http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/475.html
According to the tax foundation Oklahoma's average tax burden (as % of income) is the lowest in the nation. Several reasons both positive (lower spending) and negative (low income = less federal taxes), but on the whole an interesting and positive stat for development.
On the other hand... Oklahoma's business taxes are way off kilter. My company, for instance, would be better off paying workers comp in BOTH Arkansas and Kansas on every dollar earned than just in Oklahoma. And we've never had a claim filed against us. Both states are less than half of what Oklahoma pays across the bored (heavy machine, office, sales...). No wonder large manufacturers don't want to locate in Oklahoma - there is essentially a 5% tax on ever dollar they pay their workers over any neighboring state.
Sorry for the tangent, one though led to the other.
Holy ****!!! We better start raising taxes so we don't keep popping up so favorably on this list!!!
It shows.
You can also say the State and Local Tax Burden is higher than it's ever been. (11.0%)
Same for the Federal Tax Burden. (21.7%)
If 33% of one's income isn't enough, I doubt anything will satisfy those who want more.
And, please, try to keep in mind, percentages mean revenues grow with income and costs.
JANUARY 30, 2008
Too Many Bureaucrats
Oklahoma just can't afford all the overhead. Now's the time to cut back
BY J. SCOTT MOODY AND WENDY P. WARCHOLIK
The Governor's Task Force on State Employee Compensation has been meeting and studying and will soon issue a report. But one can't really talk about government employee compensation without first discussing one glaring fact: there are simply too many government employees in Oklahoma.
Indeed, in looking at the ratio of government employees to private-sector employees, one discovers that Oklahoma has the 5th highest ratio in the country.
According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, in 2006 Oklahoma's state and local governments employed 271,656 people (full and part time), or 17.7 percent of the state labor force. Of the total, Oklahoma state government employed 83,769 people (this includes higher-education employees) and local governments employed 187,887. Overall, they were paid $11,191,666,000 in total compensation, or 13.1 percent of the earnings in the state (wages and salaries plus benefits).
Unfortunately, Oklahoma citizens have no direct way to judge whether or not they are getting a good "bang for the buck" for the goods and services provided by the public sector. One way to better understand the productivity of the public sector is to compare government employment and compensation levels across the 50 states.
The basis of comparison is to examine the number of jobs and their pay in Oklahoma versus the national average. There is nothing magical about the national average, of course, but since it represents an amalgam of 50 states it is reasonable to assume that being above the national average indicates low productivity among the government's workforce.
In 2006, Oklahoma's state and local governments employed 21.45 people for every 100 people employed by the private sector (this is the "employment ratio"). As mentioned above, this is the 5th highest ratio in the country. This employment ratio is 32 percent higher than the national average.
In 2006, Oklahoma's state and local government compensation was $41,198 per job while private sector compensation was $40,726 per job. The average state and local government job paid 1.2 percent higher than the average private sector job (this is the "compensation ratio").
Adjusting the employment and compensation ratio to the national average would have saved Oklahoma's taxpayers a whopping $2.7 billion in 2006. Such massive budget savings could have been used to significantly reduce taxes. For example, in 2005 (the latest year of available tax data), Oklahoma's tax burden could have been reduced to 7.35 percent of personal income from 9.75 percent of personal income--a reduction of nearly 25 percent.
Policy-makers should be aware that one way to solve the state's challenges is to grow private-sector businesses, allowing them to better compensate and hire additional employees. Policy-makers must pursue pro-growth economic policies--such as lower regulations, lower taxes, and secure property rights--that will promote economic development. Such policies are a win-win for both the private and public sectors.
From Urban Tulsa...
Breadburner, quit spreading common sense, it might get contagious.
I still have never figured out the mentality of government being a more capable employer than the private sector.
Thats interesting. We pay less in taxes than other states per person but have more people employed by the government than the average state as well.
Not sure how to quite read that... If government people are offering a valuable service then having more of them for less money paid out would seem to be a good thing. But if more people equals more pencil pushers and bureaucracy then its a bad thing.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Thats interesting. We pay less in taxes than other states per person but have more people employed by the government than the average state as well.
Not sure how to quite read that... If government people are offering a valuable service then having more of them for less money paid out would seem to be a good thing. But if more people equals more pencil pushers and bureaucracy then its a bad thing.
Might that have to do with an extra layer of administration for all the Indian lands? Your average state doesn't have that to deal with, overall.
Wevus, dealings with Indian Nations is a Federal issue. Clearly there is some state involvement but it is relatively minimal.
Wrinkle: Dead one.
quote:
Ben Franklin Wrote
It would be a hard government that should tax its people one-tenth part of their income.
quote:
Will Rogers Said
The income tax has made more liars out of the American people than golf has. Even when you make a tax form out on the level, you don't know when it's through if you are a crook or a martyr.
