No other election issue has garnered so much attention and controversy as State Question 744, known as the Helping Oklahoma Public Education Act.
After hours of research and reporting, we cannot in good conscience encourage citizens to vote “yes” on this measure.
If passed, the measure will repeal part of the state constitution and add in a measure mandating that Oklahoma raise spending on public education to the regional average.
As it stands, Oklahoma spends the least per Kindergarten through 12th grade pupil compared to the six surrounding states: Texas, Missouri, Colorado, Arkansas, New Mexico and Kansas. Nationally, Oklahoma is ranked 49th in education spending.
While increased funding would likely improve some aspects of Oklahoma’s public education, SQ 744 risks doing more harm than good to our state.
The OK Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank that analyzes policy decisions to provide lawmakers a resource to make fiscally responsible decisions, released a fact sheet on its website, okpolicy.org, that breaks down all possible impacts on Oklahoma if SQ 744 passes. It provides the clearest argument against the initiative, which comes down to the simple fact that SQ 744 has the potential to harm state agencies that can’t afford to be cut.
Consider the fact that public education already receives the most funding of any state agency. Education accounts for about 35 percent of the state budget, according to the OK Policy Institute.
The other 65 percent of the state budget pays for services such as “higher education, health care, social services, transportation, public safety, economic development, consumer protection, natural resources, and the three branches of government.”
All of these services receive less funding than the regional average, and can’t handle deeper cuts, especially in light of Oklahoma’s current budget crisis. This year, the budget experienced a 14.8-percent budget shortfall, and this year faces a $400 million budget hole.
If Oklahoma is mandated to stick with the regional average, this could mean the state constantly adjusts education spending to match the regional average, which has increased at an annual rate of 5 percent from 1998 to 2008, according to the National Center on Education Statistics.
Proponents of SQ 744 say state agencies won’t need to be cut if Oklahoma legislators end billions of dollars worth of special tax breaks for special interests, end lavish perks for politicians and lower the annual pay of lawmakers.
While many tax credits for businesses probably deserve to be examined — and some likely deserve to be done away with — it’s a longshot that this would help fund SQ 744’s projected $850 million to $1.7 billion price tag. And higher taxes on corporations and wealthier individuals won’t go over well; it could drive businesses out of state.
Supporters also point to the high pay and perks for Oklahoma politicians. State legislators are the highest paid in the region, raking in about $38,400 a year.
The YES on 744 website also points out that lawmakers often take trips on the taxpayer’s dime. However, the article the site links readers to reveals that lawmakers are no longer allowed to travel out of state on taxpayer funds.
Supporters constantly point to these facts as proof that funding for SQ 744 can be materialized. However, the language of the ballot measure doesn’t give specify any source for funding, leaving it entirely up to the policymakers that the SQ 744 campaigners vehemently decry. There is no guarantee that increased funds will be earmarked for the right purposes, and only after the first year of increased spending would the Education Oversight Board and the Office of Accountability publish reports on where money is spent.
If Oklahoma is going to increase the amount of spending for education, other state agencies will need to be severely cut, or there will need to be tax increases for certain individuals and corporations or both — plain and simple.
The YES on 744 campaign deserves credit for bringing Oklahoma’s poor education standing back into the spotlight —and exposing some of the waste and unnecessary perks for politicians — but this measure won’t solve our problems.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
The_truth 1 year, 7 months ago
Actually, you should look at the facts and stop spreading the lies fed to you by the Gaylords. E.K. is one of those receiving massive tax breaks and has a vested interest in keeping it.
Anon 1 year, 7 months ago
Oklahoma politicians are the HIGHEST paid in the region, and yet our education is the LOWEST. Arkansas legislators make less than half of what Oklahoma's do, their people make less per capita than Oklahoma's - and yet they invest more in education than we do. But we can't afford 744?
YES WE CAN. It would require going over the budget, yes, but we should be doing that anyway. If Arkansas can afford to spend much more per child than Oklahoma, while they make less per capita, then we can afford some cuts in certain areas. Also, this is a comparison to just one state in the region - look at Texas, Kansas, and New Mexico, all of whom pay their legislators even less than Arkansas does - and all of whom spend much more per child in education.
The bill cannot lay out specifics as to how it will be paid; we do not know what future problems may come, and saying "it will be paid through this means" would cause more problems. It's actually better for the bill to allow the budgetary committees to come up with a means to pay for education than to decide for them.
As far as other state agencies being cut, the question you need to ask is this: where are your priorities? If education is at the top of the list, then it should be funded FIRST. How about cuts to the amount of money we spend incarcerating those on non-violent drug charges? Oklahoma has some of the highest incarceration rates in the country, yet does not have the highest crime rates - this does not make sense.
If you argue that other agencies cannot afford to be cut to make way for education, fine. But do not say that education is among your highest priorities - that would be a lie. If you do not believe that the Oklahoma government could afford cuts to other places in favor of education, fine - but do not tell me that you believe in the importance of education, because that is a lie. Your words need to match with your actions, and if you truly believe that education is one of the most important things we can do for our children, then vote YES on 744. If you vote no, then you lose your right to claim that you believe education is important.
TallSon 1 year, 7 months ago
The comment posted above reads, "Oklahoma has some of the highest incarceration rates in the country, yet does not have the highest crime rates - this does not make sense."
Perhaps, Oklahoma does not have the highest crime rates, precisely because it has some of the highest incarceration rates in the country. To many of us, this does make perfect sense.
When your children receive illicit drugs, directly or indirectly, from a "non-violent", should-have-been-charged-and-properly-sentenced criminal, you will wish that you did not vote for this budget-busting ballot measure that is being pushed on us by the Democrat Party-supporting unions.