Oklahoma's Fiscal Outlook (June 2012)

7/31/2019 Oklahoma's Fiscal Outlook (June 2012)

1/54

Oklahomas Fiscal Outlook:Moving from Crisis to Stability

July 2012

David Blatt

[email protected](918) 794-3944
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/54

Oklahomas Path to Prosperity

What does Oklahoma need tobe a prosperous state?


3/54


What Prosperity Looks Like Good-paying jobs

Well-educated, well-trained workforce -

Quality education system from early childhood to

post-secondary More college graduates

Well-functioning infrastructure

Healthy communities -

Access to timely and affordable care

Public health

Safe streets

Stable safety net for those in need


4/54


Were In This Together Successful outcomes for our families, businesses and

communities depend on effective public structures andsystems

Government is among our means of achieving our

common goals as a state alongside private businesses,non-profits, philanthropies, faith groups, and families


5/54


We Lag Behind

We fall short in many of our common goals:

Students in bottom third in reading and math proficiency (2009)

43rd in share of population with a college degree (22.2 percent,2008)

46th in overall health; in the bottom 10 states for rates ofsmoking, obesity, diabetes, job-related deaths, prematuredeaths, infant mortality, and days lost to mental and physicalillness (2011)

1 in 6 Oklahomans (16.9 percent) and 1 in 4 children (24.5percent) live in poverty (2010)

4th in total prisoners per capita and 1st in female incarcerationrates (2009)

9th worst road conditions


6/54


We Already Lag Behind

Oklahoma invests less than most states in ourpublic structures.

-$1,000

$1,000

$3,000

$5,000

$7,000

$9,000

Spending

perPerson

State and Local Spending per Person by Function, 2007-08

Oklahoma

US Average

Source: U.S. Bureauof the Census


7/54


We Already Lag Behind

Four years of budget cuts or flat funding andgrowing obligations threaten to corrode our publicstructures and weaken our prosperity

Can we provide a quality education for all

students and produce the skilled workforcethat businesses need?

Can we fix our crumbling infrastructure?

Can we improve our physical health and

well-being? Can we ensure the safety of vulnerable

children and seniors left in our care?


8/54

Budget Trends: FY 10 FY 13


9/54


The Recession Hit in Late 2008 Oklahoma experienced six straight quarters of negative growth

(declining state personal income) in late 20082009

Economy has mostly grown faster than the nations since start of2010

-8.0%

-6.0%

-4.0%

-2.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

2007.3 2008.1 2008.3 2009.1 2009.3 2010.1 2010.3 2011.1 2011.3

% Change from Prior

Quarter Quarterly Change in Personal Income,Oklahoma and National,

4th Quarter 2007 to 1st Quarter 2012

National Oklahoma


10/54


State Budgets Hammered

All but four states faced budget shortfalls in FY 11.


11/54


Its a Revenue Problem

Five consecutive quarters of worsening collections

Revenue dropped more than twice as steeply as in theprevious downturn

Revenues recovering over past eight quarters

-12.1%

-29.5%

16.1%

5.7%

-40.0%

-30.0%

-20.0%

-10.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

Q1

FY

'02

Q3

FY

'02

Q1

FY

'03

Q3

FY

'03

Q1

FY

'04

Q3

FY

'04

Q1

FY

'05

Q3

FY

'05

Q1

FY

'06

Q3

FY

'06

Q1

FY

'07

Q3

FY

'07

Q1

FY

'08

Q3

FY

'08

Q1

FY

'09

Q3

FY

'09

Q1

FY

'10

Q3

FY

'10

Q1

FY

'11

Q3

FY

11

Q1

FY

12

Q3

FY

12

Quarterly Year-over-Year Change in General Revenue Collections,

FY '02 - FY '12


12/54


Its a Revenue Problem FY 10 General Revenue 23 percent below FY 08 pre-downturn

levels

Revenues increased by 10.5 percent in FY 11 and are projected torise 8.1 percent in FY 12 but to remain below pre-downturn levelsthrough FY 13

$4,717$4,408

$4,174$4,616

$4,966

$5,701$5,935 $5,953

$5,544

$4,621

$5,138$5,555 $5,600

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

FY '01 FY '02 FY '03 FY '04 FY '05 FY '06 FY '07 FY '08 FY '09 FY '10 FY '11 FY '12

(proj.)

