perspective - february 2016

February 2016

OKLAHOMA COUNCIL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

In Case You Missed It

PERSPECTIVEBlake Arnold • Oklahoma City

Glenn Ashmore • Oklahoma City

Robert D. Avery • Pawhuska

Lee J. Baxter • Lawton

Steve W. Beebe • Duncan

John A. Brock • Tulsa

David R. Brown, M.D. • Oklahoma City

Paul A. Cox • Oklahoma City

William Flanagan • Claremore

Josephine Freede • Oklahoma City

Ann Felton Gilliland • Oklahoma City

John T. Hanes • Oklahoma City

John A. Henry III • Oklahoma City

Henry F. Kane • Bartlesville

Robert Kane • Tulsa

Gene Love • Lawton

Tom H. McCasland III • Duncan

David McLaughlin • Enid

Lew Meibergen • Enid

Ronald L. Mercer • Bethany

Lloyd Noble II • Tulsa

Mike O’Neal • Edmond

Bill Price • Oklahoma City

Patrick T. Rooney • Oklahoma City

Melissa Sandefer • Norman

Thomas Schroedter • Tulsa

Greg Slavonic • Oklahoma City

Charles M. Sublett • Tulsa

Robert Sullivan • Tulsa

Lew Ward • Enid

William E. Warnock, Jr. • Tulsa

Dana Weber • Tulsa

Daryl Woodard • Tulsa

Daniel J. Zaloudek • Tulsa

OCPA Trustees OCPA ResearchersSteven J. Anderson, MBA, CPAResearch Fellow

Tina DzurisinResearch Associate

Trent England, J.D.Dr. David and Ann Brown Distinguished Fellow for the Advancement of Liberty

Adam Luck, MPPResearch Fellow

Jayson Lusk, Ph.D.Samuel Roberts Noble Distinguished Fellow

J. Scott Moody, M.A.Research Fellow

Andrew C. Spiropoulos, J.D.Milton Friedman Distinguished Fellow

Wendy P. Warcholik, Ph.D.Research Fellow

OCPA Staff

Perspective is published monthly by the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, Inc., an independent public policy organization. OCPA formulates and promotes public policy research and analysis consistent with the principles of free enterprise and limited government. The views expressed in Perspective are those of the author, and should not be construed as representing any official position of OCPA or its trustees, researchers, or employees.

Brandon Dutcher ...........................................Editor

Alex Jones .............................................Art Director

Sarah Andrews .......................Content Marketing Specialist

Brandon Dutcher .................................Senior Vice President

Trent England ..........Vice President for Strategic Initiatives

Dacia Harris .........................Development Projects Manager

Rachel Hays .........................................Development Director

Alex Jones ......................................Communications Director

Trey Malone ....................................... Research Assistant

Renae Page ................................................Executive Assistant

Jonathan Small ..........................................................President

Kenny Yoder ......................................... Financial Analyst

Teresa Yoder .............................Vice President of Operations

OCPA’s Jonathan Small tells the Tulsa World that the state’s budget crunch will require policymakers “to be innovative, prioritize government spending, and focus on transformational reforms, such as corrections reform.”`

ocpa.us/1VmQQJr

When she was Arkansas’s First Lady, Hillary Clinton helped push through a one-percentage-point increase in the state sales tax in an effort to improve education.

ocpa.us/1ZxQe5V

OCPA’s Trent England says a supposed anti-smoking measure advanced by the City Council of Oklahoma City could increase exposure of children and others to secondhand smoke.

ocpa.us/1mcDZxi

Lt. Gov. Todd Lamb, Congressman Jim Bridenstine, and Attorney General Scott Pruitt discuss parental choice in education.

ocpa.us/1JF0zE5

OCPA’s Trent England makes a case for changing Oklahoma’s civil-asset forfeiture laws.

ocpa.us/1QX3kbo

The University of Oklahoma agreed to pay $40,000 to a hip-hop performer with a history of hostile, obscene, misogynistic lyrics.

ocpa.us/1PtszRx

An Oklahoma sales-tax hike would hurt retail merchants.

ocpa.us/1OpmEaE

Discussing the state budget crunch, The Oklahoman cites OCPA’s spending recommendations.

ocpa.us/1PtsnBzThe Leadership Institute, OCPA, and Madison Strategies invite you to attend the Oklahoma City Grassroots Campaign Academy.

ocpa.us/1TmVWDY

3www.ocpathink.org

The Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs board of trustees has named Jonathan Small as the organization’s new president. Small officially assumeed the role on January 1, 2016.

“The board is confident in our decision to name Jonathan president,” said Dr. David Brown, chairman of OCPA. “Jonathan has served OCPA and the state of Oklahoma with humility, integrity, and innovation as executive vice president. We know he will continue to do so with even greater impact in the role of president.”

Small’s appointment was part of the succession plan outlined after the board accepted the resignation of past president Michael Carnuccio. Mr. Carnuccio, who will remain active with the organization, is set to join the OCPA board of trustees.

“I am grateful for the opportunity to lead our team,” Small said. “We’ll continue to work with our members across the state to advance freedom through providing fact-based research, ideas, and policy reforms.”

Small joined the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs’ staff in December 2010 and was the organization’s executive vice president prior to his appointment as president. Small has also been a budget analyst for the Oklahoma Office of State Finance, a fiscal policy analyst and research analyst for the Oklahoma House of Representatives, and director of government affairs for the Oklahoma Insurance Department.

“Jonathan has been instrumental in OCPA’s recent growth and accomplishments,” said Charles Sublett, an OCPA trustee and Tulsa-based attorney. “He has proven to be a successful and trusted leader and brings to this position a strong reputation for developing people and inspiring teams. Jonathan is Oklahoma’s foremost expert on state budgeting and has been a critical part of OCPA since joining our organization. I could not be more pleased with his appointment as president.”

Small is nationally recognized for his work to promote free markets, limited government, and public policy reforms. His work has been referenced in The Oklahoman, Tulsa World, National Review, L.A. Times, The Hill, The Wall Street Journal and The Huffington Post. He also is a co-author of “Economics 101.”

“Since 1993, OCPA has advocated policies that have a proven track record of helping the most vulnerable achieve their full potential,” Small said. “That is the very reason I joined this team. On a daily basis, we work to make Oklahoma the freest state in the nation.”

Jonathan Small Named OCPA President

4 PERSPECTIVE • February 2016

Oklahoma Prison Reformsa Must in 2016

Most Oklahomans are aware of the problems facing our prison system. It’s growing every year because we’re consistently bringing in more people than we are releasing, with receptions in 2014 totaling 10,720 and releases totaling 8,958.

