The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Oklahoma apparently has the largest state budget deficit in the country. 

http://www.newsok.com/oklahomas-budget-has-countrys-biggest-deficit/article/3426247

I'll be the first to blame Bush.

We're finally NUMBER ONE at something!

Yep. We worked hard this year, sacrificed much, but it paid off.

The winds of change are preceding the storm.  It took 4 years in 1933 for the blunt of the storm to be felt. In the 30’ the stimulus money was given to the unemployed by “made work” job creations while this time it is passed out to established  corporations to trickle down to the unemployed.  The CEO’s are depositing it in off shore investment.  In the balance of trade the only thing we have left is the land, buildings and industries which foreign investors, using the devaluating dollar are buying which allows them to immigrate their employees.  Even the jobs of the Grapes of Wrath are filled.  :(

Yeah, we're pretty well screwed. Might as well buy up all the Rosetta Stone you can and start learning Chinese and Spanish. ;)

Why would we blame Bush and the boys? They were only in control of the executive office for 8 years of the last decade and legislatively half of the previous decade. No use looking back though. Certainly not if you voted for them.

amend: it just occurred to me that I might have been too sarcastic. Frankly, we've been headed down this path a long time. Both the country, the state and the city. It had to end up in disaster when your state legislators decide to return tax funds during good times instead of building up reserves and funding previously deferred infrastructure maintenance. The tax returns were pitifully small but got them all re-elected since Okies think all taxes are the work of the devil. Now we're stuck with a declining quality of life, huge debt and a depressed populace.

For what its worth, I feel optimistic that we will pull out of this faster than you might think. And, seriously, I don't blame the Bush-meister. He was just one of many players who contributed.

What did Bush and the boys do to increase Oklahoma's deficit to the highest level in the country? You don't think that the Oklahoma's dem controlled legislature (80 years in the house and how long in the senate?) and dem governor had anything to do with it?  Nah, because your post makes no mention of their party identity.

I do not understand your beef about returning tax funds "during the good times"? You sound as if the state government should just keep money that does not belong to the them (as if it ever did to begin with) when its not needed, instead of letting people who earned the money and that rightfully belongs to them keep it, is some stupid mistake. Also, I did not know our state government was in the business of forcing tax payers to fund an additional rainy day account.

Not having a rainy day account is even more stupid on a governmental level than a personal or corporate level.

I can't believe that you argue with a straight face that government should have no reserves to see its operations through a year or two's recession without having to exacerbate the problem by raising taxes or cutting services/jobs. Said reserves also allow for a more orderly transition to a lower level of service should the revenue decrease continue indefinitely.

It sure feels good to get a check from the government, though! Sort of like it feels good to blow your savings on a vacation or whatever. Kinda sucks when it turns out you needed the money after all.

You complain about government being incompetent and irresponsible, but you apparently don't want it to be competent and responsible, either.

I will gladly donate my change bucket to this cause.

Couldn't have said it better Nathan. Everyone is so insistent that government be run like a business. Show me any successful business that doesn't keep a safety stock, a reserve built up during good times to weather the downturns. These have been irresponsible, selfish, shortsighted legislators.

Guido, your partisan rant is without substance. Most Dems in OK would be Repubs ANYWHERE else. Most of the candidates are registered that way cause so many Okie voters are registered that way-voters who haven't voted for a Democratic senator, congressman or president since '65. There is no doubt we're one of the reddest of the red states. OK is divided up by rural vs city issues, not partisanship.

Jim Jones and Mike Synar were pretty well supported along party lines.  Gerrymandered districts kept Jim Jones in office long past what should have been his "retirement".  I think it was illegal to vote Republican in Little Dixie until recently. You certainly took your life in your own hands if you did.  I think even I voted for David Boren for Senator, so that has to have been since 1971.  Your premise is probably correct but not as early as the 60s, more like late 80s to 90s. More in line time wise with the Democratic party's diversion farther left at the national level.

Agreed. If you have the capability, why is it bad for an individual or business to stash away money so they can ride out unexpected hard times? That's just common sense.

