I’m going to argue a position that might seem counter intuitive to progressives here: They should support, not oppose, raises for judges and elected statewide officials that are supposed to go into effect soon.

Of course, the raises are not going to happen. Both leading legislative Republicans and Democrats are vowing to stop the raises, and they have the apparent blessing of The Oklahoman, the state’s largest right-wing media outlet.

The status quo, bipartisan argument is that the current, negative economic climate, which began under a GOP presidential administration, and diminished state revenues, caused at least partially by Republican-backed state tax cuts, means no raises for virtually anyone in Oklahoma government—other public employees or most educators—in the foreseeable future.

And when you take that argument and mix it in with Gov. Mary Fallin’s push to cut income taxes again next year, what you get is a realization of conservative Grover Norquist’s famous dictum that we should take government and “shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.” That dictum has become the operating norm here, and progressives acquiesce by joining conservatives in implementing the strategy to shrink government to make rich folks richer.

Shouldn’t progressives push for raises for ALL public employees? Shouldn’t progressives strive to create a state government system that demands responsible fiscal policies that include adequate salaries and regular raises for its employees? Shouldn’t progressives make it more difficult for conservatives to shrink government as they implement tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthy? What’s the point of pitting one group of government employees against another? Isn’t that what conservatives want?

The raises total about $350,000, a relatively small amount when compared to the overall budget. The Board on Judicial Compensation recommended the raises last year; the salaries of statewide elected officials are attached to the judicial pay rate.

So, as a response to Fallin’s tax cut plan, why don’t progressives support these raises and make it part of an overall major plan to raise salaries for all government employees, including those public educators who have gone years without adequate raises? Would this be unpopular? Maybe. It would certainly draw conservative fire. It depends on how the plan is presented, but, really, how much lower can the progressive and/or Democratic “brand” get at this point in the state?

The plan would be a proactive counter to the conservative agenda, and remind hard-working state employees and teachers someone is fighting for their interests.

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.