In Case You Missed It OCPA president Michael Carnuccio says policymakers should require labor unions and other labor organizations in Oklahoma to collect their own dues. tinyurl.com/mlwwg78
You might be surprised at what a special-needs child with a classical education can do. shar.es/NsN6f
In The Oklahoman, Brandon Dutcher mentions Gov. Scott Walker’s recent visit to OCPA, and discusses the progress of educational choice in Oklahoma this year.
OCPA distinguished fellow Jayson Lusk discusses why beef and pork prices are so high. tinyurl.com/l95bup5
OCPA distinguished fellow Andrew Spiropoulos says “the American political left has developed a taste for intolerance and authoritarianism,” and that the Supreme Court’s opinion in the Hobby Lobby case “signals that it will not allow our nation’s commitment to genuine pluralism to be so easily discarded.” tinyurl.com/qx8bsyx
A new Mercatus study finds that “higher state taxes are generally associated with lower economic performance, even after controlling for tax endogeneity.” tinyurl.com/mvqcdfj
“Choking” and “whipping” are two of the sadistic sexual behaviors Planned Parenthood staffers were caught promoting to teen girls as part of Obamacare-supported “sex education.” dailysign.al/1zFFrdW
OCPA president Michael Carnuccio says it’s time for Oklahoma to phase out its personal income tax.
As Texas’s “impossible” $10K degree begins to spread, the impossible may be starting to look inevitable.
tinyurl.com/mel78zg
tinyurl.com/m42kp7q
tinyurl.com/nvrj34v
PERSPECTIVE OCPA Staff
OCPA Trustees
Brandon Dutcher .................................................. Editor
Blake Arnold • Oklahoma City
Tom H. McCasland III • Duncan
Daryl Woodard • Tulsa
Brittoni Bobek ........................... Development Coordinator
Robert D. Avery • Pawhuska
David McLaughlin • Enid
Daniel J. Zaloudek • Tulsa
Lee J. Baxter • Lawton
Lew Meibergen • Enid
Steve W. Beebe • Duncan
Ronald L. Mercer • Bethany
OCPA Researchers
G.T. Blankenship • Oklahoma City
Lloyd Noble II • Tulsa
John A. Brock • Tulsa
Mike O’Neal • Edmond
Trent England ...... Vice President for Strategic Initiatives
David R. Brown, M.D. • Oklahoma City
Bill Price • Oklahoma City
Dacia Harris .................................. Communications Director
Paul A. Cox • Oklahoma City
Patrick T. Rooney • Oklahoma City
Rachel Hays ....................................... Development Assistant
William Flanagan • Claremore
Melissa Sandefer • Norman
Rebecca Hobbes ................................................................. Intern
Josephine Freede • Oklahoma City
Thomas Schroedter • Tulsa
Ann Felton Gilliland • Oklahoma City
Richard L. Sias • Oklahoma City
John T. Hanes • Oklahoma City
Greg Slavonic • Oklahoma City
Michael Carnuccio ...................................................... President Clint Colbert ...................................................... Office Manager Brandon Dutcher ................................ Senior Vice President
Kelly Hughes ............................ Communications Associate Jennie Kleese .................... Development Events Manager
Steven J. Anderson, MBA Research Fellow
Tina Dzurisin
Research Associate
Vance Fried, J.D. Research Fellow
Jayson Lusk
Samuel Roberts Noble Distinguished Fellow
Matt Mayer, J.D. Research Fellow
Ralph Harvey • Oklahoma City
John F. Snodgrass • Ardmore
J. Scott Moody, M.A.
Maysen Mackie ......................................................................Intern
John A. Henry III • Oklahoma City
Charles M. Sublett • Tulsa
Karma Robinson ........... Vice President for Development
Henry F. Kane • Bartlesville
Robert Sullivan • Tulsa
Andrew C. Spiropoulos, J.D.
Jonathan Small ................................Vice President for Policy
Robert Kane • Tulsa
Lew Ward • Enid
Teresa Yoder .................................................... Executive Liaison
Gene Love • Lawton
William E. Warnock, Jr. • Tulsa
Research Fellow
Milton Friedman Distinguished Fellow
Wendy P. Warcholik, Ph.D. Research Fellow
Perspective is published monthly by the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, Inc., an independent public policy organization. OCPA formulates and promotes public policy research and analysis consistent with the principles of free enterprise and limited government. The views expressed in Perspective are those of the author, and should not be construed as representing any official position of OCPA or its trustees, researchers, or employees.
Larry Arnn
John Bolton
William F. Buckley
George W. Bush
BRIT HUME
Jeb Bush
Dinesh D’Souza
September 24 • Tulsa
For more information, contact Rachel Hays at 405-602-1667 or rachel@ocpathink.org
Mitch Daniels
Jim DeMint
J. Rufus Fears
Mike Huckabee Laura Ingraham
Artur Davis
Steve Forbes
Tommy Franks
John Fund
Newt Gingrich David Horowitz
Frank Keating
Jeane Kirkpatrick
Charles Krauthammer
Art Laffer
Rich Lowry
Ed Meese
Russell Moore
Stephen Moore
Peggy Noonan
Marvin Olasky
Bill Owens
Sarah Palin
Star Parker
Michael Reagan
Paul Ryan
Joe Sobran
Thomas Stafford
John Stossel
Cal Thomas
Clarence Thomas
Scott Walker
Malcolm Wallop
John Walton
J.C. Watts
Allen West
Walter Williams
Past OCPA speakers are pictured above.
