Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Monday, June 28, 2010
Free Market Solutions to Health Care Costs
I have always enjoyed the dialog I have with House District 31 residents following the release of my weekly update. Their responses to these updates provide the opportunity to have an ongoing conversation about the issues of importance and I absolutely benefit from that feedback.
I recently wrote an update about the effort to allow you to vote on opting-out of the federal health care proposal. You will have this opportunity in November. In response to that update one of the individuals who supports the federal health care proposal wrote in response stating that it is important for those of us in opposition to point to alternatives to the proposed federal government action. She is absolutely right to make this point. As I have observed the legislative process it seems to me that there is little more frustrating than dealing with a policy maker who says "no" to other people's ideas but does not come forward with ideas for providing another solution. I informed her that I would endeavor to write future updates about the possible solutions to health care cost issues which could be incorporated without government involvement. This is one of those articles.
In this case the problem is the rising cost of health care insurance. This rising cost has given liberal politicians all the ammunition they need in order to attempt to provide lower cost government solutions.
I am a big believer that given time the free market will provide these solutions. I was very much re-affirmed in that belief starting in the spring of 2009 when I was appointed to participate in a working group which was seeking to analyze some of the challenges faced by the state employee health insurance system. This working group evolved into a type of statutorily created task force whose suggestions were incorporated into legislation this past year. During that time I believe I invested more of my time into researching and advocating for reforms to the state employee health insurance system than to most other areas of policy.
As you might imagine, one of the largest costs to the State of Oklahoma is the insurance it provides to the thousands of state employees and their dependants as well as the employees of other government entities such as school districts and county governments.
As a working group one of our tasks was to look at free market solutions and seek to apply these solutions in order to realize cost savings to the taxpayers and the various government entities which must purchase this insurance.
Working with State Representative Lewis Moore and State Senators Cliff Aldrige and Bill Brown and House and Senate leadership we worked to create an initiative which included free market approaches to driving down health costs, secured the support of the state employee and teachers associations and won legislative approval before being unfortunately and somewhat unexpectedly vetoed by the Governor.
During next week's update I will write about these solutions and my vision for their possible inclusion in future legislation.
I recently wrote an update about the effort to allow you to vote on opting-out of the federal health care proposal. You will have this opportunity in November. In response to that update one of the individuals who supports the federal health care proposal wrote in response stating that it is important for those of us in opposition to point to alternatives to the proposed federal government action. She is absolutely right to make this point. As I have observed the legislative process it seems to me that there is little more frustrating than dealing with a policy maker who says "no" to other people's ideas but does not come forward with ideas for providing another solution. I informed her that I would endeavor to write future updates about the possible solutions to health care cost issues which could be incorporated without government involvement. This is one of those articles.
In this case the problem is the rising cost of health care insurance. This rising cost has given liberal politicians all the ammunition they need in order to attempt to provide lower cost government solutions.
I am a big believer that given time the free market will provide these solutions. I was very much re-affirmed in that belief starting in the spring of 2009 when I was appointed to participate in a working group which was seeking to analyze some of the challenges faced by the state employee health insurance system. This working group evolved into a type of statutorily created task force whose suggestions were incorporated into legislation this past year. During that time I believe I invested more of my time into researching and advocating for reforms to the state employee health insurance system than to most other areas of policy.
As you might imagine, one of the largest costs to the State of Oklahoma is the insurance it provides to the thousands of state employees and their dependants as well as the employees of other government entities such as school districts and county governments.
As a working group one of our tasks was to look at free market solutions and seek to apply these solutions in order to realize cost savings to the taxpayers and the various government entities which must purchase this insurance.
Working with State Representative Lewis Moore and State Senators Cliff Aldrige and Bill Brown and House and Senate leadership we worked to create an initiative which included free market approaches to driving down health costs, secured the support of the state employee and teachers associations and won legislative approval before being unfortunately and somewhat unexpectedly vetoed by the Governor.
