Analysis:  The City of Tulsa is ahead of America in bloated government, but on a smaller scale.  Developed by local Leftists above criticism for decades, now Tulsa Mayor Dewey Bartlett has proven what many have long suspected:  1.) Over 60 percent of services provided by the city are not mandated, 2.) Nearly 70 percent of city services that should be benchmarked from a cost perspective are not and, 3.) 94 percent of services provided by the City of Tulsa do not measure performance.

These are the highlights of a report titled “Managing Change, Opportunities for Municipal Efficiency and Effectiveness” dated July 1, but released to the public yesterday.  Produced by KPMG LLP the report suggests 1,100 reforms that could save taxpayers hundreds of millions of local dollars each year.

At the report’s public premier Mayor Bartlett said, "With an estimated $18.2 million shortfall in next fiscal year’s budget on top of the $11.6 million shortfall in the FY2010-11 budget, we must find ways to reduce costs while continuing to provide basic, high quality services to our residents.  We have outstanding employees, but some inefficient, outdated processes and programs. This report provides recommendations on how to remove those inefficiencies and better utilize taxpayer money."

"Managing Change: Opportunities for Municipal Efficiency and Effectiveness" was developed by KPMG, an independent, third-party firm of efficiency experts, and was funded by Tulsa Community Foundation at no cost to the city or taxpayers. In addition to gathering input from 457 employees, KPMG used a systematic approach based on leading practices in government and commercial sectors to review 1,512 city services provided by 20 city departments.

"To lead the implementation process, I am establishing the Management Review Office, and I have asked our City Auditor, Preston Doerflinger, to lead it," Bartlett said. "Preston’s business background, analytical skills and familiarity with the city and its services make him uniquely qualified to lead this effort. This office will work with employees to determine the best recommendations, establish timelines and oversee implementation of the strategic initiatives that make the most sense for our community."

"Cities and companies across the nation are implementing improvements to become more effective and competitive," Doerflinger said. "I am excited by the opportunities presented in this study and honored to be leading this effort. I look forward to working with our employees and city leaders to evaluate the opportunities and implement those that will help us improve our services and more efficiently use taxpayer dollars."

Tulsa Today reporters will dig through the report for future news stories, but we have been writing about this issue on this site since 1996.  Most recently, Aaron Sheppard reviewed the City of Tulsa Human Rights Department.  (Read that story by clicking here.)

It is important to remember the basics when considering the organization of government.  There are three different groups with agendas; elected officials, the bureaucracy, and public worker unions.  The old saying “politicians come and go, but bureaucrats run the show” has been more true than not in Tulsa, but Mayor Bartlett has proven, by this effort, to be the conservative mayor many hoped he would be in office.  Yes we can reduce the size and costs of government in Tulsa.

Expect local Democrats, Leftists, Unions and some corrupt City Councilors to oppose each and every reform.  Expect them to use the media to whore for attention and many observers would not be surprised to see organized protests which may be met with counter demonstrations.

However, the Tulsa World’s headline and coverage should set a national example as it proclaimed, “Room for shrinkage.”  Yes, hundreds of millions of our local dollars can be saved and/or redirected to more valuable purpose.  Real journalists populating many different newsrooms in Tulsa could compile months of compelling stories from the KPMG report.  On the national level, the guide from history for future Pulitzers can be found in the book, “New Deal or Raw Deal, How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America” by Burton Folsom, Jr. which includes details that could make headlines today.

It is important to note that the KPMG report was funded by Tulsa Community Foundation which is usually considered Liberal.  Thus rational Liberals prove themselves assets in Tulsa.  If only we could free such honest advocates from their leadership at the national level, we could return America to prosperity.  National leadership from the left which grows government and spending and debt beyond sanity is threatening the base value of the currency and scares capital which hires people into hiding.

Or as the American Spectator essay from professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University, Angelo M. Cordevilla titled America’s Ruling Class – And the Peril’s of Revolution wrote:

“…When this majority discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them, the term "political class" came into use.