Paul Krugman: Wrong on Taxes, Wrong on Kansas By Will Freeland
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman recently used his weekly column to take aim at pro-growth tax reform and Rich States, Poor States: ALEC-Laffer State Economic Competitiveness Index. Krugman pulled no punches while dismissing the pro-growth impact of tax reform— Kansas’ recent tax reform specifically— seeing it fit to call those he disagrees with “charlatans and cranks.” Issues of projection by Krugman aside, he is wrong on the economic evidence for tax reform and wrong on Kansas. His errors, omissions, and innuendo in the place of facts warrant correction. First and most broadly, Krugman is wrong on the economic evidence analyzing whether taxes matter to economic performance. Dr. William McBride of the Tax Foundation has surveyed the aca-
demic evidence on taxes and growth and finds that more than 90 percent of peerreviewed studies conclude that taxes do negatively impact economic growth, with taxes on personal and corporate income being the worst. A simple review of the data demonstrates the same conclusion. Looking at the performance of the nine states with no income taxes versus the nine states with the highest income taxes, the performance results are fairly clear: no-income-tax states are vastly outperforming their high-tax counterparts and the national average. Moreover, as we at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have shown countless times, our own Rich States, Poor States: ALEC-Laffer State Economic Competitiveness Index shows a
strong relationship with state economic performance. First, consider a simple table displaying the economic vitality of the top and bottom 10 states in the index by looking at the last decade of performance in job growth, gross domestic product growth, and net migration of citizens. The results are stark: free states fare better than their big-government counterparts. Second, more technical statistical research shows that economic freedom, as measured by Rich States, Poor States, is responsible for between 25 percent and 40 percent in the variation in state economic health, as measured by the index of the Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank. Given the tremendous number of factors that affect differences in state economic health, this is a strong and significant
9 No Income Tax States vs. 9 Highest Income Tax States Growth Rates, 2001-2011 States
Population
Gross State Product
Nonfarm payroll employment
state & Local tax revenue*
9 states with no income tax**
15.00%
63.50%
12.70%
76.30%
U.S. Average***
9.50%
51.40%
7.60%
49.80%
9 States with highest personal income tax rates**
6.00%
45.20%
4.90%
47.90%
Source: Bureau of economic analysis, U.S. census bureau, bureau of labor statistics, laffer associates * 2000-2010 (2011 data not yet available) ** Equal-weighted average *** Equal-weighted average, does not include Washington, d.c.
4
PERSPECTIVE • August 2014
result, demonstrating clearly that public policy does matter to economic performance. The analysis comes from Dr. Randall Pozdena and Dr. Eric Fruits in their publication, Tax Myths Debunked. Having established that taxes and economic freedom broadly do matter to economic growth, it is also worth considering Krugman’s claim about dynamic scoring—that small-government tax reformers think “tax cuts pay for themselves.” Dynamic scoring of taxes looks at the likely revenue that would actually be lost or gained in a given tax rate change given the incentive effects of raising or lowering tax rates. Krugman says that small-government tax reformers believe all tax cuts pay for themselves and, moreover, quotes right-of-center economist Greg Mankiw saying that the notion tax cuts pay for themselves is wrong. Ironically, ALEC recently published an essay on this very topic in the context of tax cuts in Nebraska. We relied on the dynamic scoring estimates of none other than Greg Mankiw in claiming that proposed tax cuts wouldn’t decrease revenue as much as some expect, though stopping far short of claiming they would result in zero revenue loss. We can only assume Krugman didn’t do his homework in this regard or felt compelled to ignore the facts in order to make a cheap point. Last, turning to Kansas, Krugman brings up three issues: lackluster economic performance in the wake of tax cuts, an unexpected budget shortfall over projections, and a recent state debt downgrade by Moody’s credit rating
agency. It’s worth discussing these issues one at a time. Economic Performance As Stephen Moore recently pointed out in Investor’s Business Daily, Kansas’ tax cuts have been on the books for barely 18 months. If Krugman realistically believes that 18 months is the appropriate timeline to judge fundamental tax reform, he is the one guilty of “magical thinking,” not tax reformers. Moreover, the case that taxes do matter to economic performance has been extensively documented above. In addition, the lackluster economic performance Krugman notes has occurred under a mediocre policy regime characterized by the big government which Krugman advocates. (Kansas rated between 24th and 29th in Rich States, Poor States until 2013, when the state jumped to 11th.) During the past 10 years—before tax cuts—the state ranked 20th in state gross domestic product growth, 38th in net domestic migration, and 29th in non-farm payroll growth. Kansas is only now attempting to recover from bad policy. Budget Shortfall ALEC addressed this matter in a recent blog post, and what was true then remains true now: the budget shortfall is largely not the result of Kansas’ recent tax cuts. Lower-than-expected tax returns are largely the result of a slow economy and federal tax policy. First quarter gross domestic product growth in the United
States was an anemic 0.1 percent. Slow economic growth generally results in slow revenue growth, particularly for income-tax collections. The Tax Foundation has recently pointed out that some of this may be the result of the expiration of bonus expensing, causing a notable fall in investment early in 2014. This policy change, combined with a number of other federal tax and regulatory changes, has created a difficult environment for economic growth in 2014. Additionally, Joe Henchman of the Tax Foundation pointed out nearly a year ago that last year’s so-called “surge” in state income tax revenues was likely a one-time jump due to the federal capital gains rate jumping from 15 percent to 23.8 percent as part of the so-called “fiscal cliff” legislative compromises. As such, many investors accelerated their investment sales in order to avoid the increasing capital-gains rates. This caused a spike in capital-gains revenue last year and a sharp fall in capital-gains revenue this year relative to trends. As Will Upton with Americans for Tax Reform has pointed out, the Congressional Budget Office also predicted this all the way back in January of 2013 for the same reasons. Thus, the state’s recent revenue woes seem to have far more to do with what’s happening in Washington, D.C., rather than Topeka, Kansas. The Kansas State Department of Revenue has pointed out as much in their press release announcing revenue shortfalls, although this has fallen on deaf ears among those searching for an opportunity to assail Kansas’ pro-growth tax reform. As the press