Our prison facilities are overcrowded. They are currently at 104.2 percent operational capacity, which includes all the common areas that have been outfitted with additional beds. Our facilities are staffed at less than 67 percent, which, according to a 2013 survey, earned Oklahoma the distinction of having the worst staff-to-inmate ratio in the country. An Associated Press investigation revealed that Oklahoma led the nation with 39 prison inmate homicides during the period from 2001 to 2012, a rate that was more than triple the national average.

Over the last 20 years, our corrections budget has grown 172 percent, from $172 million in 1994 to $474 million in 2014. Over the same period, our violent crime rate has gone from below the national average in 1994 to well above it in 2014. The property crime rate in Oklahoma has not only remained above the national average, but the difference between the two averages has increased. While our violent crime and property crime rates have slowed along with those of the nation, they are slowing at a much lower rate (by 34 percent and 33 percent, respectively) compared to the national decline of 48 percent for violent crime and 41 percent for property crime. All of this means we are spending more money for

comparatively worse outcomes. Consider also the people we are

spending this money on. In 2014, 52 percent of Oklahoma’s prison population was there for a nonviolent offense. Half of those nonviolent offenders were imprisoned for a drug-related crime. Additionally, one in three Oklahoma inmates currently exhibits signs of mental illness. Given the high cost of incarceration in our state and the less than desirable outcomes, we must consider if this is the best use of these resources. We can continue to spend a per-person average of $18,467 per year on incarceration, or we can consider investing in alternative options that could better address the underlying mental health or substance abuse issues. The latter would be much more effective at achieving the ultimate goal: preventing repeat criminal behavior—hence the word “corrections.”

We must also take into account the societal impact of who we incarcerate in Oklahoma. Our highest-in-the-nation female incarceration rate and fourth-highest male incarceration rate mean that children who are likely already at risk are losing parents. According to the federal Department of Health and Human Services, children of incarcerated parents are seven times more likely to be incarcerated at some point in their lives than peers without incarcerated parents. The data on who we incarcerate also show a stark racial disparity: African Americans make up 7 percent of Oklahoma’s

population but represent 28 percent of our incarcerated population. The prevalence of incarceration among black males in Oklahoma is four times the rate of white males.

If this does not represent the kind of Oklahoma we desire then we must do something different. Changing this system has taken and will continue to take much time and energy. What can be done this legislative session to make progress on this issue and move us closer to a criminal justice system that reflects the values we hold as Oklahomans?

Governor Mary Fallin has been working to answer just that question. The first executive order she issued in her second and final term established the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Reform Steering Committee, which was composed of the Governor, President Pro Tem Brian Bingman, Speaker Jeff Hickman, Attorney General Scott Pruitt, former Director of the Department of Corrections Robert Patton, and the Director of the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services Terri White. After its first meeting, this committee created four subcommittees to carry out the policy formation task of this process. The four subcommittees focused on four main areas: policing, treatment, sentencing, and programs and reentry.

The subcommittees gathered 32 professionals and government officials from across the state and conducted a total of 19 meetings from May to November of 2015. Each subcommittee

By Adam Luck

5www.ocpathink.org

drafted policy recommendations in its area of expertise with a focus on improving the criminal justice system in a fiscally restrictive environment. The chair of each subcommittee presented its findings and recommendations directly to the Governor, then to the entire committee when it was convened again in early November. After hearing all of the recommendations, each committee met again on December 8 to discuss the recommendations that would require a legislative component and subsequently submitted its final recommendations as a committee to the Governor’s office.

The Oklahoma Criminal Justice Reform Steering Committee process brought together a wide range of individuals from across the political spectrum to talk about how we can improve our criminal justice system. In the 2016 legislative session, Governor Fallin will likely pursue implementing the recommendations that have come out of this committee process. These recommendations will represent the best possible options for making progress in creating a more effective and efficient criminal justice system in Oklahoma.

Sentencing ReformsRecommendations that should warrant

support focus on sentencing reforms, specifically on nonviolent property and drug crimes. The Department of Corrections estimates that we bring in 3,000 to 5,000 inmates every year for nonviolent felony property or drug possession crimes, with around 1,200 of those inmates representing pure growth from one year to the next. Right now in Oklahoma, if you steal something worth $499 you will be charged with a misdemeanor and likely pay a fine and spend time in the county jail. If you cross the $500 threshold, you will be charged with a felony and likely face a prison sentence. Increasing the felony property crime threshold from $500 to something that better reflects what we think warrants the stigma of a felony would be a significant step in the right direction. For comparison, the same felony property crime threshold in Texas currently stands at $2,500, meaning a felon would need to steal five times what he was convicted for in Oklahoma to receive the same

conviction in Texas. A felony drug possession conviction in

Oklahoma will result in a mandatory two years in prison but could be up to 10 years in prison. The second felony conviction also carries a mandatory two-year sentence with the maximum of a life prison sentence. The third felony offense requires six years in prison and could also result in a life prison sentence. Without causing harm to another, an Oklahoman could be two felony drug possession convictions away from spending his or her life in prison.

Statutes such as these that require mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent crimes, with no option to take into account the character, circumstances, or rehabilitative needs of the defendant, are driving the growth of our prisons. A 2006 study by the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Resource Center underscored the surprising impact of these felony thresholds: it is estimated that 1 in 12 Oklahoma adults have been in prison or on probation for a felony conviction.

Other ReformsReforms targeting reentry should also

be considered as a way to ensure that individuals released from state custody are prepared to become contributing, tax-paying members of society. As I wrote in these pages in September 2015, “post-release supervision is a critical component for individuals being released from prison. Currently, more than 50 percent of the 8,000 inmates released from state custody every year in Oklahoma return to the community without any form of supervision. We must do more to provide a reentry accountability structure at the most critical time during the reintegration process.

“The most significant roadblocks to reentry are employment, housing, and transportation. Releasing an individual from prison without any tangible skill and with no employment prospects almost guarantees a return to crime. State employers can do more to offer opportunities to those caught up in the wide net of Oklahoma’s criminal justice system and employers should be protected from liability when they do hire individuals with criminal records. The ability to obtain a driver’s license is

critical for a successful reentry. Statutes should be amended to reflect that many crimes have nothing to do with operating a motor vehicle and therefore should not restrict an individual’s ability to obtain a license upon serving their debt to society.”