During next week's update I will write about these solutions and my vision for their possible inclusion in future legislation.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Rep. Murphey to Keynote at Law Enforcement Event
Oklahoma State Representative Jason Murphey (R-Guthrie) will provide keynote remarks to the Public Safety GIS User Group of the National Alliance for Public Safety GIS Foundation on June 25 at 9:00 a.m. Murphey's presentation will occur at the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism in Oklahoma City. The user group workshop is sponsored by the Oklahoma Council of Firefighter Training, Lincoln, Nebraska Police Department and Oklahoma State Fire Marshall's office. It is designed to assist public safety leaders in Oklahoma, Nebraska and Kansas in gaining new ideas about the use of geographic information technologies to solve public safety challenges.
Murphey, who chairs the House of Representatives' Government Modernization Committee and the Oklahoma Integrated Justice Information Systems Steering (OIJIS) Committee, will speak to the group about the importance of the utilization of geographic information systems (GIS) in coordinating emergency response. Murphey is also expected to emphasize the responsible use of technology and to encourage open source and Government 2.0 transparency components of the technology which will allow for greater interaction between the public and public safety officials at a lower cost to taxpayers.
"It is a moral imperative for public safety agencies to quickly deploy new technologies to provide life saving services. These technologies allow life saving services to be provided in a more transparent and responsive manner than ever before," Murphey said.
Murphey has long been an advocate of public safety and law enforcement policy issues. Murphey serves on the House Public Safety Committee and won approval for House Bill 2215 during the 2008 legislative session, which allows the Department of Public Safety to streamline the process for building a practice firing range for State Troopers with donated resources. "It is always exciting to have the opportunity to bring two of my most emphasized policy initiatives (technology and public safety) together in a presentation," Murphey said.
For additional information about the National Alliance for Public Safety GIS Foundation, visit http://www.publicsafetygis.org/.
Murphey, who chairs the House of Representatives' Government Modernization Committee and the Oklahoma Integrated Justice Information Systems Steering (OIJIS) Committee, will speak to the group about the importance of the utilization of geographic information systems (GIS) in coordinating emergency response. Murphey is also expected to emphasize the responsible use of technology and to encourage open source and Government 2.0 transparency components of the technology which will allow for greater interaction between the public and public safety officials at a lower cost to taxpayers.
"It is a moral imperative for public safety agencies to quickly deploy new technologies to provide life saving services. These technologies allow life saving services to be provided in a more transparent and responsive manner than ever before," Murphey said.
Murphey has long been an advocate of public safety and law enforcement policy issues. Murphey serves on the House Public Safety Committee and won approval for House Bill 2215 during the 2008 legislative session, which allows the Department of Public Safety to streamline the process for building a practice firing range for State Troopers with donated resources. "It is always exciting to have the opportunity to bring two of my most emphasized policy initiatives (technology and public safety) together in a presentation," Murphey said.
For additional information about the National Alliance for Public Safety GIS Foundation, visit http://www.publicsafetygis.org/.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
It's Your Turn
During the upcoming general election you will have the opportunity to weigh in on a series of issues which have been considered by the Legislature during the past legislative session. For instance, you will have the opportunity to term limit Oklahoma politicians, opt out of the federal government's planned health care mandate, and prohibit state courts from using international law when deciding cases.
Many of these issues were approved by a bi-partisan vote of the Legislature. Because these are matters which must be placed in the State Constitution, they must also be approved by the people of Oklahoma. This important check and balance will give voters the final say as to whether or not they will become law. Following are some of what I believe to be the most interesting state questions:
State Question Number 747 would place a term limit of eight years on Oklahoma's elected office holders and a limit of twelve years on Oklahoma Corporation Commissioners. I authored this proposal in conjunction with State Senator Randy Brogdon and am anxious to see what the voters think.
House Joint Resolution 1056 directs that Oklahoma voters be asked to approve an amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution to prohibit state courts from using international or other forms of law when making decisions. You may have seen the bill's author Representative Rex Duncan explaining this legislation on the Sean Hannity show last Friday night. Passage of this proposal would make Oklahoma the first state to propose this pre-emptive strike on the use of Islamic and international law to guide the decisions of Oklahoma judges. The proposal was seen by the Legislature as a necessary step in light of the fact that Sharia courts have been established in Great Britain and international law has been used as a possible guiding legal example by a Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
State Question Number 746 would establish a voter ID requirement such as a driver's license or voter ID card. This has been an important issue which the Legislature has considered a number of times before finally meeting with success in sending the issue to a vote of the people.
