Starting A New Session

The past few weeks have been busy as I have been focused on the 2009 legislative agenda. I look forward to working as the house author of a reform-heavy agenda of House and Senate bills including issues such as: a new round of government modernization, term limits for statewide officials, prohibition of using taxpayer funds to hire contract lobbyists, and legislation prohibiting Oklahoma from entering into agreements with Canadian provinces and Mexican states to share your driver's license information.

In addition, I will be carrying several bills requested by constituents concerning issues of local concern.

I will be serving on four committees this year. They are: Agency Oversight and Administrative Rules, Public Safety and Homeland Security, the Appropriations Subcommittee on Natural Resources and Regulatory Services, and I will be the Chairman of the Government Modernization Committee.

I am very excited to serve as the Chair of the Modernization Committee and since receiving this appointment, I have been working hard to keep up with all of the ideas and suggestions for government modernization. I appreciate this input and greatly value the feedback. Please do not hesitate to send me your ideas (jwmurphey@gmail.com or 315-5064).

One area that will receive the most immediate focus in regards to modernization is the state's purchasing system. The current system is somewhat antiquated and a 2007 house study found that millions of taxpayer dollars could be saved with the implementation of better purchasing practices. One of the most important reforms will be to get a handle on tracking the money that is spent by the state. Currently, the state does not have a very user friendly centralized database of spending data that can be used by purchasing officials to leverage savings. Can you imagine what would happen to a private business in the business world if the owners of the business could not clearly see where their money was being spent?

If the state can continue developing a system that implements easier documentation of spending, we will not only save money through leveraged purchasing power, but spending can be more transparent.

A few months ago I wrote about the passage of Senate Bill 1 which placed government spending online for people to review. The people are already using this service as a way to monitor government spending. Just last week I received an e-mail from an individual who wanted to know why a state agency was allowing millions of dollars of inappropriate grants. He had been able to review the spending because of Senate Bill 1.

However, this data only includes purchases in excess of 25,000. The spending data is difficult to search and there are no explanations for what was purchased. It is my hope that as we continue to modernize the state's purchasing system, it will be soon be possible to place ALL state spending in a searchable database complete with explanations of what was purchased. This would be a much more effective tool for the people to hold government accountable.

I look forward to working for you this year to endeavor to make government more efficient and accountable.

Giving our Money to the Corrupt

Two weeks ago I wrote about a future discussion in the Legislature between those who believe Oklahoma can improve economically by reducing the size of government and lowering taxes, and those who feel that Oklahoma should continue to develop a wide array of giveaways in the name of economic development.

As State Representative, I have observed that whenever a new problem crops up, it takes very little time for people to look to government to provide a solution. All too often they fail to account for the fact that if government expands to provide the solution, it will make politicians more powerful, and better enable those who wish to use this power for inappropriate or counterproductive purposes.

In the case of economic development, those who advocate for giveaways to incentivize business will point to the problem of economic blight and ask for the government to take away our taxpayers dollars, give that money to politicians or bureaucrats to control, and then give them the power to determine who receives the benefit.

A prominent example of this type of abuse has been alleged in the state of Illinois. Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is accused of trying to strong-arm the Chicago Tribune into firing critical editorial writers by leveraging his power to help give the Tribune millions of dollars.

Formed in 2003 by Governor Blagojevich, the Illinois Finance Authority is probably similar to any number of Oklahoma boards and commissions. Basically, the Illinois Finance Authority can act on behalf of the government, but it functions much like a private enterprise. Their goal appears to have been to issue taxable and tax-exempt bonds, make loans and invest capital to help local government, businesses, education, health care, not-for-profit organizations, agri-industry, etc. via market-specific financial services.

The Chicago Tribune owned an asset that it needed to sell: Wrigley Field in Chicago. The governor is accused of advocating for the Illinois Finance Authority to take control of the stadium's title so the Tribune would not have to pay capital gains tax on the sale. This would potentially save the company about $100 million. Because of these savings, there would be more incentive for the Tribune to sell the stadium to the government instead of a private enterprise.

On the surface, the Finance Authority appeared to be able to meet any number of needs that its supporters felt should be met by the government acting in this capacity. In reality, however, it appears the Finance Authority was the governor's tool to wield an enormous amount of inappropriate influence over the people.

I feel the people are much better served by a smaller government which enacts low taxes that are fair to everyone. Keeping taxes high allows the politicians to create these complicated entities that can do much more harm than good. In this case, it appears that the Finance Authority may not only have enabled an allegedly corrupt politician, but may also have warped the free market process. It appears to have promoted an environment in which corruption could flourish. How many other examples of this type of abuse are occurring across the nation but are simply not being exposed?

This reaffirms my opposition to efforts in Oklahoma to extend power and money to these types of organizations in the name of economic development.

Cause and Effect of Fiscal Irresponsibility

If you have been able to catch the national news recently, you have been exposed to the debate on whether or not the federal government should continue to give taxpayer dollars to any number of entities, from private businesses to state governments. I suspect that even the occasional reader of my updates is well acquainted with my sentiments regarding the misuse of taxpayer dollars in this manner.

At least one estimate places the potential costs of these bail outs/economic stimulus plans as high as 7 trillion dollars. That amount is 10 times the cost of the war in Iraq. It is more than the cost of the Vietnam, and Korean wars, the New Deal, the moon landing and the Louisiana purchase combined.

This situation reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from President Reagan. He said, "Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

Many will agree that the federal government has acted irresponsibly and all of the massive indebtedness spending is taking us down a road that we should not be traveling. However, often lost in this debate is the irresponsibility of state government leaders who have contributed to the economic problems in their own irresponsible fashion.

For instance, prior to receiving a private sector loan, the state of California appeared ready to ask for their own bail out. California is facing a budget deficit that may hit $41.8 billion over the next 18 months, potentially forcing the state to issue IOUs for everything from its electricity bills to food providers.

I don't know about you, but the last thing I want is for the federal government to tax me and then use my tax dollars to bail out irresponsible politicians in another state. California should focus on cutting spending in their own state without becoming a burden on the national debt we all share.

In all the debate about whether or not some of the Michigan-based auto industry should be bailed out, there is rarely a reference to the horrible economic conditions and punitive tax policies recently imposed by Michigan politicians. Just last year, Michigan politicians took the unfortunate step of increasing income tax by $760 million and instituted a very damaging business-to-business excise tax projected to cost another $750 million. The state's unemployment rate rose from 6.9 percent in 2006 to 7.2 percent in 2007; the highest in the nation and the highest average annual rate.

I believe that those who serve at the state level have the responsibility of creating a business-friendly economic climate and should never incur unnecessary long-term debt. To create punitive conditions that play a part in forcing businesses to see the need for government incentives is very unwise. And it is wrong for state governments to incur unnecessary long-term spending (bonded indebtedness) which makes it harder for them to reduce spending in tough economic times.

Two Approaches to Growth

Recent comments by former Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating and the transition of leadership in the Oklahoma Senate have once again brought focus to an important change that needs to occur sooner rather than later.

In a radio interview conducted last month, Keating stated he'd like to see the new Legislature repeal the state income tax. Keating explained that while he was governor, he heard constantly from business people and others that the repeal of the income tax would stimulate business growth in Oklahoma.

In 2004 and 2005 during an economic upturn, legislative changes in the House of Representatives made it possible for some tax reforms to occur and as a result, the first steps were taken towards eliminating this punitive tax.

Other states also appear to be enacting tax reforms, as a recently released report from the Tax Foundation shows that Oklahoma's tax burden has moved up to being the 19th highest in the nation.

I believe there will be two distinctly different trains of thoughts to emerge in the Legislature on the subject of tax reform.

The first approach is represented by those who know that Oklahoma must eliminate taxes in order to be competitive for new business. This is fair for all parties involved because the tax code would keep taxes low for everyone, thereby keeping the incentive for growth.

The other viewpoint is represented by those who believe that in order for Oklahoma to grow, it must keep taxes at current levels and create a number of incentives and tax loopholes to compete in an ever-growing war between the states over who can offer the best giveaways to prospective new employers.

The second approach is rife with potential for corruption and abuse. The people who have the power to hire lobbyists and finance politicians' campaigns will use this system to make sure they receive incentives at the taxpayers' expense, while small businessmen and average people will not be able to afford to make this same "investment." Worse yet, this approach will be subject to the same abuse that has been exposed in the past, when several Oklahoma's legislators were prosecuted for using similar programs to funnel money for personal benefit.

