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

How to Spend $47 Million in 4 Months

The CARES Act passed by Congress has a provision to give funds to state and local governments. Out of this, Oklahoma County has been given the onerous task of spending $47 million by the end of the year. The caveat being all expenses must be related to COVID-19. Any money not used must be returned to the federal government. While the county is undoubtedly receiving a plethora of self-interested letters request ing a portion of the funds, there are a few ways to spend the money to the benefit of all Oklahoma County residents. This should not be read to condone spending money just because it is available. Government officials must remember that the money they spend comes directly from the taxpayer, and should only be spent in ways that benefit all or most of society. Oklahoma County could also use the money to give grants to small businesses that were forced to shut down or otherwise damaged by the government’s actions related to COVID-19. Small businesses could use the money to avoi...
Read more

Eat Your Vegetables: City Council Considers A Well-Disguised Sin Tax

The Oklahoma City Council is considering a well-disguised sin tax. They call it a Healthy Neighborhood Zoning Overlay, but the effect is the same. It limits new dollar stores in the specified neighborhood. The ostensible goal is to create a welcoming environment for grocery stores selling fresh meat and produce. But it accomplishes this goal by giving existing dollar stores a monopoly, which will raise prices, and punish residents for shopping at the purveyors of (allegedly nothing but) junk food, instead of subsisting on fresh, organic kale smoothies like good little citizens. Why would the Council intentionally restrict the supply of stores where many of their residents buy basic household goods and food? Several possibilities present themselves, though none are sound.   A fundamental misunderstanding of the laws of supply and demand. Economists call the current state of the neighborhood a contestable market: dollar stores choose low prices because the mere p...
Read more

George Floyd versus Union Cops: Is that the Real Story?

No one with a brain can look at the video of the Minneapolis cops putting their weight on George Floyd’s entire body, including a knee to his neck, and see his resulting death as anything but murder. The first autopsy cited pre-existing health conditions as a contributing factor in Floyd’s death. The second autopsy found Floyd’s death to be murder due to his carotid artery being crushed, cutting off blood flow to his brain. The official coroner seems to have come around to the murder conclusion, but regardless, those cops killed a man for passing a counterfeit 20-dollar bill; and because he’s dead, we can’t even find out if Floyd knowingly did so. Were the cops indifferent to Floyd’s pain because of racism? I don’t know, and no one else does, either. The cop with his knee on Floyd’s neck is obviously responsible for Floyd’s death. The other cops, who did nothing to alleviate Floyd’s suffering when he complained that he couldn’t breathe, are at least culpable in the murder. Three of the...
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