I was struck by two things after watching Gov. Mary Fallin’s State of the State address on Monday.

First, her proposal to drastically cut the state income tax starting in 2013 makes it highly likely there will be some type of tax cut this upcoming legislative session. Fallin is a fairly popular governor, leading a surging Oklahoma Republican Party. It’s doubtful there could be enough GOP in-fighting or a large enough corporate-funded television advertisement campaign, if any, to stop the measure through generating popular opposition.

In addition, proposing extreme cuts leaves the door open for a “compromise” measure that might lead to smaller cuts over a larger time frame. The message is clear, though: Conservatives see eliminating the state income tax as a panacea.

Under Fallin’s plan, those couples who make $30,000 a year or less would pay no taxes while couples making $30,000 to $70,000 would pay 2.25 percent. Those couples making over $70,000 would pay 3.5 percent. Individuals making $35,000 and above would pay the 3.5 percent rate. Eventually, Fallin’s plan would eliminate the income tax altogether through annual income tax cuts tied to revenue growth.

The state’s current top tax rate is 5.25 percent down from 6.65 percent in Gov. Frank Keating’s years as governor.

The second thing that struck me about Fallin’s address was the lack of specific information about how the tax cut would be paid for without draconian cuts to state government.
This is from Fallin’s speech:

The question remains, how will we pay for a tax cut? Under the Oklahoma Tax Reduction and Simplification Act, we do it in three ways:

First, by eliminating tax loopholes, carve-outs and other exceptions.

Second, by continuing to eliminate government waste and making government more efficient and effective. We’ve already proven that we can find substantial savings through government modernization initiatives.

Third, by capitalizing on economic growth we expect to see as a result of our pro-jobs, pro-business policies.

Only Fallin’s first reference—eliminating tax loopholes or credits or exemptions equal to the cuts—is a sure thing. Eliminating government waste and the supposed economic growth that will follow a major tax cut as ways to pay for the tax cut are ambiguous at best.

This means as the plan makes its way through the legislature, there are going to be winners and losers when it comes to losing tax advantages or breaks, and it’s quite possible too much of the burden will fall on Oklahoma’s lowest income earners.

Perhaps even worse is what will happen during the next major economic downturn if the tax cuts are implemented. Income taxes provide about one-third of the state’s revenues. A major loss of jobs here—think what sustained lower oil and natural gas prices would mean when it comes to employment and other taxes-- could lead to huge cuts in state services and education.

This, however, is the path we’re on with the huge conservative majority, which will probably grow even larger after the 2012 election, now governing Oklahoma’s state government. Conservatives here and elsewhere have made no secret of the fact they want to cut taxes and shrink government. I sense a majority of Oklahomans believe in this governing philosophy right now. That’s the reality.

For years now, social conservatives have proposed a litany of extremist legislation and ballot amendments that rile progressives, who spend energy fighting what they deem as ideology-driven and unnecessary initiatives.

The approved amendment banning the use of Sharia law in Oklahoma courts, now blocked by a federal court, is one such example. The amendment, based on a false premise, was passed by voters in a 2010 landslide vote in what can be viewed as collective, fear-inspired hysteria cultivated by a mixture of xenophobia and religious intolerance.

Meanwhile, some legislators, such as state Rep. Sally Kern, add to the conservative argument by equating gay people with terrorism or by making insensitive remarks about African Americans and women. What will Kern say or do this session? Who knows? One thing is sure. Progressives will be there to respond and call for her resignation, which is never forthcoming.

So have progressives here made overall gains in the yearly slog opposing legislative extremism or are they just spinning their wheels? Some extremist bills and initiatives get tabled, for sure, but the reality is progressives don’t connect with the wider Oklahoma electorate the way in which conservatives do right now and any victories are fleeting. The disparity in this “connectedness” seems to grow each year.

Here’s another reality: Social conservatives keep some progressives busy with legislative side shows as the so-called fiscal conservatives whittle away at the tax base and funding for state government and education. As I mentioned in my last post, progressives here have been reduced to constant oppositional agitation.

Let’s look at two ideological bills introduced this upcoming session, both of which will keep progressives busy:

• State Sen. Ralph Shortey (R-Oklahoma City) has introduced Senate Bill 1418, which argues: “No person or entity shall manufacture or knowingly sell food or any other product intended for human consumption which contains aborted human fetuses in the ingredients or which used aborted human fetuses in the research or development of any of the ingredients.” Shortey has explained he offered the bill after he supposedly found out about a company that has used “human embryonic stem cells in the testing of artificial flavors,” but the use of the word “fetus” in his bill is obviously ideological and meant to frighten people into believing the horrific.
  
  
• State Rep. Mike Reynolds (R-Oklahoma) has introduced House Joint Resolution 1067,which would put a measure on the ballot asking voters to grant personhood status and rights to human fertilized eggs. The bill is part of a national personhood movement, which is trying to make abortion illegal. Mississippi voters have already defeated a similar measure in their state.

