The federal debt has been one of the most divisive issues in Congress, leading to cuts in public welfare, near default on our debts, and a sequester agreement which has hurt almost every segment of our economy. Yet, we have not adequately addressed two of the largest expenses, which could be reduced without sacrificing our security or our safety net programs.  The graph below reports the way our country spends its money.

Interest on the public debt is one of our largest expenses and one that could easily be addressed. That could be addressed by restoring a progressive tax rate, by cutting tax loopholes,  and by removing subsidies to profitable industries and the wealthy. Congress cannot seem to act on raising taxes as many of the Legislators have signed on to Grover Norquist’s pledge not to raise taxes.  Senator Tom Coburn, in his Back in Black report , has identified many of the porkbarrel programs that could be cut if Congress had the will to do so.

The second area could be cut is military spending. The graph below shows the military spending by country. The United States spends five times as much as any other country, and as much as the next 10 countries put together on defense. We certainly need to defend our country, however, we still invest a tremendous amount of money in military hardware which is mostly useless against our greatest threat, which is terrorism. Why do we do so? President Dwight Eisenhower warned us in his farewell speech,

“My country wants to be constructive, not destructive. It wants agreement, not wars, among nations.  In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.”

The military–industrial complex refers to the policy and monetary relationships which exist between legislators, the armed forces, military contractors, and the military industrial base that supports them. These relationships include political contributions, political approval of military spending, and lobbying to support military bureaucracies and weaken oversight of the industry. We have not followed Ike’s advice, as we have allowed the military-industrial complex, in the name of providing security, to gobble up a large share of our national spending. We need to shift our resources to intelligence and diplomacy to combat terrorism, and away from the much more expensive, and much less necessary, conventional military spending.

It should be possible to eventually reduce our expenses for social programs, but not while we are still recovering from a recession which has greatly increased the need for public assistance. To justify that I will quote Eisenhower again:

“To blend, without coercion, the individual good and the common good is the essence of citizenship in a free country. Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” 

(c) 2014  J.C. Moore

Aristotle, when comparing forms of government, pointed out some of the problems in a democracy. When the poor gain too much power, they will enrich themselves out of the public treasury and the nation will become poor. If the wealthy gain too much power, then the nation will become an oligarchy and the poor will suffer. Oligarchs insist that citizens be treated differently based on wealth, and they argue that wealth is a sign of virtue and merit, and that the poor are poor because they lack those qualities.  Aristotle concluded that: “A large middle class is absolutely essential for a stable and well-run government because the middle class do not covet rule, are not envious, foster friendship because of their similarity, and can act as neutral arbitrators between the rich and the poor.” –  Aristotle’s Politics

There is ample evidence that the middle class in United States has declined sharply, while the country has moved toward oligarchy, allowing the wealthy to enrich themselves at the expense of the middle class, the poor, and also the nation. The chart below shows how the income is now divided in the United States, with the top 1% owning 38% of the wealth and the top 20% owning 82% of the wealth. Not only is the distribution of wealth much worse than what people consider ideal, it is even much worse than what they think it is.

According to Senator Bernie Sanders:

“While the very rich get richer, the middle class continues to disappear and we now have more people living in poverty than ever before.  Despite huge increases in technology and productivity, tens of millions of workers are finding it harder to feed their families, pay for health care, send their kids to college or put aside savings for retirement.” In recent years,  95% of all new income has gone  to the top 1%, we have seen a huge increase in the number of millionaires and billionaires. While the average American is increasingly unrepresented in  the political process, the very wealthy are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to justify their wealth and to convince voters to elect candidates who will further their interests.”

The  wealthy consider the money an investment which has paid off handsomely. It has bought tax breaks, loopholes, and subsidies. Many wealthy Americans are even reaping the lions share of many federal programs that were intended to help the poor and disadvantaged. 

Trickle Down economics  is behind the redistribution of wealth that began during the 1980’s, as shown in the chart at the right. When President Reagan came into office in 1980 the top tax rate was 60%, a rate which the wealthy thought was much too high. Arthur Laffer developed the supply side arguments that led to taxes being cut using the Laffer Curve . Mr. Laffer convinced the Reagan Administration that lowering the tax rate would give the job creators more money to invest, which would stimulate the economy and lead to greater tax revenue. Reagan cut the top tax rate to 28%, which put more money in the hands of the wealthy, but little of it trickled down. The economy grew at 3.5%, a lower growth rate than when tax rates were higher, the wealthy got wealthier,  and the national debt almost tripled. The graph at the right shows a narrowing of the income gap when the Clinton administration raised taxes and a widening gap after the 2003 tax cuts.  