www.ocpathink.org
5
release and news reports across the country have noted, state tax revenue is down nationwide, not just in Kansas. The Rockefeller Institute has documented as much in a recent data alert, noting personal income tax returns seem to be down nationally by 0.4 percent in the first quarter and in at least 10 different states. This includes states that didn’t take on any notable tax cuts in recent years. The Kansas Policy Institute has further cleared up falsehoods and misconceptions on Kansas’ budget in a July 10 essay, “How budget deficits are fabricated in Kansas.” Debt Downgrade From the same ALEC blog post on Kansas (which Krugman apparently did not read), we detailed the following on Kansas’ debt downgrade. Turning to Kansas’ bond rating downgrade, Moody’s cited more than just recent tax cuts as the rationale for a downgrade, despite what opponents of tax reform are touting. Reliance on non-recurring revenues, a lack of spending cuts matching outlays to expected revenues, depletion of the rainy day fund, slow economic
6
PERSPECTIVE • August 2014
growth, and the underfunded state pension system were all noted as budget problems facing the state. That is to say that Kansas can improve their bond rating by addressing spending issues and boosting economic growth, not just raising taxes. Moody’s even makes clear in their analysis of Kansas that they do not view the lack of a state income tax as a source of credit risk. Standard & Poor’s has gone as far as to call low reliance on income taxes a boon to strong credit ratings, stating that “the ratings reflect our view of the state’s sales tax-based revenue structure that exhibits sensitivity to economic cycles, but to a lesser degree than those of states that rely primarily on personal and corporate income taxes.” More broadly, is it true that states with high tax revenues have high bond rat-
ings and states with low tax revenues have low bond ratings? The table above shows that this claim is false. The table compares the states with the 10 highest and lowest state and local tax burdens, according to the Tax Foundation, and lists their credit rating with Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s. States in the highest two credit rating categories are in green, states in the third credit rating category are in yellow, and states in the fourth or lowest credit rating category are in red. States with lower tax revenues generally have higher credit rating and the states with the highest taxes in the nation generally have lower credit rankings. In conclusion, not only is Krugman wrong on whether taxes matter to economic performance, he’s wrong on Kansas. Given this, it leaves us returning to the issue of projection: who are the real charlatans and cranks in this debate?
Will Freeland is a policy analyst at the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Center for State Fiscal Reform. He formerly worked as a tax economist at the Tax Foundation and a policy researcher at the George Mason University Law and Economics Center. His research and commentary have been featured on CNN, NPR, The Wall Street Journal’s Market Watch, the Harvard Business Review blog, and numerous local print and radio media outlets.
Tuition-free College for Oklahomans? By Vance H. Fried
Do we want to make college tuitionfree for Oklahomans and simultaneously reduce government spending? Amazingly, this option is possible today because of the emergence of highquality, low-cost college. In 1997 Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating joined a bipartisan group of 19 western states’ governors to create Western Governors University (WGU). “The 21st century has just arrived in Oklahoma,” Keating said at the time. “This 21st century approach to post-secondary education combines the best and the brightest from all western states, along with today’s technology, to provide an affordable and broad range of higher education opportunities for Oklahomans whether they are at home, on the job, or in class.” Today WGU is an independent, nonprofit university offering fully accredited, online, competency-based education to students from all 50 states. WGU has more than 45,000 students in bachelor’s and master’s programs in business, education, information technology, and nursing. WGU’s programs are recognized for their quality. For example, last month the National Council on Teacher Quality ranked WGU’s secondary education program as the best in the country. The University of Oklahoma (tied for 57th) and Northwestern Oklahoma State University (tied for 87th) were the Oklahoma schools in the top 100. While WGU’s educational quality is high, its tuition is low. WGU does not receive any state government subsidy and is totally dependent on student tuition for funding. Yet WGU’s tuition is substantially lower than in-state tuition at Oklahoma’s public regional colleges. How does WGU do it? First, it only provides education. WGU does not conduct research or provide students with “college life.” Second, WGU uses a non-traditional faculty model that dramatically cuts cost
