September 2015
OKLAHOMA COUNCIL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
Oklahoma Is Tough on Crime
But Are We Doing It Right? Page 12
In Case You Missed It The number of Oklahoma Education Association members has declined 20.9 percent over the past five years.
ocpa.us/1foZl6Z
Texas’s governor has appointed a homeschooler to chair the state board of education, and the Left is furious about it.
ocpa.us/1JAK2A8
OCPA distinguished fellow Andrew Spiropoulos says it’s time for Oklahoma state lawmakers “to take a hard look at the laws governing the hiring of outside legal counsel by school districts.”
ocpa.us/1VAET43
OCPA’s Trent England says Chief Justice John Roberts saved Obamacare not only from itself but from the meddling of citizens and state elected officials who believed we live in a nation of laws.
Despite a $611 million “shortfall,” OCPA’s Jonathan Small told The Oklahoman that this year’s state budget is in fact bigger (not smaller) than last year’s.
ocpa.us/1fKfSmp
OCPA and OCPA Impact had considerable success in the 2015 legislative session.
The U.S. Supreme Court forcing people to toe the progressive ideological line isn’t justice, says OCPA distinguished fellow Andrew Spiropoulos.
Writing in The Journal Record, OCPA president Michael Carnuccio discusses Arthur Brooks’s vision to help the most vulnerable among us.
In the Tulsa World, OCPA’s Jonathan Small says taxes on people’s income are more likely to suppress economic growth than taxes on what people buy.
ocpa.us/1gQknfY
ocpa.us/1OzZ6SX
ocpa.us/1Dyt8jx
ocpa.us/1OouTp7
ocpa.us/1CX6yGi
PERSPECTIVE OCPA Staff
OCPA Trustees
Brandon Dutcher ...........................................Editor
Blake Arnold • Oklahoma City
David McLaughlin • Enid
Glenn Ashmore • Oklahoma City
Lew Meibergen • Enid
Robert D. Avery • Pawhuska
Ronald L. Mercer • Bethany
Alex Jones .............................................Art Director
OCPA Researchers
Lee J. Baxter • Lawton
Lloyd Noble II • Tulsa
Sarah Andrews .......................Content Marketing Specialist
Steve W. Beebe • Duncan
Mike O’Neal • Edmond
Michael Carnuccio ...................................................President
John A. Brock • Tulsa
Bill Price • Oklahoma City
Brandon Dutcher .................................Senior Vice President
David R. Brown, M.D. • Oklahoma City
Patrick T. Rooney • Oklahoma City
Trent England ..........Vice President for Strategic Initiatives
Paul A. Cox • Oklahoma City
Melissa Sandefer • Norman
Dacia Harris .........................Development Projects Manager
William Flanagan • Claremore
Thomas Schroedter • Tulsa
Rachel Hays .........................................Development Director
Josephine Freede • Oklahoma City
Richard L. Sias • Oklahoma City
Ann Felton Gilliland • Oklahoma City
Greg Slavonic • Oklahoma City
John T. Hanes • Oklahoma City
Charles M. Sublett • Tulsa
Ralph Harvey • Oklahoma City
Robert Sullivan • Tulsa
John A. Henry III • Oklahoma City
Lew Ward • Enid
Henry F. Kane • Bartlesville
William E. Warnock, Jr. • Tulsa
Alex Jones ......................................Communications Director Trey Malone ....................................... Research Assistant Renae Page ................................................Executive Assistant Jonathan Small ................................Executive Vice President Hannah Wallis ............................Communications Associate
Robert Kane • Tulsa
Dana Weber • Tulsa
Kenny Yoder ................................... Operations Associate
Gene Love • Lawton
Daryl Woodard • Tulsa
Teresa Yoder ........................................Director of Operations
Tom H. McCasland III • Duncan
Daniel J. Zaloudek • Tulsa
Steven J. Anderson, MBA, CPA Research Fellow Tina Dzurisin Research Associate Trent England, J.D. Dr. David and Ann Brown Distinguished Fellow for the Advancement of Liberty Adam Luck, MPP Research Fellow Jayson Lusk, Ph.D. 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.
Larry Arnn
John Bolton
William F. Buckley
George W. Bush
Arthur Brooks
Jeb Bush
Dinesh D’Souza
President of the American Enterprise Institute Author of the new book The Conservative Heart: How to Build a Fairer, Happier, and More Prosperous America
October 21 • Tulsa Mitch Daniels
Artur Davis
For more information, contact Rachel Hays at 405.602.1667 or rachel@ocpathink.org
Jim DeMint
J. Rufus Fears
Mike Huckabee
Brit Hume
Laura Ingraham Frank Keating Jeane Kirkpatrick
Rich Lowry
Ed Meese
Russell Moore Stephen Moore Peggy Noonan Marvin Olasky
Star Parker
Michael Reagan
Clarence Thomas
Steve Forbes
Paul Ryan
Scott Walker Malcolm Wallop
Tommy Franks
John Fund
Newt Gingrich David Horowitz
Charles Krauthammer
Art Laffer
Sarah Palin
Joe Sobran
Thomas Stafford
John Stossel
Cal Thomas
John Walton
J.C.Watts
Allen West
Walter Williams
Past OCPA speakers are pictured above.