Following Laffer’s trickle down theory put the U.S. on a slow spiral into debt,  austerity, and income inequality. Tax rates are now clearly too low  and, according to the Laffer curve, raising taxes should stimulate the economy. Certainly, raising taxes sufficiently would end our national debt problems and the shameless practice of using the national debt for political purposes. However, Congress thinks the problem is that we have not cut taxes enough, and Paul Ryan has proposed a Congressional budget that would further decrease tax rates. Paul Ryan has proposed  reducing the top tax rate to 25%. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimated Ryan’s budget would add $5.7 trillion to the deficit over the next decade and would increase the after-tax income of the top 1% of citizens by 18%.  His budget is a case of ideology trumping practical economics.

 Jobs: Congressman Ryan is still working under the assumption that trickle down economics works, and he argues that further tax cuts would create jobs. That argument is discredited by Nick Hanauer, a billionaire who has helped start many companies. He explained on Ted.com that the rich aren’t the job creators, as job creation now comes from demand, and the demand would come from a large  numbers of middle class consumers, a person making 1000 times as much as the average citizen does not buy 1000 times as much stuff. When someone calls themselves “job creators”‘, they are making a claim as Aristotle pointed out, on their virtue – the status and privileges they think they deserve.  Mr. Hanauer says the 15% taxes that capitalists pay on interest, dividends, and capitol gains and the 35% the ordinary citizen pays on their job earnings is hard to justify. He points out that of the inequality has been justified by the fallacy that ” as taxes on the rich go up, job creation will go down”. His data shows the opposite to be true. He concludes that demand grows the economy, and taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is the best thing we can do for the middle class, the poor, and for the rich as well.

The IMF: Clearly, there are both sound economic and moral reasons that countries need to act for the common good by correcting income inequality. While the Pope acts to change hearts, the countries’ leaders need to act to make fairer economic policies, raise taxes, and cut out loopholes. The Guardian of financial orthodoxy, the International Monetary Fund, typically calls for nations in difficulty to slash public spending to reduce their deficits. But in this year’s Fiscal Monitor report, subtitled “Taxing Times”, the Fund advanced the idea of “taxing the highest-income people and their assets to reinforce the legitimacy of spending cuts and the fight against growing income inequalities.” There is both a moral and an economic imperative to do so.

(c) 2014 J.C. Moore

Aristotle, the father of science, thought that nature could best be understood by observation and reason. Not only did he apply the scientific method to the physical world, but he also considered political systems. One of his conclusions was that a democracy could not function well without a strong middle class. Aristotle was also strongly opposed to sophistry. Both of those are things that our politicians need to keep in mind.

After a number of push polls to try to influence their constituencies’ opinions, Republican leaders have managed to get many of their most extreme positions into the Republican platform. Republicans have tried to create a coalition of one issue voters, and there is a plank in there for each of them. Some the planks are more extreme than even Romney would have liked, and they seem more to reflect Paul Ryan’s views.

Economy: The plan for job creation is “economic growth”– and to stimulate economic growth the platform requires a further reduction in taxes. The plan is to keep the  Bush tax cuts, eliminate taxes on capital gains for the middle class, pass a balanced budget amendment and require a supermajority for any future tax increases . Grover Norquist and most millionaires will be very pleased with that plank. The middle class may not be so happy because little of their income is from interest and capital gains. Then, there’s a problem of how to fund government programs, but other planks are going to eliminate many of those, especially those that help the disadvantaged and the middle class.

Social Issues: The platform is loaded up with social issues.  It calls for a constitutional amendment defining marriage, claims life begins at fertilization, and seeks to make abortions difficult to obtain, no matter the circumstances. It would not fund any health care that covered abortions. And, that would include most forms of birth control under that definition of when life begins. It also declares that only abstinence education be permitted, and that would likely greatly increase the needs for abortions – as that doesn’t work too well in practice. And in spite of the large number of public massacres that have occurred lately, it is opposed to banning high-capacity clips or assault rifles.