yet provides students with more personal guidance and deeper feedback than the traditional model. Other schools are starting to copy the WGU model. As I explained in a recent report published by The Heritage Foundation, in the not-toodistant future schools will offer blended undergraduate programs combining the WGU approach with “college life” at a cost of $3,000 to $5,000 a year. All this means great savings to students and taxpayers compared to our current model. WGU’s annual tuition is $4,000. WGU charges flat-rate tuition for six months with students able to take as many courses as they want; $4,000 is for 8 months of tuition. And remember, WGU does not receive any state subsidy. Compare this to the University of Central Oklahoma, for example, where instate tuition is $7,230 (tuition and mandatory fees for a business undergraduate taking 30 hours in a year). In addition, the state gives UCO about $8,460 to subsidize each in-state student. So a student saves $3,230 (7,2304,000) by going to WGU, and Oklahoma taxpayers save $8,460. Indeed, WGU is so much cheaper that the state could pay the student’s full tuition and still save $4,460 (8,460-4,000). Rather than pick up 100 percent of the cost, Oklahoma has traditionally picked up 60 percent and required the student to pay 40 percent. Using this cost-sharing ratio, the student would pay $1,600 and the state $2,400, for a savings of $5,630 and $6,060 respectively. However the cost is split, WGU is a major win/win for both student and taxpayer. What should the State of Oklahoma do
to encourage the spread of high-quality/ low-cost education? Policymakers could copy Wisconsin, forcing change on the state system by creating a new WGU-style public college. Or they could keep it simpler and cheaper by using vouchers to encourage students to attend WGU and similar schools. Perhaps the first step is to copy the low-cost approach taken by Indiana. In 2010 Indiana created WGU-Indiana— what then-Governor Mitch Daniels referred to as the “eighth state university.” It isn’t really a part of the Indiana state system and does not receive a state subsidy. Rather, it is a private, non-profit institution formally established by the state in partnership with WGU. WGU-Indiana has a chancellor and advisory board who reside in Indiana and provide guidance on the most effective ways the university can meet the needs of Indiana residents. Academically it is run by WGU. The curriculum is a slightly customized version of WGU’s standard curriculum. WGU has a formal articulation agreement with the Indiana state system that defines how WGU credits can be easily transferred into the state system. This approach has achieved bipartisan acclaim. In fact, the 2013 WGU-Indiana Annual Report features glowing endorsements from both President Barack Obama and Indiana Governor Mike Pence. Texas, Washington, Tennessee, and Missouri have all followed Indiana’s lead and created similar partnerships with WGU. Why not Oklahoma?
OCPA research fellow Vance H. Fried is Riata Professor of Entrepreneurship at Oklahoma State University. He is an expert on entrepreneurship in the education industry, entrepreneurship and public policy, and venture finance. He is the author of Better/Cheaper College: An Entrepreneur’s Guide to Rescuing Undergraduate Education. Prior to joining the faculty at Oklahoma State, Fried worked as an attorney in private practice, an executive of an independent oil company, and an investment banker working with small and mid-cap companies.
www.ocpathink.org
7
By Trent England
Why are liberal partisans trying to change the rules for presidential elections? And why have some right-leaning legislators, even here in Oklahoma, jumped on board? Unsurprisingly, the answer to the first question goes back to Al Gore’s loss to George W. Bush. Gore received the most individual votes, but his support was concentrated in big cities. With his voters more evenly distributed around the country, Bush won a majority of Electoral College votes and thus the presidency. The Electoral College works this way, rewarding candidates who have broad, national support. Presidential elections are really 51 separate elections, one in each state and in the District of Columbia. The Constitution gives each state the same number of electoral votes as it has members of the U.S. House and Senate (Oklahoma, with five House members and two Senators, has seven electoral votes). To win the presidency, a candidate must win a majority of electoral votes.
8
PERSPECTIVE • August 2014
In the wake of the 2000 election, a wealthy Gore supporter from California named John Koza made it his mission to get rid of the Electoral College. Koza created a group and a plan, both called National Popular Vote (NPV). While others have tried to change or eliminate the Electoral College, NPV is unique because it would not amend the Constitution. Instead, NPV leaves the constitutional structure in place, but manipulates how it works in order to render it meaningless. Under the current system, when Oklahomans vote for president, their votes together decide which candidate wins Oklahoma’s electoral votes. If the state adopted Koza’s plan, the votes of Oklahomans wouldn’t matter, at least not in the same way. Instead, Oklahoma’s electoral votes would be given away to the candidate with the most votes nationwide regardless of how Oklahomans actually voted. That means in 2012 Oklahoma would have cast its electoral votes for Barack Obama—even though two-thirds of Oklahomans voted against him.
NPV is an attempt to undo the constitutional system of electing the president state by state, without going through the difficult and deliberate process of actually changing the Constitution. The plan is fitting revenge for Gore’s loss, since NPV would shift political power toward urban areas. Indeed, that is one practical reason liberals, the beneficiaries of urban political machines, support Koza’s plan. NPV is not merely about practical politics, however. The effort is part of a long-term agenda to move away from constitutional checks and balances and toward more direct democracy, a radical departure from American principles and the Founders’ design. So far only the deepest blue states, places like Massachusetts and California, have signed on to NPV. Yet the plan takes effect only if adopted by states representing a majority of electoral votes; thus it cannot succeed by blue states alone. Nearly all of NPV’s lobbying is now directed at Republican legislators in red states—places like Oklahoma.
Constitution Scholar Trent England Joins OCPA
The lobbying budget is immense, with millions of dollars from Koza, Jonathan Soros (son of liberal financier George Soros), and New York billionaire Tom Golisano. Many legislators have been taken on expenses-paid trips where well-paid NPV lobbyists—a few are former Republican legislators—pressure them to sign on between rounds of drinks. This is hardly how citizens expect their representatives to handle constitutional issues. The American Founders intended for presidents to be elected by a state-bystate process, which is how we have done it since George Washington. John Koza’s National Popular Vote plan would throw all that out, diminishing the voice of Oklahomans and undermining our constitutional system of states.