State Question 751 establishes the English language as the language to be used by state government. This legislation would establish the principle that a lawsuit could not be filed according to state law against the state or county governments because the state or county did not use a language other than English.
Senate Joint Resolution 59, a resolution which I co-sponsored, would prohibit laws making a person or employer use a particular health care system. It is Oklahoma's response to the recent federal health care proposal and it is known as Oklahoma's opt-out proposal. I believe if enough states approve these types of proposals, the federal governments health care expansion could be significantly reduced.
There is one issue that should also have been on this list of important ballot questions. This issue is the idea that property taxes should be capped at no more than a 3% increase each year. I am very disappointed that the Legislature did not give the people to right to vote on property tax reform this year.
There are a series of other state questions which will also be on the ballot. If you would like more information about these, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Many of these issues were approved by a bi-partisan vote of the Legislature. Because these are matters which must be placed in the State Constitution, they must also be approved by the people of Oklahoma. This important check and balance will give voters the final say as to whether or not they will become law. Following are some of what I believe to be the most interesting state questions:
State Question Number 747 would place a term limit of eight years on Oklahoma's elected office holders and a limit of twelve years on Oklahoma Corporation Commissioners. I authored this proposal in conjunction with State Senator Randy Brogdon and am anxious to see what the voters think.
House Joint Resolution 1056 directs that Oklahoma voters be asked to approve an amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution to prohibit state courts from using international or other forms of law when making decisions. You may have seen the bill's author Representative Rex Duncan explaining this legislation on the Sean Hannity show last Friday night. Passage of this proposal would make Oklahoma the first state to propose this pre-emptive strike on the use of Islamic and international law to guide the decisions of Oklahoma judges. The proposal was seen by the Legislature as a necessary step in light of the fact that Sharia courts have been established in Great Britain and international law has been used as a possible guiding legal example by a Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
State Question Number 746 would establish a voter ID requirement such as a driver's license or voter ID card. This has been an important issue which the Legislature has considered a number of times before finally meeting with success in sending the issue to a vote of the people.
State Question 751 establishes the English language as the language to be used by state government. This legislation would establish the principle that a lawsuit could not be filed according to state law against the state or county governments because the state or county did not use a language other than English.
Senate Joint Resolution 59, a resolution which I co-sponsored, would prohibit laws making a person or employer use a particular health care system. It is Oklahoma's response to the recent federal health care proposal and it is known as Oklahoma's opt-out proposal. I believe if enough states approve these types of proposals, the federal governments health care expansion could be significantly reduced.
There is one issue that should also have been on this list of important ballot questions. This issue is the idea that property taxes should be capped at no more than a 3% increase each year. I am very disappointed that the Legislature did not give the people to right to vote on property tax reform this year.
There are a series of other state questions which will also be on the ballot. If you would like more information about these, please do not hesitate to contact me.
It's Your Turn
During the upcoming general election you will have the opportunity to weigh in on a series of issues which have been considered by the Legislature during the past legislative session. For instance, you will have the opportunity to term limit Oklahoma politicians, opt out of the federal government's planned health care mandate, and prohibit state courts from using international law when deciding cases.
Many of these issues were approved by a bi-partisan vote of the Legislature. Because these are matters which must be placed in the State Constitution, they must also be approved by the people of Oklahoma. This important check and balance will give voters the final say as to whether or not they will become law. Following are some of what I believe to be the most interesting state questions:
State Question Number 747 would place a term limit of eight years on Oklahoma's elected office holders and a limit of twelve years on Oklahoma Corporation Commissioners. I authored this proposal in conjunction with State Senator Randy Brogdon and am anxious to see what the voters think.