Both these bills deserve to be opposed and defeated because they represent a threat to science and women’s reproductive rights, but Shortey’s bill seems ultimately meaningless in terms of any real legal impact, and federal case law would usurp a state vote granting human cells the rights of a person. The question is this: Is there doubt that if the U.S. Supreme Court ever overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, abortion would become illegal here? Some states already have trigger laws that would outlaw abortion based on that possible ruling.

So the point I’ve tried to make in my last three posts about the upcoming legislative session, which begins Feb. 6, is that progressives need to step back from the ideological and perpetual tax-cut wars occasionally and find issues they can support in the affirmative. What about a same-sex marriage initiative or a green initiative or some type of proposal to reinvest in education? Although these initiatives have little chance of success here right now, they remain historically accurate, and even some thoughtful conservatives will concede the point. Gay marriage will someday be a reality in all the states. It’s only going to become more inevitable that a cleaner environment and a clean energy supply are necessary for human survival. States that don’t invest adequately in education will become irrelevant.

It’s also likely conservatives will extend their solid majorities in the Oklahoma House and Senate this election year. Consequently, progressives here might look locally for political-involvement opportunities by becoming candidates or supporting like-minded candidates in county, city and school district elections.

As the legislature convenes this year, I urge progressives to consider a larger frame. The point is to stand FOR something, not just AGAINST something.

(Will Oklahoma progressives get shut out of the political debate this legislative session? What type of progressive political agenda, if any, could be successful? In posts this week, Okie Funk is giving its preview of the 2012 Oklahoma Legislature.)

Let me start with the caveat that the record is clear that I do NOT support any cut to the state income tax right now because such a cut, even if it’s relatively small, could lower education and social-program funding.

With recent state budget cuts, that’s the last thing that needs to happen in Oklahoma right now.

I’ve expressed my opinion about the issue here, in the Oklahoma Gazette and elsewhere.

Having written that, I do think progressives here should take a close look at whether to make opposing proposed income tax cut proposals their top priority this upcoming legislative session, which begins Feb. 6. This is not, of course, to imply progressives or other stakeholders should surrender on the issue; it merely means there should be an extended discussion about legislative priorities among progressives, though I sense that is unlikely to happen.

First, let’s look at the overview of recent tax policy. Conservatives here have talked about eliminating the state income tax in Oklahoma for years. Gov. Frank Keating, who served from 1995 to 2003, started the modern debate over the issue, and worked to reduce the income tax rate here during his term. Since then the top income tax rate has been lowered from 6.65 percent to 5.25 percent. The tax cuts have overwhelmingly benefited the wealthiest Oklahomans.

Emboldened by massive majorities in the Oklahoma House and Senate, Republicans have recently increased their calls for reducing and/or eliminating the income tax. Recently, a task force created by Gov. Mary Fallin recommended lowering the income tax rate from 5.25 to 4.75 percent over two years, and a bill has been introduced in the legislature that would immediately lower the rate to 2.25 percent and then eliminate it altogether over several more years. The measure is co-sponsored by 23 members in the House. Fallin, of course, is clearly on record favoring an income tax cut. She says she will release her tax-cut plan on Monday when the legislature convenes.

All the proposed tax cuts so far at least implicitly argue that future revenue growth supposedly created by an income tax cut—under GOP mythology all tax cuts create huge economic windfalls—would prevent a major decline in government revenue. Given Oklahoma’s up-and-down economic cycles and basic taxation history, this seems highly unlikely. The income tax produces about a third of Oklahoma’s revenues. Even the smallest proposed cut with supposed offsets, coupled with even a small economic downturn, would likely reduce funding for essential government services, including education. What’s more, given strict Oklahoma laws inhibiting tax increases, any tax cut has to be considered permanent.

That’s the basic outline. The Oklahoma Policy Institute (OK Policy), a think tank based in Tulsa, presents a thorough and compelling case against an income tax cut here, and exposes the myths in the conservative tax-cut rhetoric, which specifically points to Texas, a non-income tax state, as a model for Oklahoma. Again, for the record, in November, I argued:

The so-called “Texas Miracle” has been debunked by noted economist Paul Krugman, a New York Times columnist, who pointed out Texas’ relatively high unemployment rate, which was reported at 8.5 percent in August. By contrast, Oklahoma’s unemployment rate stood at 5.6 percent in August. Who should be modeling whom?

OK Policy has led the effort in opposition to any further income tax cuts right now, and a coalition is apparently emerging that by de facto makes the issue the number one priority for progressives in the state. The House Democrats’ 2012 agenda even “first and foremost” opposes “radical efforts to again further reduce the income tax for the wealthiest among us.”

But the word “progressive” hardly refers to all of Oklahoma’s dwindling number of elected Democrats, some of whom are quite conservative and could actually support a tax cut this year. As you may recall, former Gov. Brad Henry signed a large tax cut bill in 2006.

But here are a couple of questions progressives should ask themselves about this upcoming legislative session: Should they make opposing state income tax cuts their main issue? Are there initiatives or programs progressives could support in the affirmative that might make better use of what little progressive energy there remains in the state?

