fy-2013 proposed state budget
DESCRIPTION
ÂTRANSCRIPT
OCPA BUDGETA STATE BUDGET THAT RESPECTS YOUR FAMILY BUDGET
Submitted by the
Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, Inc.
To the Taxpayers of the State of Oklahoma
and Their Elected Officials
PROPOSED STATE BUDGETFOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2013
About OCPA
The Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA) is an
independent, nonprofit public policy organization—
a think tank—which formulates and promotes public
policy research and analysis consistent with the
principles of free enterprise and limited government.
Guarantee of Quality Scholarship
OCPA is committed to delivering the highest quality and most reliable research on policy issues.
OCPA guarantees that all original factual data are true and correct and that information attributed to
other sources is accurately represented. OCPA encourages rigorous critique of its research. If the accu-
racy of any material fact or reference to an independent source is questioned and brought to OCPA’s
attention with supporting evidence, OCPA will respond in writing. If an error exists, it will be noted in an
errata sheet that will accompany all subsequent distribution of the publication, which constitutes the
complete and final remedy under this guarantee.
Table of Contents
Budget Message ................................................................................................................................................ 1
Government-Wide Reforms .............................................................................................................................. 5
Summary of FY-2013 OCPA Budget ................................................................................................................ 8
FY-2013 OCPA Budget Recommendations
Education ............................................................................................................................................ 10
General Government ......................................................................................................................... 19
Public Health ....................................................................................................................................... 25
Human Services ................................................................................................................................. 28
Natural Resources .............................................................................................................................. 31
Public Safety ....................................................................................................................................... 38
Judiciary .............................................................................................................................................. 41
P R O P O S E D S TA T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3 1
Budget Message
Oklahoman had finally earned enough money to be
able to pay the federal, state and local tax collectors.
This tax burden is inappropriate for a free people.
Regardless of whether Oklahoma’s tax burden
ranks first or 50th in 50-state comparisons (and here’s
hoping we can one day get to 50th), the burden is too
heavy.
Accordingly, the OCPA budget provides for a sig-
nificant reform of the Oklahoma personal income tax
code by eliminating all loopholes, individual-income-
tax deductions, exemptions, and credits. This reform,
coupled with much needed spending reductions in
areas that are not core functions of government, al-
lows for a significant reduction in Oklahoma’s indi-
vidual income-tax rate from 5.25 percent to 2.25 per-
cent—another step toward eliminating the tax alto-
gether and replacing it with nothing. This will put
money back into the hands of Oklahoma’s private
sector, thus spurring economic activity and even pro-
viding some offsetting revenues for the state. But
make no mistake, the goal is not to be “revenue neu-
tral.” The OCPA budget provides what Oklahomans
This budget provides what Oklahomans want:
lower taxes and a more efficient, effective govern-
ment.
It returns government spending to pre-spending-
spree levels while providing much-needed tax relief
for Oklahoma families.
It allows private businesses and families the oppor-
tunity to use more of their hard-earned money accord-
ing to their priorities, not state government’s priorities.
In short, it’s a state budget that respects your family
budget.
Now you may have noticed that our friends on the
Left like to say Oklahoma is a “low-tax state.” To which
one must reply: By what standard? University of Okla-
homa historian J. Rufus Fears has pointed out that “the
American public pays an amount of taxes that no des-
potic pharaoh in antiquity would have ever dreamt of
imposing upon his people.”
The average Oklahoman was forced to work more
than three months last year before he was able to en-
joy the fruits of his own labor. “Tax Freedom Day” ar-
rived on April 2, 2011—that’s the day the average
Spending data are from the Oklahoma Office of State Finance, FY-2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, pp. 152-153, and FY-
2011 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, pp. 164-165, http://www.ok.gov/OSF/Comptroller/Financial_Reporting.html.
Parties in
Control
When
Spending
Approved
2 O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3
want: a smaller government that is more efficient and
effective.
In light of the irresponsible spending spree of FY
1996 to FY 2002 (wherein state appropriations in-
creased more than $1.9 billion—or 49 percent) and
the irresponsible spending spree of fiscal year (FY)
2004 to FY 2010 (wherein state appropriations in-
creased more than $2.1 billion—or 41 percent), the
OCPA budget returns government spending to a level
more appropriate for a state with Oklahoma’s level of
capital, job creation, and population.
This is necessary. For despite legislative and execu-
tive branches filled with professed conservatives,
Oklahoma government spending is at an all-time high
(as the nearby chart indicates). According to the Of-
fice of State Finance, total state expenditures have in-
creased every year from FY 2001 ($9.6 billion) to FY
2011 ($16.64 billion). Policymakers at 23rd and Lincoln
do not have a revenue problem.
What they have is a spending problem, which is in
part a bureaucratic-overhead problem. According to
a 2012 publication of The State Chamber’s research
affiliate, Oklahoma’s government bureaucracy is
among the nation’s largest. Among the 50 states,
Oklahoma ranks 14th in the number of state and local
government employees as a percent of the population.
For all the talk of “maintaining core services,” what
policymakers are actually maintaining is bureau-
cratic bloat. And they’re doing so on the backs of the
hardworking taxpayers who elected them to do other-
wise. It’s clear that they have more than enough
money for their state budget. Now is the time to show
some concern for their constituents’ family budgets.
The 9 R’s of Fiscal Responsibility
What is the core mission of government? This, of
course, “is the debate at the heart of government bud-
geting,” says the John Locke Foundation (JLF), a free-
market think tank in North Carolina. “What should
government do? What does the constitution allow it to
do? What does it do well? What can it reasonably
hand off to other sectors of society?”
Government is like Microsoft before broadband,
handing down a proprietary operating system (law)
for everyone with little ability to fix bad lines of code. It
assumes that a few people running “government-
modified organizations (GMOs)” can make better de-
cisions than the natural, organic interaction of millions
of service users and providers. This setup results in,
among other things, a Medicaid program that pro-
vides less health care than promised, schools that
graduate half of African-American males, colleges
and universities that graduate less than a quarter of
their students in four years, and targeted tax incen-
tives that fail to create or keep jobs.
How did Oklahoma manage to pile up $16.6 billion
worth of government? “In good times, I do think that
it’s true that government is subject to ‘mission creep,’”
former state treasurer Scott Meacham once ob-
served. “When the revenue is flowing maybe there’s a
trend to drift into areas that are outside of the core
mission or missions of government. What happens
when things are going well is that things that are ‘nice
to do’ become new programs, but in hard times or
tight times, it’s time to look at maybe pruning the tree
of government.”
Oklahoma, with 3.75 million people and a Gross
Domestic Product of $148 billion, is too complex for
149 legislators and several thousand bureaucrats to
manage. Oklahoma has a vibrant private sector, and
it makes more sense, as JLF points out, to leave more
activities in the hands of “individuals and companies
who can be contractually bound to produce results,
instead of spelling out the methods to state employees
and allowing them to choose the results they will
achieve.”
Government exists to secure our rights to life, lib-
erty, and property. It does not exist to own and operate
a third-rate motel chain, to bribe poor women to leave
the fathers of their children, to give people food stamps
with which to buy cigarettes, or to provide employment
for termed-out state legislators. If policymakers focus
on providing core services, government can be
smaller and taxes can be lower.
In crafting a state budget, the analysts at JLF have
developed what they call the “9 R’s of Fiscal Responsi-
O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3 3
bility” (reprinted below, adapted for Oklahoma).
Reform Entitlement Programs. State programs to
provide cash assistance, medical care, or other ser-
vices to the disadvantaged exist to provide a basic
“safety net.” Even philosophers of limited government
have justified such programs as needed to ensure or-
der and protect public assets and spaces. But these
programs must be carefully structured to minimize
dependency and encourage personal responsibility.
When the state pays nursing home bills for the parents
of the middle class, subsidizes the daycare expenses
of affluent families, and perpetuates social patholo-
gies such as out-of-wedlock births, it strays far from its
constitutional moorings. One of the biggest contribu-
tors to Oklahoma’s budgetary problems is rapid
growth in the state’s Medicaid program. The counter-
cyclical nature of this program leads to lawmakers
expanding Medicaid programs (such as the Advan-
tage Waiver program) to provide new entitlements
(and create new dependents) in good economic times
that cannot be sustained when downturns in the
economy occur. According to the state’s FY 2011 Com-
prehensive Annual Financial Report, total state
spending on social services has grown from $1.59 bil-
lion in FY 2005 to $2.25 billion in FY 2011—an increase
of 41.7 percent in six years. Total state spending on
health services has grown from $3.13 billion in FY 2005
to $4.85 billion in FY 2011—an increase of 54.3 percent
in six years.
Require More User Responsibility. It is inappropri-
ate to require those who receive core state services,
such as law enforcement or public education, to cover
a significant share of the cost of those services. But for
many other state agencies, their programs or services
are not constitutional entitlements or responsibilities.
If the state is to continue involvement in these
enterprises, it would be appropriate to ask those who
benefit to shoulder more of the responsibility of paying
for them. Services for which this budget recommends
additional user responsibility include state museums,
historic sites, parks, costs of regulation for particular
industries, and other non-core functions of government.
Redirect Spending to Higher-Priority Uses. Ac-
cording to Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution of
Oklahoma, “All persons have the inherent right to life,
liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of
the gains of their own industry.” Thus, it is incumbent
upon Oklahoma politicians, when formulating tax and
budget policies, to secure the people’s right to enjoy
“the gains of their own industry.” The state is obligated
to perform its basic functions efficiently while leaving
to the people as much of their hard-earned money as
possible. During a time in which policymakers find it
difficult to fund obligations already in place, it makes
little sense to incur new ones. Another way to apply
this principle is to sort out which expenditures within a
given department or agency are central to the core
mission and which are not.
Reorganize State Government. Even assuming
that current fiscal obligations could continue into the
next year, there remain different ways of organizing
the departments that carry them out. There is unnec-
essary duplication of core functions throughout Okla-
homa state agencies. In short, there are more efficient
methods of organizing the various departments. For
example, the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission
provides mainly tourism and recreation-related activi-
ties by its offering of trails or canoe rides in the Illinois
River, yet is a stand-alone agency from the Oklahoma
Tourism Department. Following on the heels of the
2011 consolidation of administrative agencies in the
Office of State Finance, policymakers should continue
to reorganize state government.
Revive Free Enterprise. Responding to Oklahoma’s
economic challenges, some policymakers have con-
cluded that state government should take a more ac-
tive role in attracting investment and guiding develop-
ment through additional tax credits, cash subsidies,
and other incentive programs. This is a mistake. The
available public policy research on state economic
development does suggest that overall tax rates,
4 O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3
especially the marginal rates on individual and corpo-
rate income, do have a measurable impact on state
economic growth rates. By eliminating individual-in-
come-tax programs, marketing subsidies, and other
encroachments on free enterprise, we can reduce
marginal income tax rates. These tax changes will im-
prove economic competitiveness across the board. By
eliminating all individual-income-tax exemptions, de-
ductions, credits, and loopholes—and lowering the
individual-income-tax rate to 2.25 percent—this bud-
get puts more than $275 million (for FY 2013) back in
the hands of taxpaying Oklahomans to invest and
spend as they choose.
Restore Civil Society. Nonprofits and charities form
a “third” or “independent” sector that delivers impor-
tant services and benefits that neither governments
nor profit-seeking businesses can deliver as effec-
tively. The state should be careful not to supplant
these institutions of civil society.