Constitution expert Trent England on the pros and cons of an Article V convention Holding a national convention to propose constitutional amendments is either the only solution to rebalance our political system or a sure path to its final destruction. At least, those are the two points of view most commonly heard in the current debate over using “Article V”—really just one clause therein—in an attempt to change the U.S. Constitution. What do people mean when they say “Article V”? In the current debate, “Article V” has become shorthand for just 22 of the 143 words in that constitutional provision. Here is Article V in full: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner
4
PERSPECTIVE • September 2015
affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. Today, the focus is on state legislatures forcing Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments. In other words, many people talking about “Article V” mean just this: “The Congress, ... on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments....” Has there ever been a convention for proposing constitutional amendments? No. All 27 of the amendments to the Constitution were originally proposed by Congress. While there have been countless attempts within one or more states to call an amendments convention, there has never actually been such a convention. Why call a convention? Those who want to change the Constitution have many, and sometimes conflicting, arguments and objectives. On the political left, “Move to Amend” is a grassroots campaign that wants to eliminate constitutional protections that limit government regulation of political activities. On the right are efforts to achieve several
different versions of a balanced budget amendment, to either define marriage in the Constitution or require that the issue be left to the states, and simply to consider any proposal that might restrain federal power. This latter effort, led by a group called “Convention of States,” has the support of conservative leaders like radio host Mark Levin, libertarian law professor Randy Barnett, and Oklahoma’s former U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn. They argue their plan is “the only constitutionally effective means available to do what is essential for our nation—restoring a robust federalism with genuine checks on the power of the federal
government.” Another effort, the “Compact for America,” offers something like a hybrid plan. They would change the constitution through the convention process, but have state legislatures use an interstate compact. Such a contract among the states, common in other areas of law, could define the procedures and limit the power of a convention. The Compact effort is designed to satisfy some of the concerns of convention critics. Why not? The arguments made against calling a convention to propose constitutional amendments fall along two lines. Some are arguments
While there have been countless attempts within one or more states to call an amendments convention, there has never actually been such a convention.
against constitutional change generally, while others focus on the convention method in particular. James Madison warned in Federalist No. 49 that frequent tinkering with the Constitution could rob our system of “that veneration which time bestows on everything, and without which perhaps the wisest and freest governments would not possess the requisite stability.” In other words, if the problem today is that Americans are losing respect for the Constitution, changing the Constitution might only make things worse. And if the problem is not really the text of the Constitution, but that politicians and judges simply ignore the text and get away with it, is changing or adding to the text really a solution? Madison also warned that ordinary politics would always tend to simply spill over into conversations about constitutional change, particularly in a convention. That concern today often focuses on how the convention process might be manipulated by Congress or the courts. It is Congress, after all, that would call the convention. Once set in motion, disputes would be inevitable in the untried, high-stakes process. These would likely wind up being decided by federal judges. Where do things stand today? Article V says Congress shall call a convention after receiving applications from two-thirds of the states. These applications— passed by legislatures as joint
resolutions—likely have to match up. To date, some states have applied for a convention only to consider a specific version of an amendment, while others have applied for a convention on a particular topic. Some states have previously called for a convention and later rescinded that call. Last year, Louisiana became the 22nd state (by its own count) to call for a convention to consider proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The other efforts mentioned above (in answer to question 3) each have only a few states so far, but are actively campaigning in hopes of eventually gaining the 34 states necessary to force Congress to call a convention.
Trent England Trent England (J.D., George Mason University) is vice president for strategic initiatives at OCPA, where he also serves as the David and Ann Brown Distinguished Fellow for the Advancement of Liberty. A former legal policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, England has contributed to two books, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution and 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. He can be heard weekday mornings from 7 to 10 on AM 1640 The Eagle or at ocpa.us/MGradio.