Between the complexity, the loop holes, the inefficiency, and the special interests and prodding that goes on with the tax code - my god do we ever need to start over. When it is possible for a CPA, a tax attorney, an IRS official and a tax payer to all not *really* know the answer to a tax question (and thus wind up in court) - something is wrong.
Unless you want to call Will Roger and Ben Franklin bad names you have to agree with me. [;)]
So for every 13 people in the State there is 1 employee or am I way off.....????
I assume you are talking about government employees, but it really isn't clear.
There are about 1,650,000 employed persons in Oklahoma to 74,000 unemployed persons. Of those employed about 347,000 are government employees. Giving us 21% government employment.
http://www.kjrh.com/news/state/story.aspx?content_id=b3399b40-caa8-431a-aa4e-9d4dd386013b
1 in 13 would be 8%, so triple that and we're closer. 1 in 5 people in the State or on some government payroll. In Oklahoma County the number is far, far higher. Same with Stillwater and Lawton.
Lawton is military. Stillwater education. OKC is a mix (as I've discussed at length) of Education, Federal (FAA, IRS, etc), military, state and local government). Apparently most government jobs are not high rewarding careers reflecting 21% of the employees earning only 13% of the wages.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
But if more people equals more pencil pushers and bureaucracy then its a bad thing.
It only takes a little realization like this to become a conservative. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I assume you are talking about government employees, but it really isn't clear.
There are about 1,650,000 employed persons in Oklahoma to 74,000 unemployed persons. Of those employed about 347,000 are government employees. Giving us 21% government employment.
http://www.kjrh.com/news/state/story.aspx?content_id=b3399b40-caa8-431a-aa4e-9d4dd386013b
1 in 13 would be 8%, so triple that and we're closer. 1 in 5 people in the State or on some government payroll. In Oklahoma County the number is far, far higher. Same with Stillwater and Lawton.
Lawton is military. Stillwater education. OKC is a mix (as I've discussed at length) of Education, Federal (FAA, IRS, etc), military, state and local government). Apparently most government jobs are not high rewarding careers reflecting 21% of the employees earning only 13% of the wages.
I divided the number of Government employees into the population of Ok.....
^TNF King of one liners may know about getting something for nothing.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectID=48&articleID=20080206_5_E1_spanc04883
the link explains why we have the lowest taxes.....
Lowest taxes?
Maybe that's why we have the look and feel of a third world country. The rest of the U.S. (at least the part that counts) has left us behind.
Even our dedicated strivers don't make a lot of money (with the exception of a few oil men).
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Lowest taxes?
Maybe that's why we have the look and feel of a third world country. The rest of the U.S. (at least the part that counts) has left us behind.
Even our dedicated strivers don't make a lot of money (with the exception of a few oil men).
Does your partner ever get tired of your incessant complaining, or are you a matched pair? [}:)]
Keep in mind Arkansas is 13th highest in the nation. Nebraska 9th. Kansas is 15th. Mississippi is 29th. There are states that I wouldn't want to particularly live in that have relatively high.
Make sure to avoid the low taxation states that dwell with us towards the bottom of Delaware, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Florida and Oregon. Those are known to be horribly regressive state's that everyone else has left behind. Well, everyone that matters.
If you want hire taxes you could move a few miles East to super liberal progressive and awesome to live in Arkansas. Or A little North to Kansas. Or jump South to Texas. Plenty of options, yet you remain. For that matter, feel free to donate extra money to help make Oklahoma a better place.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/335.html
Oklahoma has cheap prop. taxes, but sales taxes are high. Oklahoma also taxes food most states don't tax food. vehicle license registration is a bit high in Oklahoma, but gas taxes are some of the lowest around. Oklahoma's income taxes are a bit high, but cost of living is lower... All in all alot of it comes out in the wash and evens out. it depends on your life style and what you spend your money on and the car you buy and the house you live in.
Texas has no income tax- but prop. taxes are thru the roof. So it all depends on if you work or are retired- own your home, or rent, on how much tax you'll pay in Texas.
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
Texas has no income tax- but prop. taxes are thru the roof. So it all depends on if you work or are retired- own your home, or rent, on how much tax you'll pay in Texas.
Property taxes are paid by renters at the end of the day.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
You can also say the State and Local Tax Burden is higher than it's ever been. (11.0%)
Same for the Federal Tax Burden. (21.7%)
If 33% of one's income isn't enough, I doubt anything will satisfy those who want more.
And, please, try to keep in mind, percentages mean revenues grow with income and costs.
I think you are looking at the wrong columns. OK's State and Local Tax Burden is 9%, and it has been as high as 10%(1998). It's two full points lower than the national average That's 18% lower than the national average.
Similar with the national...we pay 18.8% today and it has been as high as 22.3%(1981). The national average is 21.7%
So, our state and local tax burden is not at an all-time high...that was 30.4% in 1981. We are currently at 27.8%.