“Then, after those in power changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries but refused to explain why, when they reasserted their right to decide ad hoc on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public’s understanding, the American people started referring to those in and around government as the "ruling class." And in fact Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country. They think, look, and act as a class…”

That was also true in Tulsa, but Mayor Dewey Bartlett’s push to engage KPMG and their carefully documented methodology is what must be done at the local, state and national level by conservatives.  This type of effort provides the foundation of fact from which we can build government the people can afford and end the arrogance of the ruling class – local, state and national.

To reach the full report from the City of Tulsa’s web site, click here.

About the author:

An individualist, David Arnett began a traditional journalism career untraditionally in an Aha Moment you can review  thirty years ago. Arnett has long argued that government is incompetent if not corrupt at the Federal level, put his life on the line to fight corruption on the state level and questioned almost every “authority” in Tulsa at some point.  Passionately belligerent in the demand for equal treatment under the law, Arnett fought for racial integration of Tulsa Public Schools and equal rights as youth liaison to the Community Relations Commission before he graduated from high school.  Arnett is an equal opportunity aggravator.

You are encouraged listen and welcome to call-in between 4 and 6 pm each Saturday on The David Arnett Show on AM 740 and FM 102.3 news talk KRMG to discuss this story.  You may also register free and comment below.  E-mail of news tips are welcome to editor@tulsatoday.com or use our contact form at the top of the page.  Arnett writes here as often as opportunity allows, Another recent editorial you may enjoy is “Top Down or Free Up?” and his warning, published October 2008, “Obama’s Most Significant Statement” is also linked for your consideration. 

Editorial:  The images of the Admiral Twin Drive-In engulfed in flames were striking.

Some 60 years of family memories going up in smoke. Within minutes what was a landmark along Tulsa’s I-244 expressway standing some 9 stories tall was a charred, skeletal ruin. The radio talk show airwaves lit up with calls and shared memories.  Personal adventures to the drive-in as children and had brought their own kids and grand kids over the years – all comprise what marketing people call "good will" or collective regard.

It was another icon of the great City of Tulsa gone. Without warning or ample time to get memories and emotions in check, it was gone, just one week shy of the last weekend of the season.  Fire placed plans for the upcoming 2011 season’s 60^th anniversary on hold, the future uncertain.

Luckily, that uncertainty lasted less than 24 hours as the citizens of Tulsa stepped up and offered of themselves in a way that has made Oklahomans famous.  Locals flocked to the site to make donations and pledge support.  Tulsa Today covered the story Friday and our Publisher took calls on The David Arnett Show on AM 740 and FM 102.3 Saturday afternoon.  More stories will follow.

In an economy that does not lend itself to easy giving, Tulsans pitched in to help.  A fund was established, social networking sprang to life and, all of a sudden, what seemed a long shot to rebuild suddenly became plausible, even before the smoke cleared.

This great public regard, it would seem, encouraged the ownership of the Admiral Twin to be optimistic.  The storied drive-in could be showing movies – maybe – as early as next spring with such a large outpouring.

It is something that Tulsa has needed for a good long time – common cause.

In a year that has seen police and firefighters laid off, elected officials under fire and bickering among themselves, and long dark stretches of road that used to be lighted highways – this is different.  The grass roots effort to save an icon of Tulsa history and a bit of the history of the national icon Route 66 is real.  It is a breath of fresh air.  There is no posturing, no political maneuvering among career politicians, it’s just regular people stepping up to lend a helping hand.

If you want a chance to invest in a piece of Tulsa pop culture history, funds are still being accepted at the main fund :

Security Bank

PO BOX 471316

Tulsa, OK 74147

Bigfoot Prints are selling t-shirts for $10 a piece with all funds donated to the rebuild effort. A benefit concert is being planned for October 13 at the Rose Bowl Event Center on 11^th Street. Finally, there is a PayPal account that has been activated for direct donations, accessed at tiny.cc/admiraltwinfund.

