Monday, December 28, 2009
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Update Number 150
When I asked to serve as your State Representative, I stated that I wanted to incorporate a platform of representing Logan and Oklahoma county residents as opposed to capitol lobbyists and the groups that hire them. I have sought to implement this goal by setting in place a policy of refusing personal gifts and political contributions from lobbyists and the groups that hire them while aggressively building an open line of communication with the citizens I serve.
In order to accomplish this goal, I resolved to write an original update every week during my time in office. This article represents the 150th consecutive weekly update which I have written since I started serving as State Representative. I originally developed the idea of writing the column based on my observation of state Representative Frank Davis' policy of updating citizens about what was occurring in the Legislature with his weekly column entitled "Frankly Speaking".
I feel that by writing about issues on a regular basis, elected officials demonstrate that they are not afraid to take a stand and let citizens know how they will be voting on those issues. One of the tricks used by career politicians to stay in office for many years is to tell one group of people one thing while telling another group another thing entirely. Putting your position down on paper each and every week pretty much takes that deceptive method of telling the audience what they want to hear off the table.
The weekly process of writing a column and participating in the ensuing dialog allows me to feel that I am truly representing my constituency. The instant communication functionality provided by the Internet has made it possible for an immediate two-way communication process to take place following the publication of each update. Each week I spend a significant amount of time communicating with constituents who respond to the latest update. This communication has enabled me to understand how issues are having an effect on the lives of local constituents and I believed it has greatly enhanced my ability to represent them.
This process has also been very beneficial for me because I have enjoyed making so many new acquaintances which I would not otherwise have had to opportunity to make.
I am very grateful to the hundreds of people who have taken the time to communicate with me over the past 150 weeks and I especially appreciate Mark Radford and The Crescent Courier, Belinda Ramsey and The Guthrie News Leader, and Lisa Shearer and The Edmond Sun for printing the updates on a regular basis. I look forward to continuing this dialog during the upcoming legislative session.
In order to accomplish this goal, I resolved to write an original update every week during my time in office. This article represents the 150th consecutive weekly update which I have written since I started serving as State Representative. I originally developed the idea of writing the column based on my observation of state Representative Frank Davis' policy of updating citizens about what was occurring in the Legislature with his weekly column entitled "Frankly Speaking".
I feel that by writing about issues on a regular basis, elected officials demonstrate that they are not afraid to take a stand and let citizens know how they will be voting on those issues. One of the tricks used by career politicians to stay in office for many years is to tell one group of people one thing while telling another group another thing entirely. Putting your position down on paper each and every week pretty much takes that deceptive method of telling the audience what they want to hear off the table.
The weekly process of writing a column and participating in the ensuing dialog allows me to feel that I am truly representing my constituency. The instant communication functionality provided by the Internet has made it possible for an immediate two-way communication process to take place following the publication of each update. Each week I spend a significant amount of time communicating with constituents who respond to the latest update. This communication has enabled me to understand how issues are having an effect on the lives of local constituents and I believed it has greatly enhanced my ability to represent them.
This process has also been very beneficial for me because I have enjoyed making so many new acquaintances which I would not otherwise have had to opportunity to make.
I am very grateful to the hundreds of people who have taken the time to communicate with me over the past 150 weeks and I especially appreciate Mark Radford and The Crescent Courier, Belinda Ramsey and The Guthrie News Leader, and Lisa Shearer and The Edmond Sun for printing the updates on a regular basis. I look forward to continuing this dialog during the upcoming legislative session.
Friday, December 25, 2009
Monday, December 21, 2009
Real Property Tax and Education Reform
I believe I have received more feedback to last week's update about the need for property tax reform than I have ever received for any other update.
I wrote that high property taxes discourage home owners to keep smaller houses and not buy or build new houses. However, I received feedback which was quick to point out that this tax also serves to disincentivize homeowners from improving their current homes.
Reducing the property tax assessment cap from 5% to 3% or 1% would be a common sense reform which should occur sooner than later. However, in order to realize true property tax reform and provide Oklahoma students with better education opportunities, Oklahoma policy makers must take aggressive action to reform a system that has not worked well for many years.
Each year, approximately 85% of property tax revenue goes to common and career tech educational entities. This is in addition to the billions of dollars that are either appropriated by the state or supplied by federal or dedicated revenue funds each year. In fact, the Oklahoma Council of Public affairs has indicated that Oklahomans spend over 10 thousand dollars each year per student. However, despite the billions of dollars spent each year, the test scores of Oklahoma public education students have failed to improve in any significant manner.
One of the respondents to last week's update told me that she lives in a house which she built with her dad. The house took them several years to build but they built it without going into debt. She is now paying hundreds of dollars each year in property taxes, so that she does not want to make improvements to the site for fear of increased property tax premiums. But she does not want to move out of the house for sentimental reasons.