This approach also keeps an elite class of legislators, bureaucrative central planners and their friends in a very powerful position since they have the power to determine who succeeds and who fails, instead of success being dependant upon the hard work of individuals. If taxes are simply reduced across the board, the power of the elite is much more limited.

During the next two years, I am committed to working hard to expose the inefficiencies in state government so that spending cuts and comprehensive tax reform can occur sooner rather than later.

Moving Ahead with Property Tax Reform

I am happy to report some fantastic news about one of the most needed reforms. Last week the window of time opened when Representatives can file new legislation to be heard during the upcoming session. Those who wish to make a point and provide their legislation with one of the initial House bill numbers are using this as an opportunity to make a strong statement by quickly placing their bills on file.

One of the first bills to be filed was House Joint Resolution 1001. HJR 1001 will be a proposal by Oklahoma City State Representative David Dank. Dank has been one of the leading proponents of one of the most important issues to my constituents. The issue is that of property tax reform. Each year I receive a number of constituent calls protesting the punitive and unfair nature of the ever-increasing property tax assessments that seem to always go up by about 5% with each new issuance.

In 2007, I had to report that while the property tax reform bill had passed the House, it had been killed in the Senate. In 2008, the property tax reform bill was approved in the Senate, but died in the House.

Now, Dank is upping the ante. The proposals of previous years purported to cut the ability of the county assessors to increase property taxes from 5% to 3%. This year, HJR 1001 will attempt to lower the assessment cap to 2%.

With new leadership in place in the State Senate and more reform-minded Representatives in the State House, I believe this is the year that Dank's proposal will be successful. Because the reform will require a change in the State Constitution, it will not be sent to the Governor but will instead require the approval of a vote of the people. Dank has indicated that he will contribute a significant amount to fund the campaign to make sure the word gets out to the people prior to the election.

I suspect the measure will have very little trouble passing a test at the polls. During the last legislative session, I included this issue on my constituent survey and the idea had the support of an overwhelming margin of voters.

This year, I will once again look for the opportunity to propose a plan requested by Logan County Commissioner Mark Sharpton. The proposal was approved by the House of Representatives as an amendment to SB 1956 during last year's session, but was later removed in the conference committee process. Had it been successful, it would have indexed each homeowner's homestead exemption to the rate of inflation. Inflation and the rate of property tax assessments have gone up for years, but the homestead exemption has stayed the same. Sharpton's plan would provide additional property tax relief because it would allow the exemption to grow as well.

As your Representative, I have heard your calls for immediate property tax reform. I take that desire very seriously and am happy to support these proposals.

Giving Special Interests The Power To Take Your Property

In the past, I have written about the possibility of the expansion of the Trans-Texas Corridor into Oklahoma and described why it is important that we not allow foreign-owned companies to control Oklahoma roads.

I have always felt that as the size of government gets bigger and more expansive, opportunities open up for those who have the ability to manipulate the government to use that power to empower their own special interest(s). Nowhere is this marriage of big business and big government more frightening than when a business is able to acquire power normally reserved to the government, such as the right of eminent domain. I believe an important part of our job as lawmakers is to prevent these types of abuses from occurring.

The example of the foreign-owned Texas toll road is one example of this type of abuse. However, this is not the only example of Texas allowing privately owned interests to operate much like the government in order to make a profit.

Over the past few years, a wealthy Texas businessman decided to incur the risk of investing in a product that he believes will be in great demand in the future. That product is water. The businessman formed a corporation known as Mesa Water and acquired water rights in a large aquifer in the Texas panhandle and tried to market this water to the nearby city of Amarillo.

However, Amarillo chose not to buy the water and Mesa apparently had a hard time finding a market for the water in the area close to where they owned the water rights. Not wanting to lose the investment, Mesa had to find a way to transport the millions of gallons of water from the Texas panhandle to the water-hungry Dallas metroplex. How would a privately-owned company acquire the power to deliver this much water over hundreds of miles?

Mesa hired one of Texas' most powerful lobbyists and went to work on Texas lawmakers. An amendment was sneaked through the Texas Legislature that allowed a water-supply district to transport water in a single corridor, or right-of-way. And then a second bill was passed which loosened the requirements for creating a water district, a governmental entity much like Oklahoma's rural water districts, with the power of eminent domain.

The bill loosened the requirements so much that it allowed just two people (both of whom were employees of the Texas businessman who started Mesa) to hold an election to form a new water district with governmental powers. With that two-person vote, Mesa was able to use the newly formed water district to afford them not just the ability to issue tax-free bonds for the construction of a massive pipeline, but the right and power of eminent domain to take control of the land along the 250 miles needed to build the pipeline.

This is one example of how a powerful special interest manipulated the legislative process to allow them to co-opt and use the power of the government to their advantage.

As your State Representative, I am dedicated to preventing similar abuses from occurring in Oklahoma.

Preparing For The Expansion Of Government

Last Friday, I attended a meeting of House Republicans in order to elect new officers for the next session of the legislature.

There were more representatives in the room than ever before as the people voted to elect sixty-one Republicans up from fifty-seven and chose not to remove a single GOP incumbent.

The group unanimously re-elected Tulsa Representative Chris Benge as speaker. I believe Benge had earned the confidence of the Representatives with his friendly down to earth demeanor that makes it easy for them to express their opinions and engage in honest dialog about the issues they feel strongly about.

I also believe that Benge and many in the legislature are committed to using the stronger than ever conservative leadership in Oklahoma's legislature to do what we can in order to keep the obvious upcoming expansion of the federal government in as much check as possible.

You are probably aware of the recent massive expansion of the federal government which will now be firmly in control of liberal politicians who will no doubt use that power to aggressively advance an agenda that is in direct opposition to the values of many Oklahomans.

It is important to note that in creating the Constitution our nation's founding fathers designed the federal government to be small and limited in comparison to state governments. They knew that the people have a much stronger voice at the local level whereas the ability of the people to affect change is greatly limited at the federal level of government.

However, over time under both Republican and Democrat administrations both parties have used the federal government as a tool to accomplish their various agendas.

As a result the federal government has become very powerful. Now, a group of aggressive liberals can use that power not only to move America to the left but to build upon itself and increase in size, making the federal government more expansive and powerful than ever before.

As a result a bigger federal government will likely be the most responsive to those only with enough money and influence to use that power to benefit themselves. This will leave the responsibility for paying for the big government to the average taxpayer who cannot afford to invest in the high-powered lobbyists' and politician's campaigns in order to manipulate the system for their benefit.

This means that in the upcoming years we can expect the federal government to reflect both the desires of the powerful special interests and the liberal politicians who seek to forever change our nation.

During the last session of the Oklahoma Legislature the House of Representatives voted to support House Joint Resolution 1089 by a 92-3 margin. HJR 1089 sought to reassert Oklahoma's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and, according to the resolution's language, is "serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates."

The Tenth Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The author of the legislation stated, "The more we stand by and watch the federal government get involved in areas where it has no legal authority, we kill the Constitution a little at a time. The last few decades, the Constitution has been hanging by a thread."

While this resolution passed with the strong bi-partisan support of the Oklahoma House it appears to have failed to receive a hearing in the Oklahoma Senate. This year, with a new more conservative leadership in the Oklahoma Senate I am hopeful that legislation such as HJR 1089 will receive a fair hearing.

Allowing Our Public Safety Departments To Talk To Each Other

Attending a recent forum at the Woodcrest fire department reminded me that one of the experiences I have most enjoyed as State Representative during the past two years has been the role of Vice-Chairman and ranking Republican on the House of Representative’s Homeland Security Committee.

When designing the new house committee system, house leadership structured the system so that members of the committees could really focus on specialized areas of committee work. They did this by giving the committees both appropriation and policy oversight in their respective areas. It has been exciting to serve as Vice-Chairman of a committee where I could specialize in an area in which there is a core purpose for government involvement.

In this role, a little over a year ago I joined Oklahoma State Fire Marshal Robert Doke and a delegation of state government and firefighting officials in visiting the headquarters of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). There we met with FEMA Administrator R. David Paulison. Administrator Paulson was complimentary of the manner in which Oklahoma officials have handled past emergencies and is supportive of the efforts made in developing additional emergency readiness.