Why are some Oklahoma lawmakers supporting a radical departure from American principles and the Founders’ design?
Trent England, former executive vice president of the Seattle-based Freedom Foundation, has joined the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs as vice president for strategic initiatives and as holder of a prestigious chair. “This is a real coup for OCPA and for Oklahoma,” said OCPA president Michael Carnuccio. “Trent England is one of the rising national stars in the free-market think tank movement. He will bring a wealth of experience and knowledge to OCPA and to our ongoing efforts to carry the message of liberty throughout Oklahoma and the nation.” England earned a degree in government from Claremont McKenna College and a law degree from George Mason University. Prior to his service with the Freedom Foundation in Seattle, he worked as a legal policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation. In Seattle, England directed key advocacy efforts by the Freedom Foundation and was an advisor and contributor to the State Policy Network’s “We the People” curriculum. England also directs the “Save Our States” project, which is dedicated to preserving the Electoral College and warning of the dangers of the National Popular Vote initiative. England is a contributor to The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, which provides “a brief and accurate explanation of each clause of the Constitution as envisioned by the Framers and as applied in contemporary law,” The Heritage Foundation says. And though “its particular aim is to provide lawmakers with a means to defend their role and to fulfill their responsibilities in our constitutional order,” it is “written to be explanatory and educational, accessible, and helpful for informed citizens and students of the Constitution generally.” The book is available online at heritage.org/constitution. England is also a contributor to One Nation under Arrest: How Crazy Laws, Rogue Prosecutors, and Activist Judges Threaten Your Liberty. His writings have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, the Christian Science Monitor, and numerous other publications. At OCPA, England will direct the organization’s Center for the Constitution and Freedom and will hold the chair as the David and Ann Brown Distinguished Fellow for the Advancement of Liberty, a fellowship previously held by the legendary J. Rufus Fears. England will also serve as national coordinator for the Liberty Foundation of America, OCPA’s national affiliate organization dedicated to federalism. “I am profoundly excited to join the OCPA team that has so successfully advanced policies based on our nation’s founding principles,” England said. “It is a measure of OCPA’s effectiveness that it has a national reputation and now a national affiliate in the Liberty Foundation. “Abraham Lincoln predicted, in his first recorded speech, that the natural strength of the United States means the nation will stand so long as the people remain united and dedicated to our founding principles. Today we are divided over those very ideas,” England said. “OCPA is dedicated to reviving our nation by reuniting the people and our public officials around those ideas, those principles. “My own personal mission is to return our nation to constitutional fidelity based on the principles that are the bedrock beneath our Constitution and the American Founding.” www.ocpathink.org 9
Oklahoma GOP Voters Prefer School Choice Over Same Old, Same Old By Patrick B. McGuigan
Two all-but-sainted gentlemen have stepped up to lead an Oklahoma exodus. Although neither has put it this way, “Let our children go” could be their mantra. These guys believe that in education policy, taxpayer resources should follow children, not bureaucratic dictates. God bless Tulsa businessman Bob Sullivan and Oklahoma City media titan Russell Perry. A public opinion survey, conducted by The Tarrance Group for the Oklahoma Federation for Children (OFC), found overwhelming support for all forms of parental choice in education among likely Republican primary voters [see sidebar]. Previous polls have documented support for school choice among all electoral elements, to be sure, but the Grand Old Party (GOP) now exercises such dominant control at the state Capitol that the views of those primary voters are darn near dispositive when it comes to policy, at least for now. To put it charitably, conservative Republican electoral victories have not always led to conservative public policy. This year, for example, the Republicancontrolled Legislature voted down expanding public charter schools to rural areas—even though 67 percent of GOP primary voters support the idea, Tarrance found. That’s not all. Support for charters was 84 percent among rural Republicans. And yet, it was a cluster of rural GOP legislators who doomed the idea’s chances in the 2014 legislative session. What do numbers like this mean in the real world of public policy? In an interview, Scott Jensen of the American Federation for Children (AFC), OFC’s national parent, told me: “The
10 PERSPECTIVE • August 2014
Republican primary voters are more aggressive than those who represent them. Within that framework, even more impressive and affirming to us was that rural Republicans voting in the Republican primary were so supportive of school choice in all its forms. “The number one issue is that not all the Republicans are supportive of choice, and some who are sympathetic are not aggressive in support. Those legislators tend to be responsive to the largest interests, the concentrations of power among their constituents. These include school district officials, members of school boards, superintendents, and teacher union members.” Jensen worked for Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson when the latter pushed historic school choice measures in the 1990s. He is a happy warrior, bringing to the fray a welcome honesty about what is required to advance the ball. Jensen, a former House Speaker in Wisconsin, came to the Sooner State in July to unveil the Tarrance data. The polling company (established by Lance Tarrance, a supporter of Ronald Reagan throughout his career) knows our state well. Current clients include James Lankford’s U.S. Senate campaign. For choice supporters, optimism seems justified. Consider: The survey found a remarkable 75 percent of GOP voters support educational
choice. Specifically: “Do you favor or oppose educational choice, which is giving parents the right to use the tax dollars associated with the education of their children to send their children to the public or private school of their choice?” Even in households that include a public school employee, 61 percent of those surveyed backed choice, while only 34 percent opposed. Among GOP primary voters who backed Joy Hofmeister for state superintendent, 69 percent favor educational choice, while only 25 percent oppose. An overwhelming 76 percent of the primary faithful support the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships for Students with Disabilities program, an existing choice program for youngsters with special needs. Among Hofmeister voters, 72 percent back the Henry Scholarships, while only 20 percent oppose. As for the purest form of school choice—Education Savings Accounts (ESAs), proposed but not yet enacted in Oklahoma—it’s not surprising that support is a bit weaker. Still, two-thirds of Republican primary voters are in support. Among Hofmeister voters, support outweighs opposition by a margin of 57 percent to 33 percent. OFC jumped into four primaries this year, helping to win two. They worked on both sides of the partisan divide, backing both Democratic state Senate candidate
THE UNIONS AND OTHER FOES OF SCHOOL CHOICE ARE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY
Do you favor or oppose educational choice, which is giving parents the right to use the tax dollars associated with the education of their children to send their children to the public or private school of their choice?