Minorities: It declares; “Voter fraud is a political poison”, although there are very few instances of voter fraud. It appears to be an attempt to justify the Republican Party’s attempt to disenfranchise a large number of minority voters. It takes a hard line on immigration, even for those born here who are children of immigrants. It rather forgets that most of us were originally immigrants and that President Reagan granted amnesty to almost 3 million illegal immigrants. It would prohibit federal lawsuits against states that make restrictive immigration laws, even though those laws might interfere with citizens’ rights or violate human rights.

Energy: The energy plank does not recognize the need to protect the environment, which Republicans in the past strongly supported, nor does it recognize the realities of climate change. It would give almost free rein to fossil fuel companies to pursue their interests without regard to environmental issues and it would restrict the EPA from taking action to protect the environment. It does mention an “all of the above” energy policy, but there is no specific mention of policies to encourage the development of alternate energy sources.

Health and Welfare:  The plank on health care would be disastrous for the middle class. It would repeal most of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act, while promising to promote the free market and give you more choices. That is fine if you have plenty of money. There’s a lot of verbiage associated with Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid but it all boils down to changing them in ways that would cost less money and make them much less effective. It says, “the platform pledges to move both Medicare and Medicaid away from ‘the current unsustainable defined-benefit entitlement model to a fiscally sound defined-contribution model.’” And, it supports a “ Medicare transition to a premium-support model with an income-adjusted contribution toward a health plan of the enrollee’s choice.” Is that a description of vouchers?

Defense: This plank sounds a lot like saber rattling. It would restore “American exceptionalism” and take a hard stance toward North Korea, Iran, and China (China?). That would greatly increase military spending, particularly if we started another war. Our last Republican President started two, and we are still suffering from the loss of lives and the staggering cost. We already spend five times as much as any other country on defense, and there is no plank explaining where the money would come from without raising taxes. Nor is it clear how it might work out to have  as Comander-in-Chief someone who sat out  the Vietnam War in France on a rather easily obtained “divinity student” deferment. 

I think many traditional Republicans will be rather dismayed with the platform and it remains to be seen if they will still support the party and vote for its candidates. Certainly the wealthy and the one issue voters can be counted on, but it would appear to alienate many independents. Sometimes reason prevails and political parties do not follow their platform too precisely, and that is the most that we can hope for if  Mr. Romney is elected president.

(c) 2012 J.C. Moore

Although this is about Oklahoma, your state may be experiencing some of the same problems. Many states  approved a Taxpayer Bill of Rights and many  state officials and legislators have signed Grover Norquist’s Tax Pledge, both  which make it difficult to raise taxes. When those are coupled with past and proposed  tax cuts, many states are now experiencing a budget squeeze that makes it difficult for them to provide core services for their citizens. A recent tax proposal in Oklahoma will give tax cuts to some of the wealthiest citizens, increase taxes for others, and result in $130 million loss in revenue for the state – if passed.

This is really a bad time to cut taxes in Oklahoma. Oklahoma is already facing problems paying for education, public safety, and infrastructure improvements. The recent tax proposal worked out by Governor Mary Fallin and Republican Legislature leaders falls far short of the needs of the state and earlier goals. It would reduce state revenues by over $130 million at a time when schools and other core services are struggling to recover from years of crippling budget cuts. This means fewer teachers and larger class sizes, higher tuition costs, fewer public safety officers, and resources cuts for those who serve the most vulnerable Oklahomans.

The Senate and House leaders have insisted for months that any tax cuts will be revenue-neutral so as not to impact the budget. Their effort to cut credits and subsidies for special interest groups have failed as lobbyists for the special interests have been effective in keeping the subsidies intact. It  leaves the state on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in payments to oil and gas producers and other special interest groups and does nothing to address the skyrocketing costs of these credits.  Yet they have come up with a proposal to cut taxes  even though the proposed tax changes are not revenue neutral.

The political benefit of an advertised tax cut is much greater than any claimed economic benefit. The state leaders have assured us that cutting the income tax will create jobs and improve the economy. An analysis of a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece urging tax cuts reveals the intellectual bankruptcy of Oklahoma’s tax cut arguments and finds: “Tax cuts financed by reduced spending on public services … have been linked with negative growth consequences.  Government expenditures matter – other things equal, poorer public services hurt economic performance.” It is also very difficult to see how anyone can create a job with the average $60 tax cut. However it is very clear that $130 million could be used to fund 2000 jobs for teachers, policemen, firemen, and public servants.