One of the reasons for meeting with Paulison related to developing a truly interoperable statewide emergency communications system to allow officials in different agencies to communicate with one another. This issue has without doubt been the most comprehensive and the most controversial issue that our committee has considered in my term as Vice-Chair.

The development of this system took on added importance after the 2006 Oklahoma wildfires. During this emergency, responders had enormous difficulty communicating and organizing an effective response because there is no statewide system through which responders from one county or region can communicate with another. Law enforcement would also greatly benefit from a system that would allow the highway patrol to communicate with local officers when responding to incidents.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has provided nearly $30 million to Oklahoma in federal funds to set up the framework for a statewide 800mhz system along the Interstate 44 corridor which would cover the state’s most populous areas. However, the state would need $130 million more in order to cover the entire state. While millions have been spent on the current system, it appears as if the control of that system is limited to the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety. This risks the defeat the obvious purpose of a statewide system, which should be to allow all police and fire entities to talk to each other. It is difficult to justify why so many millions of dollars have been spent on a project that does not directly accomplish the main purpose for which it should be intended.

I believe that new options should be considered for a more cost-effective, internet-based communications system similar to OneNet, the system the State Regents for Higher Education use to provide high-speed communications to Oklahoma entities such as public schools, colleges, universities and local, tribal, state and federal governments. OneNet utilizes fiber optics and wireless technologies to transmit video, voice and data throughout Oklahoma.

This type of system would allow rural Logan County volunteer fire departments such as Woodcrest who can not afford the expensive 800mhz systems to communicate with each other and others with much less expensive off the shelf products thus saving local departments a lot of much needed funding.

I was pleased to co-sponsored a bill authored by Representative Charles Key that would have begun the process of developing this a more modern streamlined system that takes advantage of new technologies. While the Key bill is was unsuccessful, it is clear that more state officials are beginning to get on board with the plan to develop a less expensive, but truly interoperable system. This important reform can’t happen soon enough, as I believe millions of taxpayer dollars would be saved.

As your State Representative I remain committed to working for the enactment of these types of common sense reforms.

Should Private Companies Be Allowed To Own Our Roads?

As a member of the House of Representative's Transportation Committee I have been able to observe one of the most controversial but rarely talked about and mostly under the radar issues regarding the long term development of our highway system.

One year ago I wrote in my update about an the issue at the heart of which has been Oklahoma's membership in a group known as the North America SuperCorridor Coalition (NASCO), the desire of big corporations to enhance the movement of Chinese-manufactured goods throughout North America, the possible privatization of new state and federal highways and NASCO's desire to deploy sophisticated tracking devices along I-35.

In the past I written about what I believe to be the inappropriate and frightening alliance of big business monopolies backed up by the power of big government. Nowhere is this abuse more evident than when big companies buy long term leases of public roads. You can only imagine how your power as a citizen is minimized when a big (and likely foreign owned) corporation has complete control over a public road on which you depend in order to get where you need to go.

The issue of private ownership of public roads is in its infancy in Oklahoma but appeared to be growing after Texas planned out the construction of the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) network. The TTC was to be owned and financed over the next 50 years by a foreign investment group based in Spain known as Cintra.

The TTC initiative begun in 2002 focused on building a superhighway parallel to Interstate 35. It seems obvious that proponents of this privately owned super transit corridor may have intended on linking Mexican ports through Oklahoma to an inland port to be located in Kansas City and from there to various distribution points throughout North America.

A communist Chinese owned company known as Hutchison Ports Holdings is paying billions to deepen the Mexican ports of Manzanillo and Lazaro Cardenas in anticipation of the arrival of container mega-ships capable of holding up to 12,500 containers currently being built for Chinese shipping lines. These ports would likely serve as a starting point for Chinese goods that would be distributed into the United States along the super highway corridor.

NASCO, advocates for the I-35 trade corridor but has also been pushing for the creation of a tracking system known as NAFTRACS to be put in place along I-35. This technology would be developed in part by a joint venture owned by Hutchison Ports Holdings. NAFTRACS has been described by NASCO as a program that provides management tools for mitigating or minimizing traffic congestion and collecting the status of certain items in transit. The data generated by these sensors would be shared with the joint venture although it is not clear if the data would be shared with the Chinese government owners of the joint interest. In May of 2007, NASCO requested that the Oklahoma Department of Transportation sign a letter stating that ODOT was looking forward to participating in the tracking program.

During the 2007 legislative session it was discovered that Oklahoma is a dues paying member of NASCO. In other words your taxpayer dollars were helping finance this organization.

In my update in 2007, I wrote that Senator Randy Brogdon (R-Owasso) would be filing a bill to remove Oklahoma from the NASCO coalition. Shortly after that time the Oklahoma Department of Transportation announced they would be withdrawing from NASCO membership. At this time it appears that the effort to introduce foreign owned public roads in Oklahoma has met with too much resistance. However, as your Representative I am committed to opposing any new attempts to allow this type of long term private ownership of public roads.

Trying to Prevent Voter Fraud

Perhaps you have seen recent stories in the news about a group known as ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). Some of ACORN'S employees have been accused of submitting false voter registration forms; some were signed "Mickey Mouse" and some listed Dallas Cowboys players’ names, even though none of the players lived in that particular state. Agents acting on behalf of ACORN employees were also caught filling out voter registration forms using names and addresses copied from the telephone book. In a number of states, fraud investigations are underway.

While these events are mostly occurring in presidential battleground states, I believe that Oklahoma's election system is also susceptible to fraud.

The voter identification cards used by the election board could be easily forged. Especially during low turnout elections, there is absolutely nothing to stop people from voting under different names in different precincts. If a group with the wherewithal and the power of ACORN decided to manipulate our elections by registering out-of-state voters or by registering the same person multiple times in different precincts under different names and addresses, there would probably be very little to stand in their way.

Right here in Logan County, according to election board records, in just one precinct preceding the 2004 elections, there were four hundred and fourteen people who registered to vote in September and October and who are still listed on the rolls of eligible voters. Of those four hundred and fourteen people, only eighteen of them showed up to vote at the next major election in 2006. One can only imagine how susceptible that precinct is to corruption when of all of the people who registered in September and October, only four percent of them turned out to be voters who would be still be voting at that precinct two years later. It would be next to impossible for a precinct official to recognize that person when he/she basically only registered to vote for one election.

In an e-mail update in May, I wrote about Senate Bill 1150 which would have provided for a required list of identification options prior to voting. The constitutionality of the bill was reinforced by a recent Supreme Court decision which ruled in favor of an Indiana voter ID law that requires photo identification at the polls, citing the need to reduce voter fraud.

I also included this bill on my constituent surveys and over 80% of my constituents responded by supporting the idea of required voter identification.

Unfortunately, I also wrote about the fact that some in the Senate leadership were able to kill the bill.

While the Senate's decision to kill the bill was discouraging, I believe that a strong voter photo ID law can be passed in the future. The Speaker of the House recently announced that this will be a major agenda item for next year. Hopefully with more conservative leadership in the Senate, and with all of the national attention being given to voter fraud, the efforts of those who appear to keep our voter system susceptible to fraud will be defeated.

Politicians Giving Away More Of Your Money

One of the types of bills I am most disappointed to see appear on the floor of the House is a bill that makes a seemingly small but expansive change in the way an incentive program or tax credit give away is allotted to some special interest somewhere. I believe that most legislators have no clue about the identity of the special interest or group that is set to benefit from the change but are simply asked to support the bill in the name of economic development.

Over the past few years any number of programs have popped up that give away your money to any number of entities that will benefit from the special consideration of one of these incentive programs. The programs are usually created in the name of economic development which means it is very hard for most legislators to vote against them and run the risk of being seen as anti-growth.

Now, these programs appear to be slowly expanding to include more and more special interests. These groups are no doubt willing to invest in the lobbyists and build relationships with legislators in order to be successful in expanding these programs to include themselves.

I feel that Oklahoma's elected officials are putting us on a dangerous road down a path where anyone who can afford a high price lobbyist can create a special program that provides their specific interest with financial gain at the expense of the average taxpayers who are unknowingly forced to carry the burden of paying for these pay outs.

These programs essentially bypass the people's right as customers in the free market to determine who the winners and losers of the business world are and risks placing government bureaucrats and centralized planners in the position of determining who will benefit from the special programs.