FY '13

(est.)


13/54


Its a Revenue ProblemTax Cuts Had a Long-Term Impact

Tax cuts were large, permanent, and back-loaded

Tax cuts were stretched out over several years; full impact willnot be felt until FY13

Major cuts were almost all to the personal income tax

Lost Revenues from Select Tax Cuts Enacted 2004 - 2006

FY'05 through FY'10 (in $ millions)

$18.7$144.8

$333.3

$561.8$651.1

$776.9

$0.0

$200.0

$400.0

$600.0

$800.0

FY'05 FY'06 FY'07 FY'08 FY'09 FY'10

source: Oklahoma Tax Commission


14/54


Tax Collections Are at Historic Lows In FY 10 tax collections equaled 5.5 percent of state

personal income, compared to 7.2 percent in FY 01

Tax collections have not kept pace with personalincome since FY 06

Sources: State personal income from Bureau of Economic Analysis; Taxcollections from Annual Executive Budget

5.0%

5.5%

6.0%

6.5%

7.0%

7.5%

8.0%

-

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

State Tax Collections Tax Collections as % of State Personal Income

Its a Revenue Problem


15/54


Budgeting Through the Crisis Three consecutive years of declining appropriations (FY 10

FY 12) followed by modest increases (FY 13)

FY 13 appropriations of $6,855.8 million:

$253 million, 3.8 percent, above FY 12

$269 million, 3.8 percent, below FY 09

See FY 13 Budget Highlights at:http://okpolicy.org/files/FY13Highlights.pdf

$6,217

$6,760

$7,043

$7,095

$5,897 $5,938

$6,404

$6,856$30

$838$554

99

$224

$273$100

$4,000

$4,500

$5,000

$5,500

$6,000

$6,500

$7,000

$7,500

FY'06 FY'07 FY'08 FY'09 FY '10 FY '11 FY '12 FY '13

State Appropriations, FY '06- FY '13

(in $ Millions, includes supplementals, excludes Rainy Day "spillover" funds)

State Revenues Federal Relief Rainy Day Fund

Total=

$6,603


16/54


Budgeting Through the Crisis Just under 90 percent of appropriations consistently goes to 10agencies that provide core services

Over 65 agencies share remaining funding

Common Ed.; $2,278; 35.0%

Higher Ed.; $945 ;14.5%

OHCA (Medicaid);$983 ; 15.1%

DHS; $537 ; 8.3%Corrections; $460 ;

7.1%Transportation;

$107 ; 1.6%

Mental Health; $187; 2.9%

Career Tech; $134 ;2.1%

Juv. Affairs; $96 ;1.5%

Public Safety; $85 ;

1.3%

All Other

Agencies; $699 ;

10.7%

FY '12 Appropriations: Total and 10 Largest Agencies (excludes supplementals)

TotalAppropriations:

$6,510.5 million

Total Ten Largest:

$5,811.9; 89.2%

Notes:

Transportation also received $70 from

bond issue;

OHCA excludes revenue from hospital

provider assessmber (SHOPP)


17/54


Budgeting Through the Crisis Budgets for three straight years (FY 10, FY 11 & FY 12)involved variations on a theme:

Large shortfalls in projected revenues

Fear of devastating budget cuts

Use of non-recurring revenues to partly bridge the budget gap

Budget cuts across state government but less severe for coreeducation, health, human services, and public safety agencies


18/54


Budgeting Through the Crisis: FY 10 FY 12 Governors Henry and Fallin and the Legislature used variousrevenue enhancements to bridge budget shortfalls and reduce theseverity of cuts:

Revenue enhancements totaled close to $3 billion over 3 years

Half from federal stimulus bills; remainder divided between

Rainy Day Fund, cash transfers, enhanced tax compliance, andsuspending and deferring tax credits

Most new revenues were one-time/non-recurring

Budget cuts for almost all agencies for 3 consecutive years

Some 40 agencies more than half of all appropriated agencies

absorbed cuts of greater than 20 percent Cuts to some key health, human services, education, and publicsafety agencies were less severe