Remove Advocacy, Waste, and Race-Based Pro-
grams. Laws and programs that invoke racial or eth-
nic discrimination violate a basic principle of moral
government. All such programs should be ended im-
mediately. Similarly, state funds should not be used to
subsidize groups that advocate policies or ideas be-
fore government bodies. Taxpayers should not be
forced to pay for the propagation of ideas with which
they may disagree. For example, state law requires
the state to administer and process payroll deduc-
tions for purposes unrelated to employment benefits.
This must end. Government is instituted solely for the
good of the whole, not for special interest groups that
use taxpayer money to advance their agendas.
Reshape the State-Local Government Relation-
ship. Local control of local revenues should be a cen-
tral theme whenever possible in the relationship be-
tween state and local government. The diverse demo-
graphic nature of our state leads to problems in appli-
cations of some state programs.
Reduce Biases in the Tax Code. Like most states,
Oklahoma has developed its state personal income
tax code in a piecemeal fashion rather than using tax
reform principles to build a coherent and efficient sys-
tem. This budget provides the spending discipline that
will allow for reductions in individual taxes for every-
one, thus reducing the need for these individually tai-
lored tax breaks.
O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3 5
Government-Wide Reforms
Telecommunications Efficiency Audits. Policymak-
ers should require audits of state telecommunications
and data communications utilization. Independent IT
efficiency firms, for a flat fee or on a contingency ba-
sis, can be employed as a negotiator and reviewer of
charges from telecommunications and data commu-
nications companies used by state agencies. Highly
successful Oklahoma companies have used these
firms and seen significant savings. Some private-sec-
tor companies have reduced from 25 to 50 percent the
amount spent annually on telecommunications and
data communications.
Savings FY 2013 and thereafter: $3 million (annually)
Mandatory Performance Evaluations and Hiring
Reform. Policymakers should require all state agen-
cies to implement and use rigorous semi-annual per-
formance evaluations for employees. These evalua-
tions would include private-sector-like evaluations of
employee computer and Internet time management,
benchmarks and requirements for employee output to
hours worked, performance and incentive pay for
work that leads to the reduction of full-time equivalent
employees (FTEs), and so on. Agencies would then be
able to make retention decisions based on the results
of these initiatives. Some agencies have started these
evaluations and discovered startling information
about the low workload and low output of some of their
employees. In some agencies, more than 6 percent of
the FTEs were grossly underperforming their required
duties, and contributed little to the completion of tasks
at the agency. These evaluations have allowed agen-
cies to reward and reassign duties to performing em-
ployees, and separate non-performing employees,
thus saving hundreds of thousands of dollars in em-
ployee expenses.
As noted in the preceding budget message, the
state has too many employees; therefore, it is time to
reduce FTE authorizations. Many decisions were
made during the 2011 legislative session to adjust to
reduced appropriations. As with most organizations,
State Employee Health Insurance Reform.
Policymakers should implement the reforms of SB
2052, which was passed by the legislature in 2010 but
vetoed by former Governor Brad Henry. The reforms
include consolidation of duplicative administrative
functions of the state Employee Benefits Council (EBC)
and the Oklahoma State and Education Employees
Group Insurance Board (OSEEGIB), which is esti-
mated to result in an administrative savings of $2 mil-
lion to $3 million annually. Non-appropriated revenue
of OSEEGIB and EBC is derived from state appropria-
tions for health-benefit payments for employees, so
any spending reductions at EBC and OSEEGIB equals
savings for state-appropriated agencies. Other fea-
tures of the reform include implementation of a “win-
ner take all” competitive bidding process for HMO
benefits that are offered by the state to employees
(this is how most private-sector firms choose health
insurance products). This reform, coupled with the
stabilization of the benefit allowance for state employ-
ees, would result in savings of more than $70 million
annually.
In addition, the state should reform the OSEEGIB
HealthChoice plan so that the insurance offering for
state employees is a Health Savings Account plan.
With the current generous benefit allowance (which
pays well over the costs of health benefits) and imple-
mentation of health insurance incentive reforms, all
state employees can be converted to Health Savings
Accounts without a reduction in the quality of health
benefits available to state employees. As a final part
of this reform, the state needs to evaluate the cost of
continuing to operate its own self-insured plan
(HealthChoice), compared to available private health
insurance options. If significant long-term savings can
be achieved without impacting core health care options
for employees, the state should consider this option.
Savings FY 2013: $37.8 million (half a fiscal year)
Savings FY 2014 and thereafter: $75.6 million
(annually)
6 O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3
when cuts are necessary, this will result in reduced
FTEs. Every agency that has experienced FTE reduc-
tions to accommodate available revenue should have
its agency FTE authorization reduced to its current
FTE level, the new lower level as a result of this past
session’s spending reduction, or reductions in the up-
coming 2012 session, whichever is lower. Further, to
add much-needed accountability to the hiring pro-
cess, all state-appropriated agencies should be re-
quired to notify the Office of State Finance, Division of
Personnel Management, and the Governor’s office
before any new hires are made. Once the agency has
provided a detailed notification and justification for
filling the position, the Governor’s office or the Divi-
sion of Personnel Management will have 30 days to
approve or disapprove the new hire. This will prevent
future growth in personnel expenses without careful
consideration and approval of the Legislature and the
Governor.
Savings FY 2013: $5.4 million (half a fiscal year)
Savings FY 2014: $23.4 million
Savings FY 2015: $41.4 million
Continued Pension Reform. Policymakers enacted
significant pension reforms in 2011, but the work is
not done. During the 2012 session, the legislature
should implement a defined-contribution (DC) plan
(effective July 1, 2012) for all new state (OPERS-eli-
gible) employees.
Adhering to the first rule of holes (“when you’re in
one, stop digging”), this plan stops the practice of
adding new liabilities for new employees. The plan
would pay 4 percent of annual salary immediately, in-
creasing to 7 percent of annual salary after 4 years of
service. (The state would contribute 4 percent of sal-
ary to the employee’s 401(k) beginning when the em-
ployee is hired.)
The plan would take the difference between the
new DC plan contribution and the old DB (defined-
benefit) plan contribution and inject it into the system,
using it to pay down the debt over time.
Savings: Long-term elimination of state pension
liabilities and future obligations
Major Asset Sales. The state owns many assets that
are not related to core functions of government or are
not being utilized. These assets can be sold. The state
should privatize or sell assets such as the Grand River
Dam Authority, the state’s interest in goodwill and sur-
plus value in CompSource, and multiple other assets.
These one-time funds should be used to phase out the
state’s income tax.
Savings FY 2014: $50 million to $200 million
(mutualize or privatize CompSource)
Savings FY 2014: $25 million (asset sales)
Savings FY 2015: $25 million (asset sales)
Savings FY 2014: $300 million (privatize GRDA)
Agency, Board, and Commission Reform. Whether
it is the Oklahoma Health Care Authority board’s indif-
ference to a high director’s salary and ballooning
Medicaid costs, or past Department of Human Ser-
vices (DHS) commissioners’ indifference and destruc-
tive performance, it is time to hold board members ac-
countable. This can be done by making all gubernato-
rial appointments at the will of the governor. Despite
Oklahoma voters’ mandate for right-sizing govern-
ment, “old guard” board appointments in some cases
will outlast a governor, even a governor elected to two
terms. This explains in part why higher-education re-
gents allow tuition increases of more than 100 percent
in just nine fiscal years, why other boards approve the
hiring of lobbyists with taxpayer funds, and why still
other boards grant completely undeserved salary in-
creases. Making gubernatorial appointments coin-
cide with the term of the governor provides for ac-
countability, because the governor will be watching
(knowing that the citizens generally hold the governor
accountable).
In the longer term (as OCPA first recommended
early in the Brad Henry administration), we must em-
power the governor even further by eliminating many
of these boards and commissions altogether.
Oversight of Federal Funding. As mentioned
above, Oklahoma government spending is at an all-
time high. The most significant driver of state spending
O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3 7
growth is federal funds, or what tax consumers like to
think of as “free” money. It is the federally induced
welfare programs, such as Medicaid, that require
ever-increasing state funding matches for the pro-
grams’ exploding costs. Again, according to
Oklahoma’s latest Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report (CAFR), total state spending on social services
has grown from $1.59 billion in FY 2005 to $2.25 billion
in FY 2011—an increase of 41.7 percent in six years.
Total state spending on health services has grown
from $3.13 billion in FY 2005 to $4.85 billion in FY
2011—an increase of 54.3 percent in six years.
Based on this enormous growth, lawmakers must
take a serious look at state programs operated with
federal funds. In particular, oversight of state agencies’
application for federal funds, and operation of pro-
grams using federal funds, must begin immediately.
The current budget review process is inadequate.
There are simply too many programs being operated
by state agencies, and too much money being spent.
Just as lawmakers have established committees specifi-
cally for certain policy issues needing intense review
(e.g., DHS), it is time to form an oversight committee de-
signed specifically to review and make recommenda-
tions for all state programs utilizing federal funds.
The current unchecked growth in state government
spending is irresponsible. It is time for policymakers
to take fiscal federalism seriously, and chart a new
course towards economic freedom.
Privatization of State Services. Many of the ser-
vices currently provided by state agencies—the Tour-
ism Department, the Department of Corrections, the
Office of Juvenile Affairs, and the Department of Hu-
man Services come quickly to mind—can be per-
formed at the same or better quality and at lower cost
by the private sector. It is unjust to require taxpayers to
support overpriced services—especially when many
of these taxpayers are small-business owners being
forced to subsidize their own competitors.
In the 2012 session, lawmakers should establish a
joint committee, comprising both public and
nonpublic sector appointees, specifically tasked with
evaluating current services provided by government
that are also provided by the private sector. This com-
mittee should create a comprehensive list of services
that can be privatized, and then lawmakers should be
required to take formal action accepting or denying
the list of services to be privatized prior to the end of
the 2012 session.