 A Tax Cut for the Wealthy: The Oklahoma Tax Commission finds that 40% of the tax cut being considered will go to the top 4% of households but increase taxes for 24% of taxpayers.  Under this proposal, the tax increase and elimination of deductions will fall more on the lower and middle income wage earners. Our present income tax code is based on the idea that those who profit most from our state’s wealth, resources, and opportunities should pay a greater share of taxes. That’s fairer and more pragmatic than shifting more taxes to those who have less. This plan would increase taxes on 24% of low and middle income taxpayers. The OK Constitution forbids a tax increase without a three quarters vote of the Legislature or a referendum. When does that 24% get to vote on their tax increase?

Constitutional Issue : There is also a constitutional question involved. Oklahoma’s Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and 33  state representatives have signed The Americans for Tax Reform Pledge that they will oppose any effort to raise taxes. However, the Oklahoma Constitution, says in Article X, Section 5: under Surrender of Power of Taxation : “ A. Except as otherwise provided by this section, the power of taxation shall never be surrendered, suspended, or contracted away. “ Those who have signed Grover Norquist’s pledge appear to be in violation of the Oklahoma State Constitution as they have contracted away their power of taxation. The Pledge is signed and witnessed as a legal document. Those who have signed the pledge should  recuse themselves from any action on the state income tax.

A request to Attorney General Scott Pruitt to rule on the question was sidestepped. The Attorney General replied to a letter requesting his opinion  that his office did not research questions for individuals and suggested that the question be taken to the Oklahoma Policy Institute. When the complaint was then filed on the Attorney General’s official complaint form, the reply was: “Since the pledge was not filed as a bill in the Oklahoma legislature it does not seem that it would have a binding effect on the parties who signed it. Therefore, there would not be a conflict with the Oklahoma Constitution. You may consult an attorney to see if there are legal consequences that might be available to you.” The Oklahoma Constitution says it is the duty of the Attorney General “ to support, obey, and defend the Constitution of theUnited States, and the Constitution of the state of Oklahoma.” Apparently one must file a lawsuit to encourage the Attorney General to carry out his responsibilities.

Mortgaging Oklahoma’s Future: Although the state’s leadership has not budgeted adequately for the present or the future, their current tax proposal could have far-reaching effects. The proposal contains a trigger that would reduce the top tax rate to 4.5 % – if state income grows by 5 %. Part of the reason the state is in its present financial trouble is from a tax reduction trigger set by a previous Legislature. As a result of the 5% growth from the bottom the recession, the top tax rate was reduced from 5.5 to 5.25% last year, even though the revenue was lower than when the trigger was set. Tax triggers that automatically ratchet down the top income tax rate are opposed byOklahoma’s business, civic, and educational leaders as the Legislature is locking the state into a tax cut without knowing the needs or funding or sources available in the future. Once cut, it is very unlikely that taxes could be raised again, as state question 640 mandated that any tax increase must pass either a 75 percent vote of the Legislature or a vote of the people. However, tax cuts can be passed by a simple majority in both houses, which means that tax cuts are easy to make but tax increases, no matter how badly needed, are unlikely to be passed.

(c) 2012 J.C. Moore

Note added 5/25 /2012: The Tulsa World announced today that the tax cut plan is dead for the year but the governor has sworn she will revive it again next year. It is not clear whether reason prevailed or whether squabbling about the tax cuts being too much or not enough kept the cuts from passing. The budget did pass, however, it left many state budgets that cover core services about what they were in 1998. You may wish to check here to see if any among your  state officials and legislators  have signed Grover Norquist’s anti-tax pledge.

Congressman John Sullivan (R-OK) held a town hall meeting in Tulsa, Oklahoma where he discussed the budget, Social Security,  energy issues, EPA regulations, jobs, and the XL pipeline. The article gives Congressman Sullivan’s positions, comments and questions asked by the audience, and compares the authors views to Congressman Sullivan’s.