19/54


Budgeting Through the Crisis: FY 13 Total appropriations increased by $253 million (3.8 percent) fromFY 12

Most agencies will receive flat funding in FY 13

46 of 78 appropriated agencies will receive the same amount or less

Several agencies received funding increases for targeted

priorities, including:

DHS for the child welfare reform plan

Transportation to fill budget holes after end of bond issues

Health Care Authority for Medicaid expenditure growth

Mental Health and Corrections for criminal justice reforms

Education agencies received no additional funding or very smallincreases

Support for public schools through the state aid formula held flat


20/54


Budgeting Through the Crisis No agencies have been funded to cover rising operating andemployee benefit costs

State government workforce has shrunk by 9.8 percent comparedto FY 09 and is 4.4 percent smaller than in FY 01

Staffing cuts have been especially severe for correctional

facilities

37,139 37,486 37,684 36,723 37,40338,231 38,834 38,924

39,35038,154

36,081 35,504

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

FY-01 FY-02 FY-03 FY-04 FY-05 FY-06 FY-07 FY-08 FY-09 FY-10 FY-11 FY-12


21/54


Impact of Cuts State appropriated spending reached its lowest level inat least 30 years in FY 11 and has likely fallen evenfurther this year

Budget cuts and funding shortfalls continue to affectOklahoma students, teachers, public employees, non-

profit organizations and private sector businesses

4.5%

5.0%

5.5%

6.0%

6.5%

7.0%

Sources: State personal income from Bureau of Economic Analysis;Appropriations from various sources


22/54


Impact of Cuts: Education

State aid funding has declined by $214 million since FY 2008while public school enrollment has increased by over 24,000students.

Almost 1,000 fewer teachers than in 2008, leading to largerclass sizes and reduced class offerings.

Department of Education eliminated funding for adulteducation, alternative education, research-based teachertraining programs, evaluation contracts, and other programs.

Despite new testing requirements, funding reduced for ACEremediation and eliminated for Reading Sufficiency in FY 13.

FY 12 budget initially failed to fund full year of health carebenefits and stipends for board-certified teachers.

Common education has fallen to lowest share of stateappropriations since at least FY 00


23/54


Impact of Cuts: Health and Human Services

In the past three years, the Health Department has been cut by20 percent, forcing layoffs for at least 300 employees.

Health Department eliminated 17 child guidance centers servingpre-school children with developmental delays;

Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Servicesreduced beds and closed centers for childrens mental health andadult substance abuse, cut contracts to all providers;

Over 6,000 families on waiting list for developmentally-disabledhome and community based waiver program;

Significant reductions in counseling programs for abused womenand children and prenatal education for low-income mothers;

Office of Juvenile Affairs cancelled youth detention and gangprevention programs.


24/54


Impact of Cuts: Other Areas

The Department of Corrections remains critically understaffed.Stress from being required to work frequent double-shifts isleading to high turnover. Often just one officer may be on duty ina dining hall of 160 inmates.

The number of state troopers on Oklahoma highways is at itslowest level in 22 years.

The state owes $36 million to more than 600 cities, counties,electrical cooperatives, state agencies, fire districts, schools andIndian tribes for its share of costs associated with 21 naturaldisasters dating back to 2007.

State workers have not received a pay increase in 6 years. Thenumber of state workers has dropped by 3,804 (9.8 percent)since FY 09.


25/54


Impact of Cuts

Oklahomans expect state government to:

educate our children

train our workforce

maintain our infrastructure

protect our communities

aid our most vulnerable family members and neighbors

Have years of underfunding and the extended period of flatfunding and cuts shrunk state government to the point

where it is no longer capable of performing these corefunctions?