Savings FY 2013: $47 million
Savings FY 2014: $52 million
Savings FY 2015: $57.9 million
8 O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3
OCPA FY-2013 Budget RecommendationFY-12 Appropriation FY-13 Appropriation $ Change % Change
EDUCATION COMMITTEEArts Council $ 4,010,087 $ 0 $ -4,010,087 -100.00%Career and Technology Education $ 133,742,618 $ 130,320,973 $ -3,421,645 -2.56%Board of Education $ 2,278,158,382 $ 2,277,776,621 $ -381,761 -0.02%Educational Television Authority $ 3,822,328 $ 0 $ -3,822,328 -100.00%Regents for Higher Education $ 945,260,277 $ 729,260,277 $ -216,000,000 -22.85%Land Commission $ 7,109,000 $ 7,046,799 $ -62,201 -0.87%Department of Libraries $ 5,898,633 $ 5,880,208 $ -18,425 -0.31%Physician Manpower Training Commission $ 4,379,254 $ 0 $ -4,379,254 -100.00%Board of Private Vocational Schools $ 167,194 $ 165,548 $ -1,646 -0.98%School of Science and Mathematics $ 6,332,274 $ 5,141,343 $ -1,190,931 -18.81%Center for Science and Technology $ 17,811,449 $ 14,791,483 $ -3,019,966 -16.96%Teacher Preparation Commission $ 1,526,179 $ 0 $ -1,526,179 -100.00%
GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEEAuditor and Inspector $ 4,706,986 $ 4,579,403 $ -127,583 -2.71%Bond Advisor $ 143,112 $ 140,918 $ -2,194 -1.53%Department of Central Services $ 17,313,301 $ 17,022,559 $ -290,742 -1.68%Election Board $ 7,805,808 $ 7,781,893 $ -23,915 -0.31%Emergency Management $ 651,179 $ 623,863 $ -27,316 -4.19%Ethics Commission $ 523,129 $ 517,315 $ -5,814 -1.11%Office of State Finance $ 19,179,440 $ 18,985,488 $ -193,952 -1.01%Governor $ 1,980,594 $ 1,952,401 $ -28,193 -1.42%House of Representatives $ 14,574,682 $ 14,308,875 $ -265,807 -1.82%Legislative Service Bureau $ 4,892,835 $ 4,883,401 $ -9,434 -0.19%Lieutenant Governor $ 506,591 $ 497,705 $ -8,886 -1.75%Merit Protection Commission $ 490,967 $ 484,166 $ -6,801 -1.39%Military Department $ 10,247,997 $ 9,870,843 $ -377,154 -3.68%Office of Personnel Management $ 3,639,606 $ 3,595,503 $ -44,103 -1.21%Secretary of State $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 N/ASenate $ 11,171,789 $ 11,010,528 $ -161,261 -1.44%Space Industry Development Authority $ 394,589 $ 0 $ -394,589 -100.00%Tax Commission $ 46,915,944 $ 46,089,562 $ -826,382 -1.76%Department of Transportation $ 106,737,039 $ 205,795,533 $ 99,058,494 92.81%Treasurer $ 3,629,873 $ 3,567,343 $ -62,530 -1.72%
PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEEHealth Care Authority $ 983,085,563 $ 895,601,670 $ -87,483,893 -8.90%Health Department $ 60,083,682 $ 57,795,857 $ -2,287,825 -3.81%J.D. McCarty Center $ 3,740,338 $ 3,480,565 $ -259,773 -6.95%Mental Health and Substance Abuse $ 187,151,517 $ 185,187,311 $ -1,964,206 -1.05%University Hospitals $ 38,446,391 $ 38,437,615 $ -8,776 -0.02%Department of Veterans Affairs $ 34,698,752 $ 32,276,652 $ -2,422,100 -6.98%
HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEECommission on Children and Youth $ 2,027,167 $ 2,018,017 $ -9,150 -0.45%Office of Disability Concerns $ 317,607 $ 310,806 $ -6,801 -2.14%Human Rights Commission $ 531,270 $ 517,886 $ -13,384 -2.52%Department of Human Services $ 537,136,664 $ 503,419,142 $ -33,717,522 -6.28%Indian Affairs Commission $ 192,306 $ 190,112 $ -2,194 -1.14%Office of Juvenile Affairs $ 96,187,205 $ 90,339,372 $ -5,847,833 -6.08%Department of Rehabilitation Services $ 30,149,232 $ 29,050,681 $ -1,098,551 -3.64%
NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEEDepartment of Agriculture, Food and Forestry $ 25,610,247 $ 25,019,362 $ -590,885 -2.31%Department of Commerce $ 29,073,210 $ 25,064,675 $ -4,008,535 -13.79%Conservation Commission $ 9,561,684 $ 8,615,247 $ -946,437 -9.90%Consumer Credit Commission $ 331,730 $ 0 $ -331,730 -100.00%Corporation Commission $ 11,324,427 $ 10,854,904 $ -469,523 -4.15%
O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3 9
FY-12 Appropriation FY-13 Appropriation $ Change % Change
NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE (CONT.)Department of Environmental Quality $ 7,557,973 $ 6,858,845 $ -699,128 -9.25%Historical Society $ 12,502,546 $ 12,336,238 $ -166,308 -1.33%Horse Racing Commission $ 2,072,167 $ 0 $ -2,072,167 -100.00%Insurance Department $ 1,871,937 $ 0 $ -1,871,937 -100.00%J.M. Davis Memorial Commission $ 306,009 $ 0 $ -306,009 -100.00%Department of Labor $ 3,081,160 $ 2,985,391 $ -95,769 -3.11%Department of Mines $ 779,139 $ 743,815 $ -35,324 -4.53%Scenic Rivers Commission $ 271,315 $ 255,518 $ -15,797 -5.82%Department of Tourism and Recreation $ 21,803,003 $ 19,572,246 $ -2,230,757 -10.23%Water Resources Board $ 5,499,671 $ 5,407,851 $ -91,820 -1.67%Will Rogers Memorial Commission $ 740,486 $ 0 $ -740,486 -100.00%
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEEABLE Commission $ 3,140,334 $ 3,095,137 $ -45,197 -1.44%Department of Corrections $ 459,831,068 $ 421,249,454 $ -38,581,614 -8.39%Fire Marshal $ 1,796,764 $ 1,768,680 $ -28,084 -1.56%State Bureau of Investigation $ 13,848,059 $ 13,488,019 $ -360,040 -2.60%Law Enforcement Education and Training $ 3,682,560 $ 3,635,717 $ -46,843 -1.27%Board of Medicolegal Investigations $ 4,698,281 $ 4,618,418 $ -79,863 -1.70%Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs $ 3,616,418 $ 3,489,055 $ -127,363 -3.52%Department of Public Safety $ 84,894,790 $ 70,326,271 $ -14,568,519 -17.16%
JUDICIARY COMMITTEEAttorney General $ 13,228,141 $ 13,064,028 $ -164,113 -1.24%Court of Criminal Appeals $ 3,334,631 $ 3,304,024 $ -30,607 -0.92%District Attorneys Council $ 32,887,258 $ 31,655,968 $ -1,231,290 -3.74%District Courts $ 56,100,000 $ 55,413,817 $ -686,183 -1.22%Indigent Defense System $ 14,699,353 $ 14,575,390 $ -123,963 -0.84%Council on Judicial Complaints $ 75,000 $ 72,806 $ -2,194 -2.93%Pardon and Parole Board $ 2,217,454 $ 2,177,084 $ -40,370 -1.82%Supreme Court $ 17,300,000 $ 17,106,157 $ -193,843 -1.12%Worker’s Compensation Court $ 4,197,166 $ 4,118,620 $ -78,546 -1.87%
MISCELLANEOUS AGENCIES/APPROPRIATIONSRural Economic Action Plan (REAP) $ 11,532,469 $ 0 $ -11,532,469 -100.00%OSU Medical Center $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 0 0.00%
Government-wide reforms (not included in individual agency adjustments)
Telecommunications efficiency audits $ -3,000,000 $ -3,000,000 N/AHiring reform $ -5,400,000 $ -5,400,000 N/A
Total Appropriations Including Misc. Approp $ 6,505,937,280* $ 6,138,188,975 $ -367,748,305 -5.65%
Appropriation savings (FY-2012 appropriations less OCPA recommendations) $ 367,748,305FY-13 growth in appropriation authority over FY-12 appropriations $ 73,814,873Cash Flow Reserve Fund transer to Special Cash $ 116,000,000
Total surplus funds $ 557,563,178
Estimated FY-2013 revenue decline from income tax cut (excluding ROADS fund) $ -243,000,000
Offsets for estimated FY-2013 revenue decline from income taxcut to ROADS fund (transfer to ROADS fund) $ -32,000,000
Total income tax cut impact $ -275,000,000
Surplus funds to carry forward for FY-2014 $ 282,563,178
*Agency appropriations were derived from OSF, House, and Senate fiscal documents. This total excludes non-recurring supplemental funding.
EducationArts Council
This budget recommends that the Arts Council op-
erate solely from donations and self-generated funds,
without receiving state appropriations. Promotion of
the arts is a nonprofit interest, which should not be
advantaged over other nonprofit efforts that do not re-
ceive state appropriations. State government has
core functions which are neglected when limited re-
sources are diverted to philanthropic interests such
1 0 O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3
as promotion of the arts. Removing state funding for
the Arts Council would not be a unique reform at-
tempted only by Oklahoma. Kansas eliminated such
funding in 2011, providing a great example for all
states of wisely using taxpayer funds.
Require more user responsibility
Redirect spending to higher-priority uses
Restore civil society
Career and Technology EducationA major source of revenue for school districts and
technology centers is the ad valorem tax, or property
tax, which is allowed by Article 10 of the Oklahoma
Constitution. The level of support technology centers
receive from property-tax sources varies based upon
what was approved for the technology centers
through a vote of the people in the district. Support
from property tax is capped at five mills for the gen-
eral fund (a mill = 1/10th cent), five mills for the incen-
tive fund for operations, and five mills for the building
fund, although not all technology center districts have
voted the full millage levy.
The use of building funds is generally limited to
“erecting, remodeling or repairing buildings and for
purchasing furniture.” Partially because of this provi-
sion, and because of economic growth in several ar-
eas of the state, total CareerTech building fund carry-
forward balances have increased from $36.8 million in
FY 2001 to $106.1 million in FY 2011. This enormous
fund growth—161 percent adjusted for inflation—has
resulted in technology centers across the state being
forced to make building purchases or improvements
that they do not need, while other potentially worth-
while expenses are neglected. This is like a family be-
ing forced to use a savings account to buy a new
home, when dad just lost his job and the family needs
to buy groceries.
CareerTech does not need increased state appro-
priations. What is needed is a constitutional amend-
ment and statutory changes allowing technology cen-
ters to use the existing local-district voting process to
reallocate the total millage for technology centers as
their local citizens and their elected officials see fit.
This allows for local control and removes the need for
more state funding. Then CareerTech can adjust its
state allocations to local technology centers, saving
millions of dollars in state appropriations and allow-
ing for wiser use of local property taxes.
This budget recommends that CareerTech receive
the same appropriation provided for FY 2012, less sav-
Arts Council
FY-2012 $ 4,010,087
Not a core function of government; eliminate appropriation $ (4,010,087)
$ -
Total Savings $ 4,010,087
FY-2013 $ -
O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3 1 1
ings from the implementation of the state employee
health insurance reform, less appropriations to
CareerTechs in large MSA’s that have sufficient local
revenue to support their operations, and less targeted
funding.
Board of EducationOver the long term, lawmakers in Oklahoma must
address the ever-growing cost of common education,
which has been accompanied by results that remain
flat at unacceptably low levels. According to the
state’s FY 2011 Comprehensive Annual Financial Re-
port, total state spending on education has grown
from $3.53 billion in FY 2005 to $4.57 billion in FY
2011—an increase of 29.4 percent in six years. Ac-
cording to Dr. Greg Foster, federal data indicate that
“only half of Oklahoma’s public education employees
are teachers. The bureaucracy is now so big, it takes
up half the system.”
According to a new report from the research affili-
ate of The State Chamber, Oklahoma public schools
spend $9,121 per pupil. This per-pupil expenditure
significantly exceeds the cost associated for alterna-
tives to public education.
Cost-saving alternatives (such as vouchers and
Education Savings Accounts, for example) need seri-
ous attention from lawmakers.
This budget recommends that the Board of Educa-
tion receive the same appropriation provided for FY
2012, less savings from the implementation of the state
employee health insurance reform.
Career and Technology Education
FY-2012 $ 133,742,618
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (321,645)
Reduce state subsidy for technology centers with sufficent local revenues
to support operations without state funding (Metro, Francis Tuttle, Tulsa) $ (3,000,000)
Eliminate targeted funding for Kiamichi Technology Center $ (100,000)
$ -
Total Savings $ 3,421,645
FY-2013 $ 130,320,973
Board of Education
FY-2012 $ 2,278,158,382
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (381,761)
$ -
Total Savings $ 381,761
FY-2013 $ 2,277,776,621
1 2 O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3
Oklahoma Educational Television Authority
“Public broadcasting is a wonderful resource, pro-
viding quality programming that is cherished by
many,” Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell has correctly
noted. Nevertheless, he recommended eliminating
state funding for public broadcasting. “In our modern
media world,” he said, “there are thousands upon
thousands of content providers operating in the free
market. They compete with each other, and viewers
and listeners have their choice as to what to tune into
or turn on. Simply put, it doesn’t make sense to have
some stations with the competitive advantage of being
funded by taxpayer dollars. The decision to eliminate
state funding of public broadcasting is driven by the
fundamental need to reestablish the proper role of
government, and budget accordingly.”
