In the spirit of full and vigorous debate on state policy issues, OK Policy is pleased to post this guest blog by Michelle Cantrell challenging our position on State Question 744.  Michelle is the mother of three boys in the public school system, and a frequent volunteer at school.  She also volunteers for various other organizations, including the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission.

As a strong supporter of State Question 744, I would like to respond to the Oklahoma Policy Institute’s arguments against, and argue for, the proposal.

• State Question 744 will improve the overall economic health of the state, resulting in more revenue for all budget areas.

Increasingly, when looking to relocate, companies consider quality of life issues, including the public education system. When Oklahoma is competing with surrounding states to attract businesses, ranking dead last in school expenditures is a huge strike against us.  According to the Economic Policy Institute, there is a direct correlation between spending on primary and secondary schools and the business climate, and increased spending can increase property values.  Investing in education “is the best way to achieve faster growth, more jobs, greater productivity, and more widely shared prosperity.”

Failing to provide appropriate spending for education can cost our state more in other areas.  An OECD report summarizing studies of non-economic benefits of education states that education results in better overall health and greater life expectancy.  Further, parents with more education have children with higher cognitive development and higher future earnings.  People with more education are more likely to save money and make better consumer choices, and are less likely to rely on public assistance even when they are entitled to that assistance.  They also are less likely to engage in criminal activity.   Increased spending can lead to reduced student drop out rates, which ultimately increases lifetime wages.  The amount of lost income from a student who drops out is staggering—the loss of lifetime earnings from students who dropped out in just one year in Oklahoma was almost 4 billion dollars. Thus, inadequately funding schools could ultimately result in higher costs for healthcare, public benefits, law-enforcement, and prisons.  Short-changing schools is penny-wise and pound-foolish. Read the rest of this entry »

Last week, the Oklahoman published a “Tax Day” editorial addressing OK Policy’s recent contributions to the debate on the state budget crisis. They began by emphasizing our common ground:

Along with the Oklahoma Policy Institute’s David Blatt, we’ve been urging lawmakers to use the downturn to find sensible new sources of revenue (such as ending or capping ineffective tax credits) and to better prepare for the next downturn.

This is a meaningful and much-appreciated acknowledgment, as the need for new sources of revenue is a contentious principle  at the Legislature and around the state these days (See this insightful article by Patrick McGuigan on how this issue divides the state’s two policy think-tanks, us and the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs). But the Oklahoman proceeds to reject one of our main proposals for bridging the budget gap, doing away with the exemption that allows taxpayers who itemize their returns to also claim the deduction for state income taxes from their state taxes. The exemption costs the state an estimated $118 million on income tax revenue annually, which at a time of drastic budget scenarios, could make a major difference in preserving critical public services.

We have noted that the exemption for state income tax benefits only the minority of taxpayers, about one in four, who claim itemized deductions. Their editorial states:

That alone is reason to urge caution — especially considering that some states (most notably Texas) have no income tax and Oklahoma’s maximum personal income tax rate is uncomfortably high at 5.5 percent. Read the rest of this entry »