It is time to be more critical of how we are spending our scarce resources and the outcomes we are achieving. We should demand more efficiency and effectiveness. After all, we spend close to a half a billion of our tax dollars on corrections annually, and in return we receive nearly 9,000 Oklahomans back into our communities every year. We must answer critical questions. Are we preparing these individuals to reenter successfully or are we preparing them for an inevitable return to prison? Are we willing to endure the cost to our families and communities for these policies, especially given that they do not deliver as promised? Should these Oklahomans have been in prison to begin with?

In addition to the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Reform Steering Committee, others are taking note of the problems we have created and are beginning to act. In a public forum in November, the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce announced criminal justice reform as a top priority for 2017, with the ultimate goal of solving the Oklahoma County jail crisis not just by building a new jail, but through attempting to address the systemic issues that drive the need for a larger jail.

As awareness grows, so too will the political capital to define our decisions in terms other than “tough” or “soft” on crime. The work set before us now is to decide what the next best step is for Oklahoma to take as we strive for progress on an issue that deeply affects our state, our communities, and our families.

OCPA research fellow Adam Luck is the Oklahoma state director for Right on Crime, an initiative of the Texas Public Policy Foundation developed to help advance conservative principles in criminal justice reform. An Oklahoma native, Luck is an Air Force veteran and graduate of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

5www.ocpathink.org


It is my great honor to be the Milton Friedman Distinguished Fellow at the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, where all of us see ourselves as carrying on Friedman’s legacy.

Milton Friedman is best known as one of the world’s greatest economists. He received the Nobel Prize in 1974 and the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1988. But for those of us who work in public policy, his most important works are his seminal Capitalism and Freedom and Free to Choose.

Capitalism and Freedom, written in 1962, lays out the blueprint for the future of conservative public policy reform. Friedman, before anyone else, devised the volunteer military, Social Security reform, and, most important to us, when no one else had ever thought of it, proposed the idea of school choice. He, describing exactly the same problems of low achievement and unequal opportunity we face today, showed that our problems are caused by the public school monopoly. Monopolies have no incentive to innovate or be flexible. He proposed that we inject competition into the system by providing all families what he called a voucher in the amount of the state funding set aside for

each student. These vouchers can be used at any school, public or private. Families will have the freedom to choose the school that is best for their child. Competition will improve public schools because they will have to innovate and be flexible to compete for students.

Education savings accounts (ESAs) are still based on this core insight. They, however, provide even more flexibility because they are not limited to paying for tuition. They can be used for any educational expense, including tutoring, materials, and even college expenses. ESAs provide even greater flexibility and empowerment. They are the next step in fulfilling Friedman’s legacy.

As I wrote last year in The Journal Record, “The idea behind ESAs is simple, but powerful. A family whose child currently attends public school decides that the child’s education will be improved if it chooses another option. Upon being notified of the family’s choice, the state will deposit a portion of the state money allocated to the child’s education into an ESA. This amount will vary depending upon the family’s income, but under no

ESAs Will Improve Education and Save the State MoneyBy Andrew Spiropoulos

7www.ocpathink.org

For an in-depth look at ESAs, be sure to read

last month’s issue of Perspective.

For an in-depth look at ESAs, be sure to read

last month’s issue of Perspective

Another Worthy School-Choice Idea

In addition to creating an Education Savings Account (ESA) program in 2016, policymakers should consider providing individual tax credits for education expenses.

Parents paying for private education or home education have to pay twice: once in taxes to support public schools and again for tuition, fees, textbooks, and school supplies. To address some of this unfairness, some states now off er tax credits for these education expenses. Illinois has the largest tax credit program with nearly 300,000 families earning credits up to $500 for educational expenses.

Individual tax credits for education expenses are subject to one major criticism: you only get tax credits up to the amount you owe in taxes. Since wealthier families tend to owe the most in taxes, they will get the largest tax credits. One solution is a refundable tax credit for educational expenses, such as exists in South Carolina. That program allows parents of special-needs children to receive up to $10,000 in tax credits for educational expenses. If the credits exceed your tax bill, then you receive a tax refund for the diff erence. This ensures that the rich aren’t the biggest benefi ciaries of the program.

—Former OCPA research assistant Patrick Gibbons, public aff airs manager at

Step Up for Studentscircumstances will it be the child’s full allocation. In other words, the public education system will retain, in one version, at least 10 percent or as much as 30 percent of the child’s allocation. The child will be educated elsewhere, but a large chunk of the cash stays with public schools.”

With Oklahoma staring at a budget gap that could exceed $1 billion, our state’s political leaders need to fi nd policy reforms—such as ESAs—that will both improve services and save money. Policymakers looking to free up money for the public schools should be fi rst in line to support ESAs.

Andrew C. Spiropoulos (M.A., J.D., University of Chicago) is the Robert S. Kerr, Sr. Professor of Constitutional Law at the Oklahoma City University School of Law. He also serves as the Milton Friedman Distinguished Fellow at OCPA.

8 PERSPECTIVE • February 20168 PERSPECTIVE • February 2016

We are proposing a tax reform for Oklahoma that would reduce Oklahoma’s personal income tax rate by 0.25 percentage points each year over the next 20 years. This proposal would ensure adequate revenues for the state, impose fi scal

discipline on spending, and, most importantly, improve the incentives to work, save, and produce in Oklahoma. These improved incentives will accelerate the state’s economic growth rate and help diversify Oklahoma’s economy.


9www.ocpathink.org

axes are an important tool for any government. Without taxes, the Oklahoma government could not build the roads, hire the law enforcement offi cers, or

maintain the public schools the citizens of Oklahoma rely upon every day.

However, there is a downside to taxes as well.

Taxes reduce workers’ take-home pay; they lower returns for investors and savers; and, taxes burden businesses with higher costs. These negative consequences reduce an economy’s vibrancy and lower its potential growth rate.

Oklahoma must balance these competing interests. Oklahoma’s tax system must be able to raise suffi cient revenues to fund the necessary government services. But in raising the necessary revenues the tax system should minimize its negative economic consequences. Additionally, steeply progressive income tax systems encourage excessive growth in state expenditures. When state expenditures exceed their effi cient levels, the value of the government spending to the taxpayers is lower, and the tax burden is higher than necessary, creating unnecessary barriers to economic growth.

Based on the criterion of maximizing Oklahoma’s relative economic growth rate, OCPA is proposing a tax reform for Oklahoma that would reduce Oklahoma’s personal income tax rate by 0.25 percentage points each year over the next 20 years until it is eventually phased out in 2036. This proposal would ensure adequate revenues for the state, impose fi scal discipline on spending, and, most importantly, improve the incentives to work, save, and produce in Oklahoma. These improved incentives will accelerate the state’s economic growth rate and help diversify Oklahoma’s economy beyond the oil and gas and agricultural sectors.