Oklahoma's total tax burden is 8.6% lower than it was in '81, and 15% lower than the current national average.There, aren't ya happy I saved you all that money?[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
You can also say the State and Local Tax Burden is higher than it's ever been. (11.0%)
Same for the Federal Tax Burden. (21.7%)
If 33% of one's income isn't enough, I doubt anything will satisfy those who want more.
And, please, try to keep in mind, percentages mean revenues grow with income and costs.
I think you are looking at the wrong columns. OK's State and Local Tax Burden is 9%, and it has been as high as 10%(1998). It's two full points lower than the national average That's 18% lower than the national average.
Similar with the national...we pay 18.8% today and it has been as high as 22.3%(1981). The national average is 21.7%
So, our state and local tax burden is not at an all-time high...that was 30.4% in 1981. We are currently at 27.8%. Oklahoma's total tax burden is 8.6% lower than it was in '81, and 15% lower than the current national average.
There, aren't ya happy I saved you all that money?[;)]
I stand corrected.
The vertical banding and ambiguous titles on the chart was messing with me. (or was it I with it?)
But, percentage-based taxes still grow with the economy and with real expansion (jobs/companies).
"Bigger piece of the Pie" really means your remaing pie is of less volume, when what is needed is more pies.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
I stand corrected.
The vertical banding and ambiguous titles on the chart was messing with me. (or was it I with it?)
But, percentage-based taxes still grow with the economy and with real expansion (jobs/companies).
"Bigger piece of the Pie" really means your remaing pie is of less volume, when what is needed is more pies.
Not sure I follow the last sentence, but yes, tax collections will grow and shrink proportionally with the economy. And, as others have shown in this thread, government
is a part of the economy, too.
But what I want to know is, are you 8.6% happier than you were in 1981? Are you 15% happier than the average American? Our taxes are the lowest in the nation...again. It's like you
one won the Superbowl for the second straight year. Where's the celebration? In BBall terms, Oklahoma has made it to the Elite Eight every year since 1986, that's 21 years in a row. What have we got to show for this dynastic dominance?
Worn out and neglected infrastructure? Low-wage jobs? Oklahoma proves that having low, low taxes doesn't net you jack sh*t. I don't
want higher taxes, but I certainly don't fear doing what it takes to keep our infrastructure from crumbling any further. If you want a future for yourselves and your children, you should save and
invest...any smart Republican will tell you that. To me, paying taxes is the way we invest in things that we share, like roads, schools, etc.
You guys have some very valid points about efficiency and managing the size of the bureaucracy, but you also have some fundamental problems understanding what taxes are really for.
CL, I have no doubt that higher taxes could bennefit the state.
However, they will only bennefit the state more than leaving the money with the people if it used wisely. Looking around at the mass of government waste, the multi layered bureaucracy, inefficiency, and entire programs that seem meaningless - I hope you understand why I don't think more taxes will equal prosperity. In general, people take better care of their money than someone else would.
What's more, there is only so much money in the state. It can be spent by the individuals or pillaged by the government. Expenditures of either (to some extent) in state will fund jobs, development, and additional tax revenue.
Show me a program I think is for the greater good and financed, constructed and operated in an efficient and meaningful manner and I'll vote to fund it. But raising taxes for more entitlements, to throw more money at failing schools, or for regional pet projects is a losing battle. The closer to home taxes are, the better.
/ramble
(snip)
quote:
The closer to home taxes are, the better.
I will actually agree on that one. Our state can't declare war on other countries, so that makes it immediately able to better spend our tax dollars :)
quote:
Originally posted by EricP
(snip)
quote:
The closer to home taxes are, the better.
I will actually agree on that one. Our state can't declare war on other countries, so that makes it immediately able to better spend our tax dollars :)
I think we should go a step further and not send any of our taxes to OKC. Why send it there so they can pay people to "do lord knows what" then send it back? Leave out the middle man and we would have more taxes to spend here. I do think we need taxes for things like roads, schools, police, parks, or whatever our community gets together and decides we want to do. But the key is OUR taxes OUR community. Perhaps send a bit to a state collective for emergencies because a city can run into a hard patch or have an emergency they cant afford, plus a state highway fund, but more than that I cant see.
A good place to live & work is Vancover, Washington. The state of Washington has no income tax. Across the river in Portland, Oregon they have no sales tax. So you can have the best of both worlds if ya live there. Live/Work in the state of Washington pay no income taxes, shop in Portland, OR. and pay no slaes tax at all.[:)]
Can we all agree there is no such thing as a free lunch?
What really worries me is the time when the bill comes due for the decades of neglect. I don't want to get stuck with cumulative bill for Oklahoma's chronic negligence.