Congressman John Sullivan conducted two town hall meetings in Tulsa on January 26, 2012. The first was held at Tulsa Community College’s Metro Campus where a number of his constituents challenged Sullivan’s views. That meeting was reported  by the Tulsa World’s Randy Krehbeil in, “Sullivan town hall-goers applaud Obama speech”.  The afternoon meeting, which was held at the Hardesty Library in South Tulsa, had a much more partisan crowd. Congressman Sullivan’s opening remarks were much like those at his Sand Springs meeting last November. At the Hardesty meeting, he did not give people the opportunity to applaud Obama’s speech, he just criticized it. When people tried to point out the errors in his criticisms, they were interrupted by people shouting,” Ask a question”. Sullivan was there to hear what his constituents thought, but apparently his supporters did not want to hear anything good about the President.

 Gridlock: Congressman Sullivan likened Obama to a football coach who gives a great locker room talk but doesn’t win. It was a bad analogy as the coach cannot win without cooperation from the players, and many players in Congress seem more interested in beating the coach than winning for the country. Every winning team needs a reasonable budget, but many Congressmen have insisted on cutting taxes and 206 legislators, Sullivan included, have signed Norquist’s pledge not to raise taxes. He blamed the President and the Democrats in the Senate for the gridlock, saying that the house had sent the Senate 26 bills that were not enacted. However, most of those bills contained a “poison pill”. For instance, H.R. 3630, the badly needed Middle Class Tax Relief and Jobs Creation Act of 2011, also had a provision to delay implementation of the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate, to hinder the EPA, and to force approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. It is hardly fair to blame the Senate when they are not sent clean bills.

 Energy : Congressman Sullivan said that we needed the XL pipeline to create jobs and claimed that it would create hundreds of thousands of jobs directly and indirectly – and that the only problem was just a few miles through Nebraska wetlands. The problems are actually much greater.  They involve destruction of the boreal forests in Canada, pollution of Canadian rivers, acquiring the water and energy needed to process tar sands, and the carbon emissions the project would cause. Then, it is still not clear how many jobs it will actually create, who will profit from the project, and whether much of the oil will be shipped to foreign countries, possibly without being taxed as some of the refineries are in a tax-free zone.

 The Congressman said he has introduced legislation encouraging the development of natural gas as a fuel. He pointed out that natural gas provides about three times as much energy and costs much less than gasoline. Natural gas is plentiful in Oklahoma and developing the infrastructure to use it as a fuel would help Oklahoma’s economy and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That is about the only positive contribution that Congressman Sullivan has made on environmental issues. Using natural gas would also significantly decrease our carbon emissions – but the Congressman did not mention that as he does not accept the scientific research on climate change. His supporters claim to be conservatives, but it is hard to imagine how they could support someone who is not also a conservationist. Congressman Sullivan scored a 9% on the League of Conservation Voters scorecard (page 52).

Audience Questions: The wife of a veteran told of the problems her husband had getting help from the Veterans Administration and asked if Sullivan could help. Congressman Sullivan said he would see what he could do. I hope he can help that veteran, but it is not likely that all the veterans needing help will get it if we cut the budget as Congressman Sullivan wanted. The veteran was certainly a good man, and when pressed to speak, he said that it would really help if people would recycle more. He pointed out that we throw away a lot of things that are still useful and that by recycling them we could create a lot of jobs and save our resources.

 Another woman complained that the EPA’s rules about Freon were making it difficult to get the refrigerant needed for their air-conditioning business. Congressman Sullivan took it as an opportunity to criticize the EPA and the Obama administration, apparently unaware that those rules had been signed into law by President Reagan.

A CPA in the audience brought it to the Congressman’s attention that the low interest rates were hurting people who had their nest egg in savings accounts and CDs. He also pointed out that the mandatory IRA withdrawals required at age 70 1/2 are making people withdraw the money that they may need to save for later in life. The Congressman agreed that some changes need to be made there.

 When the Congressman was asked about who he would like to see as the Republican presidential candidate, he said he would support whoever could beat President Obama. A member of the audience tried to point out that there were other things more important than beating Obama, and that the President and his wife were good role models and examples of family values. She was almost drowned out by disagreements from the audience.

 Entitlements: There was a time when Republicans were fiscal and environmental conservatives. Congressman Sullivan said he wanted to cut what he calls “entitlement programs”, but one of his own supporters set him straight by pointing out that those were “earned benefits”, not entitlements. I want my children and grandchildren have the same benefits I did, and I want them to have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink and a beautiful Earth to enjoy. They are entitled to that.