When coupled with the current supermajority requirements to raise taxes, the proposed income tax phaseout sends an important signal to

• Local tax revenues will be $1.0 billion higher than the baseline scenario.

The Proposed Income Tax Phaseout As of January 1, 2016, Oklahoma’s

current top marginal personal income tax rate is 5.00 percent. However, even at 5 percent, Oklahoma’s top personal income tax rate does not create a distinguishable comparative advantage compared to other states.

Assuming a 2017 implementation date, the top personal income tax rate schedule that would result from phasing out Oklahoma’s personal income tax by 0.25 percent per year until the personal income tax is completely eliminated in 2036 is illustrated in Figure 1.

Due to the gradual reduction of Oklahoma’s top personal income tax rate, the near-term consequences on government revenues are lessened compared to a tax reform that eliminated the personal income tax all at once. The large impact on government revenues from eliminating the personal income tax all at once, as well as the destabilizing impacts that such a sudden change can cause, argue for a more gradual implementation schedule.

On a static basis, year-over-year revenues, adjusted for infl ation, would continue to grow under the proposed tax reform, albeit less than the baseline revenue growth. (The baseline tax revenues are based on the assumption that without any changes in Oklahoma’s personal income tax, revenues will grow at the average growth rate in tax revenues over the past 10 years.)

When the benefi ts from increased economic growth are incorporated, the year-over-year revenue growth would be even higher, albeit still below the baseline revenue growth.

The primary reason to gradually eliminate Oklahoma’s personal income tax is the benefi cial economic growth impacts such a policy will create. These potentially benefi cial impacts

businesses and investors. It says that the after-tax rate of return from operating in Oklahoma will gradually improve over time. The proposal also makes the state tax environment in Oklahoma more predictable for businesses and individuals. For many business decisions, predictability in the tax environment is an important att ribute that makes one location more att ractive than others.

From a government revenue perspective, due to the gradual phaseout of the income tax, there would not be a year-over-year decline in tax revenues even on a static basis—only a reduction in the growth of state tax revenues.

However, as detailed below, Oklahoma’s government expenditures are around all-time highs relative to the size of the private sector. The phaseout of Oklahoma’s income tax imposes fi scal discipline on the budget process; combining this fi scal discipline with eff ective budget reform will create a more effi cient state government sector that eff ectively provides needed government services while avoiding those activities that are either unnecessary or bett er left to the private sector.

Though the proposed tax reform should be coupled with eff ective budget reform, in a recent study we assessed the economic and fi scal implications from the changed economic incentives created by the tax reform only. Summarizing the fi ndings, if the proposed tax reform is implemented:

• The growth in personal income will accelerate. By 2036, the growth rate of personal income will be 1.8 percentage points higher and total personal income will be 11.6 percent larger than the baseline scenario;

• There will be 111,000 more jobs in 2036 compared to the baseline scenario;

• Adjusted for infl ation, state tax revenues will increase 38 percent compared to 2013 levels; and


is commanding over time, even after population growth is considered.

Additionally, the data in Figure 2 illustrate a spike in infl ation-adjusted expenditures per capita following the 2001 recession. It is noteworthy that the new expenditure level became part of the government’s baseline, illustrating that upward surges in Oklahoma’s spending are never temporary. Instead, temporary spending increases fi nd their way into Oklahoma’s permanent spending baseline.

Based on the trends illustrated in Figure 2, even if the proposed tax reform froze resources at their current levels, expenditures would remain around their current historic highs. And, including the dynamic impacts of the proposed tax reform, tax revenues will grow after adjusting for infl ation and population growth. Therefore, the proposed phaseout of Oklahoma’s personal income tax will allow expenditures to increase from their current levels.

Given the fact that expenditures are currently at historic highs, our proposal, which lowers the growth rate of revenues but still maintains growth rates above infl ation and population growth, does not limit the ability of the state government to provide core government services.

If we truly care about empowering the most vulnerable Oklahomans, we must build a strong and diverse economy by creating an environment which is att ractive to entrepreneurs and job-creators.

Jonathan Small, C.P.A., serves as OCPA’s president. Previously, he served as a budget analyst for the Oklahoma Offi ce of State Finance, as a fi scal policy analyst and research analyst for the Oklahoma House of Representatives, and as director of government aff airs for the Oklahoma Insurance Department. He holds a B.A. in Accounting from the University of Central Oklahoma and is a Certifi ed Public Accountant.

Wayne Winegarden (Ph.D., George Mason University) is a senior fellow in business and economics at the Pacifi c Research Institute and a contributing editor at EconoSTATS at George Mason University. He has testifi ed before the U.S. Congress and his work has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune, Investor’s Business Daily, and Forbes.com.

are substantiated by the large number of economic studies that have found a negative impact from increasing taxes (and a positive impact from lowering taxes), particularly personal income taxes, on economic growth.

A review of Oklahoma’s fi scal and economic performance reveals several important trends with respect to the proposed income tax phaseout. When taken together, these trends confi rm the fi ndings from the academic and policy studies we reviewed in our study: the proposed phaseout of the personal income tax will benefi t Oklahoma’s economy while providing suffi cient

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

Figure 1Proposed Top Personal Income Tax Rate in Oklahoma

2015-2036

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

$500.00

$1,000.00

$1,500.00

$2,000.00

$2,500.00

y = 35.503x + 741.37R2 = 0.89856

resources for the state.

Total Expenditures in Oklahoma Are Around All-Time Highs

Figure 2 presents Oklahoma’s total direct expenditures adjusted for infl ation and the size of Oklahoma’s population between 1977 and 2012 as measured by the U.S. Census of Governments (the black solid line). Nominal revenues are infl ation adjusted using the CPI-U, 1982-84 = 100 data series. The black dott ed line presents the average growth in real expenditures over this time period. The data illustrate a consistent upward trend in the real resources the state of Oklahoma

11www.ocpathink.org

Reform Asset Forfeiture to Protect Property Rights

The state and federal constitutions protect a person’s right to his or her property. On the other hand, a person has no right to the proceeds of illegal activities. Unfortunately, a legal innovation known as “civil asset forfeiture” can let the exception trump the constitutional rule.

In the 1980s, police and prosecutors began to focus on seizing the proceeds of criminal activities in an attempt to hobble major criminal enterprises. While these efforts may not have curtailed organized crime or drug cartels, they did generate a new revenue stream for some law enforcement agencies. Forfeiture funds also came with less legislative oversight. Use of asset forfeiture gradually expanded far beyond the original purposes.