I have started to suspect that the State of Oklahoma played a role that contributed to and helped lead to the Okie migration. All I recall from old newsreels was talk about bank repossession of farms and the over farming of the land but I have come to wonder if the state didn't somehow contribute to the migration either actively through wrong head policies or through neglect. I do find that people and entities are consistent and over time patterns emerge.
This is real question for those knowledgeable about Oklahoma history: Did the State of Oklahoma help cause the Okie Migration?
Are you suggesting that the State somehow controlled the weather? Certainly there were improvements made to the farming techniques of the day, i.e. terracing fields and planting of tree lines to reduce windblown erosion, but the overriding factor that lead to the "Oklahoma migration" was the extended drought conditions. Both of my parent grew up as "dirt farmers", actually wheat farmers but there were more years of dirt than wheat, in western Oklahoma and I don't believe I have ever heard them make any statement to the effect that the state played any part in their success or failure.
Interestingly the tree lines are still there.
No, my question is, outside of weather did the state have any policy that contributed to the Okie Migration?
I'm not clear on this but aren't some banks state banks that are regulated by the state? So my question also asks did the state banks play any role that contributed to the Okie migration?
I'm just curious if the state played any role that contributed to the Okie migration, even if it was just gross neglect?
Can someone explain why the roads are so bad in Tulsa? I'm serious and not trying to inflame. It seems to me it's a public safety issue.
OKC's roads don't seem to be in near bad of shape as Tulsa's with ostensibly a larger tax base and even larger metro area. ODOT also seems to do a better job of maintaining their highway infrastructure.
Anyone who isn't or has not worked for a government entity should not be citing higher wages or better paying jobs as an excuse to charge everyone else more in tax money.
Look down the list of professional and technical occupations on a Davis-Bacon statement. Government typically pays less and requires vendors to pay less than private sector does voluntarily on many skilled positions. They might pay higher for janitors or other un-skilled but we are still talking about crappy $8.00 per hour jobs.
Confiscatory taxes so that government can create new jobs is sooooo 20th century USSR.
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaFan-inTexas
Can someone explain why the roads are so bad in Tulsa? I'm serious and not trying to inflame. It seems to me it's a public safety issue.
Same tax has been going to the roads but meanwhile...
1. Population and jobs stagnated for a long time, even lost for a while. Lost a lot of high paying, high tax raising jobs, 20-30,000. The city actually decreased in population "while adding more roads" So basically, more roads but less taxes to pay for them. During which also....
2. Population has spread out, less persons per square mile to raise taxes per that square mile of roads. Tulsa once had 9,000 persons paying to upkeep each square mile of roads, For a long time it had 6,000 persons paying for each square mile of roads, Then 3,000. Now we are down to around 2,000 persons trying to pay for each square mile of roads. Looove that sprawl. Also....
3. Roads have widened and added lanes. Going from a 2 lane to a 4 lane doubles your road miles that have to be built and maintained. "so within the above mentioned square mile of roads there are less people and ever more lane miles of roads to pay for". Also...
4. Cost of road building materials, and labor has increased since the original tax was set up. Also...
5. As the money for roads has not kept up with the above costs, maintenance has not been done correctly, been "on the cheap" so they will not last as long as they would have. Also...
6. People drive more on the roads than they did 20 and 30 years ago. People have more cars, we have more commuters from the suburbs, and people drive further because of sprawl. More wear and tear per person per lane mile so the roads naturally need more repairing and maintenance than they used to.
7. I may be wrong but for a time some of the money that could have gone for roads was, after the floods, used for flood mitigation projects.
I am sure there are more reasons but thats a decent start.
I'll tell ya what- if you know how to weld, you can just about write your own paycheck in Tulsa. There's a huge shortage of welders in Tulsa... Tulsa's economy is strong.
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaFan-inTexas
Can someone explain why the roads are so bad in Tulsa? I'm serious and not trying to inflame. It seems to me it's a public safety issue.
That's a good question. My guess would be the cold weather and water freezing in road way cracks makes the pot holes, but it's strange that they are worse than in other cities. it's funny in that Tulsa does not salt the streets in the winter much- they just dump sand, (road salt is hard on the roads), yet Tulsa roads are far worse than northern cities that dump tons of salt all winter long on the streets. yes, we have bad streets here in Columbus, Ohio but not like Tulsa. Lewis & Peoria are some of the worst, but there's bad pavement on the freeways too. The RiverSide jogging trail is in very poor shape it is crumbling and has pools of standing water after a rain. The jogging trail is one of Tulsa's best rec. features and the city lets it decay, very sad. They keep talking of rebuilding it but I don't know when.[xx(]
ON top of all the issues of paying for them that the Artist mention, Tulsa is also in the worst climate for roads.
The enemy of hard surfaced roads is moister and temperature swings. Water gets into the cracks, under the road bed, and fills in dips in the road - where it loosens the bonds and slowly chips away at the substrate. Temperature swings cause expansion and contraction of the road and leads to buckling, cracking and eventually failure. Combine the two and ice helps chisel away much quicker and water vapor from extreme heat finds it's way into ever smaller porous areas.
Too bad for us we are wet, cold and hot. In the winter we freeze and unfreeze often over night and frequently with water to freeze and break things up, though and sink into the road, and re freeze. Then fast forward to 110F.
Then for fun, spread people out over 700 Sq. miles and have them try to pay for keeping those roads nice.
Looks like your numbers only include payroll employees.
What frustrates me is that they just paved the streets in my neighborhood. They already have potholes forming in them. I have noticed that there are areas where water seems to always be on the road, some places its a small stream or wet area coming right out of the middle of the road? Even when its dry everywhere else and hasnt rained for weeks. I dont know whether its coming from the mall. I live right behind the Promenade or whether there is a slow leak from one of the neighbors pipes or something. Its frustrating seeing a brand new roadway go to pot in one years time. I dont think the city really cares or they would look at that kind of thing and fix it. Water running down the middle of the road all year, even when it hasnt rained, cant be right. Then it freezes, from wherever its coming from, lifts the asphault up from the underlying cement and the street crumbles.
I'm just getting started on researching what role the State of Oklahoma played in contributing to the Okie Migration. So far I've discovered that Alfalfa Bill Murray, Oklahoma's governor at the beginning of the Great Depression, was strongly opposed to New Deal programs.
There's thrifty, then there's cheap, then there's dysfunctional and then there is stupid. If you want to look like part and parcel of the rest of the United States (at least the part that counts), you have to spend money.
Artist wrote:
What frustrates me is that they just paved the streets in my neighborhood. They already have potholes forming in them. I have noticed that there are areas where water seems to always be on the road, some places its a small stream or wet area coming right out of the middle of the road? Even when its dry everywhere else and hasnt rained for weeks. I dont know whether its coming from the mall. I live right behind the Promenade or whether there is a slow leak from one of the neighbors pipes or something. Its frustrating seeing a brand new roadway go to pot in one years time. I dont think the city really cares or they would look at that kind of thing and fix it. Water running down the middle of the road all year, even when it hasnt rained, cant be right.
<end clip>
It may be a natural spring. This area's got them all over the place, especially with all the hills about.
HT, Governor Murray may have been opposed to the New Deal but there are a ton of WPA, Works Projects Administration, projects (a New Deal program)located in Western Oklahoma..... county courthouses, sidewalks, even baseball parks. Seems that during that period there was a general distaste for outright handouts so jobs that benefitted to community were offered instead.
In a previous post you mentioned state chartered and regulated banks. Yes, there were, and are, state as well as federally charted banks that operated in the state. I am guessing from your question that somehow the banks were prone to take over farms at the detriment to the land owners? Banks did, and still do, make loans that use farms, among other things as well, as collateral. When loans can't be repaid then banks foreclose. Are you suggesting they were doing something wrong during that period of time? My family knew a lot of folks that lost there farms during that period but it wasn't as if the banks were jumping up and down with joy when they had to foreclose as that normally meant they were going to take a loss from selling it.
It wasn't really until the late 70's when deep deposits of natural gas were found in that area that any real wealth was accumulated. There were some exceptions of course but, I guess I just don't get what it is you are after.... Are you thinking te "okie migration" was some sort of a conspiracy?
No BOKworker, I'm asking is there is a pattern? Over time you see patterns in individuals and entities. My intuition tells me there is something self-defeating in Oklahoma's personality that helped "contribute" to the Okie Migration during the Great Depression and that contributes to the deficiencies in our state today. It may be cultural, something tied to the cultures of the people that settled Oklahoma.
Let me know if there are any references to state government during the Great Depression that you can point me towards. Thank you.
Ht, I see where you are going.... I think I need to have a couple of martinis and cogitate on it for a while before I can respond along those lines. I am sorry if I seemed to get a bit defensive. Maybe you are right about the the personality thing.... being from western Oklahoma can make you that way...lol. I will say that the people that I know that made it through the dust bowl days are fiercly independant. The only question that remains is who were the smart ones.... those that left or those that stayed?
I'm dragging this thread back to page 1 to add that I did find a pattern of state government policy in Oklahoma during the great depression that hurt the state. I believe the same kind of misguided policy is hurting our state's economic development today.
There was one important exception in state government during that time -- Governor Marland governed with progressive policies and was the one New Deal friendly governor during crucial depression era years.
Other than Governor Marland our Governors' policies actually lessened the amount of New Deal assistance that the state otherwise would have had. Alfalfa Bill Murray tried to help the victims of the depression but he ultimately could not deliver because of his personal rivalry with Roosevelt and mismanagmenet of New Deal programs in the state. All of our other depression era governors openly opposed the New Deal to the detriment of Oklahomans.
I'm posting the two most compelling sources for my conclusion:
GREAT DEPRESSION
Although Oklahoma agriculture had been in the doldrums for a decade, signs of the Great Depression emerged only in 1930 as a drought hit the region. This coincided with the opening of the East Texas oil field, which created a petroleum glut and caused rapidly falling oil prices and extensive layoffs. By the end of 1930 Tulsa and Oklahoma City formed unemployment committees. The economy reached bottom in the winter of 1932 33. Joblessness probably exceeded three hundred thousand, out of an urban population of around eight hundred thousand. Rural Oklahomans, who numbered 1.5 million, saw farm income fall 64 percent in the 1930s. Tenant farmers made up more than 60 percent of the farming population.
Prior to the New Deal, because neither a tradition nor a system of public welfare existed, local unemployment relief was scanty. Communities reluctantly met needs through charity and innovation. Will Rogers (noted humorist) gave benefit performances that raised $100,000, while the Red Cross, Salvation Army, and other community fund agencies intensified their appeals. Oklahoma City accelerated public works and built a "Hooverville" community camp along the North Canadian River to provide a modestly upgraded settlement for the homeless, who had been residing in tents, shacks, and caves; Tulsa had its "Hooverville" as well. Chickasha restaurants distributed table scraps for a short time. Tulsa's plan of issuing scrip to the unemployed for redemption at a central commissary was nationally acclaimed and was echoed in Shawnee and Boise City. Despite city fathers' concern that soup lines would attract transients, Gov. William H. "Alfalfa Bill" Murray ordered Oklahoma City's St. Anthony Hospital to keep its soup line open. Murray also proclaimed martial law to halt farm foreclosures and to suspend oil production to boost petroleum prices.
State relief efforts were equally limited. Gov. William J. Holloway's administration provided seeds for farmers and accelerated highway work. Under Murray the state provided $1.2 million for seeds and unemployment relief.
In the 1932 presidential election Franklin D. Roosevelt won every county in Oklahoma, and soon his New Deal began to furnish assistance. The Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) poured $40 million into the state, while the Civil Works Administration provided over $18 million for jobs. But this fell woefully short of the need, and fierce political infighting flared between Murray and the president. Roosevelt removed the FERA from the governor's control because Murray insisted on operating the agency as though it were his own.
Ernest W. Marland, who campaigned to "bring the New Deal to Oklahoma," became governor in 1935. He proposed a thoroughgoing restructuring of the state government and asked the state legislature for $5 million in relief, numerous state recovery programs, and several tax increases. When a cost-conscious legislature led by Leon C. "Red" Phillips denied the governor most of his agenda, Marland persuaded the people to approve an initiative for homestead exemptions. A pension plan initiative failed on a technicality. Marland's second legislature, the "Spending Sixteenth," authorized a generous relief provision, unemployment insurance, and extensive road building funds. But this meant appropriations exceeded expected revenue by $40 million. Moreover, corruption tainted the distribution of state and federal relief funds. Although Marland fell short of his goals, his programs exceeded those of both his predecessors and of his obstructionist successor, Leon Phillips, who perceived New Deal projects as federal interference.
Although the New Deal failed to provide adequately or to bring the state out of the depression, federal programs had a significant impact on Oklahoma. The FERA dispensed extensive direct relief and initiated programs as diverse as tuberculosis eradication, cattle processing, and emergency nurseries, but the agency's activities absorbed only a portion of the unemployed. The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) with its forty-nine camps, African American and white, built several state parks and furnished job training. A separate CCC for American Indians served several state tribes. With the 1936 Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act the federal government tailored the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act to the needs of Oklahoma's Indians, providing health and educational opportunities and authorizing bands or tribes (except the Osage) to incorporate to borrow federal funds. However, most groups rejected reorganization. The Works Progress Administration (WPA) implemented in 1935 employed over 116,000 Oklahomans at its peak and provided $59 million in revenue to the state through October 1937. Road building was the WPA's main task, but planting shelterbelts, building National Guard armories, and housekeeping and shoe repair programs for women helped absorb out-of-work Oklahomans. The Federal Art, Music, Theater, and Writers' Projects employed Oklahoma artists, musicians, actors, and writers.
Before the depression the state had sought to prorate (limit) petroleum production in order to promote conservation of a vitally important national resource. National Recovery Administration production codes assisted in this, but the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact, negotiated by Marland in 1935, and the Connally Act of the same year, which underwrote the states' proration agreement, finally brought stability to the oil industry.
Agricultural conditions grew only bleaker through the 1930s. During the Dust Bowl the drought in the Oklahoma Panhandle and northwest section of Oklahoma reached its peak at mid-decade. Blowing dust turned day into night throughout the state. Rural population declined, and urban population grew as some farm families moved to town in search of work. Although most out-of-state migration did not originate in the Panhandle, Oklahoma farmers moved from land they found only marginal. Out-migration caused an estimated 15 to 18 percent population decline in the 1930s. These migrants, many descended from families with a peripatetic tradition, came to personify largely negative images of the depression. Although not all of the migrants in California were from Oklahoma, all were stereotyped as "Okies" by John Steinbeck's novel The Grapes of Wrath. Through subsidies, soil conservation programs, and loans to tenant farmers (the Bankhead-Jones Act of 1937), the Agricultural Adjustment Administration assisted those who remained.
Oklahomans reacted mainly with resignation as the depression wore on. There was a food riot in 1931 in Oklahoma City and other peaceful protests in that city and in McAlester. The Farmers' Union revived, and the Southern Tenant Farmers' Union recruited, somewhat ineffectually, throughout the state. Ira Finley's Veterans of Industry of America lobbied for Marland's pension initiative and represented the interests of WPA workers, all quite peacefully. Boosted by the passage of the National Labor Relations Act, unions, especially the Congress of Industrial Organizations, organized widely. Several strikes aimed at union recognition broke out, notably in the coal and oil industries.
The depression's legacy in Oklahoma seems more negative than in most states. Governors Murray and Phillips and Sen. Thomas P. Gore opposed Roosevelt, and the state probably suffered for their actions. By the end of the 1930s, especially in agriculture, the state was still beaten down by the economy and the weather, and Oklahoma's image had been cast for decades by those who chose to leave for better opportunities. It would take Oklahoma a long time to heal from the myriad of scars that the Great Depression left behind.
SEE ALSO: DUST BOWL, DUST BOWL LORE, FARMING, MIGRANT CAMPS, NEW DEAL, OKIE MIGRATIONS, OKLAHOMA ECONOMY, TWENTIETH CENTURY.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Keith L. Bryant, Jr., "Oklahoma in the New Deal," in The New Deal, Vol. 2, The State and Local Levels, ed. John Braeman, Robert H. Bremner, and David Brody (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1975). Norman W. Cooper, "Oklahoma in the Great Depression, 1930-1940: The Problem of Emergency Relief" (M.A. thesis, University of Oklahoma, 1973). Loren Gatch, "Money Matters: the Stamp Scrip Movement in Depression-Era Oklahoma," The Chronicles of Oklahoma 84 (Fall 2006). Loren Gatch, "'This is Not United States Currency': Oklahoma's Emergency Scrip Issues during the Banking Crisis of 1933," The Chronicles of Oklahoma 82 (Summer 2004). Kenneth E. Hendrickson, Jr., ed., Hard Times in Oklahoma: The Depression Years (Oklahoma City: Oklahoma Historical Society, 1983). James R. Scales and Danney Goble, Oklahoma Politics: A History (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1982). Donald Worster, Dust Bowl: The Southern Plains in the 1930s (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979).
William H. Mullins
© Oklahoma Historical Society
Return to top
http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/G/GR014.html
NEW DEAL
In 1932 New York Gov. Franklin D. Roosevelt campaigned for the presidency with the slogan, "A New Deal for America." The Democratic nominee promised a vigorous use of the federal government to fight the nation's economic depression. Overwhelmingly defeating Pres. Herbert Hoover in the November election, Roosevelt and his "Brain Trust" formulated the New Deal prior to his inauguration in March 1933. For the next five years the New Dealers created agencies, boards, commissions, and programs to combat the Great Depression. Historians have described the New Deal as "revolutionary," "a drastic new departure," or "an exceedingly personal enterprise." However, in Oklahoma the New Deal had few long-lasting consequences.
Oklahoma's economy had become depressed following World War I. Large surpluses of agricultural commodities drove prices downward, and farm tenancy, endemic in eastern and southern Oklahoma, worsened as more than half of the state's farmers labored on land owned by others. The discovery of oil and natural gas brought brief prosperity to some areas of the state, but by 1931 overproduction sent oil prices to disastrously low levels. Compared to other states, Oklahoma suffered the third-greatest decline in income between 1929 and 1932.
Compounding the economic plight, a severe drought began in 1932, and the far western part of the state, notably the Oklahoma Panhandle, became part of the Dust Bowl. Winds blew away the top soil, forcing many farmers to leave. Known as "Okies," they fled westward to California and Arizona. There they joined eastern Oklahoma tenant farmers displaced by land consolidation and mechanization. Thousands of farmers were being "blown off" or "tractored off" the land.
In 1930 economically distressed farmers helped elect agrarian William H. "Alfalfa Bill" Murray as governor. He failed to generate relief for Oklahoma's poverty stricken, because he did not have the legislature's support. Murray "fought" the Great Depression by sending the National Guard into the oil fields to try to prevent "hot" (illegal) oil production and by allowing the homeless to plant gardens on the Governor's Mansion lawn.
Murray's notorious eccentricities attracted national attention, which he misinterpreted for popular acclaim. He entered the Democratic presidential contest in 1932, launching a scurrilous attack on Roosevelt. Therefore, the new administration viewed Murray as a political pariah and battled him for three years. Murray used Public Works Administration (PWA) relief funds for political purposes and failed to obtain state matching funds for Civil Works Administration projects. Consequently, the New Dealers removed most programs from the governor's control, and Oklahoma received few federal relief dollars.
The Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) sought to aid farmers by paying land owners not to grow crops or raise livestock. Oklahoma's land-owning farmers tilled fewer acres, but they bought fertilizer and machinery, which increased output. More than one million farmers and their families received AAA payments, but federal dollars represented only one-sixth of the total agricultural income in the state. Oklahoma cotton farmers rejected the Bankhead Cotton Control Act of 1934, refusing to participate.
U.S. Rep. Ernest W. Marland, a former Republican and oil man, ran for governor in 1934 with the slogan, "Bring the New Deal to Oklahoma." Denouncing the obstructionism of Murray's administration, Marland proposed a public works program, old age pensions, unemployment insurance, and tax code reform as well as state-owned industries, flood control, and a state planning board. Easily elected, Marland sent his proposals to a hostile, rural-dominated legislature that rejected most of his ideas. However, an old age pension system was created, funded by a dedicated sales tax. Although Marland had excellent relations with Roosevelt and his administration, the lack of state matching funds precluded all but a few major projects. The Grand River Dam Authority constructed a hydroelectric dam on the Grand River using PWA funds, but it and the Red River Denison Dam represented the only significant "pump priming."
Oklahoma joined Texas and other oil-producing states in an effort to limit output and raise prices. The National Recovery Administration did little to control production, leading the states to form the Interstate Oil Compact in 1935. State governors, including Marland, initiated this effort.
By 1938 a conservative reaction had developed in Oklahoma, influenced by anti New Deal legislators and a metropolitan press adamantly opposed to the Roosevelt administration. That year, a former Republican, Leon Phillips, won the governorship and launched a war against Washington-inspired programs. The New Deal in Oklahoma, such as it was, ended.
A few New Deal agencies proved successful in the Sooner State. The Oklahoma Civilian Conservation Corps was one of the largest in the nation. The Works Progress Administration (WPA) provided modest funds for constructing roads and bridges and for building schools, court houses, and National Guard armories. However, there were few Reconstruction Finance Corporation loans in Oklahoma, and agencies such as the Resettlement Administration had virtually no tangible impact. Shelter belts were planted along roads in western Oklahoma, but only the coming of rain and World War II revitalized the agricultural economy.
Few New Deal legacies could be found in Oklahoma after 1940. The Great Depression, the Dust Bowl, and demographic changes had loomed larger than federal programs. The political basis for the New Deal, the "Roosevelt Coalition," simply did not exist in Oklahoma. The New Deal in Oklahoma was neither "revolutionary" nor even evolutionary in nature. The conservatism of Sooners precluded the changes wrought in other states during the 1930s.
SEE ALSO: DUST BOWL, OKLAHOMA ECONOMY, GREAT DEPRESSION, TWENTIETH CENTURY.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Keith L. Bryant, Jr., Alfalfa Bill Murray (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1968). Keith L. Bryant, Jr., "Oklahoma and the New Deal," in The New Deal, Vol. 2, The State and Local Levels, ed. John Braeman, Robert H. Bremner, and David Brody (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1975). John Joseph Mathews, Life and Death of an Oilman: The Career of E. W. Marland (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1951). Anne Hodges Morgan and H. Wayne Morgan, eds., Oklahoma: New Views of the Forty-sixth State (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1982). James R. Scales and Danney Goble, Oklahoma Politics: A History (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1982). Donald Worster, Dust Bowl: The Southern Plains in the 1930s (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979).
Keith L. Bryant, Jr.
© Oklahoma Historical Society
Return to top
http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/N/NE007.html
quote:
Originally posted by bokworker
When loans can't be repaid then banks foreclose. Are you suggesting they were doing something wrong during that period of time? My family knew a lot of folks that lost there farms during that period but it wasn't as if the banks were jumping up and down with joy when they had to foreclose as that normally meant they were going to take a loss from selling it.
During the Depression, Farmer's Bank in Greenwood, AR didn't bother foreclosing on anyone until after the problems had passed. No point, since there wasn't anybody to sell the farms to, anyway. They just let people pay the loans as they could. Only after some economic normality return did they again operate under the normal rules.
What I don't know is what they did regarding the accruing interest.
Whatever they did, it worked for them, as they didn't have any issues with runs or even needing the bank holiday. They even managed to buy up a couple of failing banks in nearby small towns.
Of course, these days, a publicly traded bank could never get away with that sort of thing. They'd be sued in a heartbeat by the shareholders.