And, with a lack of public transparency it seems there are a multitude of possible abuses that can occur as millions of dollars of tax credits appear to be distributed with little to no public awareness of who is receiving these credits and how they are being used.

I have always felt that in order for Oklahoma to compete with neighboring states such as Texas for economic growth it is important that many of Oklahoma's growth punitive taxes such as the personal income tax or the tax on capital gains should be greatly reduced or eliminated.

Unfortunately, as special interests are allowed to build holes into the tax code to provided targeted benefits in the name of economic development the harder it will become for Oklahoma to enact comprehensive tax reform. This is because a large and powerful constituency will be developed in order to maintain the big government status-quo and keep the targeted incentives in place.

A recently released report from the Tax Foundation demonstrates what is at stake. In their annual rankings the Foundation declared Oklahoma to have moved up to having the 19th highest tax burden in the United States. Oklahoma's tax burden ranking has steadily increased over the past 30 years. In 1977 Oklahoma ranked 42nd in terms of the level of state and local taxation. Now we rank 19th.

This high level of taxation does not provide incentive for growth. This is no doubt partly why Oklahoma's per capita income is one of the lowest in the nation. Despite all of good intentions of those who wish to grow our state by offering massive incentive programs I believe that Oklahoma will grow much more successfully if we reverse course and follow a path of less taxation.

Keeping Close to the People

When I sought election for office, a key component of my platform was centered around an issue about which I feel strongly. In my view, the events of the past few weeks have certainly reinforced the importance of what I believe to be an important principle.

As conceived by the founding fathers, the United States House of Representatives was to reflect the sentiment and values of the people, and its members were to be directly elected by the people every two years.

When the founding fathers of Oklahoma designed our State Constitution, they ensured this same principle would be reflected in state government by requiring that Oklahoma State Representatives also stand for re-election every two years.

I have observed firsthand how this makes the House much more responsive to the needs and concerns of the people they represent. For instance, in 2007 the House served as the catalyst for immigration reform even though it was opposed by the big money special interest group. Immigration reform was one of the rare high profile successful bills that was not driven by special interest money, but by the demands of the people. Representatives who knew they would soon be up for re-election were much more likely to take this sentiment into consideration than the Senators who are only up for re-election every four years.

Over the past few months, I have been honored to go door to door, visiting hundreds of homes of the people I represent. This experience provides a fascinating ground level point of view as I get to hear firsthand how people feel about the issues. The experience has also given me a forum through which I can relate my observations of what is occurring in government, and how I am applying my principles and beliefs to my job as State Representative. In addition, the people give me valuable feedback about how the new laws that I am voting for or against are impacting their lives.

I believe this is exactly how our founding fathers envisioned representative government would work. And this is why I believe the House of Representatives is one of the most exciting places in which a person can serve.

Certainly one of the most relevant issues the people talk to me most passionately about is their opposition to the recent actions of the federal government in approving the pork-filled bailout bill. I feel that one of the reasons the United States House of Representatives initially opposed the bailout was because they know the people oppose it and many of them are up for re-election in just a few weeks.

When I campaigned for office, I made it clear that I opposed the effort to expand the terms of State Representatives. I have much respect for the wisdom of our founding fathers and am dedicated to preserving the important principle that Representatives should be up for review by the people every two years.

A Lobbyist-Induced Bailout

Because of my point of view about the massively inappropriate nature of lobbyist influence over policy makers, I have closely observed the mind set of those who benefit from lobbyist funding. I have come to believe there are a sizable number of elected officials who use a special type of situational ethics logic to excuse their acceptance of this money.

If you have ever attended a political forum where a politician was forced to field questions about the influence of lobbyists, you may have made these same observations. The politicians usually defend the status-quo by talking about the important role the lobbyist play in "educating" policy makers. Rarely will the lawmaker talk about the involvement of the lobbyist's checkbook in funding his/her campaigns for office, and it is especially interesting to observe the lawmaker's defense of the very inappropriate practice of accepting personal gifts from the special interests.

In recent days, the US Congress has been debating taking steps that I believe will inappropriately involve the federal government in matters that should be left to the free market. This recent economic turmoil has reminded me of a recently released book (a fascinating read) by hedge fund manager David Einhorn entitled, Fooling Some of the People All of the Time.

Einhorn described how his fund has focused on in-depth research of the reports of various publicly traded companies. He explains how they discovered the various discrepancies in these reports and strategically timed valuation of assets that seemed to paint a clear picture of ongoing stock price manipulation lasting for years. When he reported these issues to the governing authorities, instead of having the claims seriously investigated, it appears that little action was taken. Einhorn quickly became a target for those wishing to defend the companies making these reports. One such company even went so far as to hire a public relations "spin doctor" who had represented the Clinton Administration in an effort to put the situation in the best light possible.

Einhorn described how these entities would also invest in the elected officials in an obvious attempt to maximize influence over the regulators.

It is my belief that these types of issues have been systematic and ongoing for years. Those who benefited off the high stock prices were more than able to invest in the highly paid lobbyists that appear to hold such a strong influence over the elected officials.

As as result, even when reform-minded legislation was presented to Congress in order to address items such as risky lending practices, there were simply no reforms.

Now it appears as if the taxpayers will be forced to take on the risk that these entities incurred over the years. I suspect this bailout is also heavily influenced by the presence of powerful lobbyists representing entities who will certainly benefit by writing the bad debt off their books.

I believe the solution to this problem is for the people to insist that their legislators divorce themselves from the practice of taking money from special interests.

School Choice for Students with Special Needs

Let's suppose you are one of the growing number of parents whose child has been affected by autism. Imagine having the sensation that each and every one of your waking moments is dedicated to coping with this tremendous challenge as you provide your child with the necessary support in order to get through the day. And all the while, you hold out hope that through the proper therapy your child will be able to one day lead a normal life.

Now imagine that you are the superintendent of a small school district. As the steward of the taxpayers' resources, you are required to provide an education to all children, but because your school district is small in size and because there is an overwhelming number of state and federal mandates, it is very challenging to provide a quality education to the general population and it is extremely difficult to provide the type of education that children with special needs, such as autism, require.

This was the challenge recently faced by the parents and one of the school districts in Logan County.

Due to the various federal requirements, small school systems have an enormous burden to provide care to special needs students. However, because of the demands placed on the local educational system, it may be nearly impossible for them to have the resources to provide this care in a manner that takes advantage of the latest therapy methods and really helps those students on the road to recovery.

I feel this is unfair to the parents of the special needs children because their tax dollars are being taken by an education system that is challenged to provide a quality product. It can also be unfair to the other students in the school system because the lack of focused resources can take away from their education.

I believe this is a problem that should be solved by school choice. Let's refund the tax dollars of those parents with special needs so they can invest that money in the very specialized treatment that their children need. Instead of forcing them to attend a school system that simply cannot meet their needs, they should be allowed to take advantage of the resources offered by those who are experts in the necessary treatment. Because of the increased efficiency of the private education market, I suspect that the result would be a lower cost to the taxpayers.

Last week I wrote an article explaining how "one size fits all" does not work in the health insurance industry. After writing that article, an individual who is experienced in working with special needs children responded by making the point that neither does "one size fits all" work when it comes time to provide education services. She is exactly right. Children with special needs should be treated by those who understand those needs.

Another constituent contact I have benefited from has been an individual whose family has been affected by autism. Instead of letting that experience discourage them, they are working hard to open a clinic to treat autism using the latest treatment methods. These types of private sector solutions can provide an enormous service to children with special needs, while relieving the public school system of a tremendous challenge.

"One Size Fits All" Does Not Work

What if you had a pressing need for a new car? And what if, when you went to buy a new car, the only vehicle you were allowed to purchase was a luxury vehicle with all options pre-installed? Can you imagine how many Oklahomans would be unable to afford transportation if this scenario were a reality?

One of the most pressing topics the Legislature deals with each year is health care. The issue is of added importance because Oklahoma has the fourth highest population of uninsured people. The most obvious reason for this lack of coverage is the high price of purchasing insurance in Oklahoma.

The average price of a job-based health insurance policy in Oklahoma is $4,088. The national average is $3,991. Oklahoma's median income is significantly lower than the national average, which means that Oklahomans pay higher health insurance costs with a lower average income.

One of the reasons for high insurance fees in Oklahoma is because the Legislature has driven up the cost over the years by mandating a "one size fits all" approach to coverage.