I, for one, am very glad the state has a rainy-day fund.

Its a perspective thing. People around here thought that the Democratic party started going leftward when they embraced the Civil Rights Act of 1965 and thereby blew off the South, (including OK). From my perspective, it was the Republican party that lurched hard right during the 80's-90's when they embraced Reagan, Bush etc. Such a hard jolt that even Goldwater had difficulty with the party direction. I had been a moderate Democrat and suddenly was being called a liberal.

The registrations are misleading. Everyone knows someone who's still registered as a Dem after 40 years because "their parents were", or "they were only 18 and didn't know better" or "they survived the depression and vowed never to vote republican again". With little exception (Synar, Jones, Boren) our senators and congressmen have been universally conservative, regardless of party affiliation, throughout my lifetime here. For every Boren there are several Nickolls', Inhofes', Coburns', Sullivans'.

I still believe that until recently, (the emergence of Sally the anti-gay crusader, HB1804, 10 commandments on public property etc.) the defining character of state and local politics in OK is the wildly divergent interests of rural vs city (in our area it permutates-big city vs suburban cities). Rural almost always wins in states like ours. That is why we keep getting Dem governors. They are perceived as acceptable to rural interests because they work hard to represent them and their Dem affiliation is conservative and palatable. Remember the surprising loss of the very popular, likeable conservative Steve Largent on a statewide level? The only folks surprised were from partisan oriented Tulsa. Around the rest of the state he was perceived as a city kid from Tulsa who bolted for an even bigger city....ON THE LEFT COAST! A modern day carpet bagger. It was compounded by the fact that the Southern half of OK just doesn't care for the NorthEast corner of the state and vice versa.

I don't know how to do it but the Republican party needs to shed the likes of Sally Kern and her type.  I can and have voted for some Democrat candidates but I cannot buy into the Democratic party in general.  As we well know, in order to have any real say in the candidates presented for the general elections, you have to be either D or R to vote in primary elections. (The subject of many threads before this.)  Isn't politics wonderful?

The Overton window is real, and the proof is the modern-day conception of the Democrats as being largely liberal, when in substance they are exactly the same as Republicans on all but a few peripheral social issues.

The Republicans (socially at first, and in more recent years economically) moved so far to the right so quickly that it changed people's perception of the Democrats.

As far as the people actually in office at a national level, we don't really have a left and right now, we have "slightly more corporatist" and "slightly less corporatist." The social issues are just window dressing.

And when I say that I'm not saying corporations in general are a bad thing, although they (like the people that run them) tend to move in that direction in absence of rules, I'm just saying that the corporate form has been elevated to a status of religion amongst a large number of our fellow countrymen, and it shows in the ever-relaxing regulations and the return to near monopolies in many markets. The pendulum has once again swung too far, IMO.

And FWIW, in my opinion the whole "run government like a business" meme is incredibly misguided. Government is not a business and should not be a business. Its purpose is not to make a profit, nor should it have the short term horizon most businesses do. Government's focus should be on where we want to be three to six years from now, not three to six months from now. They're just completely incompatible philosophies, although that could be again due to the movement of the Overton window. 40 years ago business was run with an eye to the longer term, and the whole idea of running government like a business made a certain amount of sense. Today, with the focus solely on stock price and this quarter's earnings, the two should not be married.

That's one of the problems with business today, they have no long term plans to survive. Everything is geared around short term profit.  It's OK to sell off part of your infrastructure today to maximize this year's profit.  Let someone else worry about the fact that in five years the company will wish they hadn't sold it. (Taken from an actual situation that happened many years ago.)

I agree that government is not a business in the sense of making a profit. Where would the profits be distributed?  There are obvious government duties like national defense.  Much beyond that and we start going our separate ways.

Nathan, thanks for the reference to the Overton Window. I had never heard of it. I had seen similar tactics employed in sales and social settings but hadn't considered its use in politics. In fact, my wife and I often used to laugh at each other's "growing up poor" stories with the effect that we began to feel quite wealthy in the current time. I guess we were moving the window as well.