The recent poll by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life is generating much discussion over its provocative finding that an increasing number of Americans (nearly one in five) believe that President Obama is a Muslim. The survey was completed before Obama’s recent comments endorsing the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero.

While this no doubt is a fascinating development, consuming most media
coverage of the poll, and unprecedented in presidential history, the
figure of greater interest to me — and not surprising — is the
percentage of Americans unsure about whether Obama is a Christian, or,
more generally, about his faith at all.

"[T]he proportion saying [Obama] is a Christian has declined," reports Pew. "More than a year and a half into his presidency, a plurality of the public says they do not know what religion Obama follows." Pew added: "Only about one-third of adults (34 percent) say Obama is a Christian, down sharply from 48 percent in 2009. Fully 43 percent say they do not know what Obama’s religion is."
 
This confusion is not confined to Republicans. Pew notes: "fewer Democrats today say he is a Christian (down nine points since 2009)."
 
The numbers among Democrats are telling. Indeed, it’s easy for Obama defenders to lash out at this data as allegedly reflective of narrow-minded anti-Obama conservatives. In truth, there is confusion about what Obama believes because, in fact, there is — rightly so — confusion about what Obama believes.
 
I say this as someone who studies faith and politics, and who has written books on the faith of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Hillary Clinton — books that hit upon the faith of just about every president.
 
For the record, in one of those books — the 2007 one on Hillary Clinton, who I described as a "lifelong, committed Christian" — I wrote briefly about an emerging political dynamo named Barack Obama. "Obama is a Christian," I reportedly confidently, seeing no reason to say otherwise.
 
As November 2008 approached, I wrote similar things, though acknowledging the growing uncertainty about Obama’s beliefs. I recall speaking at a church near Pittsburgh where one liberal couple practically jumped out of their seats when I dared mention a June 2008 Newsweek poll that found 12 percent of Americans believed Obama is a Muslim.
 
Those perceptions, already evident then, have only intensified. And for those Obama supporters enraged by this, please try to understand the legitimate confusion, including for someone like myself who carefully studies these things:
 
Generally, when it comes to faith, Americans accept whatever self-designation offered by a president, especially as his background leaves little doubt. President Jimmy Carter called himself a "born-again" Baptist from Plains, Ga., which the record easily supported. President Woodrow Wilson referred to himself as a Presbyterian in the "Reformed" tradition, and a mere cursory examination revealed precisely that.
 
Sometimes, we dig deeper. My experience in the case of Ronald Reagan is especially relevant now, as I’m being cited by liberals who point to Reagan’s infrequent church attendance as support for their insistence that Obama’s infrequent church attendance doesn’t mean he lacks faith. (Ironically, in the 1980s, it was liberals who questioned whether the president was really a Christian.) That comparison, however, is misplaced, for reasons that underscore the questions about Obama. Consider:
 
Reagan attended church his entire life, from the First Christian Church on S. Hennepin Avenue in Dixon, Ill., in the 1920s, to churches in Iowa in the 1930s, to varying churches in California from the 1940s through the 1970s, and again after his presidency. As a new president, he immediately began attending the National Presbyterian Church, present for all but one or two services prior to when he was shot by John Hinckley. I interviewed the pastor of that church, the Rev. Louis Evans, at length, plus other witnesses. Reagan’s attendance declined only after the assassination attempt. He cited security reasons, and the record supported his explanation. Beyond that, Reagan’s personal life, family background, writings, speeches, and much more, revealed a deep, pervasive Christian faith throughout his entire life.
 
For President Obama, a similar evidentiary record does not exist. Unlike Reagan, Obama was not raised by an intensely pious mother, nor was there an extremely influential pastor in his adolescent years. As noted by an excellent Newsweek piece during the campaign, Obama was reared by a "Christian-turned-secular mother" — herself a product of "two lapsed Christian" parents — and was the son of a "Muslim-turned-atheist African father" and a stepfather with a "unique brand of Islam."
 