www.ocpathink.org
5
Expand and Improve Higher-Ed Vouchers in Oklahoma One of the great ironies of the school choice debate is that the United States has long been a world leader in school vouchers—for higher education. In fact, soaring tuition costs and outrageous bloat in higher education are not so much a result of government monopoly as they are a result of flaws in our collegiate school choice programs. Choice is growing rapidly at the K-12 level, with more than 350,000 students attending private schools through 58 choice programs in 28 states. But school choice has been our dominant model in higher education for much longer. Starting with the G.I. Bill, for more than half a century we have provided a vast system of school vouchers for college. We don’t normally call these programs “school vouchers.” But it’s a government subsidy that goes to the student for purchasing education rather than directly to the school. The student selects what school fits his or her needs; the money follows the student to the school of his or her choice. That’s a school voucher. This voucher system has been one of the greatest educational success stories of all time. In 1950, only 8 percent of the U.S. population had a bachelor’s degree; today, 34 percent do. In fact, college education is now financially available to essentially every student who is qualified to attend college. The number of high school graduates each year who have the academic qualifications to attend college (such as meeting transcript requirements) and the number of people who enroll in college for the first time each year are almost identical. We can take pride that
6
PERSPECTIVE • September 2015
we have eliminated financial barriers to college for all who are academically qualified. Granted, the desire to get people into college has become something of an idol. As a result, we have some people going to college who don’t need to. But nobody is proposing we go back to 8 percent. We were wasting a lot of human potential in 1950 by leaving college-qualified students without financial access. This is a much better country because we now deliver higher education to everyone who is able to benefit from it. It has also been a success story for America’s democratic and republican values. In 1950, every competitive college in America was a bastion of wealthy white Protestant privilege. People got into college because of who they were, not because of their academic records. In a generation, as a direct result of college vouchers, that whole system was dismantled. The effects have been reverberating throughout our society ever since. (Civil rights laws were critical, too, of course—but they wouldn’t have meant much if racial and religious minorities hadn’t had financial access.) Of course, there are still a few people today who can get into college without deserving it because of their privileged positions, as the recent scandals at the University of Texas show. But at least these days it’s a scandal. In 1950, no one raised an eyebrow when a senator’s stupid son flunked all his exams and still attended college. That’s what college was for. We may complain about students
who go to college without wanting a genuine liberal arts education. But there was even more of that in 1950 than there is today. People who went to college because they were born into a privileged, college-entitled social class weren’t really any more interested in philosophy or poetry or psychology or physics than students who go to college today because they need the credential to get a white-collar job. We may complain about grade inflation, and rightly so. But at least it isn’t based on a wicked system of racial, religious, and economic privilege. Google the phrase “Gentleman’s C” if you think grade inflation is a new problem. But there is still a lot of room for improvement. A huge portion of higher-education finances are run on the government monopoly model rather than on the school choice model. More importantly, our choice programs have a fatal flaw that needs fixing. Public colleges get 45 percent of their revenue from appropriations and grants—almost $150 billion per year— compared with only 21 percent from tuition and fees. That funding could be voucherized to bring us greater benefits from expanded school choice. Let the funding follow the student and let schools compete for students. There’s no justification for giving a special advantage to governmentowned schools over private schools. In fact, there’s a lot of harm in doing so. State legislatures have been widely colonized by a higher education “blob,” similar to the one that runs K-12 schools. This blob is just as nasty as
the K-12 blob, as you can find out by proposing any policy that cuts into their gravy train. But the real problem is not so much extending school choice as fixing it. The way we fund higher education needs to be reformed to align incentives properly. Right now, the way college vouchers are designed creates enormous payoffs for inefficient behavior. You may have noticed that college tuition is soaring. The reason is simple: colleges are jacking up prices in order to capture available subsidies. Every time we increase college tuition subsidies, they can jack up tuition to capture
faster than on education for years. And as they compete for students, the quality of education is becoming less important than the comfort and frills they can offer to students—better food, bigger gyms, etc. And don’t forget about mom; they want her to see lots of campus police cars driving around when she visits. We need a revolution in higher education vouchers similar to the revolution that is now hitting K-12 vouchers in the form of education savings accounts (ESAs). For years, K-12 voucher programs have created a miniature and far less severe version of college tuition creep in places like
Rick Perry’s idea to require state colleges to provide a bachelor’s degree program that costs no more than $10,000 is another promising approach. This idea could be voucherized—make state funding available to students at any school, public or private, that offers such a degree. In the long run, though, there’s no substitute for fiscal discipline. States have to start saying “no” to demands for more and more subsidies. As long as every tuition hike is followed by a subsidy hike, every subsidy hike will be followed by another tuition hike. The fact that we run higher education
The United States has long been a world leader in school vouchers—for higher education. Now we need a revolution in higher education vouchers similar to the revolution that is hitting K-12 vouchers in the form of education savings accounts (ESAs). that additional subsidy. And of course those higher tuition prices create voter demand for—you guessed it—bigger subsidies. And so on, forever and ever. Colleges aren’t stupid. They’re going to raise prices until the market clears, just like any other business. Nonprofit businesses do this just as much as for-profit businesses, as you may have noticed the last time you walked into a nonprofit hospital and demanded free medicine. When they sell goods and services, nonprofits participate in the marketplace price mechanism on exactly the same terms as for-profits. The expectation that their behavior will differ in this regard is a politically convenient myth, one that is mostly propagated by the nonprofits themselves and their cronies. Where does the money go? It goes to administrative bloat and fancy frills for students that have nothing to do with education. Colleges have been ramping up spending on “administration” much
Milwaukee. Private schools raise tuition until it covers the full amount of the school voucher, leading to bloat. Instead of paying for tuition up to a certain dollar amount, ESAs give parents a savings account that they can only use to buy education services. This forces private schools to compete on price as well as on quality, cutting off the subsidy for bloat. We don’t have the same problem at the college level as we do with K-12 vouchers. College education vouchers don’t reimburse for tuition up to a set amount, creating an incentive to raise tuition to that amount. Instead, the problem is that we have an established track record of responding to every tuition hike with a subsidy hike. The solution is to incentivize alternatives that cut right around the existing system. Digital learning is one way to do that—states can recognize cost-efficient digital alternatives to residential education. Texas governor
on a voucher system is one of America’s best-kept secrets. The only thing the colleges are even more eager to cover up is the fact that they’re gaming this system to line their own pockets. Not even a school choice program can make people stop responding to incentives. That’s all the more reason to make sure the programs are well designed.
