Perspective - December 2014 by OCPA

PERSPECTIVE December 2014

OKLAHOMA COUNCIL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

The 2014

Tax Revolt

HOW TO FIX PUBLIC SCHOOLS Page 6

CONFRONTING PUBLIC-SECTOR UNION ABUSES Page 10

In Case You Missed It A powerful Oklahoma labor union tried—unsuccessfully— to topple a conservative state lawmaker.

ocpa.us/1vpGPS8

In the Tulsa World, OCPA’s Jonathan Small says mandatory minimum-wage hikes can hurt the very people they’re intended to help.

Oklahomans should savor—and learn something from—the victories of Scott Walker and Sam Brownback.

ocpa.us/1AHxfvV

State Superintendent-elect Joy Hofmeister says she has “a very open door when it comes to all forms of school choice.”

ocpa.us/1uRONlN

ocpa.us/1HGfFKC

ocpa.us/14575FO

The War on Poverty has hurt American marriage rates.

ocpa.us/1vFsZM2

In The Oklahoman, OCPA’s Jonathan Small says Oklahoma policymakers should enact progrowth policies in 2015.

A Muskogee grandmother is opening a school for autistic children.

ocpa.us/1yMz1rp

Two scholars who prepare the Forbes college rankings say that if professors would teach more, Oklahomans’ tuition costs could be reduced dramatically.

ocpa.us/1xU5XBu

Recalling Gov. Mary Fallin’s words from 2012, OCPA president Michael Carnuccio says it’s now time to “chart a course toward the gradual elimination of the state income tax.”

ocpa.us/1wJgKfW

Poor Americans deserve a more compassionate health care solution than Medicaid.

ocpa.us/1yMz32y

PERSPECTIVE OCPA Staff

OCPA Trustees

Brandon Dutcher ...........................................Editor

Blake Arnold • Oklahoma City

David McLaughlin • Enid

Robert D. Avery • Pawhuska

Lew Meibergen • Enid

Lee J. Baxter • Lawton

Ronald L. Mercer • Bethany

Lauren Aragon.................................................................Intern

OCPA Researchers

Steve W. Beebe • Duncan

Lloyd Noble II • Tulsa

Brittoni Bobek ..............................Development Coordinator

G.T. Blankenship • Oklahoma City

Mike O’Neal • Edmond

Michael Carnuccio ...................................................President

John A. Brock • Tulsa

Bill Price • Oklahoma City

David R. Brown, M.D. • Oklahoma City

Patrick T. Rooney • Oklahoma City

Clint Colbert ....................................................Office Manager

Paul A. Cox • Oklahoma City

Melissa Sandefer • Norman

Brandon Dutcher .................................Senior Vice President

William Flanagan • Claremore

Thomas Schroedter • Tulsa

Josephine Freede • Oklahoma City

Richard L. Sias • Oklahoma City

Ann Felton Gilliland • Oklahoma City

Greg Slavonic • Oklahoma City

John T. Hanes • Oklahoma City

John F. Snodgrass • Ardmore

Ralph Harvey • Oklahoma City

Charles M. Sublett • Tulsa

John A. Henry III • Oklahoma City

Robert Sullivan • Tulsa

Henry F. Kane • Bartlesville

Lew Ward • Enid

Robert Kane • Tulsa

William E. Warnock, Jr. • Tulsa

Gene Love • Lawton

Daryl Woodard • Tulsa

Tom H. McCasland III • Duncan

Daniel J. Zaloudek • Tulsa

Trent England ..........Vice President for Strategic Initiatives Dacia Harris ..................................Communications Director Rachel Hays .........................................Development Director Alex Jones .....................................................Creative Manager Jonathan Small ................................Executive Vice President Teresa Yoder ........................................Director of Operations

Steven J. Anderson, MBA, CPA 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 J. Scott Moody, M.A. Research Fellow Andrew C. Spiropoulos, J.D. 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.

Mike Brake Mike Brake is a journalist and writer who has recently authored a centennial history of Putnam City Schools. He served as chief writer for Gov. Frank Keating and for then-Lt. Gov. and Congresswoman Mary Fallin, and has also served as an adjunct instructor at OSU-OKC.

Advocates of ever-larger government and an expanding welfare state love to characterize those who question their policies as “stingy” and “meanspirited.” After all, they are the generous ones, aren’t they? They care! Actually, no. As some recent studies show, Americans are among the most charitable people anywhere, and those who hail from red states lead the way. CAF America, a global grantmaking organization, ranks nations based on how generous their people are in giving to charity, in volunteering their time, and in how willing they are to help a stranger. The organization’s World Giving Index 2014 was released last month, and Americans ranked first, tied with Burma, where a strong Buddhist ethic encourages nationwide generosity. When you break down our generosity