Research Credit: Barbara Moore

(c) 2012 J.C. Moore

Election season is coming up, and many of our representatives are, or will be, holding town hall meetings. Congressman John Sullivan (R-OK) held  one of his town hall meetings in Sand Springs on November 7, 2011. He told us that things have been crazy lately in Washington, and he illustrated that by talking about the budget.

 Budget: A Supercommittee has been formed with the goal of reducing the deficit by $1.2 trillion. Congressman Sullivan said he did not think that was enough and he supports a balanced budget amendment, with the goal of cutting $4 trillion from the budget. He said that we would have to cut entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and a list of other programs that mostly help the poor and the middle class.  He said he supports raising the age or cutting the benefits for Social Security, but that those over 55 should not worry, as the proposed changes would only affect those younger than 55.

 A member of the audience commented that he did not think that was fair, as he was just under 55. When the Congressman was asked if he would consider raising revenue rather than making such deep cuts in spending, he said he could not support raising taxes. That is not surprising as he and 276 Legislators have signed Grover Norquist’s anti-tax pledge, making it almost impossible for Congress to raise taxes. Any reasonable effort to balance the budget will require tax increases as well as spending cuts. Congress is trying to fight the budget battle with one hand tied behind its back.

 Congressman Sullivan also criticized the budget submitted by the President, saying that no one would vote for it and even Harry Reid voted against it. A member of the audience pointed out that Harry Reid changed his vote for procedural reasons and asked what the Senate’s vote was. The congressman replied he did not know. The records show that the President’s budget passed the Senate by a vote of 51 to 47, but not enough to overcome a filibuster. Harry Reid changed his vote as a procedural move so that it might be brought up again later.

 Banking reform: Congressman Sullivan said he could not support unneeded regulations and that the Dodd Frank law should be repealed because “it hurts small banks”. That is surprising, as the Dodd Frank bill was applauded by the Independent Community Bankers of America who said it would “level the regulatory and competitive playing field for community banks.”

Energy: The Congressman said he has introduced legislation encouraging the development of natural gas as a fuel. He pointed out that natural gas provides about three times as much energy and costs much less than gasoline. Natural gas is plentiful in Oklahoma and developing the infrastructure to use it as a fuel would help Oklahoma’s economy and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Using natural gas would also significantly decrease our carbon emissions – but the Congressman did not mention that as he does not accept the scientific research on climate change.

 EPA: Congressman Sullivan was quite critical of the EPA and stated he has introduced legislation that would require the EPA to do a cost-benefit analysis for every rule it makes. His legislation would create a huge amount of paperwork for the EPA and would make its job impossible to do, which seems to be his goal. Perhaps Congressman Sullivan could help by including a value for human life in his bill, as the EPA says slashing toxic emissions would prevent many premature deaths. The American Lung Association  estimates that the EPA’s proposed  guidelines could prevent 38,000 heart attacks and premature deaths, 1.5 million cases of acute bronchitis and aggravated asthma, and 2.7 million days of missed work or school. The public agrees that the EPA should be setting standards to protect our health, not Congress. A recent poll found that more than two-thirds of registered voters supported EPA setting strong air pollution standards.

 Jobs: The Congressman spent considerable time criticizing the job creation efforts and the economic policies of the President, particularly the stimulus program. When he declared that the government could not create jobs, someone the audience asked him about the CCC and the WPA, which created jobs during the Great Depression and provided improvements in the infrastructure, such as creating the REA. The Congressman answered with a long criticism of the stimulus package, which he finished by claiming that the stimulus package had not created one job.

 A school administrator in the audience said that there were a number of jobs saved in education by the stimulus money and that the cuts to the school budget would’ve been much worse without it. Interestingly, the records show that District 1 in Oklahoma, Congressman Sullivan’s district, received $463 million in stimulus money which directly created 280 jobs. That did not include jobs indirectly created or jobs that were saved, such as the teaching jobs.

 Services: When asked about cuts to mental health services, the Congressman rather surprised us all by saying that one fourth of all Oklahomans have some form of mental illness. The Congressman said he supports mental health programs, efforts to help soldiers with PTSD, and programs that help those with substance abuse. However, it is rather difficult to see where money would come from to support those programs if the budget were cut by $4 trillion.

