By Jason Murphey

Oklahoma’s leftists can’t help themselves: they’ve rarely met a tax they don’t like. From time to time, there’s an anomaly – for example, some on the left appeared to understand the importance of eliminating the state sales tax on groceries and medicine. As a clear matter of principle, the government shouldn’t tax one on the absolute necessities of life.

One would have hoped that the left would extend this same consideration to homeowners and the principle that one’s ability to have shelter is likewise a life necessity. Thus, especially for the primary residence, homeowners shouldn’t pay a tax – a tax to survive. It’s a principle that’s come to the top of the public consciousness, especially in recent years, when the inflationary effects of property taxation have made affording a home so very challenging.

And so, when Senate Joint Resolution 39 came forward – an extremely tepid response to the great angst felt by property owners, not reducing property taxation but simply slowing its growth just a slight bit – one could have expected the House Democrats, led by gubernatorial candidate Cyndi Munson, or perhaps that motley group of Senate Democrats, to extend this, the slightest consideration, to the Oklahoma homeowner.

But, unfortunately, though Munson represented the seat once held by David Dank, the great proponent of protecting the constituents of that district from the ills of heavy property taxation, Munson and other legislative Democrats stood in opposition.

Now, as the resulting state question, State Question 847, prepares to appear on the ballot, the leftists are throwing the kitchen sink of absurd arguments at the wall. Sowing confusion and trickery appear to be their foremost means of holding the greedy claws of government onto the taxpayer’s wallet, rarely yielding, even when the effects of the greed become unsustainable.

Case in point: the argument made by The Oklahoman editor William Wertz, who, citing the leftist Oklahoma Policy Institute, asserts that the reform would “mostly” benefit corporations. It’s an unsourced claim, not befitting an editorial by The Oklahoman’s editor – or at least The Oklahoman of old, maybe not so much the one that’s owned by USA Today Co.

So, will the reform “mostly” benefit corporations? That’s rather unlikely. Oklahoma Tax Commission estimates make clear that commercial properties are expected to save $11.46 million in cost avoidance, compared to the $45.78 million to be saved by Oklahomans as a whole.

To the extent that those commercial properties are owned by corporations, or to the extent that corporations own some of the non-homesteaded properties – such as apartments – that will save an additional $16.39 million, then there will be some cost avoidance for Oklahoma’s corporate entities. But in numerous cases, those commercial entities are small, even startup businesses; they are not big corporations.

In fact, if one were to review the assessments in, say, an up and coming county like Logan County, one would find many small, local businesses on those rolls.

But for a leftist such as Wertz, the scary term “corporation” gives him the fig leaf that his leftist worldview needs while providing the cover for his willingness to continue spiking the homeownership costs of all Oklahomans.

Leftists don’t understand the free market, and they certainly don’t understand the concept of second-level effects and passed-on costs.

But the student of free markets knows that a corporation, big or little, can choose to keep those savings at the risk of being subsequently outmaneuvered by its more savvy competition, which will lower the price to the consumer; or, perhaps use it to invest to improve products and outcomes. Either way, when a business entity avoids costs, it’s only a guaranteed net negative in the mind of a leftist, one whose simplistic and repeatedly disproven worldview often renders him incapable of thinking beyond the first-order effect of a matter.

Then, of course, there’s the other objection frequently proffered from the left: the heartrending impact on those vital government services. But, they probably won’t give you the actual figures. How much will this tepid reform actually impact the government?

For perspective, it’s important to know the baseline. How much do Oklahoma government entities take from the taxpayers by means of the ad valorem tax on real property? Rough numbers suggest that Oklahomans pay $4 billion in real property tax.

If State Question 847 is approved, instead of increasing by another $170 million or so in 2028, the government’s haul will likely be limited to an increase of $125 million, allowing Oklahomans to keep $45 million the government had otherwise planned to confiscate. It’s a number representing just 1% of the total real property tax collections.

So, how will government entities adjust to this new world, where not quite as much new tax money will be taken from the people? Allow me to suggest that the answer lies in a recent news story from The Oklahoma State Capital describing footage the Capital recently obtained of a meeting of the Oklahoma Library Association’s Diversity Committee.

You will find that must-read coverage at www.oklahomastatecapital.com/s/nZ3tWv8, where, upon opening the attached footage, your screen will fill with an array of library officials, seemingly on the taxpayer dime at the time, any number of whom are potentially supported by property taxes.

Much of their occupational existence appears completely centered on how to divide society into any number of race and sex based divisions – the art of societal destruction that’s tearing American society apart. Their challenge? How could they jam pack every moment of the library experience, in some way or another, with the latest in woke diversity thought, from race-based concepts to the promotion of the usual array of sex-identity acronyms?

The general consensus: integrating their worldview into every aspect of library service means they were not content to just celebrate a given theme during the expansive diversity calendar, but, as one described, instead of having a controversial PRIDE display, maybe simply integrate “queer” books and characters throughout more general themes.

That attendee – whose screen caption sported his flashy they/them pronouns, a clear indication of royalty in the new, woke government employee world – illustrated the strategy thusly: describing how upon wearing women’s clothes, he discovered the existence of pocket inequity. As it would seem, women’s clothes simply didn’t afford the same pocket utility as those men’s clothes to which he had previously been accustomed. That sage observation inspired him to create an event where the public could attend for free, and using the provided sewing equipment, learn how to sew additional pockets onto clothing.

OSC’s subsequent records show that this event appears to have been hosted and promoted by the University of Central Oklahoma, an institution presided over by the former Republican lieutenant governor of the state.

And, notably, the public invitations didn’t give any inkling that this wasn’t just about learning to sew pockets, but rather about the apparent actual goal: educating attendees on the subject of “pocket parity,” based on the observations of a male subject who subsequently began using they/them pronouns and whose experiences with women’s wear had proven subpar.

And that failure to pre-disclose appears to have been by design. As nonsensical as all of this seems to you, and anyone who lives in the real world, his example was met with enthusiasm by the attendees. Their sage mentor has demonstrated such cleverness at how to manipulate society into adopting the woke utopia. That same individual would later recommend for the attendees to read his latest literary discovery: a “lesbian necromancer in space” book.

It’s not going to be easy to find a better illustration of too many government employees with nothing better to do than discuss their preference for the “lesbian necromancer in space” genre while likely “working” on the taxpayer’s dime. But I would suggest that, in all too many government contexts, these types of costly time wastes have become the norm, not the outlier.

If a small reduction in new property tax revenue forces property-tax-funded meetings such as this one to be reevaluated, then everyone wins. Finding waste in government is not unlike shooting fish in a barrel. It’s everywhere.

To the extent that policymakers even want to address waste in government, they’ve simply proven unable to do so. Imagine suggesting back in 2010, sixteen long years ago, as Republicans first came into complete control of state government, that these types of meetings of government officials would be considered routine. That they are, is an absolute indictment of that failed leadership.

Government has evolved into a massive, self-perpetuating monster, and there’s only one way to bring it back under control: tax reduction – and not just the tepid tax reduction proposed in State Question 847, but real and actual tax relief, starting with a serious effort to eliminate the property tax on homesteaded properties.

Because, as a matter of principle, government shouldn’t punish a person for successfully managing to keep a roof over his head, especially when the money is being used to promote awareness of “pocket parity.”