House Joint Resolution 1056 directs that Oklahoma voters be asked to approve an amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution to prohibit state courts from using international or other forms of law when making decisions. You may have seen the bill's author Representative Rex Duncan explaining this legislation on the Sean Hannity show last Friday night. Passage of this proposal would make Oklahoma the first state to propose this pre-emptive strike on the use of Islamic and international law to guide the decisions of Oklahoma judges. The proposal was seen by the Legislature as a necessary step in light of the fact that Sharia courts have been established in Great Britain and international law has been used as a possible guiding legal example by a Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
State Question Number 746 would establish a voter ID requirement such as a driver's license or voter ID card. This has been an important issue which the Legislature has considered a number of times before finally meeting with success in sending the issue to a vote of the people.
State Question 751 establishes the English language as the language to be used by state government. This legislation would establish the principle that a lawsuit could not be filed according to state law against the state or county governments because the state or county did not use a language other than English.
Senate Joint Resolution 59, a resolution which I co-sponsored, would prohibit laws making a person or employer use a particular health care system. It is Oklahoma's response to the recent federal health care proposal and it is known as Oklahoma's opt-out proposal. I believe if enough states approve these types of proposals, the federal governments health care expansion could be significantly reduced.
There is one issue that should also have been on this list of important ballot questions. This issue is the idea that property taxes should be capped at no more than a 3% increase each year. I am very disappointed that the Legislature did not give the people to right to vote on property tax reform this year.
There are a series of other state questions which will also be on the ballot. If you would like more information about these, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Many of these issues were approved by a bi-partisan vote of the Legislature. Because these are matters which must be placed in the State Constitution, they must also be approved by the people of Oklahoma. This important check and balance will give voters the final say as to whether or not they will become law. Following are some of what I believe to be the most interesting state questions:
State Question Number 747 would place a term limit of eight years on Oklahoma's elected office holders and a limit of twelve years on Oklahoma Corporation Commissioners. I authored this proposal in conjunction with State Senator Randy Brogdon and am anxious to see what the voters think.
House Joint Resolution 1056 directs that Oklahoma voters be asked to approve an amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution to prohibit state courts from using international or other forms of law when making decisions. You may have seen the bill's author Representative Rex Duncan explaining this legislation on the Sean Hannity show last Friday night. Passage of this proposal would make Oklahoma the first state to propose this pre-emptive strike on the use of Islamic and international law to guide the decisions of Oklahoma judges. The proposal was seen by the Legislature as a necessary step in light of the fact that Sharia courts have been established in Great Britain and international law has been used as a possible guiding legal example by a Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
State Question Number 746 would establish a voter ID requirement such as a driver's license or voter ID card. This has been an important issue which the Legislature has considered a number of times before finally meeting with success in sending the issue to a vote of the people.
State Question 751 establishes the English language as the language to be used by state government. This legislation would establish the principle that a lawsuit could not be filed according to state law against the state or county governments because the state or county did not use a language other than English.
Senate Joint Resolution 59, a resolution which I co-sponsored, would prohibit laws making a person or employer use a particular health care system. It is Oklahoma's response to the recent federal health care proposal and it is known as Oklahoma's opt-out proposal. I believe if enough states approve these types of proposals, the federal governments health care expansion could be significantly reduced.
There is one issue that should also have been on this list of important ballot questions. This issue is the idea that property taxes should be capped at no more than a 3% increase each year. I am very disappointed that the Legislature did not give the people to right to vote on property tax reform this year.
There are a series of other state questions which will also be on the ballot. If you would like more information about these, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Monday, June 14, 2010
Making Progress
A few weeks ago I wrote an update regarding the effort to ask the Oklahoma Ethics Commission to create a "No Gifts List" by which lawmakers who do not wish to receive personal gifts from lobbyists would have an official mechanism for making their intentions known.
When I first entered the Legislature, I did so on a platform that I would not accept personal gifts or political contributions from lobbyists or groups which hire lobbyists and I have since indicated this desire by posting a sign on my office door to make it clear that these gifts should not be left at my office. I have often said that if just a few lawmakers will prove it is possible to hold office without taking from lobbyists then eventually Oklahomans in other districts will start to expect that their elected official will make this same commitment.