26/54


27/54

The Challenges We Face

An Incomplete Recovery Monthly General Revenue collections above the same month

for the prior year in 24 of last 25 months

-8%

-22%-19%

-21%

-28%-30%

-26%

-32%

-30%

-24%

-31%-29%

-17%

-7%

1.6%

0%

6%

2%

10%

5%6%

3%

9%

13%

20%

12%9%

13%

10%

16%

5%

18%

15%

6%

23%

19%

7%

15%

-1%

6%4%

-40.0%

-30.0%

-20.0%

-10.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

Jan-09 Apr-09 Jul-09 Oct-09 Jan-10 Apr-10 Jul-10 Oct-10 Jan-11 Apr-11 Jul-11 Oct-11 Jan-12 Apr-12

Change in Monthly General Revenue Collections,

Compared to Same Month Prior Year, Jan '09 - May'12


28/54


An Incomplete Recovery FY 12 revenue collections through May up 21 percent from

FY 10 but still 7 percent below FY07

Revenues still below nominal levels of 6 years ago

4,2694,001

3,748

4,1914,431

5,1215,348 5,321 5,077

4,123

4,532

4,982

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

FY '01 FY '02 FY '03 FY '04 FY '05 FY '06 FY '07 FY '08 FY '09 FY '10 FY '11 FY '12

July-May General Revenue Collections,

FY '01 - FY '12 (in $Millions)


29/54


An Incomplete RecoverySubstantial demands on scarce resources

Short-TermIn a hole

Need to restore cuts of past three years and pay for ongoingoperating costs of state government

Strengthen our child welfare system in accordance with settlementagreement

Thousands with developmental disabilities and mental illness on thewaiting list for services

Long-TermStructural deficit

Hazardous physical infrastructure roads, bridges, state buildings

Water infrastructure needs - $80 billion over next 50 years

Aging population will require increased health care, social servicesspending

Unfunded pension liabilities still exceed $10 billion


30/54


Projected Annual Budget Surpluses and Deficits

Before and After 2004-2006 Tax Cuts (2007 to 2035)

(2,500)

(2,000)

(1,500)

(1,000)

(500)

0

500

1,000

2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

Growing Long-Term Obligations

Oklahoma faces a structural deficitNormal growth of revenues is insufficient to finance the normal

cost of services year after year.

Source: Projections conducted in 2007 by Dr. Kent Olson, Professor ofEconomics, Oklahoma State University


31/54

Growing Long-Term ObligationsFederal Deficit Reduction Will Compound State Problems

Budget Control Act established caps on discretionaryspending though 2021 to reduce federal deficits by $917B

Failure of Super Committee to agree on deficit reductionmeasures triggered automatic procedures to reduce

spending by $1.2 trillion

Exempts Medicaid, mandatory programs

Half the cuts would be from defense budget

Discretionary programs facing 9 percent cuts

Includes all education and worker training fundingstreams, many social services and health grants,agriculture, environment, others

Effective January 2013



32/54


A Fiscally Responsible Course

You have to be sure you're right before cutting tax rates or

shrinking the tax base. The Legislature and the governor

cannot say in following years, Oops, we made a mistake.

- Larkin Warner, OSU Regents Professor of Economics, Nov. 2011

Whatever our tax structure is in Oklahoma, its doing a good

job of not holding us back, and on the other hand we dont

want to do anything to mess it up. And thats what you

always have to be careful of when you start getting politicalsolutions to problems that may not really exist.

- Scott Meacham, Former State Treasurer, April 2012


33/54



Preserve the Income Tax

The essential cornerstone of a balanced tax system

Single largest state revenue source:

$2.2 billion in FY10 - 32.1 percent of total collections.

Personal

Income Tax,

$2,224.8

32.1%

Corporate

Income Tax,

$216.4

3.1%

Sales Tax,

$1,815.3

26.2%

Gross

Production Tax,

$732.2

10.6%

Motor Vehicle

Taxes,

$579.3

8.4%

Other,

$1,353.6

19.6%

Total State Tax Collections, FY '10


34/54




Largest funding source for state services

Based on the share of agency appropriations funded with incometax revenues, elimination of the personal income tax would leaveus unable to pay for:

Salary and benefits for 17,000 classroom teachers; AND

Health insurance coverage for 430,000 low-income children; AND

Incarceration of 9,300 inmates; AND

Tuition for 19,000 Oklahomas Promise students; AND

The ROADS transportation improvement plan; AND

Many other services and programs across state government.