organizations giving scholarships to children to attend the school of their parents’ choosing, including at private schools. Would you say that you favor or oppose this program?
Favor/strongly.........................................56% Favor/somewhat.........................................19% UNSURE (DNR).........................................5% Oppose/somewhat.........................................8% Oppose/strongly.........................................12%
Favor/strongly.........................................41% Favor/somewhat.........................................32% UNSURE (DNR).........................................11% Oppose/somewhat.........................................8% Oppose/strongly.........................................9%
Now I’d like to read you two viewpoints on this issue. Please tell me which one comes closest to your own. [Read and rotate alternatives.] Some people say that educational choice programs give parents the power to choose the school that works best for their child and put pressure on all schools to do a better job educating children. Other people say that educational choice programs rob public schools of the funds they need to improve and allow a select few students to get a better education while other students are trapped in failing schools. Which viewpoint comes closest to your own? Power to choose.........................................72% Rob public schools.........................................18% BOTH EQUALLY (DNR).........................................* NEITHER (DNR).........................................3% UNSURE (DNR).........................................7% Please tell me if you agree or disagree with this statement: “A child should have a right to the best education today and should not have to wait for their assigned public school to improve.” Agree/strongly.........................................69% Agree/somewhat.........................................18% UNSURE (DNR).........................................4% Disagree/somewhat.........................................4% Disagree/strongly.........................................4%
In 2010, the State of Oklahoma created the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship for Students with Disabilities. This program allows the parents of a child with special needs to use the public funds allocated for the education of their child to send them to the school of their choice, including private schools. Would you say that you favor or oppose this program? Favor/strongly.........................................46% Favor/somewhat.........................................30% UNSURE (DNR).........................................10% Oppose/somewhat.........................................6% Oppose/strongly.........................................9% Some states are considering giving parents the chance to customize their child’s education through Education Savings Accounts or ESAs. The state puts the funds it would have spent on a child’s behalf into a bank account the parent controls. The parent can then use these funds to purchase the education that best meets their child’s needs from a wide variety of sources including public schools, private schools, virtual schools, institutions of higher education, or other nonprofit education providers approved by the state. Any funds not used in a school year could be carried over for future education including college. Would you say that you favor or oppose Oklahoma having a program like this one?
As you may already know, in 2011 the State of Oklahoma created “Equal Opportunity Education Scholarships.” This program provides up to a 75 percent state tax credit for businesses and individuals that donate to
Favor/strongly.........................................37% Favor/somewhat.........................................28% UNSURE (DNR).........................................9% Oppose/somewhat.........................................10% Oppose/strongly.........................................17%
Source: The Tarrance Group, survey of 600 likely Oklahoma Republican primary voters, June 8-10, 2014
Anastasia Pittman of Oklahoma City and Republican incumbent Sen. AJ Griffin of Guthrie. The group is working in a handful of runoff races this fall, and will be helping school choice supporters in November. Nothing is inevitable, of course. Opponents of school choice are feeling their oats a bit these days, having rebuffed expansion of public school charters to rural realms. Oklahoma’s education establishment was successful this past session in opposing the moderate proposed next step for charters. But as pundits of the Left sometimes put it, the unions and other foes of school choice are on the wrong side of history.
Forgive this old historian and journalist a memory. In the early 1990s, I reviewed with Lance Tarrance polling data about our state in terms of the right-to-life issues. I’d come to value his insights during my years in the nation’s capital city. That day, he told me: “By the time you look at all the cross-tabs in opinion surveys
and anti-abortion sentiment here, Oklahoma is probably the most pro-life state in America.” Humbly submitted, in conclusion: Republican politicians who defy the remarkable strength for school choice among their most likely voters will sow folly, and reap the political whirlwind. They will lose, and deserve to do so.
Patrick McGuigan (M.A. in history, Oklahoma State University) is editor of CapitolBeatOK.com. He is the editor of seven books on legal policy, and the author or co-author of three books, including Ninth Justice: The Fight for Bork. Last year the Washington Post political blog, “The Fix,” designated McGuigan one of the three best political reporters in Oklahoma.
www.ocpathink.org
11
1
3
2
4
@OCPAthink 1. OCPA trustee Bill Price (pictured here over Gov. Mary Fallin’s right shoulder) recently attended a bill-signing ceremony marking the 2014 expansion of the Lindsey Nicole Henry scholarship program for special-needs students. To learn more about the scholarship program, go to ocpathink.org/videos. 2. OCPA research fellow Steve Anderson (left) and Oklahoma labor commissioner Mark Costello are pictured here at a recent meeting at OCPA. 3. At a recent meeting at OCPA, state Sen. Jabar Shumate (D-Tulsa) and state Superintendent Janet Barresi discuss the need for educational choice in Oklahoma. 4. Positive Tomorrows is a unique private school in Oklahoma City meeting the educational and social service needs of homeless children and their families. And though the school’s selfless educators—like the one pictured here—are already changing lives, school-choice policies would allow them to provide positive tomorrows for even more children. To see a compelling new video from OCPA, go to ocpathink.org/videos.
