To unsubscribe please send an email requesting removal at ModernPatriot@hotmail.com .

Invite your friends to receive the best political cyber-newsletter in Oklahoma. Tell them to subscribe by sending a subscription request to Cadman12@swbell.net or go to www.ModernPatriot.net and click on the email icon.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
M odern P atriot C hronicles
An Eleventh Commandment Free Zone
Vol. 5, Issue 5
March 12, 2006
By Craig Dawkins

Why the TABOR Opponents Support the "Home Rule" Bill

Copyright@2006, All Rights Reserved
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
POLLS! POLLS! POLLS! POLLS!

Do you support "home rule"?

Absolutely - Leaning Support - Leaning Against - No Way

Go to www.ModernPatriot.net and vote today!!!
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Why the TABOR Opponents Support the "Home Rule" Bill

Fred Hall of the Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce supports the concept of "home rule." The Oklahoman supports "home rule." Many of the movers and shakers in Oklahoma County support "home rule." But most of the "home rule" supporters are completely against the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights (TABOR) in Oklahoma.

TABOR limits the growth of state government in Oklahoma to the rate of inflation plus population growth. This is not enough for the "big government" Republicans and Democrats who generally favor "home rule" and work to stop TABOR. This contrast tells the story of the recent "home rule" demise in the Oklahoma State Senate. A demise brought about, ironically, by 21 Democrats and 6 Republicans.

What the proponents of "home rule" are saying is that bigger is better. In doing some analysis of other "home rule" States, it is apparent that smaller municipalities are gobbled up into the "home rule" governance in a manner that favors larger cities, very poor cities, and those who benefit from having fewer people controlling purchasing and contracts.

Very poor cities benefit because they are able to extract dollars from surrounding cities to improve their roads and other infrastructure that lack the necessary sales tax dollars to complete improvements. Very large cities benefit due to the help they receive in creating new projects (think MAPS 10). Rather than having a sales tax pay for new projects, large cities can rely on surround towns and unincorporated dollars through a property tax.

In "home rule" States, often the "home rule" counties have opted out of the property tax limitations imposed by state law. How much easier would it be for new projects to be voted into existence given that it would be the entire county subsidizing it with additional tax dollars? How hard would it be for citizens outside of Oklahoma City to vote down a project that Oklahoma City would greatly benefit from? The simple truth is that those towns are outnumbered. (The OKC Chamber of Commerce wildly supports "home rule.")

In looking at "home rule" States, what I observe is that eventually they become large governing units that eliminate mayors, city councils, and other local entities ability to impact local communities. Also these large "home rule" governing entities are generally controlled by a relatively small council. This makes it much easier for moneyed interests to provide the necessary campaign contributions to acquire legislative influence.

Senate Bill 1763 wasn't a bold "home rule" bill. In fact it was shockingly timid. The bill only provided for a format by which the 8 elected county officials could appoint a committee of people who would develop a "home rule" charter for all the people to vote for or against. 17 of 23 Senate Republicans lined up behind this proposal and it's shocking for several reasons.

First, there is NO reform in this bill. All a Senator can hope for is reform wisdom in the committee development of the "home rule" charter. But State Senators lose complete control over the type of "reforms" advanced.

Second, it is clear to me that fear of The Oklahoman and moneyed interests have influenced Senate Republicans on this issue. In advancing big government, none of these Republicans supporting SB 1763 can point at the reforms they support in the bill. Why? Because there were no reforms proposed in the bill.

Third, it seems that rather than propose real reform into the governance of county government, a majority of the Republican senators are willing to abdicate their responsibility. Voting for "home rule" simply gets them off the hook in making some hard decisions that involve specific reforms that might make elected county officials angry.

Some have even tried to advance the idea that without "home rule" legislation, county reforms are impossible. This claim is advanced either because of dishonesty or ignorance. Either way it is unacceptable.

The Nigh Commission made some specific recommendations that State Senators have not been courageous enough to consider. One such reform is to merge the County Assessor and County Treasurer into one office. I advocate eliminating the Assessor due to the fact that anyone can manage property appraisers. Treasurer expertise requires higher levels of competence. Another recommendation is to eliminate the County Clerk and make it an appointed position. This makes a lot of sense to me as well. This function should not be an elected one. The Clerk is simply a file dump monitor. The Clerk function could be greatly enhanced by hiring a professional with degreed qualifications. But these kinds of reforms require bold action and political courage. This is something sadly lacking in the State Legislature.

Most of the advocates of "home rule" are fighting TABOR because they know it will reduce the money available for government projects. I suspect they favor "home rule" because it makes for bigger government and projects.

So why in the world would big government Republicans and Democrats be against that?

I can't think of a reason either.