Today in Oklahoma, the average forfeiture of cash is about $1,200. This means many forfeitures are of even smaller sums of money. The iconic image of police discovering and seizing bricks of hundred-dollar bills hidden in a drug trafficker’s car is the exception rather than the rule. District attorneys can also take homes, cars, or any other property they claim is connected to criminal activity.

The most troubling aspect of civil asset forfeiture is that, while it rests on the proposition that a crime has occurred, property can be taken without a criminal conviction. In fact, some Oklahoma district attorneys routinely take cash and other property without even charging anyone with a crime. Current Oklahoma law allows government to take a person’s property using a simple civil court procedure and the lowest possible burden of proof.

Finally, recordkeeping and accountability for seized cash and other property is haphazard. Media reports based on audits of county district attorney offices show seized funds have been spent

to pay an assistant district attorney’s student loans and that another assistant district attorney lived rent-free in a seized home for five years.

States from Pennsylvania to California have recently taken up proposals to reform civil asset forfeiture to protect the rights of citizens. Michigan has increased the burden of proof required to seize property and improved transparency. Earlier this year, New Mexico eliminated civil asset forfeiture altogether; the state will now require a criminal conviction in order to seize property. Oklahoma should join with these other states and rein in the expansion of government power through civil asset forfeiture.

Forfeiting property should require a criminal conviction, or at least a higher burden of proof than the current “preponderance of the evidence” standard. Property that is forfeited should

not go directly to the agency that initiated the action, which creates an incentive that can distort law enforcement priorities. Every forfeiture action should be fully documented. These simple reforms would allow law enforcement to confiscate the property of those who are guilty while protecting the property rights of innocent Oklahomans.

Trent England (J.D., George Mason University) is vice president for strategic initiatives at OCPA, where he also serves as the David and Ann Brown Distinguished Fellow for the Advancement of Liberty. A former legal policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, England has contributed to two books, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution and One Nation under Arrest: How Crazy Laws, Rogue Prosecutors, and Activist Judges Threaten Your Liberty. His writings have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, the Christian Science Monitor, and numerous other publications.

By Trent England


“Never let a crisis go to waste.” A group of attorneys put that maxim into practice in the late 1960s when, following a corruption scandal, they convinced Oklahomans to surrender their power to select state judges. The result is an unaccountable judiciary. Any of the judicial selection methods used by other states would be an improvement.

Oklahoma’s bribery scandal made national news in 1965. Justice N.S. Corn admitted that for 30 years he had accepted cash to influence his vote on the Supreme Court. His testimony implicated two other justices, as well as other elected officials. The mayor of Oklahoma City was sentenced to five years in prison for lying about his role in the corruption. A grand jury report suggested similar practices were widespread in the legislature at that time.

Following the scandal, well-meaning Oklahomans looked for some way to remove the taint from the state’s courtrooms. The Oklahoma Bar Association jumped at the opportunity to offer a plan developed by the American Bar Association to remove the power of selecting judges from the people.

Progress Versus the Rule of LawThe American Founders believed

legitimate government power comes from the people. They also believed all the people—including those in government—are fallible. Both principles rest on belief in an objective, unchanging standard of

justice. These ideas suggest judges should have enough independence to rise above momentary political passions, but not so much that they escape accountability to the people.

Coming to prominence a century ago, American “Progressives” rejected the principles of the American founding. The Progressives instead believe justice and human nature are malleable and change over time. Government is thus a means for elites to force the rest of the people “forward.” The judiciary offers Progressives a particularly powerful tool, so long as judges are unconstrained by old ideas like the rule of law and government by the people.

The American Bar Association Plan

In 1937, the American Bar Association endorsed a proposal for states to take the power of judicial selection away from the people. Instead, an unaccountable commission partly controlled by state bar associations would decide who can become a judge. While a state governor would make the appointment, the executive would be limited to only those candidates approved (generally a list of three) by the commission. This “American Bar Association Plan” is sometimes called the “Missouri Plan” since that state, in 1940, was the first to adopt it. Its supporters, their elitism on full display, also sometimes call it “merit selection.”

Oklahoma adopted the American Bar Association Plan in 1969 as Article VII-B

of the Oklahoma Constitution. This provision creates the Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC), a 15-member body with the power to decide who can be a state justice or judge. The Governor can only appoint judges from the JNC’s list of three candidates for any judicial opening. The JNC is made up of six people selected by the Oklahoma Bar Association, six people appointed by the Governor, two appointed by legislative leaders, and one chosen by the JNC itself.

The Bar Association has even more power on the JNC than mere numbers suggest. The group’s JNC appointees must be attorneys; no other appointee can be an attorney or even live in a household with one. This prohibition works to the Bar Association’s advantage. It means the Bar Association controls 40 percent of the membership of the JNC, but 100 percent of the body’s attorneys.

Imagine if oil companies were regulated by a JNC-like board, where the companies appointed a large minority of members and only their members could be experts working in that field. The non-expert members would have an inherent disadvantage and would likely defer to those with specialized training. Those members working in the industry would also have a far greater interest in influencing the board’s outcomes than the other members. Finally, those experts who take positions disfavored by industry would effectively be barred from ever serving on the board.

Real Independence and Accountability for Oklahoma Judges

By Trent England

13www.ocpathink.org

The Bar Association’s control of 100 percent of attorney positions on the JNC means any Oklahoma lawyer who takes positions contrary to the Association or who simply holds views unpopular with too many of his or her fellow lawyers is effectively barred from serving on the JNC.

The People, Powerless

In addition to handing over inordinate power to a private special-interest, the American Bar Association Plan has led to an Oklahoma judiciary that fails the most basic test of government accountability. The test question is: What can a citizen do to make a change? In Oklahoma’s executive and legislative branches, officials are elected. While influencing elections may not be easy to do, it is at least easy to understand how to change direction in those branches of government. When it comes to the state judiciary, the American Bar Association Plan renders ordinary Oklahomans powerless.

Despite more than 70 years of bar association lobbying, most states still give citizens a say. The people in 22 states directly elect state supreme court justices. In Virginia and South Carolina, high court judges are elected by state legislators; voters in those states influence the court through legislative elections. Eight other states use something like the American Founders' model—the governor appoints justices. In most of those states, the

legislature plays a role in confirming the selection.

The Framers of the U.S. Constitution believed in both judicial independence and accountability. Federal judges can be and have been impeached. More importantly, American voters shape the future of the judiciary as we support and vote for candidates for President and U.S. Senate.