index by state, a revealing pattern emerges—one that directly refutes the left’s phony image of those on the right as a gathering of Scrooges. The Chronicle of Philanthropy ranks all 50 states on how much their residents give to charity, based on tax returns. The 10 most generous states in 2012, from number one through number 10, were Utah, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina, Idaho, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and North Carolina. The least generous states (a finding that holds true year after year) were California, Pennsylvania, Hawaii, Wisconsin, North Dakota, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire. Guess what? All 10 of the most generous states voted for Mitt Romney for president in 2012. Nine of the 10 least generous states voted for Barack Obama. It seems that the more liberal a state’s population is, the stingier they are; the more conservative, the more generous. Economist Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute and author of Who Really Cares? The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism, has studied this situation in some depth. What characteristics tend to make a people more generous? They are members of strong families which encourage them to put down roots in a community and make investments in

time and treasure. They are more likely to be actively involved in a church or other faith community. And they are self-supporting and respect others who are willing to earn their own way. In fact, Brooks says the giving gap between right and left is substantial. In one year he found a 30 percent giving differential, and in some groups, especially the base Obama constituency of young left-leaning voters, giving almost disappears. Income is less of a factor as well. New Hampshire, the stingiest state, has one of the highest per-capita incomes in America. The southern states that lead the giving pack each year are among the poorest. It seems that limousine liberals really are tightfisted when it comes to helping the less fortunate, unless they can extort that money out of their fellow taxpayers in the form of government social programs.

The giving gap between

right and left is substantial. www.ocpathink.org

The 2014 Tax Revolt As they whistle past the post-election graveyard, Democrats have found a new tune: Voters may have rejected their candidates for everything from U.S. Senate to dogcatcher, but they really still agree with them on the issues. Of course this clearly isn’t true when it comes to Obamacare, which just dropped to its lowest approval ever in the most recent Gallup poll. And as we examine the election results in more detail, it’s apparent that voters don’t much like other liberal ideas—like tax hikes—either. Kansas is exhibit A. Democrats and much of the media were convinced that Republican governor Sam Brownback’s decision to slash state taxes would doom him. Brownback cut the personal-income-tax rate by more than a third, from 6.45 to 3.9 percent, and Kansas became the first state ever to completely eliminate taxes on pass-through income (income earned by individual business proprietors). The papers were full of stories suggesting that Brownback was “an object lesson in the limits of

PERSPECTIVE • December 2014

conservative governance,” according to the Washington Post. “Tax Cuts on Trial in Governors’ Races,” echoed a headline in the New York Times. The Fiscal Times warned “Brownback Feeling Big Backlash to Tax Cuts in Kansas.” But when the smoke cleared, Brownback was reelected. So were other tax-cutting Republican governors. Obviously taxes were far from the only issue in these races. Still, it is interesting that of the two Republican governors who lost reelection, the most prominent— Tom Corbett in Pennsylvania—was one of the few who raised taxes. Taxes were a big issue in blue states, as well. In fact, they may have been the biggest reason that some normally solidblue states turned red. In Massachusetts, for instance, Democratic candidate Martha Coakley said she wanted to explore ways to replace the state’s flat 5.2 percent income tax with a graduated one. She also opposed an initiative on the ballot that would repeal automatic indexation of the state’s gas tax. While Coakley left the door open to additional

tax hikes in the future, her opponent, Charlie Baker, ran on a firm “no new taxes” platform. No doubt Coakley was a poor candidate all around, but this was still Massachusetts, the home of Michael Dukakis, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry. That Baker will be the next governor shows that the power of taxes as an issue has not gone away. In Maryland, too, taxes helped flip a deep-blue state. The Democratic candidate, Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown, was closely tied to Maryland governor—and wannabe presidential candidate—Martin O’Malley, who had raised the state’s taxes by more than $9.5 billion since he took office. Republican Larry Hogan was outspent by roughly five to one, but hammered home relentlessly a message of rolling back taxes and reducing state spending. He won in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans by two to one. And, in President Obama’s home state of Illinois, incumbent Democratic governor Pat Quinn campaigned in favor of making a temporary 2011

Making a Sandwich Left: Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (at right) is pictured with Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Under Brownback’s leadership, Kansas has reduced its personalincome-tax rate by more than a third, from 6.45 to 3.9 percent, and also became the first state ever to completely eliminate taxes on pass-through income (income earned by individual business proprietors). Texas has no personal income tax. Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin, who once told The Wall Street Journal that “Oklahoma doesn’t want to end up an income-tax sandwich,” said in 2012 that Oklahoma is moving forward with a plan which will “chart a course toward the gradual elimination of the state income tax.” Top Left: Illinois Governor-elect Bruce Rauner Top Middle: Maryland Governor-elect Larry Hogan Top Right: Massachusetts Governor-elect Charlie Baker

American voters are clearly fed up with a government that demands ever more and more of their money. income-tax hike permanent. He lost to Bruce Rauner, who promised to phase both individual and corporate taxes back down to 2011 levels. Voters’ opposition to taxes was even more obvious when they had the opportunity to speak directly to the issue. In several states, voters turned down proposals to hike taxes, even when tied to popular initiatives such as education or transportation. In Missouri, for instance, voters overwhelmingly turned down a sales-tax increase that would have funded a number of transportation projects. And, in Nevada, voters turned down measures that would have removed a cap on the state’s mining tax and imposed a 2 percent tax on gross receipts for businesses with revenue over $1 million. And, of course, voters in Massachusetts approved that ballot measure eliminating the inflation adjustment on the gas tax. When they weren’t turning down proposed tax increases, voters were making sure that there would be fewer such proposed hikes in the