Similarly, in Florida last year Gov. Rick Scott vetoed
the state’s $4.8 million appropriation for public
broadcasting.
Broadcasting is not a core function of government.
According to the Oklahoma Educational Television Au-
thority (OETA), as of FY 2012, 17 states are not provid-
ing state funding for public broadcasting. Consistent
with the principles of free enterprise and limited gov-
ernment, this budget removes all state appropriations
from OETA and recommends that all OETA assets, in-
cluding any bandwidth rights, be assigned to the non-
profit OETA Foundation, giving OETA a firm footing to
continue operations without any taxpayer funding.
Oklahomans who wish to support OETA may send a
donation to the OETA Foundation, P.O. Box 14190,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73113.
Require more user responsibility
Redirect spending to higher-priority uses
Restore civil society
Regents for Higher EducationJeff Sandefer, a successful entrepreneur and former
University of Oklahoma professor, recently wrote:
The truth is that over the next decade, many uni-
versities may bankrupt themselves by clinging to
an educational approach that confuses lecturing
with learning and protects highly paid, tenured
faculties and administrators from a tsunami of tech-
nological change that soon will deliver transforma-
tional learning at a fraction of today’s costs.
There’s a word for business models that have high
and increasing fixed costs, and are faced by dis-
ruptive strategies that offer better results at a
lower price. That word is “doomed.” ...
The real problems in higher education are
more fundamental than tuition increases alone:
1. A public that increasingly questions the value
of a college degree. …
2. High and rising fixed costs from tenured fac-
ulty, bloated administrative staffs, and expensive
new buildings at a time when tenured-faculty
teaching productivity is falling ...
3. A tsunami of technologically enabled educa-
tional change promises to deliver transforma-
tional learning at a fraction of today’s costs.
These problems exist in Oklahoma. Since the Leg-
islature granted the State Regents authority to ap-
Educational Television Authority
FY-2012 $ 3,822,328
Not a core function of government;
eliminate appropriation $ (3,822,328)
$ -
Total Savings $ 3,822,328
FY-2013 $ -
O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3 1 3
prove tuition and fee increases in 2003, undergradu-
ate resident tuition and fees have increased by 100.59
percent during the last nine fiscal years, according to
the State Regents. During the same time period, infla-
tion has only increased by approximately 25 percent,
while private earnings rose only about 45 percent.
During that time, when comparing each year of
Higher Ed appropriations to FY 2004, even after ad-
justing for inflation and including budget cuts, the Leg-
islature has maintained total appropriations to higher
education and in several years substantially ex-
ceeded that level.
Tuition at the University of Oklahoma and Okla-
homa State University during that time period is even
more alarming:
Oklahoma State University (including the Tulsa
campus) – Undergraduate Resident Tuition and Man-
datory Fee Increases:
• FY 2003 – $100.83 main campus tuition and fees per
credit hour
• FY 2012 – $236.90 main campus tuition and fees per
credit hour
• 134.95% – main campus tuition and fee increases
over last 9 years
• 25% – inflation over last 9 years
• $2,069.40 – increase per 15-hour semester
University of Oklahoma – Undergraduate Resident
Tuition and Mandatory Fee Increases:
• FY 2003 – $97.62 main campus tuition and fees per
credit hour
• FY 2012 – $237.48 main campus tuition and fees per
credit hour
• 144.17% – main campus tuition and fee increases
over last 9 years
• 25% – inflation over last 9 years
• $2,103.30 – increase per 15-hour semester
Analyzing the State Regents data, tuition increases
are not just based on enrollment growth. In the fall of
2003 the full-time equivalent enrollment was 96,856
and by 2009 had grown by 2,05,9 or 2.13 percent.
Meanwhile, over the same period, average under-
graduate resident tuition and mandatory fee in-
creases grew 69.51 percent for research universities
and 52.19 percent for regional universities. Inflation
over this period of time was 17 percent and the private
earnings of Oklahomans grew 35.03 percent over this
same period.
In 2010, Oklahoma ranked 13th in per capita higher
education appropriations but ranked 37th in bachelor’s
degree attainment. For Oklahoma public four-year in-
stitutions, only 19.97 percent of students graduate
within 4 years, and 55 percent of Oklahoma’s students
fail to graduate within even six years.
In an investigative review last year of Oklahoma
college and university budgets, Peter J. Rudy of Okla-
homa Watchdog reported:
Spending at state colleges and universities this
year is 66% higher than it was just 10 years ago
according to data obtained by Oklahoma Watch-
dog through Open Records requests. The Educa-
tion and General (E&G) budgets of the 25 state
colleges and universities grew from $1.29 billion in
FY2003 to $2.13 billion in the current fiscal year. …
[W]hile Oklahoma suffered two economic down-
turns during that period, spending never de-
creased at state colleges and universities.
The last three years, Oklahoma has experi-
enced a revenue failure and two budget shortfalls,
yet Higher Ed spending increased by 2.5%, 2.8%
and 3.9% in those years. The 3.9% increase this year
comes despite state lawmakers decreasing state
appropriations to Higher Ed by 5% in the budget.
Colleges and universities have other sources of
revenue, primarily tuition and fees, which allowed
spending to rise. Every state college and univer-
sity raised tuition and fees this year.
According to the State Regents, total student
(headcount) enrollment at public colleges and univer-
sities was 228,249 for 2002-03 (FY 2003). Allocating the
FY 2003 budget to enrollment for 2002-03 equals an
E&G budget of $6,028.83. The headcount for 2011-12
(assuming the average of growth the last 3 years) is
262,413. Allocating the FY 2012 budget to enrollment
for 2011-12 equals an E&G budget of $8,116.97. Ana-
lyzing these data, public colleges and universities in
Oklahoma have increased the E&G budget per
1 4 O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3
student by $2,088.14 or approximately $547.9 million in
nine years.
Low productivity among professors is also a problem
in Oklahoma. For example, in a 2002 study conducted of
a non-medical and non-engineering division of an Okla-
homa research institution (see nearby table), it was
found that multiple professors were paid salaries ex-
ceeding $100,000 a year, taught in some cases as little
as one class per year, and taught few students compared
to non-tenured professors and graduate assistants.
Concerning the number of colleges and universities
in Oklahoma (25) and the total number of “higher edu-
cation” centers (52), it is time for the administrative and
“back office” functions of the colleges and universities to
be consolidated into the two research universities.
These larger institutions have achieved economies of
scale, and their far superior graduation rates are just
one example of why it is time to end the political patron-
age approach to the number of colleges and universi-
ties in Oklahoma and their control. It is also time for the
State Board of Regents and lawmakers, in coordination
with the two research institutions, to consolidate many of
the regional and community colleges to vertically
achieve efficiency, cost savings, better degree quality,
and better graduation rates. One need only to look at
the salaries of the college and university presidents, and
the corresponding graduation rates, to see these re-
forms are needed.
It is time for Oklahoma to decrease its taxpayer invest-
ment in higher education. This budget recommends that
the State Regents for Higher Education receive the
same appropriation for FY 2012 less savings from the
implementation of the reforms described below.
Regents for Higher Education
FY-2012 $ 945,260,277
Eliminate inflated appropriation levels due to SQ744 styled Peer Factor
Multiplier; eliminate waste, duplication, and inefficiencies by combining all
other college and university administrative and “back office” functions into
research institutions; and implement college and university consolidation $ (216,000,000)
$ -
Total Savings $ 216,000,000
FY-2013 $ 729,260,277
Total Total # of SalaryTeachers Classes Students 2002Name redacted 2 70 $188,423.16Name redacted 2 89 158,522.80Name redacted 3 122 135,477.99Name redacted 3 62 136,426.04Name redacted 3 133 192,520.48Name redacted 1 34 126,757.00Name redacted 2 63 170,401.29Name redacted 2 76 150,000.00Name redacted 3 113 115,086.00Name redacted 1 11 223,850.60Name redacted 4 21 184,893.09Name redacted 3 67 146,482.74Name redacted 3 115 156,929.11Name redacted 2 70 129,883.74Name redacted 1 35 104,435.83Name redacted 3 59 110,634.79Name redacted 1 10 243,160.23
College DazeFour-Year Four-Year Salary ofPublic Graduation UniversityUniversity Rate President
Rogers State University 4% $215,000Cameron University 6% $261,100Langston University 13% $247,000Southeastern Oklahoma State University 11% $172,000University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma 19% $165,465Northeastern State University 11% $215,360Southwestern Oklahoma State University 12% $157,667Northwestern Oklahoma State University 15% $160,000East Central University 11% $172,500University of Central Oklahoma 12% $266,492Oklahoma Panhandle State University 23% $192,250Oklahoma State University 31% $371,786University of Oklahoma 29% $384,816
Sources: Graduation rates are the latest available from IPEDS, U.S. Department ofEducation. This is a percentage of entering students who began their studies full-time in the fall of 2003 seeking a bachelor’s degree who earned a bachelor’sdegree within four years. Salary date for FY-2010 (the latest year available) arefrom the Oklahoma Office of State Finance.
O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3 1 5
Land CommissionThis budget recommends that the Land Commis-
sion receive the same appropriation provided for
FY 2012, less savings from the implementation of the
state employee health insurance reform.
Department of LibrariesThis budget recommends that the Department of Li-
braries receive the same appropriation provided for
FY 2012, less savings from the implementation of the
state employee health insurance reform.
Physician Manpower Training Commission
This budget recommends that the Physician Man-
power Training Commission (PMTC) operate com-
pletely from self-generated funds, local government
funds, and donations, without receiving state appro-
priations. The Physician Manpower Training Commis-
sion, according to its website, exists “to enhance
medical care in rural and underserved areas of the
state by administering residency, internship and
scholarship incentive programs that encourage medi-
cal and nursing personnel to practice in rural and
underserved areas. Further, PMTC is to upgrade the
availability of health care services by increasing the
number of practicing physicians, nurses and physician
assistants in rural and underserved areas of Okla-
homa.” These efforts are intensely local functions fo-
cused on local workforce training and recruitment.
These efforts should be directly funded and supported
by the local governments and users that benefit, not
through the statewide subsidization of one specific in-
dustry. Further, significant tax relief for Oklahomans,
with the associated economic growth and the in-
crease in local revenues, provides a better opportu-
nity for local communities to become self-sufficient
and operate local workforce recruitment programs.
Require more user responsibility
Land Commission
FY-2012 $ 7,109,000
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (62,201)
$ -
Total Savings $ 62,201
FY-2013 $ 7,046,799
Department of Libraries
FY-2012 $ 5,898,633
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (18,425)
$ -
Total Savings $ 18,425
FY-2013 $ 5,880,208
Physician Manpower Training Commission
FY-2012 $ 4,379,254
Function of local government and local workforce recruitment;
eliminate appropriation $ (4,379,254)
$ -
Total Savings $ 4,379,254
FY-2013 $ -
1 6 O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3
Board of Private Vocational Schools
The Board of Private Vocational Schools licenses,
regulates, and sets standards for the operation of pri-
vate schools that conduct occupational training.
Schools licensed by the Oklahoma Board of Private
Vocational Schools are the “silent service” of educa-
tion. They are generally privately owned, and are
mostly small institutions with a student body counted
in the tens or hundreds rather than in the thousands.
Their physical plants are modest in size and appear-
ance, and they have no lobbyists roaming the halls of
the capitol seeking appropriations.