This person is a homeschooler and because she wants to focus on her children's education, she chooses not to work outside the home. She states that the property tax is a killer on their one-income budget. For each child that is being homeschooled, taxpayers are probably being saved about $10K per year.
Her story demonstrates the need for true reform. Here is how it would work. The public education system could realize massive cost savings if state government would encourage people to participate in private and homeschool education through the provision of a property tax refund which is often proposed at $4,000 per year. As more and more people participated in these educational alternatives, the thousands of dollars of net cost savings to the government could be applied to property tax reform for everyone and may even be significant enough to allow for true reforms, such as restructuring the property tax so that it would apply only when a property is sold.
The impact on the public education system would be tremendous because a good deal of the work load and pressure would be taken off the public school system. And this new system would encourage market forces to provide educational solutions because any number of private entities would be forced to compete for education dollars. This would be possible because the citizens would now be empowered to control their own money instead of turning it over to the government each year.
I wrote that high property taxes discourage home owners to keep smaller houses and not buy or build new houses. However, I received feedback which was quick to point out that this tax also serves to disincentivize homeowners from improving their current homes.
Reducing the property tax assessment cap from 5% to 3% or 1% would be a common sense reform which should occur sooner than later. However, in order to realize true property tax reform and provide Oklahoma students with better education opportunities, Oklahoma policy makers must take aggressive action to reform a system that has not worked well for many years.
Each year, approximately 85% of property tax revenue goes to common and career tech educational entities. This is in addition to the billions of dollars that are either appropriated by the state or supplied by federal or dedicated revenue funds each year. In fact, the Oklahoma Council of Public affairs has indicated that Oklahomans spend over 10 thousand dollars each year per student. However, despite the billions of dollars spent each year, the test scores of Oklahoma public education students have failed to improve in any significant manner.
One of the respondents to last week's update told me that she lives in a house which she built with her dad. The house took them several years to build but they built it without going into debt. She is now paying hundreds of dollars each year in property taxes, so that she does not want to make improvements to the site for fear of increased property tax premiums. But she does not want to move out of the house for sentimental reasons.
This person is a homeschooler and because she wants to focus on her children's education, she chooses not to work outside the home. She states that the property tax is a killer on their one-income budget. For each child that is being homeschooled, taxpayers are probably being saved about $10K per year.
Her story demonstrates the need for true reform. Here is how it would work. The public education system could realize massive cost savings if state government would encourage people to participate in private and homeschool education through the provision of a property tax refund which is often proposed at $4,000 per year. As more and more people participated in these educational alternatives, the thousands of dollars of net cost savings to the government could be applied to property tax reform for everyone and may even be significant enough to allow for true reforms, such as restructuring the property tax so that it would apply only when a property is sold.
The impact on the public education system would be tremendous because a good deal of the work load and pressure would be taken off the public school system. And this new system would encourage market forces to provide educational solutions because any number of private entities would be forced to compete for education dollars. This would be possible because the citizens would now be empowered to control their own money instead of turning it over to the government each year.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Property Tax Reform - Again
Constituents continue to contact me about the issue of property tax reform.
The other day a constituent explained to me that he had built a new house. He could have built this house anywhere but he chose to build it in Logan County. Upon moving into his new house he was told that his property tax payment would be thousands of dollars each year to the point that the property tax payment will represent a significant percentage of his overall payments.
This story makes the point that property tax provides a huge disincentive for citizens to invest in real estate. Why should someone buy a nice new house when the property tax payment on their new house might be as large as the mortgage payment on their old house? Building new houses is a great economic activity generator. How many jobs have been lost because punitive property taxes have discouraged this type of investment?
A senior citizen constituent visited my office one day. He produced a detailed spreadsheet calculating the implications of a continued 5% increase on his home assessment price over the upcoming years. He could demonstrate how with compounded interest the amount of his property tax would double over a certain time period. In fact, his home property taxes were nearly equal to 25% of his social security income.
And even though property values are currently in a state of decline, because assessors have had to increase the price of properties in excess of the 5% cap in the past, many homeowners will likely continue to see their assessments rise by 5% even in a down economy when their personal budgets may be shrinking.
A very simple, common sense property tax reform proposal has been circulating through the Legislature for the past few years. The reform would allow people to vote on lowering the cap of the ability of the county assessor to increase yearly assessments from 5% down to 3%. The bill is usually approved in the House or the Senate or both, but somehow always manages to get jammed up in the legislative process.
This is not a dramatic reform. This is not even a tax cut. It is a simple reduction of the amount by which this punitive tax increases each year. It is absolutely unconscionable that the Legislature refuses to give people an opportunity to vote on this bill. If the Legislature refuses once again to take action on this proposal during the upcoming session, I believe it will be vital for the people to place this issue on the ballot by circulating a initiative petition.