See: What the Income Tax Pays For at http://okpolicy.org/tax-reform-information


35/54




Taxes are rarely decisive in business investment decisions.

For 24 years, Ive been conducting interviews with

executives of companies that we tried to recruit to Ardmorethat ended up locating elsewhere. Not once in all thoseyears did a company that rejected Ardmore base itsdecisions on taxes.

-Ardmore Chamber of Commerce President Wes Stucky, Oct. 2011

I will tell you that state income tax had absolutely noimpact in terms of the decision of merging the company and

where the corporate headquarters is located.-Phillips Petroleum CEO Jim Mulva, discussing the companys merger withHouston-based Conoco Inc. and decision to locate its new headquarters inHouston, November 2001


36/54


37/54




Oklahoma is already doing better than most states,including those without an income tax

Third best job growth, #1 best manufacturing job growth (2011)


38/54




Cutting the income tax will create great pressure to raise salestaxes or property taxes

Oklahomas average combined state and local sales tax rate 8.66percent is already 5th highest in the nation (Tax Foundation)

Untaxed Internet sales already cost Oklahoma $185M to $225Mannually (OK Tax Commission)

Texas has a higher state sales tax rate (6.25 percent) than doesOklahoma (4.5 percent) and assesses the sales tax on 83categories of services, compared to 32 in Oklahoma

Every state without an income tax has higher per capita property

taxes than Oklahoma

The average Texan pays three times as much property tax as theaverage Oklahoman


39/54



The income tax is essential to tax fairness

Low and middle-incomeOklahomans pay moreof their income in state& local taxes than dowealthy households

Income tax partlyoffsets the regressivityof sales and propertytaxes

Broad-based taxpreferences help low-income seniors andfamilies with children



40/54


The 2012 Tax Debate Various tax cut proposals under consideration

All would lower the top income tax rate, at least partlyoffset lost revenue by eliminating various income taxcredits, deductions and exemptions

Plan differed as to: Fiscal impact (revenue-neutral vs. revenue

reduction)

Which tax preferences were eliminated

Reduction or elimination of income tax

Triggers for future tax cuts

See OK Policys Summary and Comparison at:http://okpolicy.org/files/TaxPlanComparison.pdf


41/54


The 2012 Tax Debate

The Senate Plan (SB 1623)

Based on 2011 Tax Reform Tax Force recommendationsdeveloped by Sen. Mazzei & Rep. Dank

Would have lowered the top income tax rate from 5.25 to 4.75percent over 2 years

Revenue-Neutral: lost revenue fully offset by eliminating thesales tax relief credit, child/child care tax credit, earned incometax credit and economic development incentives; limitedeligibility for personal exemption

Increased taxes for one-third of Oklahomans and shifted more

of tax load onto middle-income and low-income households


42/54


The 2012 Tax Debate

OCPA/Laffer Plan (HB 3038/SB 1571)

Immediately lowered top income tax rate from 5.25 to 3.5percent

Top rate automatically reduced each year until total elimination(2022) (amended versions included triggers for future cuts)

Eliminated ALL deductions, exemptions and credits, including:

Standard deduction, personal exemption

Low-income credits

All business income tax credits

Floor substitutes restored exemptions for retirement income,Social Security benefits, veterans income, military pay

Huge revenue loss while raising taxes for almost half ofhouseholds


43/54


The 2012 Tax Debate

Governor Fallins Proposal (HB 3061)

Governors Oklahoma Tax Reduction and Simplification Plan:

No tax on those making $35k/$70K

Taxes ALL income at same ratecreates a tax cliff

Eliminates itemized deductions, low-income credits, deductionsfor retirement and military income, and almost all economicdevelopment credits

Tax cut for most but increase for low- and moderate-incomefamilies with children and seniors.

Fiscal impact in first full year of $350 million

Further cuts in the top income tax rate in future years wheneverrevenues rise > 5 percent until income tax is completely eliminated.