Unlike privately owned entities licensed by other
state boards (banks and funeral homes, for example),
licensed private career schools perform a service nor-
mally performed by the state. In providing educational
services, private career schools save the state mil-
lions of dollars in educational costs, reduce welfare
expenses, offer choice in education, and produce job-
ready graduates. The benefits inuring to Oklahoma
through the private career schools regulated by the
Oklahoma Board of Private Vocational Schools are
enormous.
This budget recommends the Board of Private Vo-
cational Schools receive that the same appropriation
provided for FY 2012, less savings from the implemen-
tation of the state employee health insurance reform.
School of Science and Mathematics
This budget recommends that the Oklahoma
School of Science and Mathematics (OSSM) promote
individual responsibility by requiring that students
who attend OSSM help defray some of the costs of
their education.
Through local property taxes, state sales taxes,
state income taxes, motor vehicle taxes, and other
taxes and fees, Oklahoma taxpayers heavily subsi-
dize common education by way of the 1017 fund, the
general revenue fund, and more than $2 billion annually
in appropriations to the state Board of Education. OSSM
is a predominantly taxpayer-subsidized advanced
college preparatory school, with a restricted number
of students. This budget recommends that OSSM in-
stitute a tuition-sharing program for each student of
$250 a month, for 9 months. Even with this arrange-
ment, students will only pay approximately 20 percent
of the cost of their attendance at OSSM. This budget
recommends that OSSM receive the same appropria-
tion provided for FY 2012, less the new revenue gener-
ated by the tuition sharing arrangement and savings
from the implementation of the state employee health
insurance reform.
Require more user responsibility
Board of Private Vocational Schools
FY-2012 $ 167,194
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (1,646)
$ -
Total Savings $ 1,646
FY-2013 $ 165,548
School of Science and Mathematics
FY-2012 $ 6,332,274
Implement tuition sharing program $ (1,125,000)
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (65,931)
$ -
Total Savings $ 1,190,931
FY-2013 $ 5,141,343
O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3 1 7
Center for Science and Technology
This budget recommends that the Oklahoma Cen-
ter for Science and Technology (OCAST) no longer re-
ceive state funding for the Oklahoma Technology
Commercialization Center (OTCC). This program di-
rectly competes with the private sector and existing
market participants engaged in business formation
and development. This program is another example
of the state picking winners and losers. If the private
sector is interested in subsidizing a competitor
through the continued existence of this program, then
it will support this program through donations to
OCAST specifically for this program. This budget rec-
ommends that OCAST receive the same appropria-
tion provided for FY 2012, less funding for the OTCC
and less savings from the implementation of the state
employee health insurance reform.
Teacher Preparation Commission
This budget recommends that the Oklahoma Com-
mission for Teacher Preparation (OCTP) no longer re-
ceive a state appropriation. According to its website,
the OCTP’s mission is “to develop, implement, and fa-
cilitate competency-based teacher preparation, candi-
date assessment, and professional development sys-
tems.” Since its creation, taxpayers have provided ap-
propriations of more than $29 million to the OCTP, in-
cluding the $1,526,179 appropriated to the agency for
FY 2012.
Despite poor results, total state spending on educa-
tion has grown from $3.53 billion in FY 2005 to $4.57
billion in FY 2011—an increase of 29.4 percent in six
years. Excluding funds for OCTP, taxpayers already
spend billions of dollars on other state agencies, such
as the state Department of Education, CareerTech,
state aid for common education, OETA, and more than
a billion of taxpayer dollars for subsidized colleges and
universities. These government entities should already
“implement and facilitate competency-based teacher
preparation, candidate assessment, and professional
development systems”—particularly the institutions
granting bachelor’s degrees and higher. Oklahoma
taxpayers should not be required to pay for this twice.
Teachers are professionals. Once they enter the
workforce, they, like many other professionals, are
now providing a service to their particular employer
and their local community. Locally benefiting employ-
ers, communities, and teachers should bear the costs
for any licensing, credentialing, and additional train-
ing or development—just as is the case with many
other professions that do not receive taxpayer funds.
The Teacher Preparation Commission is a duplica-
tive function of government, as teachers are gradu-
ates of heavily taxpayer-subsidized public colleges
and universities and private universities which receive
taxpayer subsidized grants and federally subsidized
student loans. Since most teachers are required to
have bachelor or higher level degrees, their degree
program has or should have already prepared them.
Center for Science and Technology
FY-2012 $ 17,811,449
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (19,966)
Eliminate state funding of the technology commercialization program, this
business development program competes directly with the private sector $ (3,000,000)
$ -
Total Savings $ 3,019,966
FY-2013 $ 14,791,483
1 8 O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3
Any additional preparation needed is a specific ben-
efit to local government and districts and should be
funded locally if a priority.
Reshape the state-local government relationship
Teacher Preparation Commission
FY-2012 $ 1,526,179
Duplicative function of government and function of local government $ (1,526,179)
$ -
Total Savings $ 1,526,179
FY-2013 $ -
O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3 1 9
General Government
Auditor and InspectorThis budget recommends that the Auditor and In-
spector receive the same appropriation provided for
FY 2012, less savings from the implementation of the
state employee health insurance reform.
Bond AdvisorThis budget recommends that the Bond Advisor re-
ceive the same appropriation provided for FY 2012,
less savings from the implementation of the state em-
ployee health insurance reform.
Department of Central Services - OSF
This budget recommends that the Department of
Central Services of the Office of State Finance (OSF)
cease subsidizing the use of alternative fuels with
state appropriations. If market forces have not resulted
in alternative fuels equaling the cost of traditional fuels,
then government should not be subsidizing those fuels.
This budget recommends that the Department of Cen-
tral Services (DCS) receive the same appropriation
provided for FY 2012, less the alternative fuels subsidiza-
tion and savings from the implementation of the state
employee health insurance reform.
Redirect spending to higher-priority uses
Auditor and Inspector
FY-2012 $ 4,706,986
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (127,583)
$ -
Total Savings $ 127,583
FY-2013 $ 4,579,403
Bond Advisor
FY-2012 $ 143,112
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (2,194)
$ -
Total Savings $ 2,194
FY-2013 $ 140,918
Department of Central Services
FY-2012 $ 17,313,301
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (241,234)
Eliminate alternative fuels funding through DCS $ (49,508)
$ -
Total Savings $ 290,742
FY-2013 $ 17,022,559
2 0 O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3
Election BoardThis budget recommends that the Election Board
receive the same appropriation provided for FY 2012,
less savings from the implementation of the state em-
ployee health insurance reform.
Emergency ManagementThis budget recommends that Emergency Manage-
ment receive the same appropriation provided for
FY 2012, less savings from the implementation of the
state employee health insurance reform.
Ethics CommissionThis budget recommends that the Ethics Commission
receive the same appropriation provided for FY 2012,
less savings from the implementation of the state em-
ployee health insurance reform.
Office of State FinanceThis budget recommends that the Office of State Fi-
nance receive the same appropriation provided for
FY 2012, less savings from the implementation of the
state employee health insurance reform.
Election Board
FY-2012 $ 7,805,808
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (23,915)
$ -
Total Savings $ 23,915
FY-2013 $ 7,781,893
Emergency Management
FY-2012 $ 651,179
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (27,316)
$ -
Total Savings $ 27,316
FY-2013 $ 623,863
Ethics Commission
FY-2012 $ 523,129
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (5,814)
$ -
Total Savings $ 5,814
FY-2013 $ 517,315
Office of State Finance
FY-2012 $ 19,179,440
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (193,952)
$ -
Total Savings $ 193,952
FY-2013 $ 18,985,488
O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3 2 1
GovernorThis budget recommends that the Governor receive
the same appropriation provided for FY 2012, less
savings from the implementation of the state em-
ployee health insurance reform.
House of RepresentativesThis budget recommends that the House of Repre-
sentatives receive the same appropriation provided
for FY 2012, less savings from the implementation of
the state employee health insurance reform. To better
facilitate lawmakers’ continuing education on policy
development and their need to participate in lawmaker-
led organizations, this budget also recommends that the
House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Legis-
lative Service Bureau allocate all funds given to mem-
bership organizations on a scholarship basis to each
lawmaker. This will allow lawmakers to seek innova-
tive policy solutions from organizations they deem
most beneficial.
Legislative Service BureauThis budget recommends that the Legislative Ser-
vice Bureau receive the same appropriation provided
for FY 2012, less savings from the implementation of
the state employee health insurance reform. To better
facilitate lawmakers’ continuing education on policy
development and their need to participate in lawmaker-
led organizations, this budget also recommends that the
House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Legis-
lative Service Bureau allocate all funds given to mem-
bership organizations on a scholarship basis to each
lawmaker. This will allow lawmakers to seek innova-
tive policy solutions from organizations they deem
most beneficial.
Governor
FY-2012 $ 1,980,594
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (28,193)
$ -
Total Savings $ 28,193
FY-2013 $ 1,952,401
House of Representatives
FY-2012 $ 14,574,682
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (265,807)
$ -
Total Savings $ 265,807
FY-2013 $ 14,308,875
Legislative Service Bureau
FY-2012 $ 4,892,835
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (9,434)
$ -
Total Savings $ 9,434
FY-2013 $ 4,883,401
2 2 O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3
Lieutenant GovernorThis budget recommends that the Lieutenant Gov-
ernor receive the same appropriation provided for
FY 2012, less savings from the implementation of the
state employee health insurance reform.
Merit Protection CommissionThis budget recommends that the Merit Protection
Commission receive the same appropriation provided
for FY 2012, less savings from the implementation of
the state employee health insurance reform.
Military DepartmentThis budget recommends that the Military Depart-
ment receive the same appropriation provided for
FY 2012, less savings from the implementation of the
state employee health insurance reform.
Office of Personnel Management - OSFThis budget recommends that the Office of Person-
nel Management receive the same appropriation
provided for FY 2012, less savings from the implemen-
tation of the state employee health insurance reform.
Lieutenant Governor
FY-2012 $ 506,591
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (8,886)
$ -
Total Savings $ 8,886
FY-2013 $ 497,705
Merit Protection Commission
FY-2012 $ 490,967
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (6,801)
$ -
Total Savings $ 6,801
FY-2013 $ 484,166
Military Department
FY-2012 $ 10,247,997
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (377,154)
$ -
Total Savings $ 377,154
FY-2013 $ 9,870,843
Office of Personnel Management
FY-2012 $ 3,639,606
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (44,103)
$ -
Total Savings $ 44,103
FY-2013 $ 3,595,503
O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3 2 3
Secretary of StateThis budget recommends that the Secretary of
State continue to operate solely from fees associated
with its various regulatory duties and receive no ap-
propriation, as provided for FY 2012.
SenateThis budget recommends that the Senate receive
the same appropriation provided for FY 2012, less sav-
ings from the implementation of the state employee
health insurance reform. To better facilitate lawmak-
ers’ continuing education on policy development and
their need to participate in lawmaker-led organiza-
tions, this budget also recommends that the House of
Representatives, the Senate, and the Legislative Ser-
vice Bureau allocate all funds given to membership
organizations on a scholarship basis to each lawmaker.
This will allow lawmakers to seek innovative policy solu-
tions from organizations they deem most beneficial.
Space Industry Development Authority
This budget recommends that the Space Industry
Development Authority (SIDA) no longer receive a
state appropriation. When created in 1999, SIDA was
intended to operate entirely on self-generated rev-
enues, according to the SIDA website. Despite this in-
tent, lawmakers have given $7.8 million in taxpayer
appropriations to the SIDA since its inception, includ-
ing the $394,589 given to the agency for FY 2012. State-
subsidized space travel is not a core function of state
government. Also, the infrastructure of the SIDA is
now used for more than just attempts at space travel,
and some reports indicate that if SIDA were freed
from state control it could generate enough income to
operate on its own.