future. For example, voters in Georgia put in place a cap on the state’s income tax. That measure passed by a three-to-one margin. Meanwhile, in Tennessee, voters prohibited the legislature from levying any taxes on payroll or earned personal income. In North Dakota, voters banned taxes on mortgages and real-property transfers. And Michigan voters approved a complex measure that eliminated the personal property tax, while also devolving a portion of revenues from the state’s “use tax” (similar to a sales tax but levied on things not subject to sales tax) to local governments. Are we detecting a trend? American voters are clearly fed up with a government that demands ever more and more of their money. A middle-income family today in a state with high taxes faces a total tax burden of more than $10,000, nearly a quarter of its income. Is it any wonder that voters have—yet again—told us that enough is enough?

Michael Tanner Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, where he heads research into a variety of domestic policies with a particular emphasis on health care reform, social welfare policy, and Social Security. Most recently, Tanner co-edited Replacing Obamacare: The Cato Institute on Health Care Reform. The article above appeared on November 19 on National Review Online.

www.ocpathink.org

Fix Public Schools by Not Fixing Them What really matters is not whether the schools are high quality. It’s whether the children get educated.

PERSPECTIVE • December 2014

Over the last century, America has exerted enormous effort and made huge sacrifices to fix the public schools, and we have little to show for it. What if our relentless drive to “fix the public schools” is part of the problem? In fact, out of all our educational experiments, only one has consistently improved public schools—and it’s the one that doesn’t focus on fixing public schools. We’ve tried it all over the past hundred years. We’ve tried focusing on vocational education and contemporary skills, and we’ve tried “getting back to basics” and the “three Rs.” We’ve tried focusing on better teachers (which implies fewer teachers and thus larger classes) and we’ve tried smaller classes (which implies more teachers and thus worse teachers). We’ve tried “setting high standards” and “empowering the kids to learn in

their own way.” In fact, we’ve tried each of these ideas multiple times. When one fails, we try the opposite idea; when that fails, like amnesiacs we go back and try the first idea again. The result has been consistent failure. It’s not that we didn’t make big sacrifices—from 1970 to 2010, even after removing inflation, spending on public schools increased by two and a half times. In 2010 dollars, spending grew from just shy of $250 billion to just over $632 billion. Yet over the same period, academic outcomes and graduation rates for students exiting the system have remained flat. Wanting something too much can prevent you from getting it. In school, we all knew at least one unpopular kid whose desperate, overbearing desire to have friends and be liked was the main reason nobody wanted to be around that person. Sit down with a loved

How to Fix Schools That Don’t Want to Be Fixed Jay P. Greene is one of America’s leading experts on education policy. In an article published on the website of Education Next, a journal published by the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, Dr. Greene explains how to fix traditional public schools. “We can fix schools,” he writes, “by going around them.” “We can expand access to other educational options, including charter schools, voucher schools, tax-credit schools, ESAs, digital schooling, homeschooling, and hybrid schools. We can also expand access to enriching non-school activities, like museums, theaters, historical sites, summer camps, and after-school programs. Reformers should concentrate their energy on all of these non-traditional-school efforts and stop trying so hard to fix traditional public schools. “The main reason we should stop focusing on fixing traditional public schools is that, for the most part, they don’t want to be fixed. The people who make their living off of those schools have reasons for wanting schools to be as they are and have enormous political resources to fend off efforts to fundamentally change things. Trying to impose reforms like merit pay, centralized systems of teacher evaluation, new standards, new curriculum, new pedagogy, etc. on unwilling schools is largely a futile exercise. They have the political

resources to block, dilute, or co-opt these efforts in most instances.” Professor Greene, who earned his Ph.D. in political science at Harvard, says “trying to impose these reforms despite fierce resistance from traditional public schools usually does not improve outcomes for students but it does produce a series of negative sideeffects.” • First, attempting to impose reforms on a politically powerful and unwilling school system generates an enormous amount of strife and hostility. • Second, attempting to impose reforms on traditional public schools requires a significant increase in centralized political control. • Third, even in the rare cases where centralized reforms are adopted and implemented, the very nature of reforms that can jump those hurdles usually makes them ineffective or counter-productive.

• Fourth, even if by some miracle an effective and appropriate centralized reform with bite is adopted and properly implemented, there is no natural political constituency to preserve the integrity of that reform over time. Greene acknowledges that his recommendation to fix schools by not fixing schools “sounds like abandoning the millions of children who remain in those schools”—but he says that is not the case. “Just as starving children in Africa are not helped by our finishing all of the food on our plates, our futile efforts to impose centralized quick-fixes do not actually help those millions in traditional public schools. The measure of a desirable reform should not be the extent to which it makes us feel like at least we are trying, even if those efforts are counter-productive.” —Editor

one and say, “now let’s have a really good talk,” and silence will result. The hypochondriac protects himself from germs so well that his immune system is weakened from disuse, and he gets sick. C.S. Lewis wrote a brilliant essay on this called “First and Second Things.” The problem is the same in all these cases. If you put second things first, you not only lose the true first things, you also spoil and finally lose the second things.