As Obama himself candidly admits, he meandered his way through Islam, Buddhism, Catholicism, Protestantism, asceticism, with, along the way, smatterings of Augustine, Graham Greene, and Nietzsche, just for starters.
 
Amazingly, the only Christian church to which Obama could have been considered a consistent member was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church. And if we are to believe the disclaimers of Obama and his supporters, he rarely attended Wright’s services, and even more rarely listened or paid attention.
 
Likewise, Michelle and the girls have not attended church regularly, if ever. Newsweek reported a remarkable fact for a major presidential candidate who would win the presidency: "Obama is a little spiritually rootless again."
 
All of this, from rare church attendance to the lack of other conventional displays of faith, has persisted well into Obama’s presidency. Think about the oddity of this one fact alone: The current president has neither a church, nor, to my knowledge, even a denomination. When I’m asked questions about his faith, by sincere people not looking to attack, I sincerely can’t give a good answer. It’s a problem I didn’t have with any of the Bushes, the Clintons, Reagan, Carter, and on and on.
 
In short, and I don’t mean this to be disparaging, with Barack Obama we are witnessing the most unconventional faith profile of a president in arguably 200 years. The assessment we’re getting from a curious public is not a crass misperception by a bunch of intolerants, but, rather, natural puzzlement.
 
Of course, it shouldn’t be difficult to rectify misperceptions. Throughout American history, presidents have been asked about their faith and sat for lengthy interviews sharing their thinking, explaining precisely what they believe. Why doesn’t Obama simply do the same? This isn’t rocket science.
 
Will some people still not believe him? Of course. But Obama’s problem isn’t a tiny fringe that believes he faces Mecca to pray five times a day, but an increasingly large number of Americans that aren’t sure what he believes. Until he makes that clearer, confusion will understandably reign.

First Published by One News Now 08/24/2010

Even though many Oklahomans did not buy into the idea of socialized medicine through ObamaCare, most are now stuck with buyer’s remorse anyway.  Why?  Because for the first time in our history, we now have on the books a law that forces Americans to purchase a product or face IRS sanction.  Contributing to the buyer’s remorse suffered by opponents and supporters alike are increased health care costs, new taxes, the constitutionality of the mandate itself, and over-regulation.

While the Obama administration’s primary argument for the massive government take-over of the health care industry was to reduce health care costs, since its passage, just the opposite has happened.  For millions of individuals, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that health insurance premiums will be 10-13 percent higher than they otherwise would have been without ObamaCare.  That represents a $2,100 increase per family.  
The $200 billion cut from Medicare Advantage included in the new law means that more than 11 million seniors will likely see their Medicare Advantage premiums increase significantly or have their benefits noticeably lessened.  
Additionally, states will see their spending on health care increase.  A new study by Deloitte predicts that by 2030 Medicaid costs could rise to somewhere between 35% and 50% of states budgets with no relief in sight from ObamaCare.

The picture is not any better for the federal government.  Under the most realistic forecast of likely congressional actions, CBO says the nation’s debt is headed toward “unsustainable levels.”  ObamaCare was supposed to reduce health care spending and the deficit, but according to the same report, our tsunami of debt includes “all the effects of the recently enacted health care legislation.”

In addition to increased costs, Americans and businesses are faced with a $569 billion increase in taxes.  These taxes include $200 billion in taxes on individuals and small businesses, $50 billion in taxes on employers that cannot afford to provide their workers with health coverage, $20 billion in taxes on the uninsured through penalty payments for not meeting the individual mandate, and $20 billion in taxes on medical devices.