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 peerreviewed academic journals as well as in popular publications such as the Washington Post and the Chronicle of Higher Education.
www.ocpathink.org
7
OCPA Impact Grades Lawmakers By Dave Bond
As the CEO of OCPA Impact, I am pleased to share with you our scorecard for Oklahoma’s 2015 legislative session. OCPA Impact is a 501(c)(4) advocacy organization. We work daily at the Oklahoma state Capitol while the Legislature is in session as the action partner of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, Oklahoma’s free-market think tank. OCPA Impact has attempted to compile this scorecard from the vantage point of a growth-minded Oklahoma taxpayer. The scorecard focuses on how Oklahoma state legislators voted during the 2015 legislative session on key bills related to issues of economic freedom, free enterprise, individual
opportunity, limited state government, and federalism. Over the course of the 2015 legislative session, we notified legislators when bills were added to the watch list for potential use on this scorecard. We tracked and scored committee and floor votes on the bills included. This scorecard is one of our efforts to help Oklahoma become the best state for working families, taxpayers, and entrepreneurs and to keep our state’s economy growing. If these are the goals you want prioritized at the Oklahoma state Capitol, please tell your friends about OCPA Impact.
Dave Bond is CEO of OCPA Impact, a nonpartisan 501 (c)(4) organization working to put free-market, limited-government ideas into action. He previously served as director of government relations at OCPA. Prior to joining OCPA, he served as director of the Republican State House Committee and worked at the Oklahoma House of Representatives in media and communications.
Grades by Senator Allen, Mark (R) Anderson, Patrick (R) Barrington, Don (R) Bass, Randy (D) Bice, Stephanie (R) Bingman, Brian (R) Boggs, Larry (R) Brecheen, Josh (R) Brinkley, Rick (R) Brooks, Corey (R) Brown, Bill (R) Crain, Brian (R) Dahm, Nathan (R) David, Kim (R) Fields, Eddie (R) Floyd, Kay (D) Ford, John (R) Fry, Jack (R) Garrison, Earl (D) Griffin, A.J. (R) Halligan, Jim (R) Holt, David (R) Jech, Darcy (R) Jolley, Clark (R)
89.2 86.1 71.6 57.7 94.6 84.9 77.1 96.9 85.8 88.5 93.1 79.5 91.8 90.3 87.5 50.5 91.5 75.6 56.5 89.6 72.7 85.2 85.8 91.7
B B C F A B C A B B A C A A B F A C F B C B B A
Justice, Ron (R) Loveless, Kyle (R) Marlatt, Bryce (R) Matthews, Kevin (D) Mazzei, Mike (R) Newberry, Dan (R) Paddack, Susan (D) Pittman, Anastasia (D) Quinn, Marty (R) Schulz, Mike (R) Sharp, Ron (R) Shaw, Wayne (R) Shortey, Ralph (R) Silk, Joseph (R) Simpson, Frank (R) Smalley, Jason (R) Sparks, John (D) Standridge, Rob (R) Stanislawski, Gary (R) Sykes, Anthony (R) Thompson, Roger (R) Treat, Greg (R) Wyrick, Charles (D) Yen, Ervin (R)
*Served first half of 2015 session in Oklahoma House of Representatives, second half in Oklahoma Senate
8
PERSPECTIVE • September 2015
87.1 89.7 85.0 60.0* 76.6 80.9 50.0 60.8 90.4 87.7 73.6 71.3 77.9 93.2 90.2 80.0 58.7 90.3 93.8 87.1 76.8 96.7 45.3 89.0
B B B D C B F D A B C C C A A B F A A B C A F B
www.ocpaimpact.com
To read the bill summaries and see how lawmakers voted on each bill, go to:
ocpa.us/2015scorecard Grades by Representative Banz, Gary W. (R)
85.3
Bennett, John (R)
84.1
Biggs, Scott R. (R)
96.4
Billy, Lisa J. (R)
77.7
Brown, Mike (D) Brumbaugh, David (R)
24.1 100.0
Caldwell, Chad (R)
95.8
Calvey, Kevin (R)
97.8
Cannaday, Ed (D)
39.7
Casey, Dennis (R)
78.2
Christian, Mike (R)
68.9
