By Charlie Meadows

My my, have I gone over the top with such a bombastic title? Probably so, but now that I have your attention, may I suggest an issue which makes me want to pull the remaining few hairs from my nearly bald head (check out my up-dated picture).

Oklahoma citizens contribute, support and vote for candidates to the state legislature that we want to elect to represent us regarding the affairs of government. We hope their ideas have a fair opportunity to be presented, debated, and then voted on to become law if those ideas are good. Or, if the legislation happens to be looney or bad, hopefully it will be defeated.

However, often times before legislation is introduced or even given serious consideration, it receives the "evil eye" treatment from either House or Senate leadership. Whether leadership's angst regarding legislation is up front and without doubt, or implied and a little less confrontational, any lawmaker pushing the issue could be in for a difficult time. Some might call it an "incentive treatment" designed to persuade a lawmaker not to push issues in the future. Others might call it punishment.

Just a couple of examples. Last year a state representative had held an interim study on workers compensation issues and worked diligently to craft legislation to reform a badly abused system. He was told by leadership that tort reform was going to be considered during the session -- not workers comp reform. While many observers would suggest there were far more serious problems in the workers comp system, when that lawmaker tried to force the issue, he was taken to the proverbial wood shed for greater clarification about the dangers of crossing leadership. This year, leadership has decided workers comp will be allowed. Does that kind of sound like heavy handedness? Is that kind of like dictatorial control?

Over the past several years, many lawmakers have come up with ideas to reform our current law which allows our county assessors to raise our property taxes up to 5% every year. That 5% does not include the additional costs of any school bonds which may have been passed within the year. New school bonds may cause a tremendous jump in property taxes in addition to what has almost become the automatic 5% increase.

Under the rule of "72" take a percentage amount and divide it into 72 and that will give you the number of years to see your property taxes double. At 5% your property taxes will DOUBLE in 14 years and quadruple in 28 years. Those kinds of increases will threaten a homeowner's ability to afford the property taxes when they retire. Those older homeowners might not be able to continue to live in the home they have paid for and lived in for many years of their lives. This is a very serious problem and it needs to be reformed.

Prior to the start of the 2010 session, Representative David Dank (R-OKC) crafted legislation to allow the people of Oklahoma to vote next November to amend our constitution to lower the maximum 5% property tax increase down to 3%. And, the bill would freeze property taxes once a person turns 65. The law already allows those property taxes to be frozen for low income people, though the determination of low income varies from county to county.

It certainly seems reasonable to allow the people of Oklahoma to vote to make that determination. But, low and behold, House Speaker Chris Benge (R-Tulsa) evidently told Representative Dank that the bill wouldn't be allowed to be heard! In a rare display of independence, Rep. Dank issued a press release challenging Speaker Benge to allow it to be heard or to step down from leadership. Speaker Benge responded with a strongly worded press release accusing Dank of "political grandstanding" and suggested it wasn't time to reduce taxes in a down economy. Gee, that isn't the normal rhetoric we hear from conservative Republicans wanting to stimulate the economy.

Does that mean one person has the power to determine what will be considered and what will not? I can understand that happening in Cuba, Communist China, Russia, Chicago, Speaker Pelosi's House or Harry Reid's Senate chambers, but in Oklahoma? And, under the limited government conservative leadership of Republican Speaker Chris Benge? Surely not, or could it be that Speaker Benge, though he has the word Republican beside his name, isn't a conservative after all? Why would he oppose such reasonable legislation?

May I suggest, it is precisely because Speaker Benge is not a fiscal conservative, but rather loves big government and is opposed to tax relief from the excessive property tax burdens upon the people of Oklahoma. I believe Speaker Benge is under pressure from the many special interest groups, especially the education industry, which live off of the tax dollars of Oklahoma's citizens. He is under pressure to prevent any more tax cuts. While property taxes aren't a part of state government's budget, the majority of property taxes go into education (85% in my county) and I just don't believe Speaker Benge wants the ever increasing flow of property taxes to education to be restricted. Changing from a 5% increase to a 3% increase is NOT a tax cut, just a reduction in increase.

These are just two examples, but many more issues fit into the same control category. If government is going to function in such a manner, then why bother with elected representatives? Why don't we just elect two dictators and one governor and live under their dictates? These leaders are chosen by the members of their respective caucuses. Should we begin to ask our elected officials or candidates what kind of leadership they are going to chose? I sure believe so, that way we could at least get a commitment from candidates to chose a truly limited government conservative, rather than a big government lover with near dictatorial powers such a Speaker Benge.