Et Tu, Senate Democrats?
(Major bills pending in the Oklahoma Legislature attack the viable concept of diversity. Do Oklahomans really want to reject diversidad? Read DocHoc's commentary this week in the Oklahoma Gazette.)
Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry is one of the state’s most popular governors in history so when legislators of both major political parties cut him out of the state’s budget process they are violating basic shared values of democracy.
Henry beat Ernest Istook in a landslide vote in November 2007. He won 66 percent of the vote. His recent approval rating, according to polls, is nearly 70 percent. This doesn’t give Henry a blank check, but surely this means Oklahoma voters want him involved in how the state spends its money.
But the Oklahoma Senate, tied evenly between Republicans and Democrats, voted unanimously this week to approve a $6.9 billion budget that had no input from Henry. The governor has rightfully complained and even threatened a veto.
In addition, according to a news report, “None of Henry's proposals are included in the package. They include more money for sentencing alternatives such as drug and mental health courts, a research center to develop alternative fuels and to match money for programs for low-income children” (“Criticism may set stage for budget veto,” The Daily Oklahoman, March 21, 2007)
All these proposals have merit and, at the very least, deserve discussion and debate, but the state legislature is busy isolating Oklahoma from the rest of the world with bills stripping women of reproductive rights and creating an Okie police state in its efforts to ensure not one single undocumented worker sets foot in this place. In contrast, all of Henry’s proposals actually do something positive and far-sighted for the state.
In a statement issued after the legislative budget deal was announced, Henry said, “I’m disappointed […] that legislative leaders have rolled emergency and regular spending items into what amounts to the largest spending bill in state history. By lumping $7 billion in spending into a single bill, legislative leaders have stifled debate about individual budget items and forced lawmakers to make an all or nothing decision without any real input. Fortunately, the line item veto provides the governor with more flexibility and discretion.”
Perhaps, Senate Democrats see the budget vote as a step in budget negotiations or maybe they face Republican threats about education funding or maybe it's just good ol' boy politics, but it’s difficult not to read their action as a basic betrayal. Henry is the leading Democrat in the state. Why create such a public display of dissension within the party?
Update: The Oklahoma House has now voted 84-16 to pass the budget measure approved by the Senate. It now goes to Henry for his signature. Some House Democrats complained about the process of bringing the measure to a vote so quickly, according to news reports.
- dochoc's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Rep. Kiesel's newspaper column
Hello House District 28!
We all know the worst time to go grocery shopping is when you are hungry. Everything looks delicious and the shop-ping cart is filled to capacity with items we normally wouldn’t buy in a hundred years. In our haste to satisfy our appetite, we often forget about our original shopping list. It’s not uncommon for the hungry shopper to buy the wrong things and forget the basic necessities. Which is why we know it’s best not to go shopping when we are hungry. Unfortunately, simple life lessons are rarely applied at the State Capitol.
This week the Senate and the House approved a general appropriations bill that will spend over $7 billion of your tax dollars. First, let me commend the efforts of the few who were involved in the writing of this budget bill. Their intentions, for the most part, are noble. They want to fund state government well before the end of the legislative session to avoid the potential for a partisan breakdown in the evenly divided Senate. Further, this bill does contain funding for several worthy and necessary state services.
The problem is that the few folks who actually put this deal together are so hungry to avoid confrontation that everything looks good. Spending $7 billion dollars is far different from the average trip to the supermarket, and we should insulate our deci-sion making process from an artificial sense of urgency in an attempt to pass a bill that, in reality, only three legislators and staff negotiated.
That’s right only three elected officials actually played a significant role in drafting this budget. As a House member, I only had the entire budget on my desk for 48 hours and 32 minutes before I was asked to vote “yes” or “no.” In the hour of debate allotted to the meas-ure, we were literally consider-ing over $118 million per min-ute of debate. Only two reasons were given for why I should vote for this bill. The first was “to keep the trains running on time.” I contend that in our efforts to speed the train up, we derail our ability to foster a transparent and responsible budget process.
The second reason was the threat that a “no” vote would bring about political conse-quences. I happen to believe, unlike some politicians, that voters are smart and more than competent to see through politi-cal stunts. The people of Oklahoma are calling for open gov-ernment and detest when power is concentrated in the hands of a few. The two reasons given in favor of the bill, speed and poli-tics, are terrible reasons to do anything. After the debate was over, I voted “no.”
I refused to rubber stamp a massive spending bill with vir-tually zero oversight from a majority of elected officials. With history as our guide, we should know that when we act in haste, we run the risk of making critical errors. In the final hours of last year’s legislative session, a spending bill was approved that called for an increase in teacher pay. When legislators finally realized the error in the bill that fails to actually pay for the pay raise, it was too late. Since then it has been a battle of political wills to fix this single omission.
The bill that passed this week is no different. While a comprehensive review of the proposed spending would be im-possible in the short time legislators had the bill, even a brief review demonstrates critical oversights with regard to funding. For example, the Tulsa World noted the Department of Corrections will be under funded by $40 million dollars and the Oklahoma Teachers Retirement System, the 3rd worst funded public retirement plan in the United States, is left out entirely. In addition, there is zero funding to strengthen our child welfare system that stands on the front lines of protecting our children from abuse. Efforts to expand a plan to make health insurance more affordable to small businesses and their employees were also tabled. Any serious budget proposal would certainly address these legal and moral obligations.
That said, there are good things in this bill. As such, I personally urge Governor Henry to use his line-item veto power to force the state to pay last year’s bills (something that should have been done the first week in February). I further urge the Governor to send the remaining $6.95 billion in spending back to the legislature for further consideration. The people of Oklahoma deserve to have their tax dollars spent in the light of day and with the deliberation that is necessary for a healthy democracy, not by a few powerbrokers in smoke-filled rooms. This is the standard we should hold all elected officials to, regardless of their political party.
It is said we will run out of time if we don’t make these decisions early in session. If we spent less time passing bills dealing with the state vegetable and declaring the “Dutch-oven” the official oven of Oklahoma (no I’m not making this stuff up), then we would have more than enough time to devote to significant legislation, such as spending over $7 billion dollars. In short, we need to send a message to anxious legislators not to spend our tax dollars while they are hungry.