In 32 states and the system designed by the American Founders, citizens can work to influence the future direction of the courts. In Oklahoma, citizens are disenfranchised. While Oklahoma justices stand for periodic judicial retention elections, these are meaningless because citizens have no power to decide who might replace a judge kicked out by such a vote. No wonder the total number of Oklahoma judges to lose retention elections is ... zero.

Restoring Accountability

The corruption in Oklahoma 50 years ago was perpetrated by elites, not voters. Yet somehow the elites used that moment to take power away from the people and grant extraordinary influence to one private organization—the Oklahoma Bar Association. The time has come for the people to take that power back.

This does not necessarily mean reverting to judicial elections. Oklahoma could adopt a modified version of the American Founders' system, with the Governor appointing judges subject to

approval by one or both chambers of the legislature. The JNC could be abolished or could remain in an advisory capacity. Another possible solution would be to elect members of the JNC or to populate the body with other elected officials. In any scenario where the JNC remains, the private Oklahoma Bar Association should no longer have special powers.

Oklahoma’s state courts, while they may represent the views of some attorneys, are out of step with the vast majority of Oklahomans. Judicial independence is not a synonym for control by unaccountable elites. Oklahoma’s Judicial Nominating Commission should not control who can become a judge in Oklahoma, and that power should return, ultimately, to the people.

Trent England (J.D., George Mason University) is vice president for strategic initiatives at OCPA, where he also serves as the David and Ann Brown Distinguished Fellow for the Advancement of Liberty. A former legal policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, England has contributed to two books, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution and One Nation under Arrest: How Crazy Laws, Rogue Prosecutors, and Activist Judges Threaten Your Liberty. His writings have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, the Christian Science Monitor, and numerous other publications.

A very important piece of legislation last year, House Bill 1748, required Oklahoma state agencies to publicly report the amount of federal funding they receive and the strings attached to that money. The measure passed overwhelmingly in both chambers. Disappointingly, it was vetoed by Gov. Mary Fallin. When lawmakers reconvene this month, they should promptly override the governor’s veto.

As OCPA’s Michael Carnuccio wrote last year in The Journal Record, “Oklahoma lawmakers often have no input—or, worse yet, are completely unaware—when a state agency expands an existing program or creates a new one by entering into an agreement to accept federal funds in a ‘cost-sharing’ arrangement. Some state agencies even have employees whose job is to look for these federal funds in grants that their agency might qualify for. These federal grant offerings come with promises of some level of funding—but they often require the state to match some of those funds.

“Some of these grants have indefinite life spans. The decisions of today may well become the burdens of tomorrow for our children and grandchildren. State agency bureaucrats may not see any problem with acquiring ‘free money’ from Uncle Sugar. But we all know there is no such thing as ‘free money’—especially from an uncle who is $18 trillion in debt. These federal grants always come with strings attached, and the cost of these strings may outweigh the value of the money the state receives.”

— Editor

Finish the Job on Federal Funds Transparency

13www.ocpathink.org


Enhanced Productivity, Efficiency Needed in Higher Education

If Oklahoma’s higher education costs are going to be contained and eventually reduced, the key is improved productivity, meaning doing more with less.

Unfortunately, it appears Oklahoma has done the opposite. An examination of the teaching faculty at the University of Oklahoma (OU) and Oklahoma State University (OSU), for example, suggests that a small proportion seems to do most of the work. Large numbers of faculty carry modest teaching loads, yet also have modest research accomplishments. If the bottom 80 percent of the faculty taught as much as the top 20 percent, universities could operate with demonstrably fewer faculty members and reduce tuition costs dramatically.

In our 2014 OCPA report “Dollars and Sense: Assessing Oklahoma’s Public Universities” (from which this article is adapted), we asked: are there some teachers who teach vastly more than others? An analysis of credit hours at the two premier institutions show the answer is clearly yes. At OSU, the 20 percent of faculty teaching the greatest number of credit hours taught 54.49 percent of the total. The bottom 40 percent taught fewer than 10 percent of credit hours. Part of this might reflect some faculty performing administrative or other tasks that detract from their teaching. But the top one-fifth of the teaching staff teaches more than the other four-fifths combined. If the top 20 percent, representing well over 300 professors and other instructors, can successfully provide a majority of OSU’s instruction, the question arises: are many of the large number

of professors with low teaching loads earning their salaries, particularly given the institution’s modest level of success in obtaining external research funding?

The picture at OU is even more dramatic. Student credit hours per instructor average a very low 143. Assuming students typically take three-credit-hour courses, there are about 48 students per professor per year, or 24 per semester. Again, because of the inclusion of part-time faculty, that probably understates typical teaching loads, but it suggests that there are either a lot of small classes, or teachers have low teaching loads, or a combination of both. Moreover, at OU the disparities in teaching loads are huge—even greater than at OSU. The top 20 percent of professors by teaching loads teach 60 percent of the total—averaging well over 400 credit hours each—implying nearly 140 students taught annually, assuming three-credit-hour courses. A relatively small number (505) of the faculty do most of the teaching, while another 2,018 listed as having instructional responsibilities do far less of the total classroom teaching.

The cost of instruction depends on teaching loads, class size, and faculty salaries. Combining all three factors, we obtain a “cost per student credit hour” for each member of the instructional staff. At OU, there were 2,523 reported instructional staff in 2012. Collectively they were paid $182,318,993—an average of $72,263 for each faculty member. Some of those faculty members were probably part-time teachers.

We identified the 505, or 20 percent, of these faculty members whose

cost per student credit hour was the lowest, reflecting large classes, large teaching loads (teaching many classes), and/or low salaries. We then asked the question: what if the other 2,018 faculty taught at the same cost as these “most productive” or “most efficient” 505? What would have been spent on instruction for the actual number of student credit hours generated? Implied in this exercise is the idea that the school could reduce the size of its instructional staff substantially. What, however, would have been the reduction in instructional costs? The answer: $100 million (actually, $99.577 million). That is an amount equal to well over $3,000 per student.

Perhaps more realistically, let us assume that the entire faculty at OU was twice as costly (on a student credit hour basis) as the top 20 percent. Even in that circumstance, the savings in terms of instructional costs would be $53.3 million—close to $2,000 per student. In other words, there are tremendous variations in student credit hour costs between faculty members, costs that the students ultimately cover through tuition. If the school were to lower instructional costs per student hour by a combination of increased teaching loads, larger classes, and, perhaps less realistically, lower salaries, major savings could be incurred.