While promoting the legislation, the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress repeatedly argued that the requirements of the bill were not taxation on the American people. Obama himself said of the law, “Nobody considers that a tax.”  However, constitutional challenges from states’ attorneys general have forced Obama’s own Justice Department to recognize that the mandate’s best line of defense comes from Congress’ power to impose taxes.  The Justice Department argues the mandate is a “valid exercise” of that right. What at first the Administration was so reluctant to admit is quickly becoming their primary defense of the law’s constitutionality. By caving to the accusations that the mandate is in actuality a tax, the Obama Administration is admitting a weariness and very real possibility that the Supreme Court could deem the mandate unconstitutional.

While the challenge to ObamaCare’s constitutionality continues, various federal government agencies and departments press forward in creating the regulations that will govern its implementation.  In addition to the nearly 3,000 pages of the legislation itself, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recently issued a 1,250 page proposed rule on Medicare payment policies for 2011. This is in addition to the 121 page proposed rule limiting how companies can grandfather their employee health-insurance plans to avoid other federal mandates. With these and other regulatory efforts underway, the business community is understandably rethinking its support for Obamacare.

With over-regulation, increased costs, higher taxes and even the law’s constitutionality in question, it is no wonder that states like Missouri are overwhelmingly voting to opt out of the law’s mandate.  It should come as no surprise that recent polling shows 55 percent of Americans favor a repeal of ObamaCare.  The buyer’s remorse has even caused Democrat congressional leaders to encourage their members to not focus on the law as they prepare for a difficult election season.  The only way to get rid of this buyer’s remorse is to return the awful product to the seller from which it came.  Voters in Oklahoma and across the country can do just that when they go to the polls this coming November.
 

I have a question for Randy Brogdon.  I did support him for the Republican nomination for governor of Oklahoma, but I made it clear on [Political Realities] that if Mary Fallin won the primary, I would support her with no reservations.  I felt they were both good, conservative candidates. 

When I wrote those words, I thought they would and should go for
Brogdon, if he should lose the primary.  He did lose to Fallin, but as
of this morning, he has failed to endorse her in the governor’s race.  

When asked about his endorsement by reporters on election night, he said he was going to take some time off to think about endorsing the woman who defeated him quite handily.  That leaves me wondering why.

I am not the only one who is puzzled by Brogdon’s decision.  Oklahoma Watchdog and The McCarville Report both have articles that question why he has failed to offer a quick and decisive endorsement of Fallin.  Here is part of what Andrew W. Griffin had to say in his article on Oklahoma Watchdog.

"Brogdon, the Owasso Republican, was beaten pretty handily by Fallin and that was expected according to numerous pre-primary polls.  He had to know this is the way it would turn out.  Yet, when The Oklahoman interviewed Brogdon after Fallin had been declared the victor, Brogdon did not offer his endorsement.  He said he would think about it.

"This is surprising and it should be of concern to the Republicans.  Is Brogdon taking his ball and going home in a huff?  He has still not offered his endorsement.  Will fellow Brogdon supporters sit this one out, giving the Democrats a stronger shot at leading the agenda?

"Clearly, the Democrats in Oklahoma are coming together.  And Askins is a solid and likable candidate.  She did well in areas that Edmondson was expected to take, like in northeastern Oklahoma.  This is an historic occasion having two women running for governor in a state that has never elected a woman as governor."

Let me echo what Griffin wrote.  It troubles me that Randy Brogdon seems to be such a sore loser.  I do not intend to sound mean-spirited or mad at the man, but there is no time for politics such as this.  If he is serious about having a conservative Republican in the governor’s office in Oklahoma, then he should not think twice about endorsing Mary Fallin.

I know Brogdon ran a very spirited campaign and he put a lot of time and effort into it. He is sure to feel disappointed and let down that he did not win, but as Griffin points out, he had to have seen this coming.  

Despite of his differences with Fallin, he needs to get behind her and help push her towards a conservative Republican victory in November as the first woman governor of Oklahoma.  If he does anything less, then shame on him. 

About the Author:

Oklahoman LD Jackson publishes Political Realities, a blog on public policy issues primarily focused on Oklahoma.