Education policy needs to return to first things. We have treated “fixing the public schools” as the first thing for a century. As a result, we have spoiled and lost it—all our efforts to fix public schools have turned up empty. More important, we have lost the truly first thing. What really matters in education is not the schools but the children. The true first thing is not whether the schools are high quality. It’s

whether the children get educated. The difference is monumental. The general pattern in all our efforts to “fix the public schools” is that money and effort are poured into strengthening the institution of the school in one way or another. The reform du jour, whatever it is, is implemented through the creation and/or growth of powerful and lavishly funded positions. These power centers then work primarily to reinforce their own power and privilege.

continued on page 8 >> www.ocpathink.org

The only education reform that has consistently improved public schools is the one that doesn’t focus on improving public schools. It’s an insidious trap. The dysfunctions of the system are so bad, we tell ourselves, that we can only fight them if we give money and power to those who will promote the reforms. Once these people have money and power, they set about consolidating their position, working not to improve education but to reinforce their access to money and power. And because they have been anointed as the people whose job is to “fix the public schools,” they tell themselves—sincerely—that they’re building up their own money and power for the sake of improving education. It’s for the children. Giving an organization strength is not always the same thing as helping it accomplish its mission. When an organization is failing because it is weak, it may need to be made stronger. But organizations can fail because they are too strong. In such cases, what is needed is a dose of vulnerability. The only education reform that has consistently improved public schools is school choice. There are now 51 private school choice programs in 24 states and Washington, D.C., serving more than 300,000 students. A large body of high-quality research finds that these programs improve educational outcomes at nearby public schools. Out of 23 studies, 22 found that school

PERSPECTIVE • December 2014

choice improved academic outcomes in public schools. The remaining study found no visible difference. No empirical study has ever found that school choice harmed public schools. School choice improves public schools precisely because it does not make an idol out of “fixing the public schools.” In fact, it fixes public schools precisely because it establishes that the educational needs of children are more important than the institutional needs of public schools. Instead of taking children for granted as a captive audience, schools must educate children or lose them. Sometimes, school choice advocates focus too much on the financial incentives—schools that don’t improve lose “business” and see their budgets shrink. To be sure, human nature is what it is, and that factor can’t be dismissed. But I think the more important point is that school choice creates a social environment in which public schools lose their aura of anointedness. Where people have a choice, humility and the need for real change at last become plausible. Only in such an environment can we reasonably expect public schools to improve. Self-esteem is a two-edged sword. Yes, there are depressive, self-defeating people who are convinced they can’t do

anything right, and to help them means helping them learn to view themselves with dignity. But there are also people who simply need to be taken down off their pedestals and made to see that they are not anointed and infallible. Painful as that process may be, it really is the best thing we can do for them.

Greg Forster Greg Forster (Ph.D., Yale University) is a senior fellow with the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. He is the author of six books, including John Locke’s Politics of Moral Consensus (Cambridge University Press, 2005) and Joy for the World: How Christianity Lost Its Cultural Influence and Can Begin Rebuilding It (Crossway Books, 2014). He has written numerous articles in peer-reviewed academic journals as well as in popular publications such as the Washington Post and the Chronicle of Higher Education.

2 1

@OCPAthink 1. Reflections on the election: Last month OCPA and its partner organizations held a series of events around the state discussing the election returns and what they portend for public policy in 2015. Pictured here in Lawton (standing, from left) are Liberty Foundation chief operating officer Matt Mayer, OCPA president Michael Carnuccio, and OCPA Impact chief executive officer Dave Bond. 2. Planning for 2015: The OCPA team recently gathered for a daylong staff retreat in downtown Oklahoma City. 3. On a recent episode of “The MiddleGround,” OCPA research associate Tina Dzurisin (left) discussed the role of family fragmentation in domestic violence. “The MiddleGround,” hosted by OCPA president Michael Carnuccio, airs on Sunday mornings at 8:30 on KOKH FOX 25 in Oklahoma City. 4. Think progress: Work continues on the new Advance Center for Entrepreneurship, located to the west of OCPA’s main office. The Center will host lawmakers, executive-branch officials, and policy staffers for training sessions on how to apply core principles to difficult public-policy issues. The Center will also be a valuable resource for students, as OCPA partners with schools and nonprofit organizations to host programs teaching students the principles of liberty and the importance of our free-enterprise system.

www.ocpathink.org

Restoring Fairness: New Organization Confronts Public-Sector Union Abuses Meet Jane Ladley. Jane is a public school teacher in Chester County, Pennsylvania—one of Philadelphia’s neighboring counties. She is also a conservative. She has never in her 20-year teaching career been a member or fee-payer to any teacher union. But thanks to a recently renegotiated contract, Jane now has to pay a “fair share fee” for the Pennsylvania State Education Association’s unwanted “representation” if she wants to keep her job. In essence, she is forced to fund a government union that lobbies against everything she believes in. There is only one option in Pennsylvania law that allows Jane to withhold her money from the union if she wants to keep her job. That is to file for “religious objector” status. If you are a religious objector, the union will forward your “fair share fee,” otherwise due to the union, to a public charity. But here’s the catch—the union maintains that the charity receiving religious-objector funds must be approved by the union first. Moreover, it has a policy of holding religiousobjector funds in an interest-bearing escrow account until the religious objector consents to the union’s choice of charity. Jane was granted religious-objector status. She asked the union to redirect her money to a charity whose goal is to educate our young people about the Constitution and the American Founding. The union declined. They said they wouldn’t let funds go to “political” organizations. All the while, the mandatory dues of members are being funneled into far-left political advocacy