Let us repeat the analysis in the previous three paragraphs for OSU. OSU is a somewhat smaller institution, with total instructional costs almost 30 percent less than at OU. Nonetheless, the disparities in student credit hour costs are, if anything, greater at OSU. We estimate that if all faculty members

By Richard Vedder and Anthony Hennen

15www.ocpathink.org

had student credit hour costs equal to those of the lowest 20 percent, the school could save almost $82 million on staffi ng costs, roughly $3,000 per student. With $82 million, the university could reduce tuition fees by over one-third. If OU and OSU simultaneously achieved the maximum savings outlined (all faculty emulating the top 20 percent in terms of costs per student credit hour), total savings in the state would exceed $181 million. Expanding this to all state universities would almost certainly increase the number.

Would not a move to achieve that objective jeopardize OU’s and OSU’s research mission? It is important to remember that of the non-adjunct faculty, about 15 percent at OU generated all external research grants in fi scal year 2012. Put diff erently, 85 percent of the faculty received no external research funding. The top 10 percent of faculty in terms of grants generated 96 percent of all external research grants. OU and OSU are not, despite any claims to the contrary, major institutions regarding externally funded research. Lowering instructional costs via higher teaching loads and/or larger classes could achieve material results even if those receiving external research funding were excluded from new teaching rules.

The major purpose of this exercise is to suggest that big dollars are involved

in supporting faculty members who have relatively high costs per student credit hour, either because they teach litt le, have small classes, or in some cases, are paid huge sums of money. We identifi ed literally dozens of employees at OU and OSU paid very large salaries, say, more than $250,000 a year. For some, the compensation levels seemed to us extremely high, given their qualifi cations and/or observable contributions to their institution.

While valuable gains in savings and productivity can be found by addressing faculty issues, key spending areas such as administrative spending and bloat must also be examined. Nationally, higher education staffi ng per student declined about 10 percent from 1999 to 2011, suggesting probable productivity improvements; however, staffi ng per student rose about fi ve percent in Oklahoma, suggesting probable productivity decline. Most of the staffi ng increase came in non-faculty areas, likely in administration.

Have universities lost their way,

losing sight of their core mission to educate undergraduate students? Are they excessively interested in maximizing the gains to the staff , rather than educating students? Are too many faculty members teaching too few students too litt le, often in courses on obscure, specialized subjects of litt le general interest? Our research suggests that many areas of higher education in Oklahoma can be improved so as to enhance productivity, effi ciency, and accountability.

Richard Vedder is director of the Center for College Aff ordability and Productivity (CCAP), which conducts the “America’s Top Colleges” ranking for Forbes magazine. He serves as Distinguished Professor of Economics Emeritus at Ohio University and is an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Anthony Hennen formerly served as administrative director and research fellow at CCAP.

Unleash Rural Opportunity in OklahomaOCPA research fellow Steve Anderson has explained how a Rural Opportunity

Zone (ROZ) plan will help bring higher-value crops and livestock production—not to mention doctors—to rural Oklahoma. A ROZ is not a comprehensive fi x for what ails rural Oklahoma, but it’s a great tool that can help empower locals to take charge of their future without having to come to Oklahoma City to beg for state revenues. To learn more, visit ocpa.us/OCPA_ROZ.

— Editor

15www.ocpathink.org


With Budget Crunch Upon Us, It’s Time to Right-Size Government

In 2016, it’s time for policymakers to get serious about “right-sizing” government.

When it comes to government spending in Oklahoma, the 800-pound gorilla in the room that many people ignore is this simple question: Should government grow faster than the private sector’s ability to pay?

To answer that question, I recently teamed up with OCPA economists Scott Moody and Wendy Warcholik to explore the two major components of government spending in Oklahoma—state and local government worker compensation and personal current transfer receipts. Chart 1 illustrates the growth diff erentials between Oklahoma’s state and local government worker compensation and private-sector income.

The data are no more encouraging than what we saw in Figure 2 on page 10—a consistent upward trend in the real resources the state of Oklahoma is commanding over time, even after population growth is considered.

Oklahoma policymakers still spend millions of dollars on targeted earmarks (such as rodeos, golf courses, aquariums, and other non-essentials), hundreds of millions on ineffi cient health care programs (even though bipartisan solutions abound), and hundreds of millions on non-instructional K-12 activities in public schools.

Across Oklahoma, families—many of whom are experiencing their own “revenue failure” due to private-sector job losses—are faced with rising health insurance deductibles and out-of-control medical costs, rising food prices, out-of-control higher education costs, and numerous other fi nancial pressures. This year there will be Oklahomans who are forced into debt to pay medical bills or cover other necessities. Government shouldn’t take from these more than what is absolutely necessary to perform core functions.

On the facing page are OCPA’s top 10 budget recommendations. The list is by no means exhaustive. What former Indiana governor (and current Purdue University president) Mitch Daniels observed about the fat in higher education is true of state government generally: “Just like a cow,” he says, “it’s marbled through the whole enterprise.”

Jonathan Small, C.P.A., serves as OCPA’s president. Previously, he served as a budget analyst for the Oklahoma Offi ce of State Finance, as a fi scal policy analyst and research analyst for the Oklahoma House of Representatives, and as director of government aff airs for the Oklahoma Insurance Department. He holds a B.A. in Accounting from the University of Central Oklahoma and is a Certifi ed Public Accountant.

By Jonathan Small

17www.ocpathink.org

Critically Examine the Hiring of Outside Legal Counsel by School DistrictsOklahomans have recently been plagued by illegitimate political obstruction by “the legal minions of the education establishment,”

OCPA distinguished fellow Andrew Spiropoulos wrote last year in The Journal Record. Case in point: “Lawyers for public school districts who habitually oppose education reform, cheered on, of course, by the state teacher unions, announced that they have counseled their clients to ignore the clear mandate of House Bill 1749. This law makes it illegal for any state agency, including school districts, to make payroll deductions for any membership dues in any public employee association or organization that engages in collective bargaining. …

“For too long, our state’s leaders have tolerated the obstruction of reform by certain school districts, which, like every other state agency, have a duty to follow the policies set by the Legislature. It’s time for lawmakers to take a hard look at the laws governing the hiring of outside legal counsel by school districts.”

— Editor

Here are 10 ways Oklahoma can deliver better service at a better price:Top 10 State Budget Recommendations

17www.ocpathink.org


Continued Health Care, Welfare Reforms Will Help the Most Vulnerable

In 2015, Oklahoma lawmakers passed a number of important health care reforms. But the work must continue. Oklahoma policymakers have the opportunity to continue to empower patients and medical providers.

