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.