Cleveland, Bobby (R)
87.3
Cockroft, Josh (R)
96.1
Condit, Donnie (D)
34.2
Coody, Ann (R)
78.9
Coody, Jeff (R)
90.3
Cooksey, Marian (R)
80.7
Cox, Doug (R)
73.8
Dank, David (Deceased) (R) n/a Denney, Lee (R)
85.4
Derby, David (R)
96.1
Dunlap, Travis (R)
92.8
Dunnington, Jason (D)
31.2
Echols, Jon (R)
93.8
Enns, John (R)
87.0
Faught, George (R)
93.5
Fisher, Dan (R)
89.5
Fourkiller, William (D)
36.6
Grau, Randy (R)
94.9
Griffith, Claudia (D)
36.5
Hall, Elise (R)
96.4
Hardin, Tommy (R)
70.8
Henke, Katie (R)
82.0
Hickman, Jeffrey W. (R)
86.7
B B A C F A A A F C D B A F C A B C N/A B A A F A B A B F A F A C B B
Hoskin, Chuck (D)
38.2
Inman, Scott (D)
27.8
Johnson, Dennis (R)
90.3
Jordan, John Paul (R)
91.9
Joyner, Charlie (R)
65.6
Kannady, Chris (R)
85.3
Kern, Sally (R)
89.9
Kirby, Dan (R)
80.0
Kouplen, Steve (D)
53.6
Leewright, James (R)
87.0
Lepak, Mark (R)
82.1
Lockhart, James (D)
36.2
Loring, Ben (D)
42.9
Martin, Scott (R) Matthews, Kevin (D)
86.1 60.0*
McBride, Mark (R)
88.4
McCall, Charles A. (R)
85.2
McCullough, Mark (R)
87.4
McDaniel, Jeannie (D)
27.8
McDaniel, Randy (R)
88.4
McPeak, Jerry (D)
30.4
Montgomery, John (R)
89.9
Moore, Lewis H. (R)
92.2
Morrissette, Richard (D)
39.5
Mulready, Glen (R)
90.6
Murdock, Casey (R)
71.9
Murphey, Jason (R)
89.6
Nelson, Jason (R)
87.7
Newell, Tom (R)
98.9
Nollan, Jadine (R)
78.5
O’Donnell, Terry (R)
91.2
Ortega, Charles (R)
91.7
Osborn, Leslie (R)
87.8
Ownbey, Pat (R)
88.2
F F A A D B B B F B B F F B D B B B F B F B A F A C B B A C A A B B
Park, Scooter (R)
87.5
Perryman, David L. (D)
50.3
Peterson, Pam (R)
82.4
Pfeiffer, John (R)
84.6
Proctor, Eric (D)
31.7
Pruett, R. C. (D)
52.4
Renegar, Brian (D)
37.7
Ritze, Mike (R)
88.6
Roberts, Dustin (R)
79.6
Roberts, Sean (R)
94.9
Rogers, Michael (R)
96.8
Rousselot, Wade (D)
51.4
Russ, Todd (R)
88.4
Sanders, Mike (R)
100.0
Scott, Seneca (D)
45.5
Sears, Earl (R)
88.2
Shelton, Mike (D)
10.6
Sherrer, Ben (D)
37.8
Shoemake, Jerry (D)
41.9
Stone, Shane (D)
44.7
Strohm, Chuck (R)
94.6
Tadlock, Johnny (D)
54.0
Thomsen, Todd (R)
68.9
Vaughan, Steve (R)
100.0
Virgin, Emily (D)
25.4
Walker, Ken (R)
87.3
Wallace, Kevin (R)
83.3
Watson, Weldon (R)
85.7
Wesselhoft, Paul (R)
85.0
Williams, Cory T. (D)
17.7
Wood, Justin F. (R)
70.8
Wright, Harold (R)
80.6
Young, George (D)
26.6
B F B B F F F B C A A F B A F B F F F F A F D A F B B B B F C B F
*Served first half of 2015 session in Oklahoma House of Representatives, second half in Oklahoma Senate
www.ocpathink.org
9
Win-Win Solutions for Oklahoma Farmers and Needy Children This article is the third in a multi-part series on “Reviving Rural Oklahoma.” —Editor
In the previous article in this series, which appeared in these pages in July, I discussed the untapped potential in Oklahoma high-value crops. But agricultural producers will only take the plunge into high-value crops if they know they can depend upon a local consumer base and a stable marketplace. Fortunately, the means to provide the initial support for high-value crops already exists in programs controlled by state policymakers. There’s no need for the expenditure of any additional tax dollars. Oklahoma taxpayers are already sending nearly $100 million to programs which could more efficiently be serviced by in-state producers and processors— with both a savings to those programs and an improvement in the service to the beneficiaries. These programs have the same defects as many federal “help” programs: they are largely disjointed and poorly coordinated. But if properly operated, they can provide a “risk premium” for farmers to invest in high-value crops.