Policies become even more expensive when the Legislature approves new laws to mandate the coverage of any number of heartbreaking medical situations that have not traditionally been covered by health insurance policies. Over time, the number of mandates adds up to create a very expensive insurance policy. And there is no shortage of medical issues currently not covered that will no doubt be mandated in the coming years.

A State House panel heard testimony recently which indicated that across the nation mandated benefits that will increase the cost of basic health coverage from about 20 percent to more than 50 percent, depending on the state and its mandates.

While elected officials understandably wish to expand coverage to include as many medical conditions as possible, the long-term effect can be detrimental, because fewer people will be able to afford coverage. This is why it is important that Oklahoma allow insurance companies to provide basic insurance coverage without all the attached mandates.

One of the exciting developments of the latest legislative year was the passage of a law in Florida that allows the uninsured to purchase these types of policies. Now, instead of being forced to buy the equivalent of a luxury car, prospective insurance customers can buy a product that better fits their financial needs.

I believe it is important for Oklahoma to follow Florida's lead and enact this common-sense legislation. Further, Oklahoma should enact legislation that will allow the customers of this product to choose additional specific coverages that would fit their needs. For instance, senior citizens would not wish to pay for medical coverage for issues that affect only children or young people, and young people have no need for medical coverage that only senior citizens need.

Simply put, the "one size fits all" approach does not work.

The Change That The People Really Want

Almost exactly one year ago, I was privileged to visit the US Senate and watch Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn at work. I watched as Coburn worked the Senate floor in an attempt to defeat a pork expenditure for an organization in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania's two senators (one a Republican and one a Democrat) successfully saved their precious pork appropriation, but not before Coburn made his point and rallied a substantial number of senators to his point of view.

Coburn impressed me with his classy manner of exposing the pork, but doing so in a way that did not alienate or engender unnecessary hard feelings. His style of doing the right thing in a nice manner was a strong example to me of how elected officials should conduct themselves.

Shortly after he arrived in Washington, DC, Coburn embarked on what looked like a one-man fight. Being that one man takes an enormous amount of character and many probably believed that Coburn would be ostracized and left on his own. That did not stop Coburn from taking the Senate floor to denounce the "Bridge to Nowhere," making that term a phrase that would define pork politics for years to come. Coburn's effort came at great risk, as it meant opposing a very powerful Republican Committee Chairman, who viewed Coburn's effort in a very negative light.

Now, a few years later, the tables have turned. While Coburn remains a very popular spokesperson for the people, that powerful Chairman is under federal indictment. It is now clear that Coburn's example has encouraged a nationwide movement and paved the way for a new generation of elected officials who are willing to reject the adage that all legislators must support pork politics.

I think Coburn's one-man effort officially became a nationwide movement when Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin announced her opposition to the "Bridge to Nowhere" and that type of federal spending, and when she accepted her selection as a Vice-Presidential candidate.

Since last Saturday, as I have gone door to door visiting with my constituents, I have seen a new excitement in the eyes of the people as they are once again hopeful that maybe, just maybe, with Palin's help, there might actually be a chance for substantive change in our government.

The people are once again excited about voting and the prospect of change. I have not seen this type of excitement since I went door to door in 2004 when Coburn was on the ballot.

Everyone seems to want to talk about Palin and the change that she represents and I believe much of this energy can trace its origin to years ago when Coburn was willing to take to the floor of the Senate and be the one man who started a new national revolution against big spending.

Coburn's example makes it much easier for those of us in elected office to work to follow his example and do the right thing for the people.

The People Are Excited

Since last Saturday, as I have gone door to door visiting with my constituents, I have seen a new excitement in the eyes of the people as they are once again hopeful that maybe, just maybe, with Governor Sarah Palin's help there might actually be a chance of substantive changes in our government. The people are once again excited about voting and about the prospects for change. I have not seen this type of excitement since I went door to door in 2004 when Dr. Coburn was on the ballot.

I received this email from a constituent who has historically not been very politically involved but was willing to write me a very well written email about how excited she is at Palin's nomination.

------- ----- ------

In a nutshell? If McCain wins, it'll be because of the votes she brings. Even if she isn't all that the hype says she is, she has singlehandedly energized the entire Republican party. That's pretty amazing for a previously lackluster campaign.

As a woman? In spite of the fact that I KNOW they're going after the woman's vote ... she is a woman's woman. Strong. Capable. Intelligent. Attractive. Knowledgeable. Do all these things matter individually? Nope. But they make for an excellent package. She is the embodiment, if you will, of what my ideal American woman should be. The unsung heroes. The moms that make everything happen. And I know that's reverse feminism ... but I don't care. I think it's true anyway. :-)

As a single mom I actually swallowed hard a few times last night.

Me. Unbelievable. Even when I knew I was being courted as a woman, I succumbed anyway (grin)

She has a pregnant daughter. That calls to me. She has a special needs kid ... MY favorite line (total and female emotions, I know) MY favorite line was when she spoke directly to the parents of special needs kids and said, "You will have an advocate in the White House." Her sister owns a small business. Her parents were school teachers. I like the fact that (nothing personal) she didn't take her kids out of school, she went to the school and tried to change the system.

To me, that "advocate in the White House" principle applies to everything. To the common people. To the small business owners. To struggling parents. To people who have no use for politics or empty promises of hope and change. Direct. Practical. She KNOWS about the pipelines. What I don't know, she does. I loved her courage. Her humor. Her very intelligent digs at Obama. Humor mixed with honesty was devastating. I loved that she didn't whine and cry about anything at all. Not about the way the media has gone after her. Not about femi-nazis. Not about her child. Not about her daughter. She just said, "We're a normal family like everyone else." Yowza.

She mildly spanked Obama and sent him to the corner. You just gotta love it. I remember watching Obama in the DNC and waiting and waiting and WAITING for the real substance she presented in the first five minutes. If I weren't already leaning, I would change my vote to Republican immediately.

My respect for McCain grew just because he picked her. Huh. I would get involved in politics if she asked me today (maybe not tomorrow when the hype wears off ... but for today? Yep). She gave back a jet and a limo. She doesn't deal with lobbyists. She balanced the budget and she believes in lower taxes. What's not to like?

No doubt we will discover skeletons in her closet. Fortunately I don't expect politicians or movie stars to be perfect. I think everyone's human. And if I'm going to be absolutely honest? She gets an automatic "pass" for the little stuff just for that speech last night. I know someone else wrote it. But if her history proves to be true ... that tells the story of character. I still don't know Obama's history. That was overwhelmingly demonstrated yesterday by the simple telling of hers.

But I think she's great for the job ... and if she's looking for a future and I had to vote today, I would vote for her as President for two terms. Here's hoping she does well on the debates. Too bad they don't have her lined up for a national speech November 3.

Convincing the People to Pay More (Part II)

Last week, I explained how hard government officials will work to meet their funding needs by trying to convince people to pay higher taxes, instead of working hard to make ends meet without passing on the higher bill. Many times, this is accomplished by claiming that any number of Armageddon-type scenarios will most certainly occur if people do not agree to increase taxes.

I also explained how that in my years of watching local, state and federal government activities, I have never felt that any of the many proposed increase have been needed.

This year, for instance, the Oklahoma Senate passed an amendment to a House bill that would increase your driver's license fee by several dollars. The fee increase was to be used to support the funding of driver examination stations all across Oklahoma. The rumor circulated that if the fee increase did not pass, many rural examinations would be closed and prospective drivers from all across the state would be forced to drive many miles and wait in very long lines in order to receive their driver's licenses.

A television station did a report in which they interviewed a driver who indicated that compared to paying the high price of fuel in order to commute to the examination station, surely it would be better to just pay a few dollars more for his driver's license. With a little media attention, the proponents of higher fees appeared set to convince the public that the fee increase was in fact a good deal for people.

I have observed that this is one of the oldest tricks in the book for politicians who want to tax us more. Instead of focusing the debate on funding necessary government services with existing money, those who want higher fees make voters choose between terminating the necessary service or raising taxes/fees.

But in all their efforts to raise our driver's license fees, the proponents of bigger government made one small mistake. They failed to take into account the identity of the Representative who controlled the bill in the House of Representatives. As author of the House Bill in question, I had the power to remove the bill from consideration. I was happy to keep the bill from being considered until the fee increase was removed. And just days later, appropriations officials "found" another way to finance the drivers examination stations without an increase in taxes or fees.

