Articles

Despite having fewer students and less appropriated funds, Oklahoma’s higher education leaders have refused to decrease spending or even to maintain spending at constant levels. Instead, they have raised tuition and fees in order to fund massive spending increases.

When state government spends federal dollars, it seems like “free” money. After all, state legislators did not impose the taxes. Legislators and other state officials are much less likely to be held accountable for how that money gets spent. Federal officials, on the other hand, can blame the state if the money is poorly used. Nobody is ever on the hook. For taxpayers, this system is a nightmare, but for politicians, it’s perfect.

The Supreme Court of the United States today handed down a landmark decision for freedom of speech and association. Oklahoma policymakers should take note.

The Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH) offers a radical example of dishonesty. But it is hardly unique among state agencies. Oklahoma’s entire state budget process is misleading.

This is Sunshine Week, an annual reminder that “consent of the governed” means informed consent. Why is government transparency important? Let’s start at the beginning.

When the teachers union released its spending demands last week, two things were missing. One was any plan to find the resources, either in other parts of government or through tax increases. The other was the total cost.

Headlines often give the game away when it comes to agenda-driven journalism. Such is the case with “Somebody says” headlines, where the “somebody” is invariably pushing a point of view shared by the reporter.

Actions speak louder than words, but what they tell us is not always obvious. What do our elected officials believe? What are they really trying to do? Here are four questions to ask as we watch the legislative process unfold.

Oklahoma’s Supreme Court district boundaries have not changed since the 1960s. While people have moved around, those lines have stayed the same for half a century. This isn’t merely unfair—it also hurts the quality of our judiciary for basic reasons described by James Madison.

The time has come to reform TSET in two ways. First, new tobacco settlement dollars should be redirected to high-priority health care needs (rural hospitals, care for veterans, etc.). Second, TSET’s endowment should be reduced, capped, and limited to helping people quit smoking and to health care needs related to smoking (what most people thought TSET was about in the first place).