In a 70's campy pulp classic "How to Pick Up Girls" I remember one tactic was to find a crowded bus or subway and come up to a pretty girl and either pinch her or kiss her and then quickly dissappear into the crowd. Then wait a week or so and go back to the same location, at the same time and make eye contact and smile at the same woman. "She will think she knows you from somewhere" and conversation will ensue! Not recommended, but the same concept.

Your remarks about business ring quite true. Many have lamented the short term profit view which exploded onto the scene during the 1980's.

Government is not so much a for profit corporation, as it can be viewed as a non-profit corporation where there are no profits because they've all been spread among the directors and employees as expenses or plowed back into operations. Sort of like the PGA.

First, I am shocked, shocked that you agree with nate. As for the partisan rant riff, for once just shut up. You sound ridiculous. I mean, "I didn't call them out as dems because thems ain't REAL dems" raises the buffoonery bar to a new level-particularly after you own, obviously non partisan, "Bush and the boys" comment.  

As to the government run like a business, I don't think "everyone" wants that since I am not in that boat. First, as stated earlier, businesses exist to make profit, government does not. Government is empowered to do only what the people says it can do through constitutional and statutory prescription. Your belief that government is some sort of sentient omnipotent super being which hovers over us is simply wrong. Now, it the Oklahoma people decided to give its money (tax dollars) back to themselves, it was their decision. So Nate, blame yourself.    

Nate:  If you read my response to waterboy, you would realize that I never said we didn't need a rainy day account. However, in reading your response to mine and following it to its logical conclusion, you feel that we should have mega-rainy day fund without caps on the amount government could seize from tax payers for "just in case" situations. Where is the source for that authority?  In addition, I find it interesting that you would call out the government run like a business "meme" as your original post in this thread introduced that concept to the discussion (Remember: "Not having a rainy day account is even more stupid on a governmental level than a personal or corporate level...")(emphasis mine)

Give it a break Gweed. Better a buffoon than a boor. I couldn't tell you if Nate is conservative, dem, gay or blind. I don't take much notice of such things. I did notice he made sense. You don't. Your blind partisanship and devotion to conservatism is stiflingly boring. Its as if you never acknowledged that the world may have existed before you and outside of you. You need not take every point someone makes and attempt to turn it into some kind of tea-bag rant.

When you make some remark like your "sentient omnipotent superbeing" rant it sounds like you may be able to read and repeat some political website spin, but have real difficulty with reading comprehension of real people posts. I simply noted the similarity of current government and non-profit operations. Sheesh.

Where were you the last 35 years when the rally cry for politicians was "run government like a business"? Where were you when it became de riguer in political mailers to emphasize how many employees the candidate was responsible for meeting payroll? Probably in diapers. Now we reap the benefit of having corporates jump from private to public venues and back again carrying with them their political, historical ignorance and making sure their corporate masters are served and their constituents are re educated to believe their interests are the same as lobbyists. When someone says "everyone" it is a commonly accepted substitute for general acceptance unless you're defending your thesis for a degree. Get over it.

Lastly, the Oklahoma people did not demand that those measily <$100 checks were sent to them a few years ago when we had a surplus of tax receipts. Nor did they demand that vehicle inspections cease, the bulk of tax reciepts be spent outside of Tulsa county, or the $40 sales tax credits either. Had they been told the consequences of such folly and how it is not an acceptable business practice to give all your profits back to your stockholders, and invest in only one part of a business while other areas starve,  I doubt they would have agreed to it.

Your philosophy of government, "if the Oklahoma people decided to give its money (tax dollars) back to themselves, it was their decision"  is pretty cute. That logic would lead to what Red noted. Just sell off the taxpayers assets and return the taxes to voters if that's what they want. A CHICKEN IN EVERY POT I TELL YOU!  I know I am lacking in many areas of education, but I know what I know. Sometimes you seem so naive it hurts.

Plus eleventy one.  An excellent summation.