It’s important to ponder these questions after considering some of the possible outcomes for progressives in the perpetual tax cut war this year:

• Total victory. No income tax cuts this year. This seems unlikely given the fact that tax revenues are in an upswing, Republicans control state government, the governor says she supports tax cuts and the corporate power structure in Oklahoma, beyond some chamber of commerce opposition, has so far remained fairly silent about the issue. Even if progressives can claim total victory on the issue this year, what about next session and other future sessions? Will the GOP, in the foreseeable future, give up on its efforts to cut taxes and shrink government? That’s not going to happen. A one-year respite is essentially what progressives will get if they win the battle this year. If revenues continue to increase, the battle will only get tougher. The elections in 2012 will probably increase Republican majorities in the House and Senate. Thus, progressives will have to fight the tax war almost immediately against larger odds.
  
  
• Limited victory. A small tax cut. This could happen. For example, the proposal to reduce the top income tax rate to 2.25 percent immediately might get tabled while a smaller cut, say the reduction from 5.25 to 4.75 percent over two years, gets implemented. But, again, this doesn’t mean that more tax cuts will not be proposed and passed in the future. Will the fight for even more tax cuts resume in 2013? How will it affect morale if progressives spend most of their energy on opposing tax cuts year-after-year, suffering defeat year-after-year? Does it even matter at this point?
  
  
• Limited loss. A medium size tax cut. This is a possibility, too. The legislature could hypothetically cut the top income tax rate to 3 percent over two or three years or so, with an eye toward eliminating it altogether in the future. Fallin, for example, is on record as saying she would like to reduce the income tax rate to 3 percent over several years. Again, this would not preclude an immediate GOP effort to accelerate the tax cut if revenues continue to rise exponentially in coming years. This would be a demoralizing loss for progressives after placing so much effort into opposing the tax cut, and it would be difficult for them to continue an organized fight.
  
  
• Total loss. An immediate major tax cut followed by a swift, complete elimination of the state income tax. This is unlikely. The issue would be whether Fallin would sign such a bill and whether the legislature would override her veto if she did. If this doomsday scenario becomes a reality, progressives could only hope that the ensuing cuts to government and education might convince Oklahoma voters to stop their overwhelming support for conservative political candidates, but even that outcome seems ambiguous at best. There’s always been the somewhat sarcastic argument among progressives here and elsewhere to just allow conservatives to supposedly doom themselves with radical political actions, but does that argument even apply anymore in Oklahoma? That makes this scenario unpredictable, but it would essentially end for the time being—perhaps an entire generation—the progressive fight here to prevent or limit tax cuts. Are progressives then going to spin their wheels fighting to raise taxes here?

Another important factor to consider is that Henry, once the state’s leading elected Democrat, and OK Policy were strongly opposed to State Question 744, the recent ballot measure that would have increased educational funding here to a regional average. The measure failed in a landslide vote. I could be wrong, but this probably created at least some animosity between natural allies on some progressive causes, especially because the state’s educational system has faced severe state budget cuts in recent years. If SQ 744 would have passed or even failed by a slimmer margin, the current tax-cut debate here would have a different frame, and I would argue—note the “I”—progressives would hold a much stronger position in the current tax-cut debate. Will teachers, especially members of the Oklahoma Education Association (OEA), which supported SQ 744, now flood the state Capitol en masse to oppose a cut in the income tax and possible future cuts in their salaries and/or benefits? Maybe so. What choice do they have now? (That’s politically inspiring, isn’t it?)

More importantly, will we see a massive amount of corporate-funded television advertisements this session, night-after-night, featuring Henry, his wife, Kim, and other prominent Oklahomans, who argue something like: “When it comes to income tax cuts this year, the answer is always no”? If so, I will immediately and gladly concede my misreading of the current political milieu in the state.

I do think that progressives at this point should at least consider placing more energy on supporting affirmative initiatives. By all means, stakeholders, whether progressive or not, should vocally oppose the tax cut, and they will, but what about expending just as much progressive energy and money, if not more, on initiatives that do more than just react to specific items on the conservative agenda, a process which is draining and, in most cases here, unproductive. Where are the wide-sweeping proposals from those progressives controlling what amounts to the official agenda right now? Where are the popular, resonating proposals that might demand conservatives rethink their tax cut strategies? Do progressives here only stand for or organize under the rubric of opposing standard conservative initiatives? If so, that’s simply not an effective long-term strategy, and it creates a sense of a dismal, bleak future for progressives here, which only compounds the error. I guess young progressives can always just move out of the state like former Senate Minority Leader Andrew Rice.

If, as expected, Fallin and Oklahoma GOP House and Senate leaders support another income tax cut proposal this legislative session, it’s difficult to see how it can be stopped. Even if it CAN be stopped this year, the tax-cut issue is not going away anytime soon.

Progressives here need to stand for something rather than just debating the negative position in Oklahoma’s perpetual tax cut war.

(NEXT: Really? The side shows rile the progressive base.)