PERSPECTIVE • December 2014

Union bullying is happening in Oklahoma and across the nation, with profound consequences for our future as a free country.

groups that lobby for things like Obamacare and other progressive pet causes. But why should readers in Oklahoma care about what happens to some teacher in Pennsylvania? Because this kind of union bullying is also happening in Oklahoma and everywhere across the nation—and it has profound consequences for our future as a free country. And because the organization now standing up for Jane’s rights is actually based in Oklahoma City. It’s a new non-profit litigation group called the Fairness Center, which recently filed suit against the Pennsylvania State Education Association on behalf of Jane Ladley and another teacher, Chris Meier from Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. (Chris’ rights as a religious objector were similarly violated by the PSEA.) The Center is headquartered in Oklahoma City. Its primary objective, as our first lawsuit attests, is to stand up for the fundamental fairness of Americans like Jane, who are being treated—wait for it—unfairly by their union leadership. It is doing that right here in my backyard, in the Keystone State. OCPA’s own Michael Carnuccio serves on the Fairness Center’s board of trustees, along with distinguished leaders who play roles similar to his in the key swing states of Michigan and Pennsylvania, the latter being where I live. Confronting Union Abuses Our first lawsuit, Ladley and Meier v. Pennsylvania State Education Association, was filed in September

in Lancaster County. Media coverage for the lawsuit was surprisingly and overwhelmingly positive—even in liberal-leaning papers of record like the Philadelphia Inquirer, which quoted Jane saying, “It should be my choice for my money as long as it meets the requirements of the law.” In Chris’s home county of Lancaster, the story of the suit was published above the fold in the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal the next day. But what was really most encouraging and profoundly humbling was to see Jane speak to the media during the press conference revealing the lawsuit (Chris could not make it, as he was teaching at the time). We expect that we will win in court. But one of the most important victories has already been achieved: more teachers have the means and the courage to stand up and speak out for their freedoms. The Fairness Center fills a need for pro-freedom litigation on the state level. We have sought partnership and advice from many fine litigation groups working on behalf of freemarket principles. But all of these firms—Institute for Justice, Goldwater Institute, Alliance Defending Freedom, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, among others—have their (carefully chosen and laudable) specific platforms that do not allow them to focus all their energies on confronting the state leadership of the public sector unions. We are partnering with these organizations and learning from their legal and communication teams, because we believe we are complementary players, not competitors. Our primary mission in Pennsylvania, and in any other future state into which our success will enable us to expand, is to confront public-sector union abuse. Why? Because their decades of comfortable legal and political privileges have enabled unions to be such a powerful force against real reforms on virtually every single issue

important to taxpayers, on both the state and national level. And their advocacy has very profound national consequences. It is thanks to government union power that Barack Obama has now been inflicting immensely harmful public policies on these United States for nearly six years. The leaders of these government unions are the political and financial ball carriers behind policies like Obamacare, and regulations and red tape that are choking our business climate and freedoms across the country. The public sector unions’ inflexibility is due, in part, to the lack of challenge from within. Legal disputes between individual employees and their public sector union generally translate to small-dollar claims not worth the trouble. Meanwhile, union leaders grow more confident that the employees are happy with union leadership, both at the bargaining table and in the public square. Litigation from the outside is also important to changing the public sector union culture. We have seen other public sector litigation efforts— particularly those engineered by the Mackinac Center in Michigan, the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, and the Goldwater Institute—find real success in publicly exposing public sector union bargaining tactics and dues scams. In many instances, these suits have not been successful in court. But the publicity and external pressure on public sector unions have produced meaningful reform in other ways. Michigan provides the most powerful example of this. In that state, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) set up an incredibly unfair and unethical dues-skimming scheme, in which they successfully lobbied for a law that classified “home health care workers”—many of them people taking care of their elderly or disabled parents or relatives—as “state employees.” Once becoming “employees” of the state, the union could forcefully

extract dues and fees from them for “representation” that was neither needed nor wanted. The Mackinac Center’s legal team sued to end this travesty and defend the victims of the abuse. They lost. But the publicity that the case received across the state when the union scheme was exposed created so much righteous anger among voters and political donors that the legislature was forced to put an end to this injustice. This was a critical victory that not only protected citizens from what in essence was legalized theft, but also reduced the artificially inflated SEIU rolls by 80 percent, and helped lead to Michigan becoming the 24th right-towork state in the nation. Government union leadership across the country has gone on trampling the rights and freedoms of their own members for too long—not to mention, they have been doing it on the taxpayers’ dime. They have for decades successfully used the courts to silence their opposition. The creation of the Fairness Center is the next crucial step in turning the tables on the union leadership and its unfair business model. We could not do so without the invaluable help of our fellow freedomfighters in Oklahoma.