Oklahoma's politicians decided that. Why? Probably to buy votes. (not literally as in an oral contract, obviously)

I considered including (I even wrote it, but decided to delete it) that caveat regarding a cap on the rainy day fund, but I figured it was obvious I didn't support the government amassing unlimited funds and the post was getting too long already. I do think we should have 2-4 years of expenses available as a reserve. (I haven't considered the range too strongly, it's pretty arbitrary) It seems like a lot, but it would be enough to deal with several years worth of reduced sales tax reciepts while not contributing to further erosion of the tax base with immediate layoffs, yet still allowing for an orderly force reduction when the scope of the revenue reduction and its term become more clear. It would allow for more thoughtful reaction to economic changes, rather than knee-jerk reactions.

I think you're aware of the common statement (especially amongst the '94 Republicans) that "government should be run like a business." I thought of it because I heard a radio ad for some government agency while I was driving through Alabama touting how they were running themselves "like a business," as if that was something to be proud of.

I agree that government is government and business is business and they should not be run in the same way.

Here's another of these "happy state" polls, Oklahoma checks in at number 21.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126152663510002187.html

The bluest of the blue states dominate the bottom 10. 

That is interesting, guido.

I wonder why liberals are less happy.

Their Superiority Complex makes it difficult to make friends.

Because we never get what we want from those awful conservapukes..

Ignorance is bliss.

Beat me to it, Artist.

Not a "Number One", but OK is no. 5 in most conservative state in the U.S.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125480/Ideology-Three-Deep-South-States-Conservative.aspx

And in addition to being 5th most conservative, we are also in a bad place relative to other states in many other areas, such as

income (33),
education (36),
health care,
roads (17th worst),
energy consumption per capita (11th highest),
infant mortality (11th highest),
Federal aid to state and local govt (17th - so much for all those "rugged individualists"),
people with college education (41 - gee, why don't we get new industry???),
teacher salaries (47 - oh, that explains the college thing...),
nonfarm employeement (30th - 9.6% of us in manufacturing - reflects the education)
gross domestic product (29 - must be helped by the marijuana trade)
traffic fatalities rate (21 out of 50 - casual attitude toward DUI must be hard at work here)

health care (50 out of 50 - tied with Mississippi)

The best things we have are inversely proportional to the "conservatism" of this state.  The worst things, directly proportional.  Gee, imagine how great it would be if there were MORE conservatism here.  As if that could happen.

I'd lot rather be like California.  All those problems you mentioned would be solved.

In this corner, we have causation; in THIS corner, we have coincidence.  FIGHT!

And where'd all those statistics come from, got a source?  What's their methodology?  Where's the data?  Are things quantified the same way from state to state?  Is it possible the study is significantly influenced by some kind of bias or agenda?  Do you ask these kinds of questions or just jump all over anything that resembles evidence for your prejudices?

They'd be better. And being Oklahoma, we probably wouldn't have voted ourselves so much punch and pie that we'd be insolvent.

I wouldn't count on it, either statement.

Buckeye,
Most of it came from the US census bureau.  There were a couple that came from elsewhere, and I forgot where, but could find them if you are truly interested.  Google is your Friend!!

I didn't really pose a question this time.  I guess I am getting conditioned to the fact that there won't be a direct answer from many here.

I have lots of questions.  Here is an example (answer optional). 

We hear so much about family values from people like Sarah Palin.  She seems to be the latest torch bearer.  I submit she has NO real control over her daughter's action, so I have no quarrel with the out of wedlock baby.  This is one of the most natural things in the world.  Unfortunately.

But here we are a year after the fact and there is a true battle going on for custody.  The Palin family - and it is not immediately obvious who has the most control of this - is 'allowing' the father visitation ONLY on Saturday's from 9:00 am to 2:00 pm.  Based on her apparent public attitude about this father, I could see Sarah going to great lengths to prevent him from seeing his baby.

The question is HOW can she (or any of the RWRE minions) reconcile their publicly stated positions about "Family" and this same family, whether Sarah or her daughter, with the very obvious restrictions designed to limit Daddy's access to Baby??

That's more like the Addams Family Values.

Snap. FOTD can't get up the desire to point out her flaws any longer. It's really ugly undressed as %85 of the country well knows.