 2012: The 1^st District covers the population centers in the northeast part of Oklahoma, mostly Tulsa and north to Bartlesville. We certainly appreciate Congressman Sullivan taking time to share his comments with us and answer our questions. Some of the things the Congressman said were of concern to the author, as you can discern from his comments. As the 2012 elections near, Oklahoma voters need to weigh carefully what Congressman Sullivan says and how he votes in order to decide if we should return him to Washington.

Co-authorship credit: Barbara Moore

(c) 2011 J.C. Moore

Tax Cuts: Though it sounds good to be against taxes, fiscal responsibility may require that taxes be raised, particularly after they have been cut beyond what is prudent. Because of the reduced revenue in Oklahoma caused by the 2004 state tax cuts, it has become very difficult for the state to meet its financial obligations. In spite of that, another tax cut that was set to be triggered when state revenues improved by 4%, will go into effect in 2012. Astoundingly, that tax cut was triggered only because the state revenue had fallen far below the amount needed to fund the state’s needs adequately. Oklahoma is not able to adequately fund K-12 education, higher education, infrastructure, transportation, public health services, public safety, and other services. Oklahoma ranks near the bottom of all the states in poverty, public health, education, crime, and infrastructure repair, yet the legislature has engineered another tax cut . While the tax cuts were touted as a way to lure businesses to the state, it is difficult to see why a business would want to move to a state where its management and employees would have to live in substandard conditions.

Oklahoma Taxes: Although it is easy to cut taxes in Oklahoma, it  is very difficult to raise them. Raising taxes requires either a three fourths majority in both houses of the legislature or approval by a referendum.  It is very difficult to convince voters that they should vote to increase taxes upon themselves. Tax decisions are best decided by the legislatures, who are charged by the Constitution with budgeting adequately for the needs of the state. However, it is unlikely that Oklahoma would ever get a three fourths majority to raise taxes as Oklahoma’s  Governor, Lt. Governor, 7 Senators( of 48), and 26 House members( of 101)  have pledged away their responsibility to raise needed revenue by signing Grover Norquist’s  Americans for Tax Reform Pledge.

Norquist’s   Pledge is not as much about reform as one might expect. The true nature of the anti-tax organization was revealed when Norquist claimed it was a violation of the Pledge to close tax loopholes for companies that outsource American jobs overseas. Apparently, Norquist has set himself up as the sole interpreter of what the Pledge means, and he uses it to intimidate those who have signed the pledge into following his wishes. He first said that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire was not really a tax increase, then reversed his position, claimed he misspoke earlier, then claimed anyone voting to let the cuts expire would be violating the Pledge. He also claimed that Sen. Tom Coburn violated the Pledge when he supported ending the subsidies for ethanol, which have raised food prices and been disadvantageous to Oklahoma farmers. Grover Norquist, who was not elected, and whose name many would not even not recognize, has become a power broker in our national and state governments.

Oklahoma’s Constitution: Still, the responsibility rests with the elected representatives.  In Oklahoma, there is a prohibition against our elected Representatives signing such a pledge. The Oklahoma Constitution, says in Article X, Section 5: under Surrender of Power of Taxation :

“ A. Except as otherwise provided by this section, the power of taxation shall never be surrendered, suspended, or contracted away. “

There are no provisions in the section exempting Oklahoma’s elected representatives from abiding by the restriction stated in “A.”  Clearly, signing the Pledge is a violation of the Oklahoma Constitution, which the legislators have sworn to uphold. 

Your Representatives:  US Senators and Congressmen are important at the state level as they are considered to be leaders in our respective states. Norquist claims 235 US Representatives and 41 US Senators have signed  his Pledge. In doing so, they have clearly given up their responsibility as our elected representatives.   If your state is unable to meet its financial obligations, those at the state level who have taken the anti-tax pledge are listed in this article.  Also, those in the US Legislature who have signed the pledge are listed here. You may wish to check see who from your state has signed the pledge and contact them. Since Norquist claims that signing the pledge is binding into perpetuity, I would suggest that we make sure none of the signers are re-elected.