Charles Mitchell Charles F. Mitchell is president and CEO of the Fairness Center (www.fairnesscenter.org). He is also involved with several other free-market organizations in Pennsylvania and other states.

www.ocpathink.org

Championing LibertyininEvery Every State Championing Liberty State WA MT

PA IL

WV KS

DE MD

VA NC

SC MS

KY TN

MA CT

AK FL

NATIONAL LABOR FREEDOM PROJECT (all 50 states and the District of Columbia) • Labor Force Participation Rate Project highlighting declining rates for African-Americans and Hispanics • Right-to-Work States Dominate Economic Recovery showing Right-to-Work’s impact on Job Creation • Two Winning Policies for Job Growth Tying Right-to-Work and Low Income Taxes to Strong Job Growth

ALABAMA • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Support Free Trade ALASKA • Monthly Election Analysis (January 2014–October 2014) • Telephonic Messaging Meeting • General Election Survey with Messaging Analysis • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama Needs to Respect the Constitution ARKANSAS • Monthly Election Analysis (January 2014–October 2014) • In-State Messaging Meeting • General Election Survey II with Messaging Analysis • Strategic Liberty Summit on Shaping the Policy Debate • General Election Survey with Messaging Analysis • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama Needs to Respect the Constitution • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Support Free Trade • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Rein in Spending

PERSPECTIVE • December 2014

COLORADO • Monthly Election Analysis (January 2014–October 2014) • Strategic Liberty Summit II on Shaping the Policy Debate • In-State Messaging Meeting II • Friends of Freedom Dinner with Energy Summit • Strategic Liberty Summit on Shaping the Policy Debate • In-State Messaging Meeting • General Election Survey with Messaging Analysis • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Support Free Trade FLORIDA • Monthly Election Analysis (January 2014–October 2014) • General Election Survey with Messaging Analysis • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama Needs to Respect the Constitution • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Support Free Trade • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Rein in Spending

ADDITIONAL STATE INITIATIVES KEY FOCUS STATE

GEORGIA • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Rein in Spending HAWAII • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama Needs to Respect the Constitution • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Support Free Trade • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Rein in Spending

Championing Championing Liberty Liberty in in Every Every State State IDAHO IDAHO • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama Needs to Respect the Constitution Needs to Respect the Constitution • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Support Free Trade Must Support Free Trade ILLINOIS ILLINOIS • Strategic Liberty Summit on • Strategic Liberty Summit on Shaping the Policy Debate Shaping the Policy Debate • General Election Survey with Messaging Analysis • General Election Survey with Messaging Analysis • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama Needs to Respect the Constitution Needs to Respect the Constitution IOWA IOWA • Monthly Election Analysis (January • Monthly Election Analysis (January 2014–October 2014) 2014–October 2014) • General Election Survey with Messaging Analysis • General Election Survey with Messaging Analysis • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama Needs to Respect the Constitution Needs to Respect the Constitution • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Support Free Trade Must Support Free Trade KANSAS KANSAS • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Support Free Trade Must Support Free Trade • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Rein in Spending Must Rein in Spending LOUISIANA LOUISIANA • Monthly Election Analysis (January • Monthly Election Analysis (January 2014–October 2014) 2014–October 2014) • In-State Messaging Meeting • In-State Messaging Meeting • General Election Survey II with • General Election Survey II with Messaging Analysis Messaging Analysis • Strategic Liberty Summit on • Strategic Liberty Summit on Shaping the Policy Debate Shaping the Policy Debate • General Election Survey with Messaging Analysis • General Election Survey with Messaging Analysis • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Rein in Spending Must Rein in Spending MAINE MAINE • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama Needs to Respect the Constitution Needs to Respect the Constitution • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Support Free Trade Must Support Free Trade • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Rein in Spending Must Rein in Spending MICHIGAN MICHIGAN • Monthly Election Analysis (January • Monthly Election Analysis (January 2014–October 2014) 2014–October 2014) • In-State Messaging Meeting • In-State Messaging Meeting • General Election Survey II with • General Election Survey II with Messaging Analysis Messaging Analysis • Strategic Liberty Summit on • Strategic Liberty Summit on Shaping the Policy Debate Shaping the Policy Debate • General Election Survey with Messaging Analysis • General Election Survey with Messaging Analysis • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama Needs to Respect the Constitution Needs to Respect the Constitution

