Here are excerpts from recent editorials in Oklahoma newspapers:
A detrimental ideology
The Journal Record, Sept. 1, 2017
It seemed clear to us that the proposed $1.50-per-pack assessment for cigarettes was a tax in fee’s clothing. The Oklahoma Supreme Court saw it that way too.
Since a new tax can’t be passed in the final five days of the session, that bill was rendered null and void.
This week, in a 5-4 ruling, the justices decided that the elimination of a sales tax exemption on vehicles was not a new tax and could stand. That makes sense to us too. Whether it’s a tax on oil and gas production or the sale of goods, the removal or modification of an exemption isn’t the same as a new tax; it’s the restoration of the status quo.
Although the constitutionality of the revenue measures has taken most of the public’s attention since the session ended in May, it’s still a Band-Aid on a wound that needs a tourniquet.
Republican legislators have become so averse to raising revenue they’re creating more problems than they’re solving. This year, most went through the session as though they were trying to hold their breath long enough that their mothers would give up and stop trying to give them their medicine. In the end, they had to inhale and ramrodded last-minute revenue bills to balance a budget in the most precarious possible way. Even the much-touted promise of teacher pay increases fell by the wayside when it became clear there was no way to pay for that without raising revenue.
Oklahoma cannot save its way to prosperity. If ever the truth of the cliché about it taking money to make money were evident, it is now in Oklahoma. The no-tax monomania is proving to be as deadly for the state as was Ahab’s obsession as the sick, the elderly, the children and the poor of our state continue to suffer the consequences.
No government should spend frivolously or tax unfairly, but the never-tax, never-spend ideology is so detrimental to growth, prosperity and human decency that Oklahoma will eventually find itself looking up even to Mississippi.
___
Don’t shut down the government to force border wall funding
Tulsa World, Sept. 2, 2017
President Trump is threatening a government shutdown if Congress doesn’t agree to fund his border wall.
Lawmakers have until Sept. 30 to pass a budget or, the more likely scenario at this point, a continuing resolution. The alternative would be a government shutdown, which would close some, but not all federal activities.
Leaving aside his often repeated promise that Mexico was going to pay for the wall, a government shutdown will only further damage the reputations of the nation, the Republican Party and Trump himself.
Sadly, our nation has gone through a series of government shutdowns in recent years, as divided government came to loggerheads. To their shame, both parties have used shutdowns tactically to leverage budget concessions and pass blame. While those experiences have washed away some of the fear factor involved in a shutdown, they have remained very unpopular with the public and for good reason: They reflect a government that can’t control its own business.
With the Republican Party in control of both houses of Congress and the presidency, there seems little doubt about who would get the blame this time, especially if the final issue came down to building a border wall, Trump’s signature campaign promise.
We’ve never seen much use in a border wall. It’s very expensive and, at best, would only inconvenience those determined to enter the nation illegally. As long as the world makes ladders and shovels, a wall by itself is pretty flimsy protection.
A border wall is a simple-minded strategy for a complex problem. At a time when the nation is up to its ears in debts, it would pile on more red ink. It isn’t a good idea, and it certainly isn’t worth another government shutdown.
___
Public has reason to question Oklahoma’s fiscal management
The Oklahoman, Sept. 5, 2017
One of the most frustrating things about watching the Legislature deal with budget issues this year is the recurring sense that political leaders have yet to do serious study. That was reinforced again last week.
State agencies recently received letters from Senate and House fiscal staff asking them to explain how they would handle a hypothetical 3.17 percent budget cut. That percentage represents the amount of money lawmakers originally expected to get from a cigarette “fee” the Oklahoma Supreme Court rightfully struck down as an unconstitutionally enacted tax increase.
Normally, such information requests wouldn’t strike us as odd, but this one comes after nearly a year of supposed budget focus. After last November’s elections, legislative leaders repeatedly stressed that lawmakers were already engaged in budget review, and that the process was among the most intense in years. So how is it that lawmakers, having reviewed agency budgets for the better part of a year, don’t already have a good idea how a 3 percent cut would affect agencies?
Undoubtedly, agencies will say the sky is falling if any cuts are made. That proved the case during session. Rep. Jason Murphey, R-Guthrie, has written of the “Great Armageddon Tour of 2017” in columns discussing this year’s budget process. Murphey writes that House officials limited reviews to a single meeting for each agency, which allowed for only glancing review of agencies’ financial claims.
“Instead of real oversight and drilling down to the specifics of actual agency spend, I believe legislators were treated to a weekly brainwashing session from a new rotation of agency leaders who boldly predicted an Armageddon of death and destruction if legislators did not acquiesce to their fiscal demands,” Murphey wrote.
There were instances where agency officials mostly ignored budget reality. When Department of Education officials spoke to House members in January, they requested an increase of more than $500 million even as the state faced an $868 million shortfall. Only $96 million of the requested increase was directly tied to student enrollment growth or increased health insurance costs for teachers. Among the other items included in the agency’s request were money to launch a pilot program and to rework the state data system, neither of which were necessities this year.
After the court struck down the cigarette fee, Gov. Mary Fallin issued a news release arguing a special session was necessary. It stated the Oklahoma Health Care Authority, which runs the Medicaid program, would lose $70 million (about 7 percent of its total appropriation) as the result of the cigarette fee being struck down. Fallin’s release flatly stated OHCA would “run out of state funds in January” if that money isn’t replaced.
We questioned how a 7 percent cut would leave the agency with no state funds barely past the halfway mark of the budget year. OHCA officials have since clarified that cash flow challenges will begin at that time, which is far different from having no state money.
Public confidence in Oklahoma’s political leaders continues to ebb. When state officials’ actions and statements repeatedly do little to inspire confidence in their fiscal management, that trend is understandable.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.