Require more user responsibility
Redirect spending to higher-priority uses
Senate
FY-2012 $ 11,171,789
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (161,261)
$ -
Total Savings $ 161,261
FY-2013 $ 11,010,528
Space Industry Development Authority
FY-2012 $ 394,589
Reduce appropriation, function of private industry and local government $ (394,589)
$ -
Total Savings $ 394,589
FY-2013 $ -
Secretary of State
FY-2012 $ -
$ -
$ -
Total Savings $ -
FY-2013 $ -
2 4 O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3
Tax CommissionThis budget recommends that the Tax Commission
receive the same appropriation provided for FY 2012,
less savings from the implementation of the state em-
ployee health insurance reform.
Department of TransportationThis budget recommends that the Department of
Transportation receive the same appropriation pro-
vided for FY 2012, plus replacement of funds diverted
for bond issues, less savings from the implementation
of the state employee health insurance reform.
TreasurerThis budget recommends that the Treasurer re-
ceive the same appropriation provided for FY 2012,
less savings from the implementation of the state em-
ployee health insurance reform.
Tax Commission
FY-2012 $ 46,915,944
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (826,382)
$ -
Total Savings $ 826,382
FY-2013 $ 46,089,562
Department of Transportation
FY-2012 $ 106,737,039
Restoration of diverted funds for bonds $ 101,695,609
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (2,637,115)
$ -
Total Increase $ 99,058,494
FY-2013 $ 205,795,533
Treasurer
FY-2012 $ 3,629,873
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (62,530)
$ -
Total Savings $ 62,530
FY-2013 $ 3,567,343
O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3 2 5
Public Health
real leadership and real solutions. The governor, ex-
ecutive branch leaders, state legislators, and
Oklahoma’s congressional delegation should lead an
unrelenting effort to obtain waivers from the federal
government that would allow Oklahoma to implement
significant reforms to the Medicaid program. Prefer-
ably, the state should seek federal approval to convert
Medicaid into a block grant program, which would
give the state more control over how program dollars
are spent.
Block grants hold the potential of restraining Medic-
aid growth because the state would know how much
federal aid it will be receiving from year to year, as
opposed to the current “as needed” funding scheme
that incentivizes expansion by the promise of unlim-
ited federal funds. A block grant program could be
paired with a premium-support program, whereby the
state provides low-income and disabled individuals a
risk-adjusted credit or voucher to purchase coverage
from among competing private plans. Under this
model, an individual would own the plan and could
opt to continue paying for the coverage out of pocket if
he were to lose eligibility.
Until a block grant and premium assistance pro-
gram can be implemented, state leaders should take
advantage of all currently available options to find ef-
ficiencies in the existing program, including:
• Member Cost-Sharing: It is altogether reasonable
to ask welfare recipients to contribute in a small
way to the free medical care they receive at tax-
payer expense. With more than 800,000 Oklaho-
mans receiving Medicaid benefits each year, a low
monthly premium of $10 each month would return
more than $80 million to the program annually. An-
other option is to charge low premiums on a sliding
scale, where members with higher incomes would
be charged a slightly higher premium than low-in-
come members. This concept is not novel; indeed,
it is the basis for the current Insure Oklahoma pro-
gram. Both of those options would require a federal
Health Care AuthorityAccording to the state’s FY 2011 Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report, total state spending on
health services has grown from $3.13 billion in FY 2005
to $4.85 billion in FY 2011—an increase of 54.3 percent
in six years.
According to the Oklahoma Health Care Authority’s
FY 2010 annual report:
• In FY 2005 there were nearly 630,000 Medicaid en-
rollees and total (state and federal) Medicaid ex-
penditures of $2.81 billion. By FY 2010, the number
of Medicaid enrollees had ballooned to 881,220
(about 24 percent of the state’s population) and ex-
penditures had skyrocketed to $4.33 billion—an in-
crease of 54 percent in just five years.
• In Federal Fiscal Year 2000, total (state and federal)
Medicaid spending in Oklahoma was $1.64 billion.
But by Federal Fiscal Year 2010, total Medicaid
spending in Oklahoma was $4.35 billion—a 165
percent increase in just 10 years.
• For Federal Fiscal Year 2000, total state share/ap-
propriations for Medicaid were $435.9 million. In
Federal Fiscal Year 2010, total state share/appro-
priations for Medicaid were $1.1 billion—a 169 per-
cent increase in just 10 years.
• In 2010, approximately 562,000 children under the
age of 21 were covered by Medicaid.
• Approximately 67 percent of all Oklahoma children
under the age of five have been covered by Medic-
aid at some point in their lives.
• Of Oklahoma’s 77 counties, 38 counties have 25
percent or more of the population enrolled in Med-
icaid. Eighteen counties have 30 percent or more of
the population enrolled in Medicaid. One county
has 43 percent of its population on Medicaid.
The problem is not that there is too little money for
Medicaid; the problem is there are too many people
on Medicaid—and those enrollees are driving pro-
gram expenditures beyond sustainable limits.
Oklahoma voters decided to install a center-right
government last year because they are looking for
2 6 O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3
waiver; however, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
(DRA) does give states flexibility to make reforms to
their Medicaid programs, including allowing states
to charge premiums and require cost-sharing (co-
pays and deductibles) to certain enrollees. This
can include weighting cost-sharing based on those
engaged in unhealthy behaviors such as smoking
or obesity, to incentivize better health for Medicaid
participants. Legislators should ensure the state is
requiring member cost-sharing to maximum allow-
able limits.
• Long-Term-Care Reform
• Examining and Reducing “Optional” Benefits
• Insure Oklahoma: Legislators should allow the ap-
proximately 13,000 current individual Insure Okla-
homa members to obtain coverage through the pri-
vate market rather than being forced onto Medic-
aid.
• Employer-Sponsored Insurance for Part-Time
Workers: Legislators should incentivize employer-
sponsored insurance for employees (and their de-
pendents) who work at least 24 hours each week,
which current state law defines as “full time”
employment, instead of inducements to enter the
state Medicaid program.
• Medicaid Reform Task Force: Legislators should
create a task force to begin studying Medicaid and
options for reducing costs. While it would be pru-
dent for members to explore the possibility of opt-
ing out of Medicaid completely and allow the state
to focus revenues on providing health coverage ex-
clusively to the truly needy, most policymakers ad-
mittedly would view this option as impractical be-
cause it involves the loss of significant federal
matching funds. Nevertheless, the above propos-
als should be part of any task force that convenes
to explore real reform efforts.
This budget recommends that the Health Care Au-
thority receive the same appropriation provided for FY
2012, less savings from implementation of a member-
cost sharing plan, less savings from the implementa-
tion of the state employee health insurance reform.
Reform entitlement programs
Require more user responsibility
Redirect spending to higher-priority uses
Restore civil society
Health DepartmentThis budget recommends that the Health Depart-
ment receive the same appropriation provided for FY
2012, less savings from the implementation of the state
employee health insurance reform.
Health Care Authority
FY-2012 $ 983,085,563
Member cost-sharing $ (87,000,000)
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (483,893)
$ -
Total Savings $ 87,483,893
FY-2013 $ 895,601,670
Health Department
FY-2012 $ 60,083,682
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (2,287,825)
$ -
Total Savings $ 2,287,825
FY-2013 $ 57,795,857
O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3 2 7
J.D. McCarty CenterThis budget recommends that the J.D. McCarty
Center receive the same appropriation provided for
FY 2012, less savings from the implementation of the
state employee health insurance reform.
Mental Health and Substance AbuseThis budget recommends that the Department of
Mental Health and Substance Abuse receive the
same appropriation provided for FY 2012, less savings
from the implementation of the state employee health
insurance reform.
University HospitalsThis budget recommends that the University Hospi-
tals receive the same appropriation provided for FY
2012, less savings from the implementation of the state
employee health insurance reform.
Department of Veterans AffairsThis budget recommends that the Department of
Veterans Affairs receive the same appropriation
provided for FY 2012, less savings from the implemen-
tation of the state employee health insurance reform.
J.D. McCarty Center
FY-2012 $ 3,740,338
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (259,773)
$ -
Total Savings $ 259,773
FY-2013 $ 3,480,565
Mental Health and Substance Abuse
FY-2012 $ 187,151,517
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (1,964,206)
$ -
Total Savings $ 1,964,206
FY-2013 $ 185,187,311
University Hospitals
FY-2012 $ 38,446,391
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (8,776)
$ -
Total Savings $ 8,776
FY-2013 $ 38,437,615
Department of Veterans Affairs
FY-2012 $ 34,698,752
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (2,422,100)
$ -
Total Savings $ 2,422,100
FY-2013 $ 32,276,652
2 8 O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3
Human Services
Commission on Children and YouthThis budget recommends that the Commission on
Children and Youth receive the same appropriation
provided for FY 2012, less savings from the implemen-
tation of the state employee health insurance reform.
Office of Disability ConcernsThis budget recommends that the Office of Disabil-
ity Concerns receive the same appropriation provided
for FY 2012, less savings from the implementation of
the state employee health insurance reform.
Human Rights CommissionThis budget recommends that the Human Rights
Commission receive the same appropriation provided
for FY 2012, less savings from the implementation of
the state employee health insurance reform.
Department of Human ServicesAccording to the state’s FY 2011 Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report, total state spending on so-
cial services has grown from $1.59 billion in FY 2005 to
$2.25 billion in FY 2011—an increase of 41.7 percent in
six years. The growth in welfare spending at both the
state and federal level is no surprise: you get more of
what you incentivize, and less of what you don’t. When
the state pays nursing home or in-home service bills
for the parents of the middle class, subsidizes the
daycare expenses of affluent families, and perpetu-
ates social pathologies such as out-of-wedlock births,
social-services costs will inevitably rise.
Rather than perpetuating policies which amount to
a “handout” rather than a “hand up,” several fiscal re-
Commission on Children and Youth
FY-2012 $ 2,027,167
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (9,150)
$ -
Total Savings $ 9,150
FY-2013 $ 2,018,017
Office of Disability Concerns
FY-2012 $ 317,607
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (6,801)
$ -
Total Savings $ 6,801
FY-2013 $ 310,806
Human Rights Commission
FY-2012 $ 531,270
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (13,384)
$ -
Total Savings $ 13,384
FY-2013 $ 517,886
O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3 2 9
forms in the Department of Human Services must be
implemented (apart from the broader DHS reforms
that have been making headlines of late). For ex-
ample, if Oklahomans are going to apply for govern-
ment services for themselves or on behalf of others, it
is only reasonable that applicants meet basic require-
ments that are appropriate for applying for a job, such
as passing a drug test for certain services. Also, as a
way of encouraging more user participation in state
services, DHS should implement the increased co-
payments for child care subsidies which were pro-
posed in 2011.
In addition, DHS—like the Department of Correc-
tions, the Tourism Department, the Office of Juvenile
Affairs, and many other state-operated services—can
utilize the private sector to reduce the cost of
providing state services. If DHS would fully utilize pri-
vate-sector options for community-based care, the
state could save approximately $8 million a year
(based on FY 2010 data).
This budget recommends that the Department of
Human Services receive the same appropriation pro-
vided for FY-2012, less the preceding policy reforms,
less state funds for the construction division, less un-
accounted savings found by the DHS in 2011, less sav-
ings from the implementation of the state employee
health insurance reform.
Reform entitlement programs
Require more user responsibility
Redirect spending to higher-priority uses
Restore civil society
Indian Affairs CommissionThis budget recommends that the Indian Affairs
Commission receive the same appropriation provided
for FY 2012, less savings from the implementation of
the state employee health insurance reform and con-
tinue being funded and operated through the Office of
the Governor.