MINNESOTA MINNESOTA • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama Needs to Respect the Constitution • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama Needs to Respect the Constitution • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Support Free Trade Must Support Free Trade • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Rein in Spending Must Rein in Spending MISSISSIPPI MISSISSIPPI • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Rein in Spending Must Rein in Spending MISSOURI MISSOURI • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama Needs to Respect the Constitution Needs to Respect the Constitution MONTANA MONTANA • Monthly Election Analysis (January • Monthly Election Analysis (January 2014–October 2014) 2014–October 2014) NEW JERSEY NEW JERSEY • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama Needs to Respect the Constitution Needs to Respect the Constitution • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Rein in Spending Must Rein in Spending NEW MEXICO NEW MEXICO • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama Needs to Respect the Constitution Needs to Respect the Constitution • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Support Free Trade Must Support Free Trade NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA • Monthly Election Analysis (January • Monthly Election Analysis (January 2014–October 2014) 2014–October 2014) • Strategic Liberty Summit on • Strategic Liberty Summit on Shaping the Policy Debate Shaping the Policy Debate • General Election Survey with Messaging Analysis • General Election Survey with Messaging Analysis • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Support Free Trade Must Support Free Trade • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Rein in Spending Must Rein in Spending OHIO OHIO • Monthly Election Analysis (January • Monthly Election Analysis (January 2014–October 2014) 2014–October 2014) • General Election Survey with Messaging Analysis • General Election Survey with Messaging Analysis • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama Needs to Respect the Constitution Needs to Respect the Constitution • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Support Free Trade Must Support Free Trade • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Rein in Spending Must Rein in Spending OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA • In-State Messaging Meeting II • In-State Messaging Meeting II • In-State Messaging Meeting • In-State Messaging Meeting • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama Needs to Respect the Constitution Needs to Respect the Constitution • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Support Free Trade Must Support Free Trade • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Rein in Spending Must Rein in Spending

PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA • Monthly Election Analysis (January 2014–October 2014) • Monthly Election Analysis (January 2014–October 2014) • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama Needs to Respect the Constitution Needs to Respect the Constitution • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Support Free Trade Must Support Free Trade • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Rein in Spending Must Rein in Spending RHODE ISLAND RHODE ISLAND • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama Needs to Respect the Constitution Needs to Respect the Constitution • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Support Free Trade Must Support Free Trade • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Rein in Spending Must Rein in Spending SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH CAROLINA • In-State Messaging Meeting • In-State Messaging Meeting • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama Needs to Respect the Constitution Needs to Respect the Constitution • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Support Free Trade Must Support Free Trade TENNESSEE TENNESSEE • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama Needs to Respect the Constitution Needs to Respect the Constitution • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Support Free Trade Must Support Free Trade • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Rein in Spending Must Rein in Spending TEXAS TEXAS • In-State Messaging Meeting • In-State Messaging Meeting WASHINGTON WASHINGTON • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama Needs to Respect the Constitution Needs to Respect the Constitution • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Rein in Spending Must Rein in Spending WEST VIRGINIA WEST VIRGINIA • Monthly Election Analysis (January • Monthly Election Analysis (January 2014–October 2014) 2014–October 2014) WISCONSIN WISCONSIN • Monthly Election Analysis (January • Monthly Election Analysis (January 2014–October 2014) 2014–October 2014) • In-State Messaging Meeting II • In-State Messaging Meeting II • General Election Survey with Messaging Analysis • General Election Survey with Messaging Analysis • In-State Messaging Meeting • In-State Messaging Meeting • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama • Liberty Letter to Congress: President Obama Needs to Respect the Constitution Needs to Respect the Constitution • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Support Free Trade Must Support Free Trade • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress • Liberty Letter to Congress: Congress Must Rein in Spending Must Rein in Spending

www.ocpathink.org

How the Frammis Widget Company Saved the Poore Kid This is the story of two school kids, one rich, one poor. Both went to the public school assigned to them based on where they lived. However, not every school is right for every child. One size does not fit all — in shoes, shirts, or schools. The assigned school fit neither the rich kid nor the poor kid. The rich kid (who, by a strange coincidence, was named Ritchie Wellborne) was bright but shy — and got picked on. The poor kid (whose name, by another strange coincidence, was Vera Poore) was even brighter than Ritchie, but she wore threadbare clothes and was also picked on. Finally, Ritchie’s parents had had enough, and stumped up the tuition to a private school called Choice School, where bright students were able to shine and not be picked on. Vera’s parents wanted to do the same — but though they liked the school, they couldn’t afford the tuition. They were, after all, poor. They were the collateral damage of a system in which the Choice School was available only to those who could afford it. Meanwhile, Mr. Wellborne was very happy having his son at Choice School. Its teacher-student ratio was good, bullying was minimized, and teachers had the freedom to teach. But he was a thoughtful man, and though he did

PERSPECTIVE • December 2014

not know the Poores, he wondered about how less-affluent kids could share the same benefits as his son. Then Mrs. Goode, the principal of Choice School, told him about the Opportunity Scholarship Fund (OSF), an organization created to give scholarships to the children of low-income families. She explained that he could help level the playing field and get tax credits by donating to it.

and by the way Mr. Wellborne, you own a business, don’t you?” “I sure do,” said Mr. Wellborne. “My company makes top quality frammis widgets. We ship them all over the world, even to New Jersey.” “Well,” said Mrs. Goode, “your business can contribute up to $200,000 to OSF and get a tax credit of $100,000.” Mr. Wellborne whistled. “I’ve been paying a ton in state income

Are you a taxpayer who would like to be a payer of less tax? Here’s your chance to give a kid a shot at a better life. The tax-savvy Mr. Wellborne listened attentively. “You mean,” he said, “that I could give up to $2,000 to this OSF and get a 50 percent tax credit?” Mrs. Goode nodded. “And if Mrs. Wellborne joins you, you can give $4,000 and get a $2,000 credit. Just be sure that you designate that your donation goes for Choice School’s benefit. That form is right on their website,” she said, helpfully. “Oh,

tax,” he said. “That credit would sure help. And it would help your school, too, Mrs. Goode,” he beamed. Mrs. Goode beamed back. “Does OSF get to keep any of that?” he asked. “They do, Mr. Wellborne, but state law says they can keep no more than 10 percent, to meet operating costs. We get the rest,” she said. And so it came to pass that Mr.

