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.