10
PERSPECTIVE • September 2015
Fresh produce (and, to a lesser degree, frozen produce) has its price discounted to reflect distance to the consumer for both transportation and damage issues in transportation. If Oklahoma state government agencies can help provide a ready and stable marketplace within the state, the net effect for Oklahoma growers is a price increase for their goods. The state receives federal funds from multiple sources which are perfect for the process of providing support for Oklahoma’s farmers but which are being used ineffectively or not at all. Farm to School The most obvious is the USDA’s “Farm to School” grant program. Its stated purpose is to assist eligible entities in implementing farm-to-school programs that improve access to local foods in public schools. Up to $5 million per year is available for implementing the program. According to the USDA, “support service grants are intended for state and local agencies, Indian tribal organizations, agricultural producers or groups of agricultural producers, and non-profit entities working with schools or school districts to further develop and provide broad-reaching support services to farm to school initiatives.” How much opportunity exists in Oklahoma? Consider: Though 28 percent of Oklahoma school districts say they are participating in the program, only $4.5 million of the $40 million in school lunches served in 2011-2012 consisted of local produce. The Oklahoma harvest season is not concurrent with the school year in general, though the movement to year-round school and those districts going to summer meal programs may start to eliminate that issue as an impediment to buying local fresh produce. This is an issue easily solved by a more proactive approach by the Oklahoma State Department of Education. Coordination between districts and farmers/processors would be more efficiently done with the help of the OSDE while still allowing districts to have their own stand-alone programs in regards to what they buy and serve. In fact, the program provides special funding for just that approach. According to USDA, “state agencies can use their State Administrative Expense (SAE) funds, both as initially allocated and when reallocated, and State Administrative
Reviving Rural Oklahoma Funds (SAF) for state-level coordination of farm to school activities. This guidance applies to the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, Special Milk Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, and Food Distribution Programs that provide USDA Foods to applicable programs.” Moreover, grants can be used to acquire freezer technology which would extend the use of Oklahoma-grown produce throughout the school year. The Oklahoma Department of Corrections (ODOC) is a seemingly unlikely source to turn to for an example of the use of natural-gas-powered flash freezers. ODOC started a program in its northwest Oklahoma prison farm that both provides solutions and highlights problems for the schools. While the program was extremely successful in producing and processing high-quality fruits and vegetables grown on the prison farm, ODOC discovered that the cost of shipping the produce across the state to the various prison sites was not cost-effective. Fortunately, this issue had already been considered by the USDA and a solution exists that can bring even more resources to bear for local producers and end users. The USDA cooperates with the Department of Defense (DoD) in a program called “DoD Fresh.” According to USDA, DoD Fresh provides “easy ordering and funds tracking: Schools place orders via the web-based Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Order/Receipt System (FFAVORS). The prices listed in the FFAVORS catalog reflect the prices that schools will be billed for the product. FFAVORS tracks schools’ entitlement fund balances and total order costs. DoD manages vendor payment and reconciliation. States can change DoD Fresh allocations on a monthly basis, which allows them to utilize USDA Foods entitlement dollars more effectively. USDA does not impose a cap on the amount of entitlement dollars that a state can allocate to DoD purchases.” Use EITC to Feed Children There are other opportunities within existing federal programs that are managed at the state level. For example, there is an opportunity for one of those rare win-win outcomes for needy Oklahoma children and the Oklahoma farm community. In fiscal year (FY) 2013, approximately $41 million in Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) payments were partially used as a “maintenance of effort” (MOE) obligation for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. TANF is similar to food stamp programs but has a lower income requirement and also a housing and clothing allowance. Many states which could not expend the available TANF funds began using the EITC to send more support to these low-income individuals and families. As a tax preparer, I was aware of the Congressional Research Service study which reported that the “IRS estimates that in FY 2013, 22 percent to 26 percent of EITC payments—
between $13.3 billion and $15.6 billion—were issued improperly.” Much of this “improperly” issued funding was outright fraud. Taxpayers and children are the victims of a program with little oversight that simply provides a lump sum—estimates were $4,053 per instance of fraud—of cash to individuals and families with absolutely no control of how recipients spent that money. Even when the filing for EITC was legitimate, the use of those funds to provide for its intended use is questionable. Why not convert a large part of this fraud-ridden program back to TANF and ensure that those children are provided a proper diet while at the same time benefiting Oklahoma’s farm community? Oklahoma Department of Human Services (DHS) case workers are already underpaid and overworked—but in this funding stream there is also assistance for them. I haven’t yet been able to verify from DHS what percentage of EITC was TANF maintenance of effort and what percentage was variable funding with a more open-ended use, but my experience in government finance suggests to me that the MOE will be somewhere around two-thirds of the $41 million. However, even if the total EITC funding was TANF funds, the flexibility in those funds would allow DHS to task and remunerate those case workers for delivery of vouchers to purchase Oklahoma-produced meat, milk, and fresh or frozen fruits and vegetables—as well as educate the clients on preparing the products. The opportunity for fraud with vouchers that can only be used to purchase Oklahoma food products is limited, and the probability of these funds actually feeding needy citizens goes up dramatically. In fact, one could go a step further and allow individuals and their families to exchange those vouchers for meals provided by local food banks, churches, or school districts which provide dinner and/or summer meals using Oklahoma-produced meat, vegetables, and fruits. All the ideas discussed in this article are within state officials’ control. While policymakers cannot remove the risk of Oklahoma’s weather, the state can provide a more stable market that also provides a higher return to the state’s farmers by having the state’s elected officials and agencies act in concert for the benefit of all Oklahomans.