At the time of my first election, legislators collectively accepted tens of thousands of dollars of personal gifts. The majority of this gift giving was related to meals and entertainment. Paying for expensive meals has historically been the tool by which lobbyists built friendships with legislators, subsequently ensuring they have a pre-existing relationship with the policy makers who vote on legislation affecting their clients. The thought that the legislators could pick up their own tab has historically been rather alien in form.
Since that time, with the institution of new ethics rules, the amount of gift giving has dropped to just a fraction of what it used to be. Not only that, but a number of lawmakers are now willing to come forward and assert their desire to avoid receiving these gifts.
When I wrote the letter to the Ethics Commission I asked several of my colleagues if they would be willing to sign the letter along with me. I was very excited when six of these individuals expressed their willingness to sign the letter and support the "No Gifts List" proposal.
They were State Senators Bill Brown, Anthony Sykes and Randy Brogdon and State Representatives Charles Key, Mike Reynolds and Mike Ritze. In my view, signing the letter represented a very courageous effort by these individuals.
In addition Senators Anthony Sykes and Jim Halligan and Representative Mike Reynolds have also posted signs in their offices politely stating that they do not wish to receive lobbyist gifts.
In other words, the belief that it is inappropriate for legislators to receive personal gifts from the vested special interest is slowly becoming institutionalized. I believe we will see the day when legislators no longer live the high life on the lobbyist dime. I have a tremendous amount of respect for my colleagues who are pioneering this line of thought and in so doing are establishing a stronger ethical standard which I believe will be followed by Oklahoma's policy makers in the future.
When I first entered the Legislature, I did so on a platform that I would not accept personal gifts or political contributions from lobbyists or groups which hire lobbyists and I have since indicated this desire by posting a sign on my office door to make it clear that these gifts should not be left at my office. I have often said that if just a few lawmakers will prove it is possible to hold office without taking from lobbyists then eventually Oklahomans in other districts will start to expect that their elected official will make this same commitment.
At the time of my first election, legislators collectively accepted tens of thousands of dollars of personal gifts. The majority of this gift giving was related to meals and entertainment. Paying for expensive meals has historically been the tool by which lobbyists built friendships with legislators, subsequently ensuring they have a pre-existing relationship with the policy makers who vote on legislation affecting their clients. The thought that the legislators could pick up their own tab has historically been rather alien in form.
Since that time, with the institution of new ethics rules, the amount of gift giving has dropped to just a fraction of what it used to be. Not only that, but a number of lawmakers are now willing to come forward and assert their desire to avoid receiving these gifts.
When I wrote the letter to the Ethics Commission I asked several of my colleagues if they would be willing to sign the letter along with me. I was very excited when six of these individuals expressed their willingness to sign the letter and support the "No Gifts List" proposal.
They were State Senators Bill Brown, Anthony Sykes and Randy Brogdon and State Representatives Charles Key, Mike Reynolds and Mike Ritze. In my view, signing the letter represented a very courageous effort by these individuals.
In addition Senators Anthony Sykes and Jim Halligan and Representative Mike Reynolds have also posted signs in their offices politely stating that they do not wish to receive lobbyist gifts.
In other words, the belief that it is inappropriate for legislators to receive personal gifts from the vested special interest is slowly becoming institutionalized. I believe we will see the day when legislators no longer live the high life on the lobbyist dime. I have a tremendous amount of respect for my colleagues who are pioneering this line of thought and in so doing are establishing a stronger ethical standard which I believe will be followed by Oklahoma's policy makers in the future.
From Mark Sharpton - Underwater Alert Floodprone Areas in Logan County District 1 http://ping.fm/MOnni
Friday, June 11, 2010
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Sunday, June 6, 2010
The Immediate Effects of Fee Increases
In the last few days I have started to see firsthand how the legislative actions of the past few weeks are having an immediate effect on those I represent. Last week, I was contacted by an individual who lives in my district. He is a small businessman who owns a vending machine business. He places vending machines at several locations in the Oklahoma City area and supplies those machines with various products.
Over the past few years his bottom line has been affected in all of the ways you might expect. From the increased cost of fueling his supply truck to the increased cost of purchasing the products that go into the vending machine, he has been dealing with all of the inflationary pressures that most small business owners are experiencing. You can only imagine how shocked he was when on Tuesday of last week he saw a news story explaining the implications of legislation which was passed late in the session. The bill was designed to increase state government revenue by 5.7 million dollars by tripling the annual fee which vending machine operators must pay to the state (from $50 per machine to $150 per machine). This is a 300% fee increase on these businesses.