Going to whatever ends necessary to convince people to pay more money is a trap that too many public officials quickly fall into. In today's world of high taxes and fees at all levels of government, I believe the first test for any public official seeking election should be if that official has met funding needs with existing resources, or if he/she has given in to the pressure to take more of the people's hard earned money.

Convincing the People to Pay More Money

How can you tell the difference between those politicians who have sold out and bought into the "government as usual" status-quo, and the elected officials who remain representatives of the people? During past columns, I have described two of the criteria that I have formed, based on observing the political process. In my next two columns, I would like to explain the third, and I believe most important, criteria that best defines the difference between these two groups.

In recent years, local, state and federal government has placed a heavy burden of taxation on the people in Oklahoma. You might think that having all of these financial resources would mean that the government would not ever have to ask the people for more funding.

In the free market, the consumer rewards those businesses that do a good job by buying their products. Businesses are thus rewarded for having the best products at the lowest possible prices. And those who work in the business world are forced to work hard and perform well for their consumers. If they stop working hard, the result will be that consumers will stop buying their products and those businesses will cease to exist.

In the government world, those who run the government do not have to react to free market forces. Consumers (we, the people) are forced to use government services no matter what the quality is -- and we are also forced to pay the bill. Even if the government does not perform to our satisfaction, it will still exist; and rarely does the price of government go down.

The burden of doing a good job in government is not based on employees acting under free market principles, but on the ability of government officials to cut prices for taxpayers while providing a quality product.

When the need for more funding faces government officials, all too often, established politicians choose the easier task of launching a massive public relations campaign to convince people to pay more money, rather than fighting the tougher battle of lowering their own budgets.

In my years of observing local, state and federal government, I have never seen a proposed fee or tax increase that I felt was justified. There is usually a way for the government to make ends meet without having to resort to an increase, although it might mean the government has to tighten their own belt and use existing resources in a wiser manner.

I have certainly seen how hard government officials work at trying to convince people that any number of Armageddon-type scenarios will most certainly occur if they do not give in to the government and increase taxes. I have also seen how quickly a cottage industry of businesses profiting from new expenditures can develop in order to convince people to "do the right thing."

As a result, all too often the people give in to the hype and give the politicians what they want: more money.

Next week, I will provide you a recent example of how people may have narrowly avoided having to pay an unnecessary fee increase.

Rep. Murphey Named Oklahoma Rifle Association Legislator of The Year

GUTHRIE - Oklahoma Rifle Association (ORA) President Don Scott presented the award of 2008 Legislator of The Year to State Representative Jason Murphey, R-Guthrie, at the ORA's annual convention banquet Saturday night in Oklahoma City. Murphey was cited for his continued support of the 2nd Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms.

ORA Executive Director Charles Smith also credited Murphey for his advocacy of concealed carry laws.

Murphey, who serves as Vice-Chairman of the Oklahoma House Homeland Security subcommittee, believes that concealed carry laws protect victims from the aggressors. "Oklahoma's concealed carry laws are an important component of allowing Oklahomans to exercises their 2nd amendment rights," Murphey said.

In addition to the presentation of awards the well attended convention heard speeches from the President of the National Rifle Association, Wayne LaPierre, Oklahoma Lt. Governor Jari Askins, Oklahoma Congressman Tom Cole, Congresswoman Mary Fallin and Congressman Dan Boren.

Using the Internet to Hold the Government Responsible

A few weeks ago, I wrote in my column about the inexplicable efforts by some in Congress to crack down on the ability of congressmen to communicate with their constituents through the use of new, Internet based technologies. These technologies allow congressmen to bypass the media and communicate directly with the people.

The importance of this type of communication could not be better illustrated than with the recent efforts of some congressmen to bring attention to the fact that Congress leadership is not allowing an important vote on expanding domestic oil production. As part of a demonstration against this inaction, the congressmen have been holding ongoing protests on the floor of the House of Representatives. This protest has received very little coverage from the media, and leadership has made sure the C-Span cameras do not show the protests. By sending updates on Internet social media outlets, the congressmen have been allowed to bypass traditional media and report the events as they unfold.

Hopefully, any effort to crack down on these new technologies has been suspended for now. But make no mistake, these technologies will give people more insight into and knowledge about how the government works (or does not work), and will allow them to hold government more responsible than ever.

The Internet also plays an important role in allowing people to share information and to work together to understand what is going on in government. One of the interesting developments along this line has been the emergence of an Internet message board right here in Oklahoma known as the McAlester Watercooler.

This web site resides in the heart of "Gene Stipe Territory," an area where locals were likely pressured to refrain from speaking out in the past due to fear that they would be retaliated against by the many individuals in power who were allied with Stipe and his political empire.

With the advent of the Internet, people now have a forum to which they can go and talk about government affairs without fear that their identities will be disclosed or that they will face retaliation by the powerful people of the community.

Those who are acquainted with some of my experiences as a public official know that I have always been a strong opponent of those who spread lies and untruths anonymously. I am a firm believer in the important laws that allow those who are victimized by the dishonest to pursue a civil action in order to hold them responsible.

Last week, however, the actions taken by the district attorney for Pittsburg County were, in my view, an attempt to intimidate those who are using the forum to discuss local affairs. Instead of filing a civil action, the district attorney appears to have filed a criminal complaint of libel based on comments by the users of the message board. And now the owner of the web site is being subpoenaed for the identities of those posting on the board as part of that criminal action. This action appears to be little more than an inappropriate use of power in an attempt to quell dissent in the age-old tradition of southeast Oklahoma power politics.

I remain confident, however, that attempts to discourage Internet use and thereby to hold the government responsible, will be ineffective.

Paying Professional Politicians

A few weeks ago I wrote about a checklist containing the key principles that define an elected official as being one of the people, or as having been co-opted into the system and no longer representative of the people.

In that article I wrote about the importance of opening up access to government affairs using televised public meetings. I think that if we study history we will find that the common theme possessed by most totalitarian governments is secrecy. A closed government has the ability to deceive and trick their own people because there is no way for the people to discover the truth. As such, an important cornerstone of our Republic is openness and ease of access by the people to the affairs of government. Due to the prevalent availability of technology, this openness should be more prevalent than ever. There is a need for our elected officials to allow today's technology to open up government in ways that have not been possible in the past. An important test for those seeking my vote is whether or not they support initiatives to further open up access to the government.

Another item that I believe is important when determining the motives of elected officials is the consideration of how they act regarding their own compensation. I believe that our system of government is designed to run efficiently when members of the citizenry make sacrifices and give up a few years of their life to serve their neighbors by being an elected official. Over the years, however, we have seen the rise of a class of professional politicians. Because salaries for elected officials have become too generous, it encourages people to become politicians as an occupation instead of sacrifice. Those who choose to make it an occupation will often be beholden to special interest groups to keep them in office since they probably view their political careers as a necessity of life, rather than a temporary sacrifice.

I strong disagree with the ability of any officer holder to vote for a raise for him/herself. While I cannot think of one instance where a raise is necessary, if a raise is needed, then at the very least, the raise should not take effect until the next term of office. In addition, any proposal for a raise should be voted on by the people at the same time the official is up for re-election. I think this concept would make an elected official think twice before asking for an unnecessary raise.

I enjoy following government affairs in other states. One of the recent national stories in the news has been the effort of the Louisiana Legislature to greatly increase their own compensation. I was especially excited to see how the people of Louisiana spoke up in opposition to the plan and forced the governor to veto the idea under the threat of recall. This event follows a similar effort conducted by the Pennsylvania Legislature which had to reverse a pay increase. This was, however, not accomplished in time to pacify the outrage of the citizens who proceeded to vote a number of the legislators out of office.

The next time a politician asks for your vote, please be sure to ask him/her how they feel about their compensation. If they are willing to make a sacrifice in order to serve their fellow citizens, their hearts are probably in the right place.

