Skip to main content

Spending It Like They Stole It


When does government have the right to spend taxpayer money? Or perhaps, more pressingly, when should the government be forbidden from spending taxpayer money? 

1889 Institute has previously written on the issue - developing five questions that should be asked before any government entity spends a single dime. These questions are: 

1. Is a program or agency consistent with the mission of Oklahoma’s state government? This purpose was spelled out in our state constitution: “Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessing of liberty; to secure just and rightful government; to promote our mutual welfare and happiness, we, the people of the State of Oklahoma, do ordain and establish this Constitution.” Secure and perpetuate liberty (notice this is the first order of business). Secure just and rightful government (not any government, not the domino of the majority over the minority - just and rightful). Promote (not provide, ordain or establish) mutual welfare and happiness. 

2. Is the program or agency fulfilling a need only government can effectively fill? Since government is funded through threat of force (if you continually refuse to pay your taxes, eventually men with guns will come to lock you away), it must be careful not to step in where it is not needed. Lawmakers should carefully consider whether the use of force to accomplish a given end is morally justified before committing taxpayer money to any expenditure.

3. Are the benefits from a program or agency unambiguous, obvious, and universal? Ideally, the benefits from government programs would also be measurable. When this is infeasible, they should be large and obvious. The benefits of courts, police and fire departments, and sewer systems, are obvious, though virtually impossible to measure. These benefits accrue to everyone. 

4. Do the benefits of a program or agency indisputably outweigh the costs? This is fairly obvious, but we must remember to factor in the total cost of the program, not only that portion which is financed at a given level of government. For instance, while the state of Oklahoma would only be on the hook for 10% of Medicaid expansion (as of now), the benefits to the state should be proven to a near certainty to outweigh the cost of both state and federal investment before Medicaid is expanded. Financial costs of an economic development program can be far outweighed by the negative impacts on businesses that do not enjoy the largesse of government, although those costs are not easily identified and quantified.

5. Does the existing program or agency show evidence of past success? 1889 has written previously about how to measure success. Job one is to make sure you’re measuring effects, not effort. Effects are the tangible results of a program, such as student performance on a national standards test that measures what they know. Effort is the input into the program, such as how many 4 year olds are enrolled in pre-k or how much money the state spends on each public school student. Effort may influence effects, if it is well directed. Yet, for all the spending on pre-k programming in Oklahoma, there has been no evidence of a positive impact. If the intention behind the program, and the measure of success is academic performance, the evidence is that the program has failed. It should therefore be cancelled.

Keep in mind, these principles to all levels of government and all forms of spending. There is no such thing as government spending that does not come directly out of the pockets of taxpayers. Federal money spent by the states? Do you pay federal taxes? I know I do. Money from corporate taxes? Do you buy things from corporations? I know I do. 

If Oklahomans are worried about how to get our fair share of federal money (a legitimate concern) perhaps we should hold our members of congress accountable to keep federal spending as low as possible, and to apply these same principles to federal spending. That way we won’t have to scramble to ensure we get our due. Government actors at all levels of government need to remember that it is taxpayer money they spend. They have a responsibility to spend it like they earned it, not like they stole it. 

Mike Davis is Research Fellow at 1889 Institute. He can be reached at mdavis@1889institute.org.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.

Popular posts from this blog

1889 Institute's Statement Regarding School Closures

The 1889 Institute, an Oklahoma think tank, has released the following statement regarding Joy Hofmeister’s proposal to keep schools closed for the remainder of the school year. We at the 1889 Institute consider Joy Hofmeister’s proposal to close Oklahoma’s schools for the rest of the school year a gross overreaction to the coronavirus situation. Even in the best of times and circumstances, suddenly shifting every student in the state from traditional classrooms to online distance learning will have negative educational consequences. This in addition to the economic burden on two-earner families forced to completely reorder their lives with schools closed. We believe many of our leaders have overreacted to worst-case scenarios presented by well-intended health experts with no training or sense of proportion in weighing the collateral damage of shutting down our economy versus targeting resources to protect the truly vulnerable. We say reopen the schools and stop the madness. ...
Read more

Can Government Force You to Close Your Business?

1889 Institute takes no position on whether any or all of these measures are warranted or necessary, or whether their economic fallout would inflict more human suffering than they prevent. We are simply evaluating whether they are legal.   With the unprecedented (in the last 100 years at least) reaction surrounding the outbreak of Covid-19, questions that few living legal scholars have considered are suddenly relevant.   Can a quarantine be ordered?   Can a mass quarantine, lockdown, or “cordon sanitaire” be ordered? Can businesses be ordered to change their behavior?   Can businesses be ordered to close? Can state governments order these measures? Can local governments order these measures? My legal brief addresses these issues from a statutory point of view; it is clear that state law gives the governor and mayors broad authority in a state of emergency. They must, of course, do so in a neutral way that they reasonably believe will help preve...
Read more

COVID-19 Exposes TSET’s Uselessness: Let’s Get Rid of It

After more than a month of COVID-19 house arrest , Oklahoma is reopening. However, the government-created economic disaster that shutdown orders have caused will be studied by epidemiologists, economists, and other social scientists for decades to come. In the meantime, we have to deal with the consequences as they occur, everything from a lack of toilet paper on store shelves (hopefully, that’s over) and hair that’s grown too long to what will undoubtedly be a host of bankruptcies. In the meantime, there is a timely question that truly ought to be answered in Oklahoma. Where has TSET (Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust) been in this time of crisis? Recall that TSET was created as a quasi-independent government by constitutional amendment as part of the 46-state tobacco settlement wherein tobacco companies agreed to pay states as reimbursement for the Medicaid costs of treating tobacco users for tobacco-induced illnesses. Instead of using the money to reduce taxes for Oklahom...
Read more

Will the United States Supreme Court Stand Up For Lawyers’ First Amendment Rights?

To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical. Oklahoma law requires attorneys to join and pay dues to the Oklahoma Bar Association in order to practice their occupation. The folly of this this requirement lies not just in the financial burden imposed on lawyers, but in its affront to their First Amendment rights. This is because the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) routinely uses the money it receives in mandatory dues payments to support political causes. As a result, attorneys are forced to subsidize political activity and opinions they may disagree with. Over the Christmas holiday I filed an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief urging the United States Supreme Court to weigh in. You can read my brief here . The case in question involves a North Dakota attorney, Arnold Fleck, who sued North Dakota’s mandatory bar association for using his mandatory dues to engage in the same type of activity th...
Read more