house is not a lot different than buying a new car. The salesman will tell you that for just a little more you can have a better stereo, better upholstery, etc.  It is sad that we Americans often have a champagne taste on a beer pocket book. We Americans need to start living within our means and stop thinking that someone else will get us out of the jam that far too often we create ourselves. 

If you wish to contact Russell Turner, or want to subscribe to his email loop, email him at rdrepublican@windstream.net.

Doak to Holland: Be Consistent on Fee Hikes

GOP Insurance Commissioner candidate John Doak called on Democrat Insurance Commissioner Kim Holland for some more consistency regarding fee increases. Read more below:

Doak Calls on Holland to be Consistent on State Fee Increases
Continued silence from Holland on MVR fee increase indicates political motives

TULSA, OKLA. (July 24, 2010) – John Doak, Republican candidate for State Insurance Commissioner, today challenged the current insurance commissioner, Kim Holland, to petition the Oklahoma Supreme Court to block the bill that increased the cost to obtain driving records to the highest in the nation for the second time.

“Oklahoma insurers use these records to underwrite auto policies," Doak said. "It's business 101, to understand; if you raise a fee, especially that high on business, it’s going to be passed on to the ratepayer.

“Holland’s lawsuit is clearly political grandstanding to enhance her fundraising efforts by using the Oklahoma Supreme Court for political purposes,” Doak said. “Holland was silent while both the motor vehicle records and the 1 percent tax on health care were in committee, passed in the House, were sent to the Senate and signed into law. She is only opposing the insurance tax now because she, as a 2008 Oklahoma delegate for Barack Obama in the reddest state in the nation, is fighting for her political life.”

Holland’s petition to the court to block the bill that would install a 1 percent tax on health care claims paid in Oklahoma questions whether the state’s prohibition against passing a revenue bill within the last five days of session was violated.

“Both the 1 percent tax and the fee increase for motor vehicle records passed within five days of the end of the legislative session,” Doak said. “You can’t ask to block one on the grounds that its passage violated the state constitution without asking to block the other on the same grounds.”

Doak cites Article 5, Section 33 of the Oklahoma State Constitution, which prohibits the passage of revenue bills during the final five days of the legislative session, in his request. He made a similar request in June.

“You can’t pick and choose your principles,” Doak said. “Holland’s continued silence on the MVR fee increase further indicates that her move to block the 1 percent tax on health care, which would be harmful to Oklahomans and Oklahoma business, is mere political grandstanding rather than action to protect consumers as she claims. Holland would never have filed a lawsuit to block the legislation if her re-election were not in serious jeopardy.

“I hope she will do what is right for our state and petition the court to stop the MVR increase in addition to the health care tax. Both bills passed in violation of the state constitution and would result in higher insurance premiums for Oklahomans.”

Doak has led the charge to protect Oklahomans from the irresponsible 1 percent increase on health care claims. In May, he challenged Holland to stand up for the people of Oklahoma and ask the Governor not to sign the bill into law. Doak has received hundreds of signatures on the petition he started to repeal the bill. Sign the petition at votefordoak.com.

Faught Blasts Senate Over Fee Increase

Faught: Senate Inaction Places Hefty Fee on Rural Oklahomans

OKLAHOMA CITY – The Oklahoma State Senate leadership has declined to hear legislation opposing a new groundwater permit fee recently adopted by the Oklahoma Water Resources Board that would force rural Oklahomans to pay nearly a half million dollars in new fees, state Rep. George Faught said today.

House Joint Resolution 1086, by Faught, would disapprove the fee increase, which was adopted as a permanent agency rule by the Oklahoma Water Resources Board on February 9, 2010. The new agency rule would require a $50 fee for all groundwater permits, including those used for agriculture irrigation. This $50 fee would be per permit up to $500 per person and would be paid annually with an additional $50 late fee.

“State agencies should not be allowed to unilaterally hike fees anytime their budget gets a little tight,” said Faught, R-Muskogee. “Unfortunately, under current law, the only way to stop them is for the Legislature to disapprove a rule – which is why I filed this resolution.

“We’ve seen a growing tendency among state agencies to do an end-run around the Legislature and fill budget holes by enacting fee increases on working Oklahomans without legislative approval. HJR 1086 would have prevented that taxation without representation during this challenging economic climate.

“It is unfortunate that Senate leadership has declined to hear the resolution,” Faught continued, “and as a result, the people of rural Oklahoma will literally pay the price. I am frustrated that the Senate is sending the message that it is okay to allow a state agency to unilaterally impose $300,000 to a half-million dollars in new fees on working Oklahoma families. The Legislature should not cede budget authority to unelected bureaucrats.”

HJR 1086 passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives on a bipartisan 70-26 vote, but was denied a hearing in the State Senate, thereby allowing the rule to go into effect. The Oklahoma Farm Bureau was among those opposing the fee hike and supporting Faught’s legislation.


George Faught, R-Muskogee, is the state representative for House District 14, which covers portions of Muskogee and Cherokee counties. He can be reached by calling 405-557-7310 (Capitol), 918-682-8383 (home district), or emailing george.faught@okhouse.gov.