Local Official Speaks At National Press Club

Oklahoma State Representative Jason Murphey (R-Guthrie), accepted a recent invitation to speak at the National Press Club in Washington DC. Murphey's presentation received nationwide television coverage on C-Span and focused on 2nd amendment rights issues in Oklahoma. Murphey was introduced by the founder of the Second Amendment Foundation Alan Gottlieb. In addition to Murphey, other speakers at the conference included various academic professors from across the country, Attorney Alan Gura who presented the recent successful arguments to the Supreme Court overturning the Washington DC gun ban and national talk show host Gordon Liddy. Murphey's presentation focused on his experience with 2nd Amendment legislation in Oklahoma and the lessons learned from those experiences. Murphey, who serves as Vice-Chairman of the Oklahoma House Homeland Security subcommittee, encouraged 2nd amendment activists to focus on making both logical and emotional connections with those who are undecided on 2nd amendment issues. According to Murphey concealed carry laws protect the victims from the aggressors and he thinks it is important to illustrate this fact by using stories and real world instances of individuals successfully employing their 2nd amendment rights in the protection of themselves and others. "It was an honor to be able to speak at the National Press Club," Murphey said. "I am especially appreciative to the sponsors for inviting me and consider it a privilege to speak out in defense of the 2nd amendment." The National Press Club is located two blocks from the White House and is one of the world's leading professional organizations for journalists.

Listening To The People

This year I was very grateful to all of the people who took the time to return my constituent surveys.

While the results of the returned surveys were immediately tabulated, following the close of this year's session one of my tasks was to review each one of the hundreds of returned surveys and index them to the individual submitter and review the additional individual comments that were submitted. I very much appreciate the time that so many of you invested in insuring that your feedback was received and enjoyed reviewing your comments and suggestions.

One of the things that really stood out to me was the passion conveyed on some of the surveyed issues. Not content to just express their point of view with a vote they felt it important to include additional comments stating how they felt.

Some of the most forceful opposition was to the 60 million dollar tax refund for the National Basketball Association's Seattle Supersonics organization. In a time when the people are paying more for everything from property taxes, college tuition, food, fuel, energy to water there is little appetite for the idea of giving massive subsidies to the targeted organizations who can afford to pay for the high priced lobbyists necessary to secure the subsidy.

Making matters even worse is the manner in which the 60 million dollar subsidy was given. The normally slow moving gears of government were greased beyond belief as the subsidy flew through the legislative process so as to occur just days before the National Basketball Association Board of Governors voted to allow the team to relocate to Oklahoma City. It certainly would have exposed the fallacy of targeted tax subsidies if the subsidy would have been awarded after the team was already moving. Few people honestly believe that the team wouldn't have moved to Oklahoma City had it not been for the subsidy. And, how many other such subsidies are being given away under the guise of attracting business to the state when that business would relocate without the subsidy?

Instead of giving targeted breaks to the few it is important for the leaders of Oklahoma to work for across the board tax reduction for all of the people.

Another issue that the people are not happy about is the failure of the state government to enact property tax reform. Each year many of the people's property tax bills grow by about 5% which is where the ability of the assessors to increase taxes is capped. A bill was proposed that would take a small step forward towards reform by lowering the cap to 3% but was killed in a House Committee after achieving passage in the Senate. Unlike the Sonics subsidy, the machinery of state government acted like it all too often does when a reform proposal comes forward. It managed to find a way to kill the bill.

Again, I am very appreciative to all of the people who took the time to respond to the survey and to send their comments and suggestions.

Finding Solutions

No doubt many of the readers of this update will have at some time visited the Oklahoma County Courthouse. Located in downtown Oklahoma City, the courthouse occupies two large, multi-story buildings and it is here that judicial and county government functions take place for Oklahoma County. A visit gives one a sense of how deep the resources of Oklahoma County truly are. But if I were to ask whether Oklahoma or Logan County had the most unincorporated residents who live in the county's jurisdiction without municipal government, would you believe that Logan County has substantially more unincorporated residents?

Because of suburban growth, there are now more than 20,000 residents in unincorporated Logan County. Logan County ranks number 10 in the amount of unincorporated residents when compared to the rest of the state, and more than twice as many residents live in the unincorporated areas than in the largest city in the county!

One neighborhood where I went door to door recently contained about 250 residents. But don't try looking this neighborhood up on Internet services such as Google Maps, because according to their latest satellite photos of the area, this neighborhood is still an almost empty field.

You can only imagine the havoc created on county services from this sudden growth. And because there is no city government to call for services, the majority of the calls for help go to county government. Some of the issues of concern that have been expressed in calls to my office have been storm alerts, water and waste water issues, police and fire services, traffic issues such as stop signs and speed limits, animal control issues, and of course road maintenance. Those who are charged with administering county government have their hands full.

The road issue is probably the most challenging, as Logan County does not have a single east/west county section line road that is paved in its entirety. With the rise in fuel cost (which makes it much more expensive for everything from transporting gravel to purchasing asphalt), the County Commissioners are pressed just to maintain the current road quality, let alone improve it.

You can also imagine how much the property tax revenue base increases when an empty field is suddenly full of new houses. While almost all of this money goes to local schools systems, around 10% of it goes to county government. Because of this influx, Logan County government has increased its budget by about 30% over the past few years. However, none of this money goes to fund road maintenance.

Many people have a hard time believing that their property tax money is not being used to fund roads. I feel it is important for Logan County to dedicate part of its increased revenue back to paving roads. It is only right that if people are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars into the county government, some of this money should be used for paving roads.

It is also vital for the State Legislature to properly fund road maintenance by redirecting the millions of dollars of motor vehicle user fees that are being used for purposes other than road construction.

Welcoming Our New Neighbors

During the past few weeks, one of my obligations as State Representative has been to go door to door visiting with local residents. Since I first started going door to door in 2004, I have tried to place a special emphasis on contact with those who have just moved into the district. I think it is important to provide a welcoming presence to those who have made the choice to invest in our community and I am always excited by the opportunity to make their acquaintance.

I must say, though, that for the first time, meeting the new residents has become a very time consuming task. During the past weeks I have visited hundreds of new houses that are built on what were just open fields in 2004. Even more amazing are the large number of newly platted house lots yet to be built on which will no doubt bring in hundreds of more new residents in the near future.

Next week I will write about some of the challenges this massive growth presents to local infrastructure. However, I feel it is important to address the many beneficial factors, as I believe the positives outweigh the challenges.

I have found that many of the new residents share our traditional conservative values of small government, low taxes and traditional family values. They are hard working people who move out of the city in order to raise their families in the safety of rural north Oklahoma County and Logan County. As such, they have a special appreciation for our small town lifestyle and I believe they want to help preserve it.

With this new growth comes an ever expanding tax base. With more taxpayers, naturally there 'should be' a lower tax burden. For instance, in the past few years the Logan County sales tax burden has been one of the highest and was mostly shared by Guthrie and Crescent as many residents south of Guthrie spent much of their tax dollars in Edmond and Oklahoma City. This was due to the fact that they did not have retail buying opportunities in their own neighborhoods. However, there is now significant retail growth along Waterloo Road that will make it possible for more people to spend their money in Logan County, and the sales tax levels should be able to dramatically shrink as a result.

Another big impact of this growth will be in dictating a higher allotment of road funding dollars. The Census Bureau recently accepted a list of newly built neighborhoods, which means that in the upcoming census, Logan County could report well over 40,000 residents. With this kind of growth, the area should receive more state road revenues, because county roads are partially funded on the basis of population. The growth could also ensure that more areas of the county qualify for urbanized area federal transportation funding that is traditionally used to improve roadways in bigger cities.

And, with these kinds of dramatic gains in the census the area also stands to pick up more seats in the State Legislature.

Although it keeps me busy, it has been an honor to be able to serve as State Representative for such a dynamic district during a time of explosive growth.

Returning Access to the People

This is an especially exciting time to serve the people as an elected Representative. Due to rapid advances in technology, an old adage is disappearing. People used to believe that in order for a leader to stay in office, he must take money from lobbyists and special interest groups.

In the past, legislators have depended on special interest groups for two things. Firstly, they needed lobbyists to explain the special nuances of the industry-specific legislation that they (the lobbyists) were requesting. You can easily imagine how this could lead to abuse as the citizens' legislators are often not familiar with the diverse nature of these various industries. Secondly, legislators needed lobbyists to funnel them money in order to finance campaigns and put the legislators' message in front of the people. This left them incredibly dependant on maintaining a close relationship with the special interest groups.

Now, however, with the expansion of the internet, legislators can keep in contact with the people much easier than before. In my previous updates, I have described how easy it is for bad legislation to be passed by the House with little advance public notice. This has traditionally allowed only the lobbyists and special interest groups to have input, as normal people had little opportunity to make their voices heard. Now, even with little notice, those who have the necessary knowledge of the industry affected by bad legislation can read the bills, e-mail their Representative, and tell them why the legislation should be defeated.