Opportunity Scholarship Fund Awards Its First Scholarship Meet Malik. As a young boy growing up in Dallas, he was interested in astrophysics or anything related to space. He dreamed of going to college. Unfortunately, his family’s transient lifestyle impeded Malik’s academic success. His formal education ended in the 8th grade. At age 17 he found himself in Tulsa with no high-school credits—but the dream to attend college was still there. In God’s providence, Malik saw an ad for Tulsa Hope Academy. Through persistence and hard work (and generous scholarships from donors), Malik was able to complete two years of high school credits in one year. He is on track to do the same again this year. He aims to graduate in May 2015 and then attend college. With talent and interests in music, technology, and business, Malik says his ultimate desire is to “impact the world with my life.” To learn more about Tulsa Hope Academy, visit TulsaHope.org.

Wellborne’s Frammis Widget Company donated $200,000 to OSF, designating Choice School as the beneficiary. On hearing this, Mrs. Goode performed a brief but energetic chicken dance in the school office, alarming the attendance clerk. Meanwhile, gloom and despair pervaded the Poore household. But then Mrs. Goode called Vera’s parents with news that gave them hope. Choice School, she told them, had just signed up with OSF, and it might be able to provide Vera a scholarship. “But Mrs. Goode,” Vera’s parents said, “we’ve never even heard of this Opportunity Scholarship Fund. What is it?” “The Oklahoma legislature authorized the creation of scholarshipgranting organizations — we call them ‘SGOs,’” explained Mrs. Goode. “They exist to give scholarships to

kids like your daughter. There are two SGOs for the Catholic schools: GO for Catholic Schools in Tulsa and the Catholic Schools Opportunity Fund in Oklahoma City. Then there’s OSF for all the other accredited private schools. You had expressed an interest in our school, so I’m calling you to say that OSF might be able to help.” “That would be terrific,” said the Poores excitedly. “We’re certainly interested in your school, but we can’t afford your tuition.” “You may be able to now,” said Mrs. Goode. “A company whose owner has a son in our school has just put some serious scholarship money into OSF for us. Come on down and fill out an application. We’ll send it in to OSF and see what happens.” Vera’s parents raced to the school office and filled out the application. Choice School sent it off to OSF for

review. OSF approved it and sent back a check covering much of the tuition. Vera got in and the Poore household rejoiced. This may be a feel-good story, but it’s not a fairy tale. Are you the head of an accredited private school? Are you a parent who needs help getting your kid into a private school? Are you a taxpayer who would like to be a payer of less tax? Here’s your chance to write a feel-good story that stars you.

Charlie Daniels Charlie Daniels, a former member of the Bartlesville Board of Education, is vice president of the Opportunity Scholarship Fund.

The total amount of donations to all SGOs allowed by state law is $3,500,000. The SGOs aren’t even close to that as of this writing, but if total contributions ever exceed this amount, the Oklahoma Tax Commission will reduce all credits proportionally. Also, applicants for scholarships have to be [1] in a household where the preceding year’s income didn’t exceed 300% of income that qualifies for free or reduced lunch, or [2] eligible to attend an Oklahoma public school identified as being in need of improvement under the No Child Left Behind Act. The amount of the scholarship can’t exceed $5,000 or 80% of the average statewide per-pupil expenditure, whichever is higher. Special-needs students with an IEP can get up to $25,000 for a school that is qualified for special-needs students. For more detailed information, visit OSFkids.org.

www.ocpathink.org

QUOTE UNQUOTE “And so even I have to admit, as a supporter, that Obamacare was built and sold on a foundation of lies.”

Ron Fournier, former Washington bureau chief for the Associated Press

“All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree.” James Madison

“Patients discover they can actually buy their health care cheaper than they can buy their coverage.” Dr. Keith Smith, medical director at the Surgery Center of Oklahoma, explaining why Obamacare patients are coming to his facility and paying cash for medical care

“A recent report revealed that 49 schools within Tulsa Public Schools received an F grade by the state of Oklahoma. Most of those schools are in my legislative district. I am constantly wondering how, with so many different avenues of resources and different ‘plans of action’ by our urban public school districts, we still get the same result! We need to muster the courage to embrace new concepts for educating our kids.”

State Sen. Jabar Shumate (D-Tulsa), writing October 31 in the Chicago Defender. Whether it’s charter schools, special-needs scholarships, or other school-choice measures, he says, “it is time to move beyond talk and take direct action to improve quality educational options for our kids.”

“Every one of the tax-cutting governors won, and the tax-increasing governors lost.” Art Laffer

“For the last several decades, the [public-health] profession has been awash in social-justice ideology. Many of its members view racism, sexism, and economic inequality, rather than individual behavior, as the primary drivers of differential health outcomes in the U.S.” Heather Mac Donald