Steve Anderson Steve Anderson (MBA, University of Central Oklahoma) is an OCPA research fellow. A Certified Public Accountant with more than 30 years of experience in private practice, he is currently a partner at Anderson, Reichert & Anderson LLC. Anderson spent two years as a budget analyst in the Oklahoma Office of State Finance, and most recently served as budget director for the State of Kansas. At one time he held 17 state teaching certifications, ranging from mathematics to physics to business.
www.ocpathink.org
11
Oklahoma Is Tough on Crime But Are We Doing It Right? Oklahoma is tough on crime. We are tough on crime for good reason—to keep our communities safe. We administer sentences to criminals commensurate to their crime and we are not afraid to dedicate significant state resources towards public safety. Oklahoma, like much of the United States, entered the tough-on-crime phase in the late eighties in response to the crime wave sweeping the nation. A specific solution was adopted by much of the United States for a specific problem. The best solution we had at the time was incarceration. Nearly 30 years have passed and much of our criminal justice system remains the same. There is a time when reflection is a necessity; when assessment and analysis must inform policy much as it did three decades ago. The time has come to ask ourselves, “Are we doing it right?” Answering this question first requires understanding the cost of current policies and the outcomes we have achieved. The Department of Corrections budget is the fourth-largest budget item in the state and one of only a handful of agencies that did not receive a 5 percent cut, but instead increased by $15 million for a total of
12
PERSPECTIVE • September 2015
$485.9 million for the coming fiscal year. This represents growth of more than 170 percent in corrections-related costs since 1994, according to the Urban Institute. These costs will continue to grow. Admissions of new inmates are increasing while our release rate remains stagnant as a result of longer sentences, which leads to a growing inmate population. Additionally, the percentage of our inmates over the age of 50 has increased 26 percent since 2005—a statistic of particular consequence considering the state is responsible for all healthcare costs of this aging population. As costs continue to grow, the Department of Corrections (DOC) is forced to choose between priorities. Our correctional facilities are filled to 116 percent capacity and staffed at 67 percent. Oklahoma ranks last in the nation for prison-staffto-inmate ratios, with one staff per 11.7 inmates, more than double the national average of one staff per 5.5 inmates. Further illustrating this disparity, since 2003 the prison population in Oklahoma has grown by 13 percent while our correctional staff has dropped by 19 percent. The continually strained DOC budget results in longer hours and lower pay for staff, which contributes to a growing
Perry In 2007, Texas Governor Rick Perry signed legislation that has saved the state more than $3 billion and has closed three state prisons and eight juvenile facilities. The crime rate in 2013 was the lowest Texas had seen since 1968.
Fallin
Governor Perry: Christopher Halloran / Shutterstock.com
Governor Fallin: Jay Chilton / MiddleGround News
Oklahoma has taken important steps towards criminal justice reform, and Governor Mary Fallin continues to signal reform as a top priority.
attrition rate and shrinking retention rate among these state employees. Cost is not the only factor suggesting we should reserve our most expensive correctional tool, incarceration, for those who need it most. We now have a better understanding of how to achieve public safety outcomes through alternatives that better address root causes of criminal behavior. Programming that addresses an offender’s mental health or substance abuse needs will serve our communities better by rehabilitating those that offer the best chance of becoming contributing members of our society, rather than sending them to prison where they will require more state resources and have a greater chance of returning to criminal behavior. More than half of Oklahoma’s prison population consists of nonviolent offenders. Additionally, 27.4 percent of the prison population has been incarcerated for a drug-related offense. These numbers point to a growing
subset of our prison population where significant gains can be made in saving state resources and making our communities safer. At its core, being tough on crime means demanding the most effective solution to prevent and reduce crime. Tough on crime does not mean holding on to a particular tradition of punishment. In fact, it means quite the opposite; it means that we are willing to change and adapt policy when faced with facts that current policy does represent the best option to keep our communities safe and is not the most effective use of our resources. For an example of what is possible, we can look to one of the many other states that have faced this challenge and made significant progress. In 2005, the state of Texas faced a projected growth of 15,000 new inmates in less than five years. The legislature and stakeholders within the state recognized that the correctional system was not achieving the outcomes they desired—especially
not for the money they were paying. In 2007 a legislative package was passed and signed by Governor Rick Perry that included targeted sentencing reforms and developed alternatives to incarceration programs. The state has since realized more than $3 billion in savings, closed three state prisons and eight juvenile facilities, and achieved the outcomes of a well-functioning correctional system. The crime rate in 2013 was the lowest Texas had seen since 1968. Recidivism rates for offenders released from state prison has dropped 6.5 percent and parole revocation rates have dropped from 14.5 percent in 2004 to 6.5 percent in 2014. Oklahoma has already taken important steps towards making these changes. The Justice Reinvestment Process marked the beginning of our work in this area. Since then, the legislature has passed several measures aimed at reducing the cost to the state
continued on page 14 >>
Being tough on crime means being willing to ask whether or not we are doing it right—and changing course if the facts suggest that a change is necessary. Many states have demonstrated that specific, targeted reforms in sentencing, alternative programming, and reentry are the keys to success.