The Oklahoma Lists: Below is a list of those who have signed the pledge in Oklahoma. If anyone is listed who has not signed the pledge or has had their name removed, please notify the author in a comment on this article.

Oklahoma:  

Gov. Mary Fallin

Lt. Gov. Todd Lamb

7 Senators (of 48)

Cliff Aldridge (S-42)

Josh Brecheen (S-6)

Bill Brown (S-36)

Sean Burrage (S-2)

Kim David (S-18)

David Holt (S-30)

Jonathan Nichols (S-15)

26 House members (of 101)

Gus Blackwell (H-61)

Mike Christian (H-93)

 Josh Cockroft (H-27)

David Dank (H-85)

Lee R. Denny (H-33)

David Derby (H-74)

George Faught (H-14)

Corey Holland (H-51)

Charlie Joyner (H-95)

Sally Kern (H-84)

Charles Key (H-90)

Randy McDaniel (H-83)

Jason W. Murphey (H-31)

Charles Ortega (H-52)

Leslie Osborn (H-47)

Mike Reynolds (H-91)

Mike Ritze (H-80)

Dustin Roberts (H-21)

Sean Roberts (H-36)

Mike Sanders (H-59)

Earl Sears (H-11)

Colby Schwartz (H-43)

Randy Terrill (H-53)

Sue Tibbs (H-23)

John Trebilcock (H-98)

Paul Wesselhoft (H-54)

Six of Oklahoma’s seven  US Legislators have signed Norquist’s  Pledge. Those are:

Senators: Sen. Tom Coburn* (R), Sen Jim Inhofe (R)

 Representatives: John Sullivan (R), Frank Lucas (R), Tom Cole (R), and James Lankford (R).

* In all fairness, Senator Coburn has worked on a bi-partisan budget solution and recently drew Grover Norquist’s ire by suggesting we might have to raise revenue.

(c) 2011 J.C. Moore

Research credit:  Barbara Moore

Congress is perilously close to defaulting on the loans the United States has received from other countries. Not only is it irresponsible for our country to default on its loans, but the consequences would be serious for US citizens and for our financial institutions.  Although there has been much blaming, buck passing, and finger-pointing – the responsibility for the budget and the debt clearly lies with Congress. It was unwise to pass tax cuts while the country was fighting two wars and irresponsible to insist on extending the tax cuts while our country was still at war, deeply in debt, and trying to recover from an economic recession.

The Constitution is clear about the responsibilities of Congress. Article 1, Section 7  says:

 “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

 It goes on that the President must sign the bill for it to become law, and if he does not, it shall be returned to Congress to reconsider it – or to overcome the President’s objection by passing it in both houses by a two thirds majority .

Further, Section 8 continues:

 ” The Congress shall have Power: To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. “ Among the powers enumerated is:  “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States”.

 Would it be wrong to assume that the body given the power to borrow the money would not also be responsible for paying the debt – particularly when that same body has the responsibility of creating the budget?

Congress is clearly responsible for raising the revenue to pay our debts and run our government. Amendment XVI to the Constitution, passed in 1913, says:

 “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” 

 However, many of our Legislators have sworn an oath not to carry out the responsibilities of their office. (1) As of 2009, 172 members of the House of Representatives and 34 members of the Senate had taken Grover Norquist’s pledge not to raise taxes.  Clearly, the pledge conflicts with their responsibilities under the Constitution and those who took the pledge need to decide whether their loyalties lie with the U.S. Constitution or with an anti-tax ideology.

(1) Those who signed the anti-tax pledge at the federal level are listed at  http://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/files/Federal%20Pledge%20Signers%20112th%20Congress.pdf

Look up those who signed in your state and contact them.  Those who signed from Oklahoma, my state,  are Sen. Tom Coburn* (R), Sen Jim Inhofe (R),  Representatives John Sullivan (R),  Frank Lucas (R), Tom Cole (R), and James Lankford (R).

And if your state is unable to meet its financial obligations, those at the state level who have taken the anti-tax pledge are listed at: http://fredericacade.wordpress.com/2010/12/31/list-of-your-states-signers-signed-to-grover-norquist-controversial–pledge/

* In all fairness, Senator Coburn has worked on a bi-partisan budget solution and recently drew Grover Norquist’s ire by suggesting we might have to raise revenue.

(c) 2011 J.C. Moore

Research credit:  Barbara moore