Skip to main content

Here’s a Way to Shore Up State Employee Pensions: Sell Unneeded State Assets


The State of Oklahoma owns a lot of property. This includes land and buildings, but it also includes valuable assets like the state-owned electric power company, the Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA). GRDA reports nearly $1.8 billion in assets on its most recent balance sheet, with a “net position” of more than $622 million. Or the Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust (TSET), which sits on a $1.2 billion endowment that does nothing but sit and produce investment income to fund the yearly operations of TSET. To the tune of roughly $50 million per year.

We would all most likely be better off if some (probably most) of these assets were sold or leased to private entities where they could (1) be put to more economically productive use, (2) be put on the tax rolls (they are not taxed now), and (3) relieve the state from the burden of maintenance and operations expenses.

What’s more, such an asset sale/lease (a “monetization”) would generate a large financial windfall for the state, which could be used to address long-term funding challenges like unfunded pension obligations and infrastructure needs. In the case of pensions, eventually those bills must be paid by taxpayers. And those bills are not small: Oklahoma currently faces $7.9 billion in unfunded pension obligations, roughly equal to the amount of the entire rest of the budget.

Experience from other states shows that the most likely way those debts will be paid is through a combination of heavy tax increases and sharp budget cuts from other parts of government. So, to the extent the government can find sources of funds that do not punish current taxpayers for decisions made by politicians decades ago, that is a fairer way to pay for these unfunded debts. The sale of long-held state assets fits the bill.

That is the message of my paper, released today, Leveraging State-Owned Assets to Fund Pensions and Meet Other Long-Term Funding Challenges. In it, I identify nearly $6 billion in assets the state could liquidate and dedicate the proceeds to long-term funding needs. And that’s just from the 7 state-owned assets I highlighted. There are many others that should be evaluated.

Which is the other key aspect of my proposal: a process to fully review all state-owned property and vest a final decision-maker outside of the agency controlling the property with the power to make the call on whether to keep or sell each asset. The paper lays out some basic principles that should guide such a process, such as rules to maximize transparency and competition.

The Legislature recently created an ideal vehicle for leading such a process, the Legislative Office of Fiscal Transparency (LOFT). LOFT is a committee of legislators, has a paid staff, and has the ability to tap into outside expertise. Importantly, it also has the power to compel information from sometimes recalcitrant state agencies. If anyone can get the true, comprehensive picture of state-owned property, it should be LOFT.

What will be required, ultimately, is political courage. There have been discussions in the past about shedding some of the state’s assets, but local and special interests have always managed to protect their piece of the pie and kill such efforts. To some degree, this is understandable. If one of these massive government assets is in your town, you don’t want to see it go away.

But this is exactly why this type of effort is best carried out by the Legislature. Every part of the state is represented in that body, and its members are directly accountable to the people. No blue ribbon commission or appointed executive branch bureaucrats can claim that type of legitimacy.

Maybe it is naïve to believe that legislators will take such electorally risky votes. If so, maybe we should start asking them why they wanted to be in the Legislature in the first place, if not to stand and deliver solutions to vexing state problems. And maybe we should ask ourselves why we keep sending them back to Northwest 23rd and Lincoln.

Benjamin Lepak is Legal Fellow at the 1889 Institute. He can be reached at blepak@1889institute.org.


Popular posts from this blog

About Those Roads in Texas

A s Sooner fans head south for the OU-Texas game next week, they will encounter a phenomenon most of us are familiar with: as you cruise across the Red River suddenly the road gets noticeably smoother. The painted lane stripes get a little brighter and the roadside “Welcome to Texas” visitors’ center gleams in the sunlight, a modern and well-maintained reminder of how much more money the Lonestar State spends on public infrastructure than little old Oklahoma. Or does it? Why are the roads so much, well… better in Texas? Turns out, it isn’t the amount of money spent, at least not when compared to the overall size of the state’s economy and personal income of its inhabitants. Research conducted by 1889 Institute’s Byron Schlomach reveals that Oklahoma actually spends significantly more on roads than Texas as a percentage of both state GDP and personal income . And that was data from 2016, before Oklahoma’s tax and spending increases of recent years. The gap is likely gr...
Read more

The Problem of Diffuse Costs and Concentrated Benefits

Do you ever find yourself observing a seemingly illogical government program , spending decision, or other strange practice and ask “how is it that no one has fixed that?” If you are like me, you encounter this phenomenon regularly. This often takes the form of a curious headline (Save Federal Funding for the Cowboy Poets!) that most people see and can’t believe is real. I would like to suggest that this phenomenon often results from the problem of diffuse costs and concentrated benefits. To understand this concept, consider a hypothetical law that assessed a $1 tax on everyone in the United States with the proceeds to be given to one individual for unrestricted use as he sees fit. The people harmed by such a law—the individual taxpayers—will not be very motivated to spend the time and effort to convince Congress to change the law. They might resent the dollar taken from them for a silly cause they don’t support, but the lost dollar isn’t worth the trouble of doing something about i...
Read more

No License, Sherlock: Licensing for Private Investigators

What does a private investigator do? Surely, we’re all familiar with various movies and shows featuring the exciting adventures of Sherlock Holmes or Magnum PI. However, reality is often disappointing, and the fact is private investigation is usually dull and relatively safe. Private investigators are tasked with conducting surveillance and fact-finding missions for their clients, but they gain no special powers to do so.  My recent paper deals with the licensing of private investigators. Oklahoma’s private investigator licenses are governed by the Council of Law Enforcement Education and Training (CLEET), which follows the advice of a committee made up of people who run private investigative agencies. Improved competition is not likely to be in the best interest of these agencies, so it is questionable whether they should be in a gate-keeping position they could easily turn to their advantage. Private Investigators must undergo a series of trainings and pas...
Read more

The Real Reason Health Care Prices Keep Rising

Much has been made of the healthcare crisis of late, but very little of it addresses two of the biggest financial problems with the system: the third party payer problem and the reality that health insurance bears no resemblance to true insurance.   Insurance is a pooling of risk. The odds are that just over one in every 250 people will contract cancer in the next year. Cancer is an incredibly expensive disease to treat. So if 250 people got together and put aside enough savings to cover one case of cancer between them, they have effectively pooled their risk, and, on average, they should have enough to cover the statistical cancer they as a group are likely to incur. This risk pooling works better in larger numbers. A statistician would be unsurprised if one group of 250 had four cases of cancer while three others had none. But a single group of 10,000 people is much more likely to remain near the nationwide average, and if each of the 10,000 people pays just a little ext...
Read more