12 PERSPECTIVE • August 2014
OCPA FREEDOM PARTNERS
Oklahoma Must Eliminate the Penalty on Work By State Rep. Tom Newell
Recent headlines tell a story Oklahomans already know: Texas is a prime destination for job creators from across America. During the Great Recession, over half of all new U.S. jobs were created in Texas. Since the recession, Texas has seen more job growth than any state but North Dakota. Now Toyota, the world’s largest automaker, is moving its U.S. headquarters from California to Plano, a Dallas suburb. With additional jobs coming from Toyota’s Kentucky and New York facilities, Texas is expected to gain 4,000 jobs. In the 50-state competition for growth and opportunity, states charging no personal income tax are winning. Texas and Florida, two income tax-free states, are among America’s biggest winners. Oklahoma has experienced a relatively stable economic upswing the past dozen years. We became a right-to-work state, reduced our income tax by 25 percent, and benefited from energy producers who sparked the shale revolution. And we’ve seen some recent in-migration from Texas. But this doesn’t balance out the gains Texas has experienced from Oklahoma over decades. From 1992 to 2011, Texas saw a net gain of $1.3 billion in personal incomes from Oklahoma taxpayers who moved south of the Red River. Skeptics say once Oklahomans move
south, income tax savings are gobbled up by higher property taxes. But when you consider differences in income tax rates, property tax payments, and per capita income between the two states, the average Oklahoma worker would save roughly $2,095 a year by moving to Texas. For employers, the savings is often greater. Decisions made by these individuals impact job opportunities and pathways to prosperity for thousands of people. If an employer moves from the coast to the heartland, they won’t settle for a state with a 5 percent penalty on work. They’ll send the moving trucks to Dallas, Houston, or Austin — not Oklahoma City or Tulsa. Numerous other employers, including Occidental Petroleum, Motorola, and Dropbox, have announced plans to relocate to or expand operations in Texas. And last year, in rental car giant Hertz’s exodus from New Jersey, more than 100 executive-level positions shifted from Tulsa to the company’s new Florida headquarters. In the recent merger between Office Depot and OfficeMax, we learned that 120 workers in Norman will be laid off, their jobs resurfacing in Austin. These join the homegrown jobs and capital that left Oklahoma years ago for Texas in pullouts by Conoco, Phillips Petroleum, Kerr-McGee, Noble Energy, and
This month OCPA Impact is spotlighting a state lawmaker who is helping to drive the conversation in Oklahoma about reducing our penalty on work, the state income tax. Tom Newell (R-Seminole) represents District 28 in the Oklahoma House of Representatives, where he is chairman of the Human Services Committee.
others. Interstate tax competition affects lives. It impacts the ability of fathers and mothers to provide for their families, geographically separates parents from adult children and young grandchildren, and leads to economic shifts that result in prosperity in certain regions and anxiety in others. Even with no state income tax, Texans and Floridians still fund schools, roads, prisons, and safety nets for the less fortunate. They do it by attracting more taxpayers. To better compete for Oklahoma’s future, we must continue to work toward responsibly eliminating our penalty on work.
OCPA Impact is the only organization working every day at the Oklahoma Capitol during the legislative session as an advocate for taxpayers on issues of free markets and limited government. To join our action alert network, visit www.ocpaimpact.com. www.ocpathink.org
13
OSF Helping Students Find the Place Where They Learn Best By Charlie Daniels
The Alliance for Catholic Education (ACE) recently held its annual Parental Choice Symposium in New Orleans—and in Tampa. I was invited to the symposium in my capacity as a board member of the newly formed Opportunity Scholarship Fund (OSF), which uses contributions creditable against state income tax to provide scholarships to private schools for lowincome kids. The symposium convened at Loyola University in New Orleans. Among the speakers were representatives from Democrats for Education Reform and the Black Alliance for Educational Options, as well as Howard Fuller, the former radical community organizer and now professor at Marquette. Prof. Fuller asked whether we want a society in which only people with money can choose the schools for their children. Prof. Fuller has been in the school choice trenches for a long time, and in 1998 debated another former community organizer named Barack Obama, who dismissed vouchers as “a distraction.” Prof. Fuller cautioned zealous school choice proponents that there are a lot of good teachers, trying hard, in public education, and that we would be well advised to criticize the system but not those on the front line. Prof. Fuller also reminded fiscal conservatives that ROI doesn’t get to anyone’s soul. You persuade people by touching their hearts. And, he pointed out, test scores aren’t the only things that matter to parents. School choice improves lives, builds character, and furthers freedom. Indeed, Prof. Patrick Wolf of the University of Arkansas added that when he surveyed parents who chose private schools for their children, better state test scores were not a factor. Instead, parents valued better student engagement and improved grades. When the symposium moved to the serene Bethany Center in Tampa, Florida’s big scholarship granting organization, Step Up For Students, took center stage. Step Up’s scholarships benefit nearly 60,000 students, who can use those scholarships to attend their choice of 1,400 nonpublic schools in the state. Of those schools, 71 percent are faith-based. Step Up is now the
14 PERSPECTIVE • August 2014