The Internet also allows Legislators to bypass lobbyist financing and enables them to go to the people directly. I have enjoyed using the Internet to maintain contact with those I represent. Since taking office, I have been able to use Google Groups, Facebook, MySpace, WordPress and YouTube, in addition to a traditional web site to issue regular updates to hundreds of contacts who live in my district. Just as importantly, I have been able to receive feedback and help requests from people who would not normally contact their State Representative.

This is why a recent debate in Washington, D.C. has captured my attention. Members of the U.S. House Administration Committee are considering new rules that might take away the ability of our Federal Representatives to use some of the growing number of internet tools to communicate with constituents.

This attempt is being opposed U.S. Rep. John Culberson who uses the Twitter text messaging service to provide updates. Some of Culberson's messages are written on the House floor itself. Culberson said the rule as proposed would require him to submit his proposed messages to a House Committee for approval before he could post them. The rule would also limit the Congressman from being able to use video provision services like YouTube, which especially hits home, since I use the same service to provide updates to those I represent.

I certainly hope that Culberson is able to defeat this proposal. And I strongly suspect that the leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives is becoming increasingly frightened by the access that people have to Congress because of these new services.

Bringing Down the Veil of Secrecy

Have you ever spoken to an elected official and left the encounter with the distinct impression that he/she no longer represented the people but had instead become a status-quo politician? Sometimes you can almost see "government as usual" in their eyes as they make the excuses that indicated they are now part of the problem and not the solution. A few months ago, I was asked to define the tipping point when an elected official makes that leap from representing the people to representing the status-quo (becoming "one of them"). This has inspired me to develop a checklist, a set of clearly definable principles, that I believe differentiates between those who have become defenders of the system and those who are still part of the people living under the system.

One of the most important components on this list is that of enabling more government transparency. Defenders of the government as usual system will make up excuses for why people are not allowed to see what is going on in government. Representatives of the people will work hard to institute new ways of allowing the people to see and understand what is happening.

Because of the tremendous size of government, there are now countless boards and commission spending billions of our taxpayer dollars with little oversight from the people. Today, most people are so tied down with the necessities of life, work, family, church, etc., that they have little time to attend the countless number of meetings where their money is being spent. They are forced through no fault of their own to blindly trust these boards and commissions to do the right thing even though hardly anyone is there to watch them work.

I have felt the answer to this problem is televised government and made it a top issue as Guthrie City Councilman. The Council agreed to televise meetings on Guthrie's public service television channel and, thanks to the work of Lance Crenshaw, the Guthrie telecast is probably one of the best in the state. The Council also approved a policy to allow other government entities to provide recordings of their meetings to the Guthrie public service channel as well.

As State Representative, one of my biggest policy initiatives has been to work on televising state government proceedings. I am optimistic that this effort will meet with success.

In addition to televising state government, I believe it is time to look at requirements for those public entities who have public service television channels, such as school boards and city government. I believe these entities should, at the very least, televise video recording of their meetings. With the minimal cost of a video/digital recorder, there is no longer any valid reason for them to keep the public in the dark.

Several years ago, by a one vote margin, both the Logan County Board of Commissioners and the Logan County Medical Center Public Trust (both of which vote on spending millions of taxpayers dollars) voted not to produce and play videos of their meetings on the Guthrie public service channel. I hope both boards will revisit this unfortunate decision, as I feel those who truly represent the people should never fear public disclosure.

In the meantime, two excellent examples of recorded local government meetings are available online at cityofguthrie.com and okahomacounty.org.

Failing to Pave County Roads

Earlier this year, I wrote to you about House Bill 3342 which purported to fix a problem with the way roads are funded in Oklahoma. Each year, about $447 million are collected in motor vehicle fees. These fees are then used for the state government's general fund. House Bill 3342 would have redirected $227 million of this money back to funding roads, where it belongs.

I have always strongly supported using all road-related user fees for the purpose of funding roads. A recent survey of House District 31 constituents found that an overwhelming number feel the same way.

It is important to note that many section line roads remain unpaved. For example, according to recently produced facts, approximately 16% of Logan county roads are hard surfaced. Of the 229 county-maintained bridges, 125 are structurally deficient and 8 are functionally obsolete. Only 30% of county roads in the entire state of Oklahoma are hard surfaced.

This problem is set to worsen, as the Legislature was unfortunately not willing to make the hard choice of redirecting the user fees back to their proper place. Instead, the Legislature took the financially irresponsible step of issuing new debt and approved a bond issue of $25 million. It appears that the $25 million will be set aside in a special fund available to County Commissioners who can borrow from it if their projects are approved by a majority of Commissioners within their regional Circuit Engineering Districts. Not only must this money be paid back, but it appears that it will not have a significant impact on paving roads. The fund is supposed to beavailable to Commissioners in time of emergency.

Remember that state government sits on its $500 million reserve fund which is supposed to be used in times of emergencies. I feel that it is nothing short of insanity to place the taxpayers in debt for the next 15 years in order to set up a second fund for emergencies. Imagine if as part of your personal budget you had a fund set aside for emergencies. Would you then go and borrow money to place in a second emergency fund? Of course not.

By indebting the taxpayers, the politicians are able to claim that they are working to solve the road problem. Many in the public will simply think that $25 million has been budgeted for roads, without realizing there will be little or no difference in actual road maintenance.

This has also allowed politicians to sidestep the tough challenge of reducing government spending from the general fund in order to stop the very inappropriate policy of misusing the motor vehicle user fees.

And now, because the government will be saddled with paying back this new unnecessary debt for the next 15 years, it will be harder than ever to force politicians to make the hard choices of exposing the government inefficiencies so that roads can be properly funded.

I believe that all new debt spending should be approved by the people. As the Legislature continues to incur more and more debt, it will be much harder for true government reform to occur in the future.

In the meantime, those of us who support the proper funding of roads have our work cut out for us. I look forward to the challenge.

Making Your Money Disappear

It was late on the night of the final day of the legislative session. Legislators were tired from a two-day marathon session in which over 10% of the session's votes had been held. Those who had been trying to keep up by reading bills as they were posted were more than likely exhausted from the effort. Most of the Representatives were eager to leave the building, and over 10% of them were leaving for the last time.

It was at this time that Senate Bill 1288 made its way to the floor. And those who were still reading their bills would have realized for the first time what was being planned for ten million dollars of the peoples' money.

Senate Bill 1288 was posted to the legislative calender at 8:40 p.m. By 9:20, it was being voted on. That 40 minutes was the only time legislators had to figure out why and where the $10M was being spent. During that time, several other legislative initiatives were also being voted on, so it was almost impossible to research the spending.

Six million dollars was being funneled through a third-party group to assist with the buyout of the former General Motors plant. This was being done even though Oklahoma County voters had already approved the buyout with local funds.

A key revelation of the series of recent federal prosecutions involving ex-Oklahoma Legislatures was the exposure of how the Legislature funneled money through third-party groups and into their own pet causes from which they sometimes received a direct personal benefit. Usually these are third-party groups with legitimate sounding names like "Development Association," that lead the public to think that the money is used being used for a good purpose. Based on these revelations, I feel the last thing the Legislature should be doing is using third-party groups to funnel expenditures.

Another expenditure in the bill was $1M for the Southwest Oklahoma Development Authority, a $500K payment to the Comanche County Industrial Development Authority for a contract with Delta airlines, and $2.5M for the Southern Oklahoma Development Association.

How, in only 40 minutes, are legislators supposed to determine if these are justifiable expenditures or just money being funneled to third-party groups to be used for inappropriate or illegal purposes like those in the past?

There is no doubt in my mind that this particular bill was deliberately posted at the last minute in order to avoid close scrutiny. It certainly creates the appearance of impropriety when Oklahoma's elected Representatives are given only 40 minutes to discover, analyze and consider how $10M of the people's money is being spent. This is not a small amount of money! To put this into perspective, $10M is nearly enough to run the City of Guthrie for a whole year.

Even though the bill was approved, it is my hope that the revelations of legislative abuse from recent federal prosecutions and the pending change in leadership in the Oklahoma Senate will lead to reform in the way future business of this type is conducted in the Legislature.