Department of Human Services
FY-2012 $ 537,136,664
Privatize community service facilities $ (8,000,000)
Require drug testing for benefit qualification $ (2,000,000)
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (8,217,522)
Closure of Construction Division $ (5,000,000)
Encourage personal responsibility by increasing co-payments for child
care subsidy as recommended by DHS staff in mid 2011 $ (7,000,000)
Efficiencies resulting in surplus of accounted funds found by DHS in
October 2011 $ (3,500,000)
$ -
Total Savings $ 33,717,522
FY-2013 $ 503,419,142
Indian Affairs Commission
FY-2012 $ 192,306
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (2,194)
$ -
Total Savings $ 2,194
FY-2013 $ 190,112
3 0 O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3
Office of Juvenile AffairsThe Office of Juvenile Affairs (OJA) provides housing
and incarceration services for youthful offenders,
which the private sector has demonstrated it can pro-
vide at a lower cost to the state. Historically, political and
bureaucratic hurdles have prevented the increased use
of the private sector in this area. During the 2012 session,
lawmakers should increase the number of offenders
placed under the jurisdiction of the OJA who are
placed in private facilities, in order to achieve annual
savings of at least $5 million. This budget recom-
mends that the OJA receive the same appropriation
provided for FY 2012, less savings for increasing the
use of private beds, less savings from the implementa-
tion of the state employee health insurance reform.
Department of Rehabilitation Services
This budget recommends that the Department of
Rehabilitation Services receive the same appropriation
provided for FY 2012, less savings from the implemen-
tation of the state employee health insurance reform.
Office of Juvenile Affairs
FY-2012 $ 96,187,205
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (847,833)
Increase usage of private beds $ (5,000,000)
$ -
Total Savings $ 5,847,833
FY-2013 $ 90,339,372
Department of Rehabilitation Services
FY-2012 $ 30,149,232
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (1,098,551)
$ -
Total Savings $ 1,098,551
FY-2013 $ 29,050,681
O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3 3 1
Department of CommerceThis budget recommends that the Department of
Commerce receive the same appropriation provided
for FY 2012, less a duplicative welfare program, less
local earmarks, less funding for the Naive American
Natural ResourcesDepartment of Agriculture, Food and Forestry
and less savings from the implementation of the state
employee health insurance reform.
Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry
FY-2012 $ 25,610,247
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (475,885)
Tulsa State Fair - remove funds for intensely local function $ (65,000)
National Finals Steer Roping Champioship – remove funds for
intensely local function $ (25,000)
IPRA National Finals Rodeo - remove funds for intensely local function $ (25,000)
Total Savings $ 590,885
FY-2013 $ 25,019,362
Cultural and Educational Authority (NACEA) (which
was intended to operate on private funds), and less
savings from the implementation of the state em-
ployee health insurance reform.
Department of Commerce
FY-2012 $ 29,073,210
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (158,299)
Duplicative nutrition program, food stamp welfare services already
provided through the Department of Human Services $ (2,500,000)
IPRA National Finals Rodeo - remove funds for intensely local function $ (25,000)
Make NACEA non-appropriated, require private operational
support as originally intended $ (1,325,236)
$ -
Total Savings $ 4,008,535
FY-2013 $ 25,064,675
This budget recommends that the Department of
Agriculture, Food and Forestry receive the same ap-
propriation provided for FY 2012, less local earmarks
3 2 O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3
Consumer Credit CommissionThis budget recommends that the Consumer Credit
Commission (CCC) no longer receive a state appro-
priation. According to its website, “the Consumer
Credit Commission is responsible for the regulation of
consumer credit sales and consumer loans in the
State of Oklahoma. The Department is also respon-
sible for the licensing and regulation of mortgage bro-
kers, mortgage loan originators, pawnshops, de-
ferred deposit lenders, rental purchase lessors,
health spa contracts, credit service organizations and
precious metal and gem dealers.” These products are
used by some and not used by others, but are not a
core function of government, which should be sup-
ported by general taxes on all Oklahomans. The CCC
can be operated entirely from fee revenue of those
producing, selling, or utilizing these products.
Require more user responsibility
Consumer Credit Commission
FY-2012 $ 331,730
Function of government to be funded by users $ (331,730)
$ -
Total Savings $ 331,730
FY-2013 $ -
Corporation CommissionThis budget recommends that the Corporation
Commission receive the same appropriation provided
for FY 2012, less savings from the implementation of
the state employee health insurance reform.
Corporation Commission
FY-2012 $ 11,324,427
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (469,523)
$ -
Total Savings $ 469,523
FY-2013 $ 10,854,904
Conservation CommissionThis budget recommends that the Conservation
Commission receive the same appropriation provided
for FY 2012, less the amount spent on the 10 duplicative
conservation district offices that exceed the more than
adequate 77 counties and the 77 associated conser-
vation districts, and less savings from the implementa-
tion of the state employee health insurance reform.
Conservation Commission
FY-2012 $ 9,561,684
Reduce funding for duplicative conservation district offices –
10 districts w/out NRCS Office $ (868,000)
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (78,437)
$ -
Total Savings $ 946,437
FY-2013 $ 8,615,247
O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3 3 3
Department of Environmental Quality
This budget recommends that the Department of
Environmental Quality receive the same appropriation
provided for FY 2012, less savings from the implemen-
tation of the state employee health insurance reform.
Historical SocietyThis budget recommends that the Historical Society
receive the same appropriation provided for FY 2012,
less savings from the implementation of the state em-
ployee health insurance reform. In keeping with the “9
R’s of fiscal responsibility” mentioned in the budget
Department of Environmental Quality
FY-2012 $ 7,557,973
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (699,128)
$ -
Total Savings $ 699,128
FY-2013 $ 6,858,845
message, this budget recommends that the Historical
Society implement a plan to generate more funding
from users and private donations, so that beginning in
FY 2014 state appropriations to the Historical Society
can be reduced by 10 percent.
Horse Racing CommissionThis budget recommends that the Horse Racing
Commission no longer receive a state appropriation.
According to its website, “the Horse Racing Commis-
sion encourages agriculture, the breeding of horses,
the growth, sustenance and development of live racing,
and generates public revenue through the forceful con-
trol, regulation, implementation and enforcement of
Commission-licensed horse racing and gaming.”
Horse racing is an entertainment-related or specific
industry endeavor (as are the Lottery Commission,
Wheat Commission, Peanut Commission, Liquefied
Petroleum Gas Research, Marketing and Safety
Board, Construction Industries Board, and many oth-
ers that are non-appropriated and entirely user-sup-
ported). Horse racing is not a core function of govern-
ment, and should not be supported by general taxes
on all Oklahomans. The Horse Racing Commission
should be operated entirely from fee revenue from
participants.
Require more user responsibility
Historical Society
FY-2012 $ 12,502,546
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (166,308)
$ -
Total Savings $ 166,308
FY-2013 $ 12,336,238
Horse Racing Commission
FY-2012 $ 2,072,167
Non-core function, fund by users $ (2,072,167)
$ -
Total Savings $ 2,072,167
FY-2013 $ -
Insurance DepartmentThis budget recommends that the Insurance De-
partment no longer receive a state appropriation. Ac-
cording to its website, “the Insurance Department is
responsible for enforcing the insurance-related laws
of the state. We protect consumers by providing accu-
rate, timely and informative insurance information.
We promote a competitive marketplace and ensure
solvency of the entities we regulate. We also license
and educate insurance producers and adjusters, fu-
neral home directors, bail bondsmen and real estate
appraisers.” These products are used by many and
not used by others, but are not a core function of gov-
ernment and should not be supported by general
taxes on all Oklahomans. The Insurance Department
can be operated completely from fee revenue of those
producing, selling, or utilizing these products. The
proof of this is the Legislature’s constant raiding of the
Insurance Department’s revolving funds (for $8 million
in the last two fiscal years alone). Clearly there are
adequate fees available to operate the Insurance De-
partment without legislative appropriations.
Require more user responsibility
3 4 O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3
J.M. Davis Memorial CommissionThis budget recommends that the J.M. Davis Memo-
rial Commission no longer receive a state appropria-
tion. According to its website, the J.M. Davis Memorial
Commission/Museum has, among other things, the
largest private gun collection in the world. Clearly it is
an important local entity, visited by some and not vis-
ited by others. But it is not a core function of govern-
ment, and should not be supported by general taxes
on all Oklahomans.
Require more user responsibility
Insurance Department
FY-2012 $ 1,871,937
Function of government to be funded by users $ (1,871,937)
$ -
Total Savings $ 1,871,937
FY-2013 $ -
J.M. Davis Memorial Commission
FY-2012 $ 306,009
Local attraction, non-core function, should be completely user supported $ (306,009)
$ -
Total Savings $ 306,009
FY-2013 $ -
O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3 3 5
Department of LaborThis budget recommends that the Department of
Labor receive the same appropriation provided for
FY 2012, less savings from the implementation of the
state employee health insurance reform.
Department of MinesThis budget recommends that the Department of
Mines receive the same appropriation provided for
Department of Labor
FY-2012 $ 3,081,160
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (95,769)
$ -
Total Savings $ 95,769
FY-2013 $ 2,985,391
FY 2012, less savings from the implementation of the
state employee health insurance reform.
Scenic Rivers CommissionThis budget recommends that the Scenic Rivers
Commission receive the same appropriation provided
for FY 2012, less savings from the implementation of
the state employee health insurance reform.
Department of Mines
FY-2012 $ 779,139
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (35,324)
$ -
Total Savings $ 35,324
FY-2013 $ 743,815
Scenic Rivers Commission
FY-2012 $ 271,315
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (15,797)
$ -
Total Savings $ 15,797
FY-2013 $ 255,518
3 6 O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3
Department of Tourism and Recreation
local funding for advertising and other operational ef-
forts for multi-county organizations and some local
chambers is not a core function of government.
In future years, the OTRD needs to work to duplicate
the success of the US Forestry Service and use the
private sector (leasing operation of state parks) to op-
erate parks or resorts at no loss to the state, or fit state
parks so that users can adequately support parks and
resorts through fees. Those utilizing parks should pay
sufficient user fees to support their usage. Park and re-
sort self-sufficiency should begin to allow for further re-
ductions in taxpayer support beginning in FY 2014.
This budget recommends that the Department of
Tourism and Recreation receive the same appropria-
tion provided for FY 2012, less funds for losses on golf
courses, less earmarks for intensely local activities,
and less savings from the implementation of the state
employee health insurance reform.
Require more user responsibility
Redirect spending to higher-priority uses
Restore civil society
The Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Depart-
ment (OTRD) is an example of an agency working
hard to use taxpayer dollars wisely. Whether it has
been the wise release of state parks with intensely lo-
cal functions, or leveraging OTRD products such as
Oklahoma Today magazine to minimize use of tax-
payer funds, the OTRD has been a recent leader for
other state agencies.
Further reform is needed. Policymakers should
eliminate any state subsidies or appropriations for
golf courses. According to the Governors’ budget
books and reports from the OTRD, from FY 2001 to FY
2011 lawmakers have appropriated $7.95 million for
losses on state golf courses. For FY 2011, appropria-
tions for losses were more than $300,000. Operating
golf courses is not a core function of government. If it
is a worthwhile park amenity, user fees will support
the costs to operate these courses.