Additional State and Education Employee Health Insurance Reforms

In 2015, lawmakers passed reforms to modernize the state’s health insurance program for state and education employees. The enacted reforms would allow the state to save more than $95 million once fully implemented. The ball is now in the court of the administrators of the state’s health insurance plan to implement the reforms. Given the speed at which local governments and the private sector have fully implemented reforms for bundled pricing and health care price transparency, lawmakers should not tolerate delay. If administrators for the state don’t have the expertise to implement the reforms quickly, lawmakers should pass legislation at the beginning of session to require administrators to contract with plan administrators who can implement the reforms quickly. The state’s budget hole demands it.

Other opportunities remain. Lawmakers should remove from statute regulations that stifle the option of state employees to purchase private health insurance with state funds. Lawmakers should create parity between the mandates for the state’s self-insured plan and the mandates for participating private plans. Private plans shouldn’t be required to provide higher benefit or actuarial values than the state plan. This change will save employees and the state millions of dollars.

Additional Medicaid Reforms

In 2015, lawmakers began the effort to implement reforms to our state’s Medicaid program, a program in which total spending now exceeds state spending on common education and higher education combined. The program now has more than one million Oklahomans enrolled. Further reforms that must be implemented include appointment of the Oklahoma Health Care Authority director by the governor. The current Medicaid program is unsustainable. New ideas and a focus on empowering patients and improving patient outcomes must be the focus and culture of the agency. This kind of accountability can only happen with direct appointing authority by the governor. The improvement of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services is a real-world example of how successful a change like this can be for taxpayers and for those who depend on services.

Implementation of enrollee eligibility audits is also a must. A number of states, including Illinois, are finding that thousands

of Medicaid enrollees who are not eligible are in fact receiving Medicaid benefits. This costs states millions of dollars. If we care about the most vulnerable, about preserving a sustainable Medicaid program for the truly needy, we will reform the program so that it’s available for them and doesn’t overburden taxpayers.

Further Reforms to Help the Most Vulnerable

Oklahoma should move to reform food stamp benefits to deter fraud. A growing reform option is the placement of picture identifications on food stamp debit cards. This reform should be adopted in Oklahoma and will make sure that services are preserved for the truly needy.

In addition, a number of lawmakers are proposing a common-sense reform to protect those with disabilities from burdensome taxation. This change would allow developmentally disabled residents to start tax-free savings accounts similar to the Oklahoma 529 College Savings Plan accounts. Current Oklahoma tax law would result in a disabled Oklahoman being disqualified for benefits if he or she were to receive an inheritance or other crucial assets. The United States Congress passed the Achieving Better Life Experience (ABLE) Act a number of years ago to address this challenge. The law provided states with the ability to set policy as it relates to each state. Oklahoma has not yet established a policy to allow for the protection of a reasonable level of asset accumulation to take place without taxation. Lawmakers should work to fix this problem so that families are not prevented from empowering their own disabled family members.

Lawmakers should also work to promote pro bono health care. Health care, with its ever-soaring costs, is one of the most significant causes of bankruptcy across the United States. Nonprofit and free-market-related health care clinics are working to solve this challenge by encouraging medical providers to volunteer hours to care for those who cannot afford to pay much for their care. As I discuss in a forthcoming paper, lawmakers should create a program that authorizes a tax credit for a medical provider who provides care to certain qualified individuals who are unable to pay for their own care. In addition, civil protections and licensing provisions should be modified so that providers can provide “free care” without fear of lawsuits and so free temporary medical clinics like Remote Area Medical can operate within the state.

Now more than ever, Oklahoma policymakers must continue to pursue health and welfare reforms. Taxpayers, and the most vulnerable Oklahomans, deserve it.

By Jonathan Small

19www.ocpathink.org

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

OCPA senior vice president Brandon Dutcher is pictured here at a policy roundtable event co-sponsored by the American Conservative Union (ACU) and the Sutherland Institute on October 28, 2015, in Salt Lake City. The panel discussion, titled “Economic and Social Conservatives Must Unite if America Is to Save Its Culture: The Family Prosperity Initiative,” also featured OCPA economists Wendy Warcholik and Scott Moody, ACU executive director Dan Schneider, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, Wisconsin Family Council president Julaine Appling, and Iowa state Senator Julian Garrett.

OCPA’s Trent England, whom you can hear weekday mornings from 7:00 to 10:00 on AM 1640 or online at ocpa.us/MGradio, recently broadcast live from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) meeting in Scottsdale.

OCPA recently teamed up with the Oklahoma Educated Workforce Initiative to take several Oklahoma policymakers on an educational reform fact-finding trip to Indianapolis. The group is pictured here with Indiana Gov. Mike Pence.

Dr. Jay Greene, an education professor at the University of Arkansas, recently spoke at OCPA on the dangers of a high-regulation approach to school choice.

OCPA’s Trent England is shown here testifying before the City Council of Oklahoma City on a supposed anti-smoking measure.

OCPA’s Jonathan Small is pictured here addressing a recent meeting of the Oklahoma Legislative Black Caucus.

@OCPAthink

1

4

2

5

3

6

“We’ve got to help parents find the school that works for their children. Every school is not right for every child. So, we’re pushing the idea of choice."

Rev. Ray Owens, pastor of Metropolitan Baptist Church in Tulsa

“Boards of trustees and presidents need to put their collective foot down on the growth of support and administrative costs. ... In no other industry would overhead costs be allowed to grow at this rate—---executives would lose their jobs.”

Jeff Denneen and Tom Dretler, in a Bain & Company report titled “The Financially Sustainable University”

“What puzzles me is why journalism should be so reflexively on the side of the government. During the Watergate era, we heard about the ‘watchdog press,’ the ‘adversary press,’ the press as the ‘fourth branch of government.’ That old skepticism about government, largely illusory then, hardly survives today even as a pose. Today the press seems to see itself as government’s partner, assisting and promoting the expansion of the state. The only politicians it treats with skepticism, verging at times on open hostility, are those who try to put the brakes on government.”

Joseph Sobran

“74 percent”The percentage of Oklahoma voters who think the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship program

is “a good thing for Oklahoma,” according to recent survey research from Cole Hargrave Snodgrass & Associates. Only 11 percent of voters say the program is a bad thing.

“As Milton Friedman told me more than a decade ago, higher education today has some negative externalities, ones that seemingly exceed the positive spillover effects, suggesting maybe we should be taxing rather than subsidizing universities in the United States.”

Economist Richard Vedder, co-author of a recent OCPA report on higher education, writing recently at Forbes.com

QUOTE UNQUOTE

perspective - february 2016

Documents