This fee will be devastating to the small business owners who will now face a series of tough decisions regarding the profitability of their business. The first step they will have to take will be to remove vending machines which are marginally profitable. The fee increase alone may erase the entire profitability of some of the marginal revenue producing machines. This will result in less availability of these products to the public and will mean that fewer vending machines stamps will be purchased from the state, which in turn will result in declining revenues to the government. In other words, those who designed this plan as a revenue enhancement may actually be thwarted in their attempt to generate additional revenue.
In other locations, the vending machine suppliers may simply choose to try to pass on the cost of the increased fees to the public. This means you and I will pay the cost through higher prices. However, this, too, will result in declining revenues, because higher prices will result in less demand and thus fewer products being sold. In some cases, older vending machines do not allow for pricing above a certain amount. This means that the vending machine companies will have to replace otherwise fine equipment in order to raise prices.
My constituent is in the process of computing the numbers and determining if he will be able to remain in business. If he does remain in business, it will likely be with fewer machines. This means less buying options for the public, less revenue for the government and a clear demonstration of the punitive effects of this type of policy on the state's economy. It is state government's job to provide an economic climate which makes it easier for small businesses to succeed. State government should never punish small businesses with a 300% fee increase.
Over the past few years his bottom line has been affected in all of the ways you might expect. From the increased cost of fueling his supply truck to the increased cost of purchasing the products that go into the vending machine, he has been dealing with all of the inflationary pressures that most small business owners are experiencing. You can only imagine how shocked he was when on Tuesday of last week he saw a news story explaining the implications of legislation which was passed late in the session. The bill was designed to increase state government revenue by 5.7 million dollars by tripling the annual fee which vending machine operators must pay to the state (from $50 per machine to $150 per machine). This is a 300% fee increase on these businesses.
This fee will be devastating to the small business owners who will now face a series of tough decisions regarding the profitability of their business. The first step they will have to take will be to remove vending machines which are marginally profitable. The fee increase alone may erase the entire profitability of some of the marginal revenue producing machines. This will result in less availability of these products to the public and will mean that fewer vending machines stamps will be purchased from the state, which in turn will result in declining revenues to the government. In other words, those who designed this plan as a revenue enhancement may actually be thwarted in their attempt to generate additional revenue.
In other locations, the vending machine suppliers may simply choose to try to pass on the cost of the increased fees to the public. This means you and I will pay the cost through higher prices. However, this, too, will result in declining revenues, because higher prices will result in less demand and thus fewer products being sold. In some cases, older vending machines do not allow for pricing above a certain amount. This means that the vending machine companies will have to replace otherwise fine equipment in order to raise prices.
My constituent is in the process of computing the numbers and determining if he will be able to remain in business. If he does remain in business, it will likely be with fewer machines. This means less buying options for the public, less revenue for the government and a clear demonstration of the punitive effects of this type of policy on the state's economy. It is state government's job to provide an economic climate which makes it easier for small businesses to succeed. State government should never punish small businesses with a 300% fee increase.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Representative Murphey Present for 99% of All Votes
OKLAHOMA CITY – State Representative Jason Murphey (R-Guthrie) made sure that he was representing House District 31 citizens by being present to vote in 1614 out of 1630 roll call votes during the recently concluded 2010 legislative session. During the four-year time frame since being elected to office, Murphey voted in 5,964 out of 6,002 roll call votes, or 99.4% of the time.
"One of my goals has been to be present for as many roll call votes as possible. I want to demonstrate to the voters that I am taking their trust seriously," Murphey said. Murphey explained that his missed votes appear to have been mostly procedural ones that were quickly closed. This means that Murphey appears to have voted on most if not all substantive issues.
Murphey also explained that he has a strong policy of never "walking" a vote. Legislators sometimes walk off the floor in order to avoid casting a tough vote.
To date Murphey has never missed a day of session since being elected in 2006.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)