and achieving better outcomes. Yet we have not seen the legislative reforms needed to achieve the gains made in states like Texas. Many signs point to the 2016 legislative session as the best opportunity to make these changes. Both Senate President Pro Tempore Brian Bingman and Speaker of the House Jeff Hickman, who have been supportive of reform, will serve their final session in their leadership roles in 2016. It is unclear at this point who will be replacing them in these influential roles, much less whether or not they will be supportive of reform. Additionally, Governor Mary Fallin continues to signal criminal justice reform as a top priority. The subcommittees on criminal justice reform created earlier this year will continue meeting throughout the year leading into the session. Gov. Fallin also recently issued a memorandum directing the Board of Corrections to amend state policy to allow offenders convicted of “85 percent crimes” (crimes that require the offender to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence before having an opportunity for parole) to accrue early release credits during their sentence. A bill with similar intent failed to pass both houses in the previous two legislative sessions. Taking executive action on this policy once again demonstrated the governor’s intent to make significant progress in criminal justice reforms. So, if being tough on crime means being willing to ask whether or not we are doing it right and acting if the facts that suggest a change is necessary, what should we do differently? Many states have demonstrated that
14
PERSPECTIVE • September 2015
specific, targeted reforms in sentencing, alternative programming, and reentry are the keys to success. We should consider amending our drug sentences to reflect the nature of the crime. We currently imprison people for more drug-related crimes, with lower weight thresholds, and for longer periods of time, than most other states. We must recognize that a prison bed, costing the state $18,476 per year, may not be the best solution for someone turning to crime to support a drug habit. We should be certain that these individuals could not be better served in a drug court, which costs the state $5,000 per year and often leads to lower recidivism rates. Stemming the flow of nonviolent drug offenders into Oklahoma’s prison system through sentencing reform and investing in alternative programming will go a long way in addressing our growing prison population. Reforms targeting reentry should also be considered as a way to ensure those individuals released from state custody are prepared to become contributing, tax-paying members of society. Post-release supervision is a critical component for individuals being released from prison. Currently, more than 50 percent of the 8,000 inmates released from state custody every year in Oklahoma return to the community without any form of supervision. We must do more to provide a reentry accountability structure at the most critical time during the reintegration process. The most significant roadblocks to reentry are employment, housing, and transportation. Releasing an individual from prison without any tangible skill
and with no employment prospects almost guarantees a return to crime. State employers can do more to offer opportunities to those caught up in the wide net of Oklahoma’s criminal justice system, and employers should be protected from liability when they do hire individuals with criminal records. The ability to obtain a driver’s license is critical for a successful reentry. Statutes should be amended to reflect that many crimes have nothing to do with operating a motor vehicle and therefore should not restrict an individual’s ability to obtain a license upon serving their debt to society. In addition to these reforms, we must commit to taking a closer look at the criminal justice system in the months ahead, leading up to the legislative session. Being tough on crime is not just a saying or a way of thinking; it is a commitment we as Oklahomans have made to each other to keep our communities safe, demand the best solution and outcomes from our government, and change when necessary. It is time to ask ourselves if we are doing it right in Oklahoma—and if we cannot say yes, we must act.
Adam Luck OCPA research fellow Adam Luck is the Oklahoma state director for Right on Crime, an initiative of the Texas Public Policy Foundation developed to help advance conservative principles in criminal justice reform. An Oklahoma native, Luck is an Air Force veteran and a graduate of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
1
2
@OCPAthink 1. U.S. Senator James Lankford (right) discusses education policy with OCPA’s Brandon Dutcher on July 20 in Oklahoma City. In a recent speech on the Senate floor, Sen. Lankford lauded a proposal which “would have allowed parents to choose their school regardless of whether it is public or private. Education union leaders had kittens about that, saying that the public schools are getting better so we don’t want to take funds away from the public schools. We want to keep all those funds in the public schools, but the parents are saying, ‘I understand that school is getting better someday, but my child is there right now.’ While certain leaders in schools will say we can’t have federal funds move to follow the child, I would say, would you allow the parent to help that child have the one shot that they’re going to get to get education and allow them to choose wherever they want to go?” 2. The finishing touches are being put on the 6,500-square-foot Advance Center for Free Enterprise, adjacent to OCPA. 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.
3
3. 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. 4. OCPA’s Brandon Dutcher (left) was a featured panelist at an education reformers’ conference June 30 in Chicago sponsored by the American Federation for Children.
4 www.ocpathink.org
15
QUOTE UNQUOTE “What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative? For some reason, we have allowed the malcontent to assume moral prestige. We praise as ‘ideals’ what are nothing more than fantasies --- a world of perpetual peace, brotherhood, justice, or any other will-o’-the-wisp that has lured men toward the Gulag.”
“It has been more than 50 years since George Wallace stood in an Alabama school-house door and sought to deprive minority students access to a decent education. Fast forward five decades and Arne Duncan and the Democratic Party are only lacking the state troopers and the dogs.”
Joseph Sobran
Ronda Ross of San Jose, Calif., in a letter to the editor published in The Wall Street Journal, commenting on Secretary of Education (and private-school-choice opponent) Arne Duncan’s decision to send his own children to a $30,000 private school
“It’s good for the families that we will compete. We’ll have to provide the best academic option for our kids to keep our families, and I think that’s very healthy.” Santa Fe South Charter School Superintendent Chris Brewster, explaining to The Oklahoman why he is letting a new charter school occupy a portion of his campus, even if it means he could lose students
“America’s universities are collapsing into a miasma of nihilism, postmodernism, political correctness, multiculturalism, affirmative action, bureaucratization, and skyrocketing costs --- and no one seems able to do anything about it.” Clemson University professor C. Bradley Thompson, executive director of the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism