In 2004, Oklahoma voters approved a series of measures intended to raise new revenues for education and health care through a state lottery (SQ 705 and 706), gaming compacts (SQ 712), and increased tobacco taxes (SQ 713).  OK Policy has now released a set of newly updated fact sheets that explains how these revenue sources operate and sets out out how much revenue each generates and where the dollars are allocated. You can access all three 1-page fact sheets as a single document, or you can download the PDF separately for the lottery, gaming and tobacco.

We found that during the most recently completed budget year, FY ‘10, Oklahoma collected $335.4 million from these three revenue sources. This is an increase of $12.2 million, or 3.8 percent, from FY ‘09, reflecting a clear slowdown in revenue growth from these sources compared to prior years. Some key findings:

• Gaming revenues continued to grow in FY ‘10, reaching $132.1 million, an increase of $13.1 million, or 11 percent from FY ‘09. Of total gaming revenues, 89.5 percent ($118.2 million) came from tribal gaming and 10.5 percent (13.9 percent) from gaming terminals at racetracks that were also authorized by SQ 712.  However, the growth in tribal gaming revenues slowed noticeably in FY ‘10, which likely reflected both the weak economy (nationally, total casino gaming revenues and tribal gaming revenues fell in 2009) and the state gaming market approaching saturation;
• Tobacco revenues declined slightly in FY ‘10, falling by 2 percent to $133.3 million. Of total revenues from the new tobacco taxes approved in 2008, $102.6 million was collected by non-tribal retailers and $30.7 million by tribal retailers. Tobacco sales have actually fallen quite sharply the past two years, from 313.8 million packs in FY ‘08 to 262.8 million in FY ‘10. Revenues have managed to hold steady due to the success of various measures aimed at curtailing the purchase and resale of cigarettes taxed under a tribal “exception rate” of just 5.75 cents per pack. Instead, most tribal tobacco sales are now taxed at a rate of 85.75 cents or 57.5 cents per pack, compared to the rate of $1.03 per pack for sales by non-native retailers. (See our discussion of this issue in this blog post from last fall);
• Net proceeds from lottery sales were $70.0 million in FY ‘10, an increase of less than $1 million from FY ‘09. Since 2005, lottery sales have remained remarkably consistent, coming in every year between $69 million and $72 million, regardless of the ups and downs of the economy, the addition of new lottery games, and growing competition from casinos and the new state lottery in Arkansas.

Overall, the promise of these revenue streams to provide additional revenues to help fund education and health care seems to have been fulfilled. However, as we stressed in this paper in 2008, while the new revenues generated by these so-called “sin taxes” have boosted funding for education and health care, these gains have been more than offset by the revenue impact of cuts to the personal income tax approved by the Legislature in the mid- and late-2000s. This trade-off of increased “sin taxes” for cuts to the income tax has placed more of the responsibility of paying for public services on the shoulders of lower-income taxpayers. And as we reach the point where revenue growth from the new revenue streams is slowing, and may soon even begin to decline, this is yet another factor contributing to the fiscal gap between the cost of services we are committed to supporting and the revenues we generate to pay for them.

John Thompson is an Oklahoma City teacher with 18 years of urban high school experience and an education blogger at thisweekineducation.com. He contributes regularly to our blog on education issues.

In 2000, when serving on the Steering Committee for MAPS for KIDS, I grinned as arch-conservative Leland Gourley demanded a “warranty” that Oklahoma City Public School students would be reading at grade level by 3rd grade. Little did I know that cognitive and social science research would soon show that Gourley had identified the key to closing the achievement gap.

I recalled Gourley’s prescience recently when the liberal Schott Foundation for Public Education announced that New Jersey has the nation’s highest graduation rate for Black males. In contrast to the national rate of 47 percent, or Oklahoma with a rate of 52 percent, in New Jersey 69 percent of  Black males graduate from high school. The Schott Foundation also reported 4th grade NAEP Reading test results showing 66 percent of Oklahoma Black males score Below Basic, as do 58 percent of Black Males nationally. In New Jersey, 45 percent of Black males score Below Basic, 40 percent score Basic, and 15 percent score Proficient or Advanced.  Better still, in contrast with the normative trend where Black NAEP scores drop by the 8th grade, there was no fall-off in New Jersey.  This is crucial because social scientists have long used New Jersey as evidence that the best way to help poor children is to invest whatever is necessary so that elementary children read for comprehension.

The headlines attributed New Jersey’s success to the Abbott school finance case which resulted in the state investing an additional $3,000 per year per student. But Gordon MacInnes’ masterpiece In Plain Sight shows that the story is more complex, and that Gourley was right. Though averaging more than $15,000 per student, districts like Camden, Newark, and Trenton have seen a “relative decline” in achievement. But systems like Union City, Elizabeth, and Orange, have seen “virtually unprecedented” improvements over entire districts, as opposed to gains in scattered schools. They succeeded by narrowing the “kindergarten gap.” Their “sensible” strategy is to start early, invest in diagnostic assessments (as opposed to high stakes test) and spend whatever time is necessary to bring young students up to grade level in reading and writing

The Cottonwood School in Coal County, Oklahoma, used the same methods to increase its API score to a remarkable 1374 on a scale of 1500, and to sustain that improvement. Now three and four year olds in one of the poorest counties in America post reading readiness scores that are four times above the national average.

Where did most schools in Oklahoma and the rest of the nation go wrong? No Child Left Behind encouraged “quick fix” solutions that may have helped older students belatedly increase their decoding skills, while not improving reading comprehension. Cottonwood’s Principal Teri Brecheen told a legislative committee that the first step in turning around the district was recognizing that “we’re talking about human beings, not test scores.” She also said that all administrators should be required to teach first grade because, “you don’t know where zero is until you teach 1st grade.” Other school leaders, said Brecheen, “were not worrying about kids before the 4th grade” when testing kicked in, and then the rule was “fake it until you get a fictitious score.”

I draw two lessons from these results.  Just spending more money, as with NCLB, will not solve our educational problems.  If we start early and invest in building non-cognitive and reading skills for young children, the best evidence is that those early gains will persist throughout school.

The recent history of state appropriations, displayed here from our FY ‘11 Budget Highlights fact sheet, shows a  series of successive ups and downs:

We see that the state appropriated budget for the current year, FY ‘11, is 5.8 percent less than two years ago and slightly less than the budget in FY ‘07.  With revenue collections having plummeted by more than 20 percent compared to pre-downturn levels, only the  adoption of various revenue enhancements and the injection of almost $2 billion in non-recurring revenues from the federal stimulus bill, Rainy Day Fund and other sources have averted more drastic cuts to agency budgets. Still, over half of all appropriated state agencies will have absorbed funding cuts of at least 15 percent, and across state government, shortfalls have forced agencies to eliminate programs and services, reduce hours of operation to the public, cut payments to private providers, and lay off or furlough employees (our online budget presentation runs through the full story).

Some have drawn a different conclusion from these numbers.  If you look at the period prior to the downturn, you see a substantial increase in the state budget – about $1.9 billion in growth between FY ‘04 and FY ‘08. Doesn’t that suggest that state government grew too big, and that the current period represents more of a healthy correction that a crisis? In addition, even with the cuts of the last two years, state appropriations remain 8 percent higher than they were in FY ‘06.  If the state could operate with a $6.2 billion budget six years ago, surely it should be able to manage with a $6.7 billion budget in FY ‘11?

There are several responses to this line of argument. First, while Oklahoma’s budget did see substantial increases in the mid-2000’s, this was  a period when the state economy was expanding rapidly and the budget was rebounding from the steep drop of the last recession. As a result, we see in the chart below that while the state appropriated budget as a share of state personal income rose from 5.2 percent in FY ‘05 to 5.6 percent in FY ‘07, it remained well below both its level in FY ‘01 (6.1 percent) and its 30-year historical average (5.8 percent). We can also see that the state budget’s share of state personal income has now fallen for three consecutive years; we strongly expect it to hit an historic low in FY ‘11.

Next,when we look at where the additional spending during the growth years was allocated, we find that there were few new programs enacted during those years and no wholesale expansion of state government. Of the $1.85 billion in increased funding between FY ‘04 and FY ‘08, almost 80 percent, or some $1.45 billion, went to just five core state agencies – Common Education, Higher Education, Medicaid (Oklahoma Health Care Authority), Human Services, and Corrections. Within these agencies, additional dollars were allocated largely to cover increased operating expenses and  growing populations and to replace the loss of federal matching funds. State leaders from both parties also supported a few targeted investments, such as teacher pay increases, statewide  full-day kindergarten, the Oklahoma’s Promise higher ed scholarship program, and rate increases for health care and social service providers.

Meanwhile, the cost to state agencies and school districts of operating programs and services continues to rise in bad fiscal times as in good. Since FY ‘06, the Consumer Price Index has increased by about 11 percent, affecting the cost of such expenditures as utilities, fuel, food, supplies and equipment purchased by government. Although state employees have not received general pay raises in several years, the cost of mandatory employee retirement and health care benefits  continue to rise. The cost of state agency contributions for employee retirement plans has grown from $141 million in FY ‘06 to $214 million in FY ‘10, while the cost of the state employee benefit allowance has increased by $162 million since FY ‘06. The state had 20,000 more students in public schools in 2009-10 than in 2005-06 and 2,500 more inmates in state correctional facilities. And the combination of ever-increasing health care costs and rising caseloads in a downturn have exerted especially acute pressures on the budget of the Medicaid program.

The question of whether state spending is too high, too low, or just right can likely never be answered to everyone’s satisfaction. But according to the most recently available data, Oklahoma’s total state and local spending was less, on a per capita basis, than all but five other states in 2007. We spend well below the national average on every major area of government, including education, health and social services, transportation and public safety. The period of robust revenue growth in the mid-2000’s allowed us to catch up and make genuine progress in some areas.  The real fear is that this current period of extended revenue shortfalls and budget cuts will seriously weaken our essential public structures and force us to fall further behind in our its goals of creating a healthier, better educated and more prosperous state.

share this post

Earlier this year, we called attention to one of the stranger loopholes in the Oklahoma tax code, the case of the “double deduction” of state income taxes.  Federal tax law allows taxpayers who itemize their deductions to claim a deduction for state income tax, along with such expenses as home mortgage interest payments, charitable contributions, local property taxes and extraordinary medical expenses. While Oklahoma is among 31 states that allow taxpayers to itemize their deductions on their state income tax return as well, only in Oklahoma and five other states are taxpayers allowed to claim a deduction for state income taxes on their state tax return. In the context of the state’s huge revenue shortfalls and painful budget cuts, we urged the Legislature to follow New Mexico’s lead in taking action to disallow this deduction, which, according to estimates provided us by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), would generate $118 million in additional revenue. Since only a minority of mostly wealthier taxpayers itemize their deduction, eliminating the deduction for state income taxes would also help address the inequities of our tax system, where low- and middle-income Oklahomans pay more of  their income in state and local taxes than do the wealthy. This proposal generated some interest but did not make its way into the final FY ‘11 budget agreement.

ITEP is now out with a new report that provides a critical look at the subject of itemized deductions more broadly. Their basic argument is that itemized deductions  are an extremely regressive component of tax systems:

Itemized deductions impact tax fairness: low-income families receive virtually no benefit from these deductions, and the biggest benefits are reserved for the upper-income families who arguably need them the least

In Oklahoma, according to IRS statistics (Excel file), almost three out of every four taxpayers had household income  under $50,000 in 2007, yet only one in eight of these low- and moderate-income households claimed itemized deductions. By contrast, seven out of every eight households with income over $100,000 itemized their deductions, and this population – just 8 percent of all Oklahoma households – accounted for a full 47 percent of the $10.6 billion in total itemized deductions claimed in 2007. Adding to the regressivity of the itemized deduction is the fact that the same deduction – say $15,000 in mortgage interest payments -  is worth more to someone in the top income tax bracket than to someone in a lower tax bracket.

There are various policy options that states that currently allow itemized deductions could consider to make them less costly and less regressive. ITEP sets out five of these and calculates the impact these options would have for state revenue collections and for various categories of the population. The three main proposals are:

• Option 1 – Repeal itemized deductions entirely while ensuring that most middle- and low-income families are held harmless by simultaneously increasing the standard deduction available to all families.  Rhode Island recently adopted this bold approach, joining nine other states that have an income tax but do not allow any itemized deductions. If Oklahoma were to eliminate itemized deductions and increase the standard deduction so as to protect low- and middle-income households , it would generate $104.4 million in additional revenues. More than twice as many households would see a tax cut (48 percent) as a tax increase (21 percent) under this proposal;
• Option 2- Cap the total value of itemized deductions. If a cap were set at $40,000 for married couples and $20,000 for singles, it would generate $106.2 million in additional state revenue, while affecting just 4 percent of Oklahoma taxpayers.
• Option 3 – Convert itemized deductions to credits.  This approach, which is in effect in Wisconsin and Utah, would address the situation where the same deductions are more valuable to taxpayers in higher tax brackets than in lower tax brackets. Under the scenario developed by ITEP, which sets the credit at 4 percent of total deductions, increases the standard deduction, and phases out eligibility, Oklahoma could generate $112 million while providing a tax cut for most lower- and middle-income families.

ITEP also considers two options that involve phasing-out itemized deductions for the highest-income taxpayers that would have a more modest revenue impact.

One important component of all these options is that a significant portion of the cost to taxpayers would be offset by reduced federal tax liability, since taxpayers can deduct their state income tax from their federal taxes. As ITEP explains it:

This “federal offset” means that state income tax hikes on upper-income families are always substantially less burdensome than they may appear at first glance.

Anywhere from roughly 20 to 30 percent of the additional Oklahoma states taxes paid under ITEP’s proposals would be offset by reduced federal tax payments.

The additional tax revenue from eliminating or limiting itemized deductions could be used to bring the state’s budget back into balance and restore funding to vital services. Alternately, the revenue could be used at least in part to pay for tax cuts that would benefit a much broader segment of the state’s population  – for example, by increasing the standard deduction or personal exemption, stretching out our tax brackets, or further lowering top rates. Whichever approach is taken, curbing these itemized deductions that primarily benefit those at the upper end of the income spectrum would constitute important steps towards the goal of creating a fairer tax system for Oklahomans.

Ryan Kiesel, the author of this guest blog, has served as State Representative from District 28 since 2004 and is not seeking reelection.  Ryan is the leader of the Oklahoma Lawyer Chapter of the American Constitution Society.

This November, Oklahoma voters will decide State Question 756, determining whether Oklahoma will participate in what is likely to be a futile attempt to block the recently approved federal health care reform.  In 2014, as part of the health care reforms contained in the Affordable Care Act, “most individuals who can afford it will be required to obtain basic health insurance coverage or pay a fee to help offset the costs of caring for uninsured Americans“.  Individuals and families that fall below certain income levels would be exempt from the mandate and tax penalty.  Opponents of the Affordable Care Act argue the federal government does not have the authority to mandate coverage.  However, this argument runs counter to over a century of Constitutional precedent, and a challenge to the law would only precipitate lengthy, frivolous, and costly litigation that Oklahoma would ultimately lose.

The author of the measure that placed SQ 756 on the ballot said “this measure will hopefully bring about a court case that we need to have.”  Perhaps if the legal questions at issue were unsettled, litigation would be necessary to establish a clear interpretation of Congress’ authority to act and the ability of states to nullify or opt out of federal law.  But that is not the case.  While the politics of health care reform are still evolving, the legal issues raised by health care reform have long been settled, and barring a sweeping dismissal of precedent by an activist court, we already know the outcome of state-based challenges.

The most common legal challenges to health care reform argue: 1) it exceeds Congress’ authority under the commerce clause; 2) it exceeds Congress’ power to collect revenue, and 3) states have the authority to opt out of federally mandated health care reforms.

Taking these arguments in order, for nearly 70 years the Supreme Court has held that under the commerce clause, Congress has the “authority to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.” The Supreme Court has interpreted this authority to extend to regulating wheat crops, prohibiting racial discrimination by hotel and restaurant owners, and recently upheld Congress’ authority to prohibit the use of medical marijuana.  With “health care expenditures in 2007 amount[ing] to $2.2 trillion, or $7,421 per person, and account[ing] for 16.2 percent of the gross domestic product,” it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to prevail on the argument that health care does not meet or exceed the “substantial effect” test the Court has consistently applied.

Should the Supreme Court adopt the argument that Congress overstepped its powers, it would be a monumental reversal of precedent, jeopardizing not only the health care bill, but also other federal laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, which were also passed under Congress’ authority to regulate interstate commerce.

Second, the Supreme Court has held that “[i]t is beyond serious question that a tax does not cease to be valid merely because it regulates, discourages, or even definitely deters the activities it taxes.” Moreover, it has been well established that Congress may exercise its powers to collect revenue and spend for the General Welfare to achieve goals that are not covered by the other powers enumerated in Article I.

Finally, the assertion that states can pick and choose which federal law to follow represents a fundamental misunderstanding of federalism, and violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution that provides that federal law is the supreme law of the land, which no state can negate. As President Ronald Reagan’s former solicitor general, Charles Fried, stated on this point, “The notion that a state can just choose to opt out is just preposterous. One is just left speechless by the absurdity of it.”

The voters of Oklahoma do not need SQ 756 to voice their opposition to federal health care reform.  They did that when they elected a congressional delegation that unanimously opposed the measure in Washington.  Further, in the wake of a budget crisis, the people of Oklahoma should not be expected to bankroll political gimmicks in the form of costly and futile litigation.  Rather, it is time for leaders of both parties to begin the process of preparing for the implementation of reforms that stand to cut the number of uninsured in our state by half, and improve Oklahoma’s ability to finance health care for its citizens.

The opinions stated above are not necessarily the opinions of OK Policy, its staff, or its board. This blog is a venue to help promote the discussion of ideas from various points of view and we invite your comments and contributions. To see our guidelines for blog submissions, click here. Click here for a complete list of State Questions on the ballot in November.

Okay, we’ll give this another shot.

We’re not OPI (although we like the ‘dedicated to excellence’ part):

A family-owned company committed to the highest quality products and to our customers’ well-being, OPI has long been a leader in the community and within the Professional Beauty Industry. Quite simply, we are dedicated to excellence.

We’re not Opie

Not us either:

Definitely not us:

Us: 

The Oklahoma Asset Building Coalition is hosting a series of regional meetings on asset building strategies for increasing the financial security of families and communities throughout Oklahoma. Anyone working in the private sector, public sector or a non-profit with an interest in how building assets can expand and strengthen economic security is invited to attend these meetings that will be held from 10:00 AM to 2:00 pm, with lunch provided, on the following days:

• Broken Arrow, August 31st;
• Durant, Sept. 14th;
• Oklahoma City, Sept. 28th;
• Lawton, Sept. 29th;
• Woodward, Sept. 30th

The meetings will provide an opportunity to learn more about:

• tools such as the Self-Sufficiency Standard and the Assets and Opportunities Scorecard;
• asset building programs and policies, such as financial education, Individual Development Accounts, and the Earned Income Tax Credit; and
• the work of the Oklahoma Asset Building Coalition and how you can become involved.

We hope you will participate in one of these meetings around the state. For information on exact locations and how to register, click here [PDF].

This is the fourth in an ongoing series of posts looking at the impact of the new federal health care reform law on Oklahoma and Oklahomans. Our previous posts have explored the “cliff effect” , the  impact on state budgets and the Temporary High Risk Pool. For full information on health care reform, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation website is excellent. If you have thoughts on health care reform, we encourage you to contribute a comment or a guest blog.

Most people who have been following the Affordable Care Act, the new health care law passed earlier this year, know that the law will strengthen the individual market for health insurance coverage, by offering subsidized coverage on the new health insurance exchanges, and expand access to public coverage for low-income families through Medicaid. What is less well known and understand is that the Affordable Care Act also includes several important mechanisms for strengthening the beleagured employer-based system of health insurance coverage, especially for small businesses that currently face the greatest challenges in offering coverage to their workers and where the rates of the uninsured are currently the highest.

A recent report from Families USA looks at one of the most important provisions of the new law, tax credits for small businesses that will provide significant help with the cost of coverage. Beginning this year, businesses with fewer than 25 workers and average wages of less than $50,000 will be eligible to receive a tax credit for the health insurance premiums they provide to their employees.  The smallest firms with the lowest wages will be eligible for the maximum credit, which is 35 percent of the cost of coverage, or 25 percent for non-profits. The credit will phase down for businesses with more employees and higher average wages. Businesses that are already offering coverage, as well as those opting to cover the workers for the first time, will be eligible for the credits. After 2014, when the new health insurance exchanges will be operating, credits will increase to 50 percent of the cost of coverage, or 35 percent for non-profits.

According to estimates provided in the Families USA study, 50,300 Oklahoma small businesses – or six out of every seven businesses with 25 or fewer employees – will be eligible for a premium tax credit in 2010. Of these, some 18,200 are estimated to be eligible for the maximum 35 percent credit.

Oklahoma in recent years had already made a priority of assisting small businesses with the cost of health insurance  through the creation of Insure Oklahoma. Under this program, the cost of insurance premiums for low-income workers and their spouses is shared between employers (25 percent), employees (15 percent) and the state and federal governments (60 percent). Just over 18,000 employees of small businesses and their spouses were covered under Insure Oklahoma in August 2010. The new federal tax credits should complement and enhance the state’s efforts with Insure Oklahoma: according to Families USA, “small employers are eligible for the [new federal] tax credit even if they already receive assistance from their state to help them buy coverage from their workers.”

The new law includes other measures to help small businesses and their employees in the coming years. Right now, a new government website, healthcare.gov, provides a list of all companies offering small business plans in a given zipcode; by October the website will provide standardized information on plan benefits and costs to allow for better and easier comparisons. In 2014, the new health insurance exchanges for small businesses and individuals will be operating under a strict set of rules regarding benefits and industry practices aimed to promote access to quality coverage and competitive cost.

Even with eligibility for tax credits of up to 35 percent – or 50 percent beginning in 2014 – some small business owners will undoubtedly still decide they cannot afford or simply do not wish to offer health insurance to their employees (Unlike businesses with over 50 employees, small businesses will not face any potential penalty for choosing not to provide coverage). But for many small businesses here in Oklahoma and around the nation, the tax credits and market reforms included as an integral part of the new health care law can be expected to make the difference in creating access to quality, affordable care.

Everyone would agree that the right to vote is one of the most basic and cherished freedoms in a democracy. A ballot measure facing Oklahoma’s voters in November, SQ 746, raises the question of whether protecting the right to vote against the perceived possibility of fraud is worth the risk of potentially disenfranchising eligible voters.

SQ 746 ( ballot title;  full text) would amend Oklahoma’s constitution to require every person appearing to vote to provide proof of identity by presenting either a valid government-issued picture identification or a non-picture voter registration card. Those unable or unwilling to produce proof of identity would be allowed to cast a provisional ballot by swearing an affidavit as to their identity.  Oklahoma would join 21 other states that require ID for all voters, of which three – Florida, Indiana, and Georgia – accept only photo IDs.

Proponents of SQ 746 describe it as a  “common-sense idea” that would place no more onerous a requirement on those looking to vote as on those cashing a check or boarding an airplane.  Although supporters acknowledge that they have found no evidence of  major or systematic in-person voter fraud in Oklahoma, SQ 746 is defended as “a pre-emptive step to keep voter fraud from starting.”

The downside to this pre-emptive defense against an as-yet-non-existent problem is the danger it creates of keeping at least some eligible voters from exercising their right to vote. While not expressly prohibiting eligible citizens from voting, the new requirements could lead to uncertainty, confusion, and misunderstanding that is likely to have the effect of keeping some people from casting their ballot.  Voters who do not possess a picture ID – a population estimated at 78,000 in Oklahoma, which tends to be made up disproportionately of the poor, elderly, persons with disabilities, and minorities -  as well as voters whose drivers’ license or passport has expired and voters who pull up to the polling station and discover they’ve left their ID at home, may assume that they are unable to vote.  The procedure for casting a provisional ballot may not be well understood or properly applied at all polling stations across the state, or lead to disputes that could slow down the voting process and lead some eligible voters to give up and head home. In the worst case scenario, eligible groups of voters could be targeted with intentional misinformation as a way to influence election results.

In an editorial, the Oklahoman concedes that  “voter fraud has never been much of a problem”, but endorses SQ 746, on these grounds:

But even one fraudulent ballot cast is too many. If voter ID keep someone from voting illegally, it’s worth it.

It seems that the exact opposite case could be made even more compellingly. In a democracy, the burden of proof should always be on establishing a compelling case for limiting or constraining our basic rights.  Unlike boarding an airplane or cashing a check, the right to exercise the franchise is a fundamental democratic right. From this perspective, isn’t even one disenfranchised voter too many? If voter ID creates hurdles and keeps someone from voting legally, isn’t it NOT worth it?

For information on all the measures on the ballot in November, see Ballotpedia or the Secretary of State

John Thompson is an Oklahoma City teacher with 18 years of urban high school experience and an education blogger at thisweekineducation.com. He contributes regularly to our blog on education issues.

A large body of social science has demonstrated the long-term effectiveness of high-quality early education and teaching children to read for comprehension by 3rd grade. New research and cognitive science is now explaining why investments in the early years are far more cost effective than trying to turnaround struggling schools.

In the classic Perry Preschool Experiment, 123 low-income, three year old, African-American children were randomly assigned to either a treatment group, and given a high-quality pre-school education, or to a control group. While kids exposed to preschool got an initial bump in general intelligence, those gains dissipated by second grade. That result has been used by both the political left and right to challenge the effectiveness of early education. However, after tracking the Perry Preschool subjects for nearly 40 years,  the research found that adults assigned to the preschool program were 20 percentage points more likely to have graduated from high school and 19 percentage points less likely to have been arrested more than five times. They earned much better grades, were more likely to remain married and were less dependent on welfare programs. Other scientific studies have shown that improvements in test scores due to early interventions often dissipate in subsequent grades. But when adult outcomes are considered, a dollar invested in high-quality early education can result in $8.70 savings to society.

This paradox is being explained by the power of “non-cognitive” abilities, such as self-control, persistence and grit. As Jonah Lerner, an author who focuses on neuroscience, summarizes the research,  “Preschool might not make us smarter – our intelligence is strongly shaped by our genes – but it can make us a better person, and that’s even more important.” After all, dependability is the trait most valued by employers, while “perseverance, dependability and consistency are the most important predictors of grades in school.”

This research also applies to secondary schools. The poor record of school turnarounds is partially because cognitive skills stabilize after a child’s formative years. But non-cognitive skills are more easily improved during adolescence. This helps to explain why KIPP, as well as a variety of community schools that offer wraparound services that focus on the whole child and the whole system, have demonstrated success in middle schools. Nobel Prize winning economist James Heckman, for instance, describes the effectiveness of Big Brothers/Big sisters in reducing drug use in 10 to 16 year olds. Teens seek mentors who will help them develop adult skills.

A massive study of 12,000 kindergarten students has produced similar results. Test score increases did not persist, but the average student in a high-quality kindergarten class “could expect to make about $1,000 more a year at age 27 than a student who remained at the average. Over time, the effect seems to grow, too.” It was estimated that the value of the top kindergarten teachers to society is $320,000 per year.

The bottom line is that science is confirming the wisdom of veteran teachers and the common sense of employers. Class size matters for low-income kids, as does the bigger factor of peer pressure. But education is just as much an affair of “the Heart” as of “the Head.” Character matters. We must start early and remain committed to teaching our children to be responsible, persistent, and self-respecting members of society.

A large body of social science has demonstrated the longterm effectiveness of high-quality early education and teaching children to read for comprehension by 3rd grade. New research and cognitive science is now explaining why investments in the early years are far more cost effective than trying to turnaround struggling schools.

In the classic Perry Preschool Experiment, 123 low income, three year old, African-American children were randomly assigned to either a treatment group, and given a high-quality preshool education, or to a control group. While kids exposed to preschool got an initial bump in general intelligence, those gains dissipated by second grade, and that result has been used by both the political left and right to challenge the effectiveness of early education. After tracking the subjects for nearly 40 years, however, adults assigned to the preschool program were 20 percent more likely to have graduated from high school and 19 percent less likely to have been arrested more than five times. They earned much better grades, were more likely to remain married and were less dependent on welfare programs. Other scientific studies have shown that improvements in test scores due to early interventions often dissipate in subsequent grades. But when adult outcomes are considered, a dollar invested in high-quality early education can result in $8.70 savings to society.

This paradox is being explained by the power of “non-cognitive” abilities, such as self-control, persistence and grit. As a recent study explained, “Preschool might not make us smarter – our intelligence is strongly shaped by our genes – but it can make us a better person, and that’s even more important.” After all, dependability is the trait most valued by employers, while “perseverance, dependability and consistency are the most important predictors of grades in school.”

This research also applies to secondary schools. The pathetic record of school turnarounds is partially because cognitive skills stabilize after a child’s formative years. But non-cognitive skills are more easily improved during adolescence. This helps to explain why KIPP, as well as a variety of community schools that offer wraparound schoos focus on the whole child and the whole system, have demonstrated success in middle schools. Nobel Price winner James Heckman, for instance, describes the effectiveness of Big Brothers/Big sisters in reducing drug use in 10 to 16 year olds. Teens seek mentors who will help them develop adult skills.

A massive study of 12,000 kindergarten students has produced similar results. Test score increases did not persist, but the average student in a high-quality kindergarten class “could expect to make about $1,000 more a year at age 27 than a student who remained at the average. Over time, the effect seems to grow, too.” It was estimated that the value of the top kindergarten teachers to society is $320,000 per year.

The bottom line is that science is confirming the wisdom of veteran teachers and the common sense of employers. Class size matters for low-income kids, as does the bigger factor of peer pressure. But education is just as much an affair of “the Heart” as of “the Head.” Character matters. We must start early and remain committed to teaching our children to be responsible, persistent, and self-respecting members of society.

This week, OK Policy put out the latest edition of Numbers You Need, our monthly bulletin of key economic and budget indicators for the state. Our main headline was of an economic recovery stuck in neutral. While there are certain encouraging signs of the state emerging from out of the Great Recession, the downturn is continuing to hit segments of the population hard. High levels of distress can be seen, for example, in record numbers of home foreclosures and continued growth in food stamp and Medicaid caseloads. But it is the persistence of high rates of unemployment and slow job growth that provide the strongest and most worrisome indicator of the distances still needed to be traveled to a solid, broad-based recovery.

Oklahoma’s unemployment rate hit 6.8 percent in June, rising one-tenth of one percent for the second straight month and falling just short of the highest rate registered during this recession (6.9 percent from August to October 2009). Oklahoma’s unemployment in June remained well below the national rate of 9.5 percent and was 8th lowest among the states.  However, over the past six months, the national unemployment rate has dropped 0.5 percentage points, while Oklahoma’s rate has remained unchanged.

While Oklahoma’s unemployment rate has plateaued or even inched up, the state is beginning to see some modest job growth (unemployment and employment can both rise when you have more people entering or returning to the the labor market). Total non-farm employment in June was 1,534,200, which is an increase of 17,100, or 1.1 percent, over the past three months. During the same three-month period, employment grew by 0.5 percent for the nation as a whole.  However, despite the recent upturn,  employment remains far below pre-recession levels:

Total employment in June remained 40,900, or 2.6 percent, below that of December 2007, the month which marked the official onset of the recession. Manufacturing jobs in Oklahoma have been hit especially hard, declining by 25,700, or 17.2 percent, compared to December 2007, as have jobs in construction, which are 4,000, or 5.5 percent below pre-downturn levels. Starting six months ago the state began adding back construction jobs, due in part to stimulus funding for road and bridge repairs, while manufacturing jobs have showed more recent signs of rebounding, increasing by 900 in June.

While Oklahoma has lost some 41,000 jobs since the start of the national recession, this doesn’t take into account the job growth that is needed to serve a growing working-age population. According to data supplied by the Economic Policy Institute, which collects and shares monthly employment data, Oklahoma’s working age population has grown by 2.7 percent, or just under 43,000, since December 2007. This yields a “jobs shortfall” of 83,795 as of June – the difference between the actual number of jobs  and the number of jobs if job growth had kept pace with working age population growth since the onset of the recession. Nationally, EPI calculates the job shortfalls since the onset of the recession at 10.8 million.

While we can be hopeful about continued job growth in the months ahead, employment growth will have to become much more robust to serve not only those who are officially unemployed but the substantial number of “missing workers” who have dropped out of the labor force or never entered during the recession, along with those who are involuntarily working only part-time.  All signs suggest this will be a long, painful process, and recent trends indicate that while Oklahoma was late to enter the recession, it will not be as fortunate in making an early exit.

Treasurer Scott Meacham today announced that General Revenue (GR) collections for the first month of the new state fiscal year, FY ‘11, came in 9.9 percent above the prior year and 11.9 percent above the official certified estimate. The sales tax and corporate income tax saw the strongest growth compared to July 2009, while personal income tax collections were off by 0.1 percent from a year ago, likely reflecting the persistence of weak employment numbers.

Although one must be careful of drawing conclusions based on a single month, July’s collections confirm that revenues are continuing the upswing seen in recent months and should further dispel fears that the state will face a third consecutive year of revenue shortfalls requiring mid-year cuts.  It now seems far likelier that the economic projections made in February that formed the basis of this year’s budget underestimated the speed and strength of the economic recovery. If GR continues to come in above 100 percent of the estimate over the course of the full year, the surplus will go to replenishing the Rainy Day Fund.

At the same time, it’s important to recognize that revenues are far from having fully rebounded from the downturn. Here’s a look at July GR over the past 11 years:

This year’s collections remain 19 percent below the pre-downturn peak and slightly below collections of five years ago. This situation contrasts with the recession of 2002-03, when revenues were able to surpass pre-downturn levels within one year. We still expect that it will be FY ‘13 before state revenues return to where they were prior to the recession, without adjusting for inflation or population growth. Given the heavy reliance on non-recurring revenues from the federal stimulus bill, Rainy Day Fund and other sources, the challenges the next Legislature and Governor will face in developing a budget that avoids further cuts and begins to restore services to pre-downturn levels are still likely to be substantial.

share this post

My decision to take vacation over the final week of July and first week of August allowed me to avoid not only some of the worst of the summer heat wave here in Oklahoma but also much of the heated controversy that followed the release of OK Policy’s issue brief on State Question 744, the ballot measure that would peg education funding in Oklahoma to per pupil expenditures in neighboring states. We set out four main arguments that have led us to take a position opposing the measure, the most compelling of which is the strong likelihood that mandating an estimated $1.7 billion increase in funding for common education over three years without a new revenue source would set the state even  further behind in our other areas of public investment that all Oklahomans, including our schoolchildren and teachers, depend on.

Our position was strongly praised by the Oklahoman in a written editorial and this video editorial by editor Ed Kelly (you’ll first get a short commercial for an investment company):

The Yes on 744 campaign was less enamored by our position, putting out a press release that accused us of having “decided to push a special interest agenda and further their own interests at the expense of Oklahoma’s kids.”  On his Okonomics blog, UCO Economics Professor Mickey Hepner both defended the integrity of our analysis and called out the Yes on 744 spokespersons for their unwillingness to engage on the substance of our arguments:

The Oklahoma Policy Institute has a long record of advocating for public policies that benefit Oklahoma’s children. To say that they are now throwing kids under the school bus is intellectually disingenuous. Oklahoma’s voters deserve better.

I urge the “Yes on 744″ campaign to release a thoughtful response to the Oklahoma Policy Institute’s report. The response should acknowledge the concerns being raised by the Oklahoma Policy Institute (and others across the state), but make a compelling case for why Oklahoma voters need to make this commitment to public education. If, as the ballot measure’s supporters claim, the passage of SQ 744 would be good for our state…such a report should not be too hard to write, and would make the task facing Oklahoma voters much easier.

The best attempt so far to make the substantive case for SQ 744 has come from Prof. Hepner’s colleague over in the English Department at UCO, Kurt Hochenauer, who maintains both the OkieFunk and BlueOklahoma blogs. In this post, Hochenauer provides an honest acknowledgment of what voter approval of SQ 744 might involve:

But will the initiative require tax increases? That remains to be seen, but I think it’s possible, and yes, it might force a major re-thinking of how the state creates an annual budget. Recent tax cuts have mostly benefited the state’s wealthiest citizens, and State Question 640, passed in 1992, has made it virtually impossible to raise any type of taxes. The state also recently went through an extended period of declining revenues.

But how about this: It’s also entirely possible the measure would force the Oklahoma Legislature and the then-Governor to reconsider the state’s overall tax structure and SQ 640 in particular. SQ 744 could be a positive catalyst for change in how government gets funded here, and it could benefit all agencies, not just education.

We have made a similar argument in our discussions of SQ 744, that whatever the outcome at the polls on November 2nd, the state must get serious about addressing the chronic and growing imbalance between the cost of providing the services the public expects and the revenues available to pay for them:

The real and ongoing challenge Oklahoma faces is to get our revenues aligned with the cost of providing core public services. If we fail at this more fundamental task, the result is likely to be continued efforts like SQ 744 that try an isolated approach through earmarked funding and spending formulas.

If passage of SQ 744 would leave the state budget in dire and unmanageable condition, defeat of SQ 744 should initiate a serious and urgent discussion of what we must do to ensure an adequate investment in a quality education for our children and our other state priorities in a fiscally responsible manner.

This is a crucial debate, and one that we continue to hope can be conducted in a respectful, civil fashion. As our Board Chair, Vince LoVoi, stated in an e-mail sent out in response to the Yes on 744’s press release:

We encourage you to please visit our website and review our issue brief on SQ 744. Then draw your own conclusions….on the merits, not on the basis of name-calling. We hope you’ll agree with us, but if you think we’re wrong or if you find errors or weaknesses in our analysis, let us know.  Let’s have a discussion.

A key provision of the health care reform law passed in March creates new insurance options for individuals with pre-existing health conditions. The new program, known as the Oklahoma Temporary High Risk Pool, began accepting applications this week. Click here for further information about eligibility and how to apply. Here is our blog post on the subject from May.

It’s a widely known and much lamented fact that our current health insurance system can place the greatest obstacles in the path of precisely those most in need of affordable and adequate coverage. Individuals with pre-existing medical conditions who are unable to obtain coverage through their employer or government programs tend to be left uninsured or paying exorbitant premiums for insurance that may exclude their chronic conditions or disabilities.

A central goal of the new health care reform law passed in February is to solve this problem by prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing medical conditions. This prohibition will apply both to employer-based coverage and to products offered through the new health insurance exchanges, where those not covered by employer or public insurance will be able to purchase coverage, with sliding scale subsidies available for those with income up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level.

The problem for many Americans is that  the provisions creating the exchanges and prohibiting pre-existing conditions for adults don’t kick in until 2014 (for children, the prohibition takes effect later this year). In the interim, the  law creates new temporary high-risk pools that will operate from 2010 until the launch of the exchanges. The new high-risk pools will be available only to individuals who have a pre-existing condition and who have not had creditable health coverage for the previous six months. The premium cost for high-risk pool coverage will be established for a standard population in the non-group market and will not be based on the health status of enrollees.

Oklahoma currently operates a high-risk pool primarily for individuals who have been denied coverage on the individual market due to pre-existing conditions.  However, those who enroll in the high-risk pool are subject to a 12-month exclusion for coverage of their pre-existing condition. In addition, premiums are expensive – up to 150 percent of standard rates for the individual’s age and gender – and there are no premium subsidies for low-income applicants. As a result, current enrollment in the high-risk pool is less than 2,000 individuals.

By eliminating the waiting period for pre-existing conditions and setting costs at standard rates, the new temporary high-risk pool promises better coverage at more affordable cost for enrollees. The catch, however, is that limiting enrollment to those who have been uninsured for six months  excludes those currently enrolled in state high risk pools. As Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner Kim Holland has stated, this situation “effectively penalize(s) the people who have been doing the sacrificing all along.”  State and federal officials are exploring options for more equitable treatment of those in existing pools.

The other major issue surrounding the new high-risk pools, which are scheduled to begin operating by July 1, 2010, concerns responsibility for administering them.  The federal government has given the states the option of operating their own temporary high-risk pool or allowing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services carry out the program in their state. While the health reform law allocated $5 billion to go toward health care claims and administrative costs that exceed the premiums collected for the pool, some observers, including the chief actuary of the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services, are concerned that the allocation will run out well in advance of 2014, potentially forcing states either to cap enrollment or assume new financial obligations.

States had until May 1st to make a preliminary decision on whether to administer the new temporary high-risk pool. According to data supplied us by the Insurance Commissioner, 31 states have notified the Secretary of Health and Human Services of their interest in operating their own program, while 18 have opted to punt to the federal government, and two remain undecided. Oklahoma is among those tentatively committed to pursuing a state-operated program, subject to continued discussions within the state and rule promulgation by the federal government.

Similarly to the temporary high-risk pool, the bill creates a temporary reinsurance program for employers providing health insurance coverage to retirees over age 55 who are not eligible for Medicare. This early retiree program, intended to lower insurance costs to plans that offer coverage for what is often an expensive population, is also funded with a $5 billion appropriation and is due to kick off July 1st of this year and operate until January 1, 2014.

These temporary, fast-tracked programs will only affect a sliver of the entire population that will be affected by health care reform, but may provide an early indication of whether the new law’s goals of covering those most ill-served by the nation’s existing health insurance system will eventually be met.

For eligibility information and an application form for the Oklahoma Temporary High Risk Pool, click here.

We’re off next week to a conference of the State Fiscal Analysis Initiative network, bracketed by several days of family time in New Mexico and Colorado. We’ll be back in early August rested and rarin’ to go!

Last week, Treasurer Scott Meacham presented the preliminary data on full-year collections to the state’s General Revenue fund for FY ‘10, which ended June 30th.  He emphasized both the magnitude of the decline in collections from the prior year – $945 million, or 17 percent – and the shortfall in collections compared to the initial certified estimate for the year, which, at 15 percent, may have been the largest mid-year shortfall in state history.

We’ve now gone further back to see where the drop in state revenue collections leaves us. The numbers are pretty striking:

Last year’s GR collections were the lowest since FY ‘04 and were lower than nine year earlier, in FY ‘01, the year preceding the last recession-induced fall in tax collections.

The drop in GR collections reflects two developments in addition to the economic downturn. One is the effect of the permanent income tax cuts enacted between 2004-06, which have dampened revenue collections by several hundreds of millions of dollars annually. In addition, the Legislature has opted in recent years to apportion a growing share of tax collections to specific purposes, including roads and bridges, higher education scholarship, and the teachers’ retirement system.  We calculate that these apportionment decisions have reduced General Revenue collections by $300 million in FY ‘10.  Yet even if these amounts were added to this year’s totals, FY ‘10 collections would be a mere 4 percent above FY ‘01. By contrast, compared to 2001, the Consumer Price Index is over 22 percent higher and the state’s population has grown by at least 6.5 percent. The state’s overall economy, as measured by state personal income over the past four quarters, is almost 50 percent greater than it was nine years ago.

This chart, along with one that looks at annual GR collections by major tax for the past five years and includes projected collections for FY ‘11, is part of the revised budget outlook presentation that you can view online or download as a PDF. We also have prepared an updated 2-page fact sheet of the main budget numbers and policy points.

John Thompson is an Oklahoma City teacher with 18 years of urban high school experience and an education blogger at thisweekineducation.com. He is a regular contributor to our blog on education issues.

All of the neighborhood high schools in the Oklahoma City Public School System and four other metro schools are categorized as “dropout factories” because they graduate less than 60 percent of their freshmen. And this is a huge improvement from the early 1990s when the OKCPS had a graduate rate of 39 percent. The Alliance For Excellent Education’s new report, “The Economic Benefits from Halving Oklahoma City’ Dropout Rate,” calculated the effects of reducing the city’s 4,800 dropouts by 50 percent. They estimate that reducing dropouts would generate $24 million in increased earnings, $17 million in additional spending, and $5 million in new investments. Reducing dropouts would increase home sales by $32 million and car sales by $2 million. The new graduates would produce 200 new jobs and generate $29 million in economic growth, as well as $3 million in new tax revenue.

New research by Columbia University’s Hechinger Institute, combined with previous studies, indicates that a key component of reducing dropouts is the expansion of high quality alternative schools. In New York City (where 80 percent of students are low-income) providing alternative slots to 5 percent of the student population has helped increase the city’s graduation rate by 36 percent.  New York discovered that:

…alternative schools for at-risk students worked wonders with struggling students. Regular high schools graduated 19 percent of overage, undercredited students. At alternative schools, the graduation rates were 56 percent – right at the city average.  Once students switched to an alternative school, they came to school more often and began earning credits more quickly. The solution was obvious: open more alternative schools.

Based on estimates from state and national sources, Oklahoma City (where 90 percent of students are low-income) probably needs a comparable percentage of alternative slots.

The bad news is that the Oklahoma City Public Schools Foundation assessment of MAPS for KIDS, “Community, Consistency, Creativity” concluded that “the state of alternative education in Oklahoma City is dismal at best.” The good news is that their 2009 report issued a practical and humane call to action. It recommended a “strategic plan and a clear vision with specific goals to serve at-risk students.” School systems must collaborate with a diverse range of service agencies to address students’ emotional and mental health needs, the report advised, and alternative education can not become a “dumping ground.”

New national reports should prompt us to reread our excellent local analyses of dropout prevention. The Public School Foundation assessment provides a holistic set of recommendations. We must start with the realization that in the OKCPS “61.5 percent of the youngest students were classified as “at-risk” for reading difficulties in 2008-09.”. We must “provide a caring adult in each child’s life.” The report proclaimed that “Recent dropouts were asked what would have made a difference in motivating them to stay in school? The answer is often ‘knowing there one adult who cared’.”

As research becomes more overwhelming, it becomes harder to claim that we care about troubled students as we starve alternative services.

Today, Oklahoma Policy Institute released an issue brief exploring State Question 744, the proposal that will appear on the November ballot that would peg Oklahoma’s education spending to the regional average per pupil expenditure in six neighboring states. On our website you can read the full issue brief or a one-page summary; you’ll also find links to the  language of the ballot measure and to the websites of the pro- and anti-SQ 744 coalitions. Here is the press release that we put out explaining why we believe SQ 744 to be the wrong solution for Oklahoma:

State Question 744, the proposed constitutional amendment that would peg the annual education budget in Oklahoma to funding levels in six neighboring states, is the wrong solution to a real problem, according to a new issue brief from Oklahoma Policy Institute.

“We know that education funding in Oklahoma has failed to keep pace,” said David Blatt, OK Policy’s Director and the report’s author. “However, the challenges faced by common education in Oklahoma are shared across the broad spectrum of state government. By mandating huge spending increases for common education without an overall expansion of state revenues, SQ 744 creates the strong likelihood of setting the state further behind in all our other critical areas of public investment, including higher education, health care, human services, and public safety. This outcome would harm all Oklahomans, including our schoolchildren and teachers.”

According to the formula that would be entrenched in the state Constitution, Oklahoma’s per pupil expenditures would have to reach the regional average over the next three years. Since the regional average is itself a moving target, OK Policy projects that this mandate would require funding for Common Education to increase by $1.7 billion between FY ’12 and FY ’14. This would come at a time when the state is already facing a budget hole of over $1 billion in non-recurring revenues and core services are struggling to recover from two years of reduced funding. This situation would necessarily require deeper budget cuts, tax increases, or both, even assuming a strong economic turnaround.

As well as the impact that the funding formula would have on the rest of the state budget, the report identifies other major flaws with SQ 744. The measure’s formula would transfer decisions about Oklahoma’s budget out of the hands of Oklahomans and into the hands of legislators, voters, and judges outside our borders. The language of the ballot measure contains a host of ambiguities, and could put local funding of education into doubt. In addition, the measure fails to tie funding increases to any standards or goals for improving educational quality and outcomes.

“We believe SQ 744 is the wrong solution for Oklahoma, and we urge Oklahoma voters to vote ‘no’ in November,” said Blatt. “At the same time, we know that SQ 744 resonates with heartfelt concerns Oklahomans have about chronic underfunding of services. We fervently hope that this ballot question will lead us to examine how to support an adequate investment in our state priorities, including a quality education for our children, in a fiscally responsible manner.”

A recent report released by the Trust for America’s Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation announced the latest alarming figures about the spread of obesity in America. They found that last year in 31 states, including Oklahoma, more than one in four residents was obese  (obesity is measured as a BMI, or Body Mass Index, >30, or 30 pounds overweight for a 5′4″ person). Last week, this new study from the Economic Research Service of the United State Department of Agriculture (USDA) examined one solution to the obesity epidemic that is gaining increasing attention: a tax on sodas,  similar to the tax on cigarettes that governments have long imposed at least in part to discourage unhealthy and costly behavior.

The USDA study suggests that a tax on “caloric sweetened beverages” – which have been found to be the single most significant contributor to obesity -  would be an effective tool for reducing consumption and fighting obesity:

This study estimated that a tax-induced 20-percent price increase on caloric sweetened beverages could cause an average reduction of 37 calories per day, or 3.8 pounds of body weight over a year, for adults and an average of 43 calories per day, or 4.5 pounds over a year, for children. Given these reductions in calorie consumption, results show an estimated decline in adult overweight prevalence (66.9 to 62.4 percent) and obesity prevalence (33.4 to 30.4 percent), as well as the child at-risk-for-overweight prevalence (32.3 to 27.0 percent) and the overweight prevalence (16.6 to 13.7 percent).

The USDA study confirms earlier research that produced similar findings about the impact that taxes would have on decreasing consumption and reducing obesity rates.

Some observers believe that the promise of significant health benefits from a soda tax, combined with the promise of new revenues for increasingly strapped government budgets, adds up to a politically potent combination. Joe Wiesenthal, the Deputy Editor of The Business Insider, posted this chart from the USDA study under the headline, “This is the Chart that Frightens the Soda Companies”: 

Similarly, the National Review’s Reihan Salam responded to the USDA study by suggesting that soda taxes are “inevitable”.

However, if the combination of health concerns and prolonged budget strains is enough to get a growing number of policymakers and health advocates talking about a soda tax, getting voters and state legislators to support the idea is anything but a slam-dunk. In New York State, a proposal for a penny-an-ounce tax on soda and other sweet drinks that was heavily promoted by Governor David Patterson and a coalition of labor and health care advocates was shot down. As this New York Times article reveals, the beverage industry, supported by grocers and the Teamster union, mobilized massive resources to kill the proposal. Organized as “New Yorkers Against Unfair Taxes”, the opponents’ messages resonated with anti-tax sentiments among legislators and the public. The industry’s arguments that the tax is regressive and would hit low-income residents especially hard convinced at least some advocacy groups for the poor,  including the Food Bank of New York City, to oppose the measure.

Soda tax supporters did win some victories this year – Washington State approved a tax of two cents per 12 ounces, while Colorado will no longer exempt sodas and candy from the sales tax, among other items. But in addition to the big defeat in New York, soda tax proposals have failed in Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and elsewhere.

So, does the idea stand a chance in Oklahoma? There were unconfirmed rumors during the last legislative session that a soda tax proposal was at least being considered, although the idea was never publicly broached. Legislators who might be unwilling to consider raising the income tax or the general sales tax might be receptive to taxing soda, especially if revenues were earmarked towards public health initiatives. At the same time, mustering even a simple majority to approve sending a tobacco tax increase to a vote of the people was barely possible in 2004 back when the Democrats controlled both legislative chambers. Given today’s Republican majorities and the fact that soda drinkers who would be affected by a new tax are likely to vocal and passionate in defending their habits, one’s tempted to say  “fat chance” of any proposal making it into law anytime soon. But as awareness of the serious consequences of the obesity epidemic grows, expect to see a tax on soda emerging as a solution that more people are willing to swallow.

Over the past 14 months, this blog has run over a dozen guest blog submissions.  We greatly appreciate the contributions we receive from the community – not just because we’re a small organization and it’s nice when someone else pitches on to help us do our work, but because these posts expand the range of subjects we’re able to address and the range of voices we hear from.  We hope you’ll take some time to give some of our guest blog posts a fresh look. If what you see inspires you to try your hand at this yourself, just check out our simple guidelines for guest blogs… and fire away.

• Cathy Burden and Elaine Hobson: SB 834 – Empowering public schools or dismantling them? (May 2009);
• Clay Pope: Protecting our natural resources must be a priority (June 2009);
• Karin Brandenburg and Wanda deBruler: Will Oklahoma be first to discriminate against military spouses in divorces? (Sept. 2009);
• Laura Dempsey-Polan: Medicaid in-home support programs: getting more for less (Oct. 2009);
• Jeff Alderman: Health care perspectives – Rethinking health reform, with a bigger brush (March 2010);
• Tom Daxon: Putting tax expenditures on the right TRACC (March 2010);
• Amy Santee: Turning The Tide On Female Incarceration (March 2010); 
• Valerie Andrews: Cuts to substance abuse services will mean higher costs and worse outcomes (April 2010);
• Sara Waggoner: Can emergency food programs continue to meet growing needs? (April 2010);
• Adam Kupetsky:   Regulate me! (April 2010);
• John Gajda:  State budget cuts will impact people with developmental disabilities (May 2010);
• Michael Lipsky:  ‘The public service’ includes state and local workers (May 2010);
• John Thompson: An Obamamaniac’s critique of the President’s educational policies (June 2010) and Ready or not, the educational revolution is now (July 2010);
• Connie Cronley: Feeding the hungry, tearing down gates (June 2010);
• Brad Byers: Health care reform: the battle between fact and myth (July 2010).