only scholarship-granting organization in Florida (in contrast to Arizona and Georgia, which each have scores of such organizations). The symposium ended with a tour of St. Joseph’s Catholic School, located in a low-income area of Tampa, where half of the students are Step Up scholarship recipients. St. Joseph’s buildings are old, but it boasts improving scores, happy parents (two of whom gave us enthusiastic testimony about their appreciation of school choice), and a new spirit, thanks to the collaboration between Step Up and ACE-trained staff. A theme running through the symposium was that every child is different, and that not every school is right for every child. In other words, one size does not fit all. While public schools are a good fit for many children, some children will reach their God-given potential better in other schools. As a former president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference wrote, “this is not about public schools versus private schools. … This is about finding the place where every single student learns the best.” Here in Oklahoma, the Opportunity Scholarship Fund exists to help every student find that place. With my board colleagues Michael Carnuccio, Jabar Shumate, and Mark Stephen, and executive director Mike Lapolla, OSF will help advance school choice in Oklahoma. So if you’re the principal of a private school that wants to extend financial help to low-income kids, sign up with us. Or are you a taxpayer who would like to get a credit against your state income tax? Drop us a contribution and feel free to designate which school on our list you’d like to benefit. And if you know low-income parents who would like their kids to go to a private school, put them in touch with one of the schools that have signed up with us. To get more information, visit our website at osfkids.org or reach out to Mike Lapolla at mike@osfkids.org. Mr. Daniels, a retired attorney in Bartlesville, is vice chairman of the Opportunity Scholarship Fund.
OCPA FREEDOM PARTNERS
Liberty Foundation Pushes Back against President Obama’s Overreach By Michael Carnuccio
In remarks posted on The White House website, on January 14, 2014, President Barack Obama stated that “we’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help that they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone—and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in helping to make sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating.” Three days later, the Liberty Foundation sent a letter, signed by myself and the CEOs of 20 other state-based think tanks, to every member of Congress. We demanded that “Congress aggressively fight every encroachment of its constitutional powers.” We wrote: A cornerstone of America’s system of government is the separation of powers expressly written in our Constitution. As every middle school student is taught, the legislative branch makes laws, and the executive branch executes those laws. Specifically, Article I, sections 1 and 8 state: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States … to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” As to the power of the President, Article II, sections 1 and 3 state: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America … he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Congress makes all (not some) laws and the President faithfully executes those laws. Period. President Obama seeks to substantially increase his questionable use of executive orders to merge the making and execution of laws, thereby circumventing Congress to remake America into what he solely deems best. The president is not a king. This proposed action violates the Constitution and undermines Main Street America’s faith in government. Equally troubling, President Obama’s proposed
Future Hall of Fame quarterback Peyton Manning discusses the importance of competition and free markets at a recent Liberty Foundation event in Colorado Springs.
action will lead to extensive litigation, thereby increasing uncertainty for America’s business community and delaying the strong economic recovery so desperately needed by countless Americans. We respectfully urge President Obama to reverse course and we demand that Congress aggressively fight every encroachment of its constitutional powers. Well, it’s clear that voices like ours had an impact. As The Wall Street Journal editorialized on June 28, “All due credit to John Boehner, who told his House colleagues on Wednesday that the institution will sue the executive branch to defend the Constitution’s separation of powers. The Speaker is showing more care that the laws be faithfully executed than is President Obama. “In a memo to the House, Mr. Boehner detailed the institutional injury Congress is suffering amid Mr. Obama’s ‘aggressive unilateralism,’ which is as good a description as any of his governing philosophy. When the executive suspends or rewrites laws across health care, drugs, immigration, and so much else, elected legislators are stripped of their constitutional role.” Michael Carnuccio is president and CEO of the Liberty Foundation.
www.ocpathink.org
15
Change Service Requested
NONPROFIT ORG. U.S. POSTAGE PAID OKLA. CITY, OK PERMIT NO. 2573
1401 N. Lincoln Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73104 Tel: 405.602.1667 Fax: 855.819.0085 ocpathink.org
QUOTE UNQUOTE “We’ve got kids in 11th and 12th grade who can’t read at a third-grade level. How’d they get there?”
Eddie Evans, director of north Tulsa programs at Youth Services of Tulsa
“Making the United States over into a Third World country is exactly what this president is about.”
Washington Times editor emeritus Wesley Pruden, in a recent column entitled “An immigrant surge en route to a Third World USA”
“Politics are now nothing more than means of rising in the world. With this sole view do men engage in politics, and their whole conduct proceeds upon it.”
Samuel Johnson
“Years after entrepreneurs figured out ways to allow consumers to comparison shop on everything from cars to cameras, we’re finally seeing health care jump on the transparent pricing bandwagon.”
Glen Tullman, writing at Forbes.com about the Surgery Center of Oklahoma (“What Uber And Apple Can Teach Us About Fixing Health Care”). Tullman adds: “It won’t be easy to make these innovations stick in the staid health care arena. Just like the taxi companies, there are plenty of aging, and highly profitable, giants whose livelihood depends on preserving the status quo.”
“Perhaps the hardest-fought battle between Church and [Poland’s] regime involved family life, for the communists understood that men and women secure in the love of their families were a danger. Housing, work schedules, and school hours were all organized by the state to separate parents from their children as frequently as possible.”
George Weigel