It is always possible that an initiative petition effort will seek a more aggressive reform such as a 1% cap each year. I would suggest that the special interests who have opposed the very reasonable 3% percent cap should consider that their short-term unreasonableness may have long term consequences, because citizens cannot continue to just stand by and be punished in this unfair manner.
The other day a constituent explained to me that he had built a new house. He could have built this house anywhere but he chose to build it in Logan County. Upon moving into his new house he was told that his property tax payment would be thousands of dollars each year to the point that the property tax payment will represent a significant percentage of his overall payments.
This story makes the point that property tax provides a huge disincentive for citizens to invest in real estate. Why should someone buy a nice new house when the property tax payment on their new house might be as large as the mortgage payment on their old house? Building new houses is a great economic activity generator. How many jobs have been lost because punitive property taxes have discouraged this type of investment?
A senior citizen constituent visited my office one day. He produced a detailed spreadsheet calculating the implications of a continued 5% increase on his home assessment price over the upcoming years. He could demonstrate how with compounded interest the amount of his property tax would double over a certain time period. In fact, his home property taxes were nearly equal to 25% of his social security income.
And even though property values are currently in a state of decline, because assessors have had to increase the price of properties in excess of the 5% cap in the past, many homeowners will likely continue to see their assessments rise by 5% even in a down economy when their personal budgets may be shrinking.
A very simple, common sense property tax reform proposal has been circulating through the Legislature for the past few years. The reform would allow people to vote on lowering the cap of the ability of the county assessor to increase yearly assessments from 5% down to 3%. The bill is usually approved in the House or the Senate or both, but somehow always manages to get jammed up in the legislative process.
This is not a dramatic reform. This is not even a tax cut. It is a simple reduction of the amount by which this punitive tax increases each year. It is absolutely unconscionable that the Legislature refuses to give people an opportunity to vote on this bill. If the Legislature refuses once again to take action on this proposal during the upcoming session, I believe it will be vital for the people to place this issue on the ballot by circulating a initiative petition.
It is always possible that an initiative petition effort will seek a more aggressive reform such as a 1% cap each year. I would suggest that the special interests who have opposed the very reasonable 3% percent cap should consider that their short-term unreasonableness may have long term consequences, because citizens cannot continue to just stand by and be punished in this unfair manner.
Monday, December 7, 2009
The First 2010 Legislative Deadline
This week provides the first deadline by which legislators must pre-file their request for bill language for the 2010 legislative session. During the past few weeks I have written about a number of the legislative ideas I will be sponsoring. I have not yet had an opportunity to write about all of these proposals and look forward to continuing to write about them as the 2010 legislative schedule continues to develop.
I very much appreciate your feedback to some of the ideas I have already written about. I have received a large amount of constituent input based on the articles of the past few weeks and this pro and con input has been very helpful.
Representatives are limited to advocating for 8 legislative initiatives, so we much carefully pick and choose the ideas which we want to advance. I have historically maintained a policy of introducing a balanced portfolio of legislation that advances the effort to institute sweeping reforms and legislation that has an increased chance of passage.
Passing legislation is a challenging process. Only a small percentage of introduced bills (with the exception of appropriations bills) is successfully signed into law. What follows is a description of the process a bill must follow in order to be approved.
The House author must convince a Senator to sponsor his bill in the Senate. It is important to choose a Senator based on his/her abilities and commitment to the principle of the bill.
The bill will be assigned to a House committee where the Chairman has to give the bill a hearing and the full committee is required to vote on passage.
A bill passed by a committee must receive permission from the Majority Floor Leader in order to be considered by the full House. If he/she consents to providing a hearing on the floor of the House, the full House has to vote on passage.
Once the bill is approved by the House, it is sent to the Senate where the process is repeated, including a committee assignment, a vote in committee and a vote on the floor of the Senate. At any time the bill is subject to being killed because of no hearing.
The bill returns to the House where any Senate amendments must be considered.
The bill may be assigned to a conference committee. If either the Senate or the House fails to assign conference committee members (Conferees) to the bill prior to the deadline for assignments, the bill dies. If the Conferees are assigned, then the bill has to receive the support of a majority.
If the conference committee approves the bill, it needs approval once again through a vote of the entire House and Senate. If the bill was not scheduled by the deadline in either House, it did not pass. If both Houses (House of Representatives and Senate) approve the bill, it is sent to the Governor for approval. If the Governor vetoes the bill, it has to go back to the House and the Senate for a possible override vote. In order to override the Governor’s veto, at least two thirds of both House and Senate must vote for the override. In the past 15 years, only one bill has become law despite a veto.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)