Earmarks for intensely local festivals or exhibits,
and promotion of the arts, are not a core function of
government and should be removed. Also, intensely
Department of Tourism and Recreation
FY-2012 $ 21,803,003
Eliminate state subsidies for losses on state golf courses $ (400,000)
Eliminate non-core intensely local funding for multi-county organizations $ (921,506)
Eliminate non-core intensely local funding for Red Earth Festival $ (25,000)
Eliminate non-core intensely local funding for Summer Arts Institute $ (25,000)
Eliminate non-core intensely local funding for Jenks Aquarium Exhibits $ (40,000)
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (819,251)
$ -
Total Savings $ 2,230,757
FY-2013 $ 19,572,246
O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3 3 7
Water Resources BoardThis budget recommends that the Water Resources
Board receive the same appropriation provided for
FY 2012, less savings from the implementation of the
state employee health insurance reform.
Will Rogers Memorial CommissionThis budget recommends that the Will Rogers Me-
morial Commission no longer receive a state appro-
priation. According to its website, the Will Rogers Me-
morial Museums exists “to collect, preserve, and
share the life, wisdom, and humor of Will Rogers for all
generations. … The Will Rogers Memorial Museums
are the premier destinations to introduce, showcase,
and celebrate the life, legacy, and spirit of Will
Water Resources Board
FY-2012 $ 5,499,671
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (91,820)
$ -
Total Savings $ 91,820
FY-2013 $ 5,407,851
Rogers.” Clearly the Will Rogers Memorial Commis-
sion is an important local entity, visited by some and
not visited by others. But it is not a core function of gov-
ernment, and should not be supported by general
taxes on all Oklahomans.
Require more user responsibility
Redirect spending to higher-priority uses
Restore civil society
Will Rogers Memorial Commission
FY-2012 $ 740,486
Local attraction, non-core function, should be completely user supported $ (740,486)
$ -
Total Savings $ 740,486
FY-2013 $ -
3 8 O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3
Public Safety
ABLE CommissionThis budget recommends that the Alcoholic Bever-
age Laws Enforcement (ABLE) Commission receive
the same appropriation provided for FY 2012, less sav-
ings from the implementation of the state employee
health insurance reform.
Department of CorrectionsLawmakers trying to be “right on crime” are mak-
ing the right moves regarding corrections reform. Ef-
forts should continue to reduce incarceration rates
and strengthen families. These and other efforts to
significantly reduce the incarceration of non-violent
offenders are what’s best for society and also save
millions in taxpayer dollars.
The Department of Corrections (DOC)—like the
Tourism Department, Office of Juvenile Affairs, and
many other state-operated services—can utilize the
private sector to reduce the cost of providing state
services. If the DOC would fully utilize the available
private prison beds (“halfway” houses) as authorized
by law, the state could save approximately $34 million
a year (based on state costs per bed in 2009).
This budget recommends that the Department of
Corrections receive the same appropriation provided
for FY 2012, less savings from full utilization of “half-
way” houses and private prison beds, less savings
from the implementation of the state employee health
insurance reform.
ABLE Commission
FY-2012 $ 3,140,334
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (45,197)
$ -
Total Savings $ 45,197
FY-2013 $ 3,095,137
Department of Corrections
FY-2012 $ 459,831,068
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (4,581,614)
Implement full usage of half-way houses and
private prison beds as allowed by law $ (34,000,000)
$ -
Total Savings $ 38,581,614
FY-2013 $ 421,249,454
O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3 3 9
Fire MarshalThis budget recommends that the Fire Marshal re-
ceive the same appropriation provided for FY 2012,
less savings from the implementation of the state em-
ployee health insurance reform.
State Bureau of InvestigationThis budget recommends that the State Bureau of
Investigation receive the same appropriation provided
Fire Marshal
FY-2012 $ 1,796,764
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (28,084)
$ -
Total Savings $ 28,084
FY-2013 $ 1,768,680
for FY 2012, less savings from the implementation of
the state employee health insurance reform.
Law Enforcement Education and Training
This budget recommends that Law Enforcement
Education and Training receive the same appropriation
provided for FY 2012, less savings from the implementa-
tion of the state employee health insurance reform.
Board of Medicolegal Investigations
This budget recommends that the Board of Medi-
colegal Investigations receive the same appropriation
provided for FY 2012, less savings from the implemen-
tation of the state employee health insurance reform.
State Bureau of Investigation
FY-2012 $ 13,848,059
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (360,040)
$ -
Total Savings $ 360,040
FY-2013 $ 13,488,019
Law Enforcement Education and Training
FY-2012 $ 3,682,560
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (46,843)
$ -
Total Savings $ 46,843
FY-2013 $ 3,635,717
Board of Medicolegal Investigations
FY-2012 $ 4,698,281
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (79,863)
$ -
Total Savings $ 79,863
FY-2013 $ 4,618,418
4 0 O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3
Narcotics and Dangerous DrugsThis budget recommends that the Bureau of Narcotics
and Dangerous Drugs receive the same appropriation
provided for FY 2012, less savings from the implementa-
tion of the state employee health insurance reform.
Department of Public SafetyThe Oklahoma Department of Public Safety (DPS)
issues thousands of drivers’ licenses per year, but us-
ers (those receiving the licenses) are not adequately
sharing the burden associated with issuing these li-
censes. According to information available publicly,
taxpayers subsidize DPS’s operation of drivers’ li-
censing by more than $12 million annually. Driver li-
censing is a direct regulatory service which should be
paid for by those being licensed. Reforms that lead to
more efficient and effective licensing, along with re-
quiring users to bear the full cost of the licensing, will
allow for the reduction in state subsidies. This budget
recommends that the DPS receive the same appro-
priation provided for FY 2012, less subsidies for driver
licensing, less savings from the implementation of the
state employee health insurance reform.
Require more user responsibility
Redirect spending to higher-priority uses
Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs
FY-2012 $ 3,616,418
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (127,363)
$ -
Total Savings $ 127,363
FY-2013 $ 3,489,055
Department of Public Safety
FY-2012 $ 84,894,790
Require Licensed Driver, Users to fully support driver regulation $ (12,968,193)
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (1,600,326)
$ -
Total Savings $ 14,568,519
FY-2013 $ 70,326,271
O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3 4 1
Judiciary
Attorney GeneralThis budget recommends that the Attorney General
receive the same appropriation provided for FY 2012,
less savings from the implementation of the state em-
ployee health insurance reform.
Court of Criminal AppealsThis budget recommends that the Court of Criminal
Appeals receive the same appropriation provided for
Attorney General
FY-2012 $ 13,228,141
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (164,113)
$ -
Total Savings $ 164,113
FY-2013 $ 13,064,028
FY 2012, less savings from the implementation of the
state employee health insurance reform.
District Attorneys CouncilThis budget recommends that the District Attorneys
Council receive the same appropriation provided for
FY 2012, less savings from the implementation of the
state employee health insurance reform.
Court of Criminal Appeals
FY-2012 $ 3,334,631
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (30,607)
$ -
Total Savings $ 30,607
FY-2013 $ 3,304,024
District Attorneys Council
FY-2012 $ 32,887,258
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (1,231,290)
$ -
Total Savings $ 1,231,290
FY-2013 $ 31,655,968
4 2 O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3
Council on Judicial ComplaintsThis budget recommends that the Council on Judi-
cial Complaints receive the same appropriation
provided for FY 2012, less savings from the implemen-
tation of the state employee health insurance reform.
Pardon and Parole BoardThis budget recommends that the Pardon and Pa-
role Board receive the same appropriation provided
for FY 2012, less savings from the implementation of
the state employee health insurance reform.
Council on Judicial Complaints
FY-2012 $ 75,000
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (2,194)
$ -
Total Savings $ 2,194
FY-2013 $ 72,806
Pardon and Parole Board
FY-2012 $ 2,217,454
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (40,370)
$ -
Total Savings $ 40,370
FY-2013 $ 2,177,084
Indigent Defense SystemThis budget recommends that the Indigent Defense
System receive the same appropriation provided for
FY 2012, less savings from the implementation of the
state employee health insurance reform.
Indigent Defense System
FY-2012 $ 14,699,353
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (123,963)
$ -
Total Savings $ 123,963
FY-2013 $ 14,575,390
District CourtsThis budget recommends that the District Courts re-
ceive the same appropriation provided for FY 2012,
less savings from the implementation of the state em-
ployee health insurance reform.
District Courts
FY-2012 $ 56,100,000
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (686,183)
$ -
Total Savings $ 686,183
FY-2013 $ 55,413,817
O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3 4 3
Supreme CourtThis budget recommends that the Supreme Court
receive the same appropriation provided for FY 2012,
less savings from the implementation of the state em-
ployee health insurance reform.
Workers’ Compensation CourtThis budget recommends that the Workers’ Compen-
sation Court receive the same appropriation provided
for FY 2012, less savings from the implementation of
the state employee health insurance reform.
Supreme Court
FY-2012 $ 17,300,000
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (193,843)
$ -
Total Savings $ 193,843
FY-2013 $ 17,106,157
Worker’s Compensation Court
FY-2012 $ 4,197,166
Savings from state employee health insurance reform $ (78,546)
$ -
Total Savings $ 78,546
FY-2013 $ 4,118,620
4 2 O C P A P R O P O S E D S T A T E B U D G E T F Y- 2 0 1 3
Rural Economic Action Plan (REAP)According to the website of the Kiamichi Economic
Development District of Oklahoma (KEDDO), “In 1996,
the Oklahoma Legislature created the Rural Eco-
nomic Action Plan (REAP). This Plan has made funds
available for each of the rural Economic Development
Districts to fund projects in communities with popula-
tion of less than 7,000 and giving priority to fewer than
1,500 residents. Oversight of the application process
is given to each of the Economic Development Dis-
tricts ...” While most projects are small, some projects
utilizing REAP funds are beneficial (road repairs)
while others more resemble political patronage, ear-
marks, and “pork” (cars, renovations for community
centers and storage buildings, etc.). Legislation in
2010 has helped steer REAP funds to more worthwhile
projects, but the program still falls short in providing
communities what they really need to thrive: job cre-
ators.
The failure of government programs to generate
sustained “economic development” is nothing new.
Oklahoma needs a bold, transformational plan that
allows citizens and job creators to retain more of their
own money to invest and spend, so local communities
can attract job creators and not be reduced to reli-
ance on unsuccessful state programs that breed more
dependency. This is one of the main reasons Okla-
homa must empower local communities by phasing
out its personal income tax. As noted in the OCPA/
Laffer study “Eliminating the State Income Tax in
Oklahoma: An Economic Assessment,” stronger eco-
nomic growth would mean increased revenues for lo-
cal governments across Oklahoma. And because
there is no static tax reduction, every dollar of in-
creased revenue created by Oklahoma’s stronger
economy would increase the expenditure power of the
economic growth estimated in the study. “Assuming
local government revenues’ share of personal income
remains constant, in aggregate, revenues for local
governments would increase by $100 million in 2013,
rising to an increase of $3.5 billion by 2022 local gov-
ernments.” Therefore, based on the economic gain to
local communities by lower state tax burdens, and the
less-than-desired results of most state “economic de-
velopment” programs, this budget recommends that
the legislature no longer fund the REAP program.
Revive free enterprise
Reshape the state-local government relationship
Redirect spending to higher-priority uses
OSU Medical CenterThis budget recommends that the OSU Medical Cen-
ter receive the same appropriation provided for FY 2012.
Rural Economic Action Plan (REAP)
FY-2012 $ 11,532,469
Discontinue REAP program $ (11,532,469)
$ -
Total Savings $ 11,532,469
FY-2013 $ -
OSU Medical Center
FY-2012 $ 5,000,000
$ -
Total Savings $ -
FY-2013 $ 5,000,000
Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs
1401 N. Lincoln Blvd.
Oklahoma City, OK 73104
Tel: 405.602.1667
Fax: 405.602.1238
ocpathink.org