44/54


The 2012 Tax Debate

The Final Agreement/Disagreement

Governor, Speaker, Pro Tem announced tax cut deal just prior tofinal week of session:

Top rate reduced immediately from 5.25 to 4.8 percent

Trigger to reduce rate to 4.5 percent based on revenue growth

Revenue losses partially offset by limiting eligibility forpersonal exemption (to families below $70,000, individualsbelow $35,000); limiting itemized deductions, eliminatingsome business tax incentives

Fiscal impact of $33 million in FY 13, $102 million in FY 14

Tax increase for 24 percent of filers House leadership refused to let bill get heard by full House

Senate rejected last-minute House plan

Governor opted against special session


45/54


A Fiscally Responsible CourseHow do we create a revenue structure that meets our obligations?

Review and reduce tax credit programs:

Income tax, gross production tax credits

Adopt combined corporate reporting

Limit itemized income tax deductions

Modernize the sales tax:

Expand sales tax base to some additional services

Pursue collection of online sales through click-through/affiliate programs

Target any tax relief towards those in greatest need:

Increase the personal exemption

Stretch and index tax brackets

Expand the grocery tax credit or earned income tax credit

Adopt pay-go requirement for tax cuts and new spending


46/54


Limit Tax Credit Programs

Tax credits should adhere to the following standards:

Formal eligibility process for businesses applying for credits

Clear performance standards regarding investment and/or

job creation, with consequences for failing to meet targets

Full disclosure of how credits are allocated

Sunset provisions, with reauthorization tied to aperformance review

Limit state liability through caps on amounts that can be

claimed subject to annual legislative authority

Gross production tax credits should be limited or eliminated



47/54


Limit Itemized Income Tax Deductions

Itemized deductions mostly benefit upper-income households

Several options could be considered:

Repeal itemized deductions while increasing the standard

deduction available to all families, OR

Cap the total value of itemized deductions, OR

Convert deductions to a credit as a set amount of selectedfederal deductions, OR

Do away with the deduction for state income tax payments

Could generate $100 million to $115 million in new revenue

Additional state tax liability would be partly offset by reducedfederal tax liability


C


48/54


Modernize the Sales Tax

Expand the sales tax base to cover selected services

Oklahoma currently taxes only 32 of 168 potentiallytaxable services

Taxing services is needed to maintain the long-termadequacy of the sales tax and make the sales tax moreeconomically fair and rational

Should be careful to exclude services consumed primarilyby businesses to avoid pyramiding

Do away with sales tax exemptions benefitting favoredindustries

Pursue collection of online sales throughclick-through/affiliate programs

Combine these measures with ending the sales tax on groceries


Th Ch ll W F


49/54


Provide Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts

If tax cuts are on the table, increasing the personal exemptionand stretching income tax brackets would assist morehouseholds and distribute benefits more broadly than furthercuts to the top rate

Personal exemption has remained unchanged at $1,000 perperson since 1982

Failure for decades to index income tax brackets:

Seven brackets all narrowly squeezed together

Bracket creep56 percent of taxpayers now reach thetop bracket; a much greater share of income is taxedat the highest level


Th Ch ll W F


50/54


Adopt Pay-Go Requirement

Ensure that fiscal balance is maintained by requiring that taxcuts be fully offset with:

New revenues

Elimination of tax breaks

Identified spending cuts

New spending obligations would have to be paid for withadditional revenues or cuts to other services

Current services budget and long-term budget forecasting would

also help policymakers make sustainable budget choices


Th Ch ll W F


51/54


Make smarter expenditure decisions:

Consolidate duplicative agencies and streamline services

Prioritize prevention and surveillance

Ensure adequate funding of public pensions

Give control for making decisions about revenues and spendingback to our elected representatives



52/54


53/54

For More Information

Updated Budget Information okpolicy.org/current-budget-information

Tax Policy Information

http://okpolicy.org/tax-reform-information

Stay informed and get engaged

http://okpolicy.org/take-action Join the Together OK group on Facebook

St C t d


54/54

Stay Connected

E-mail [email protected]

Visit our website www.okpolicy.org and blogwww.okpolicy.org/blog

Subscribe to e-mail alerts at okpolicy.org

Follow @okpolicy on Twitter

Like Oklahoma Policy Institute on Facebook_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Please consider a tax-deductible contribution to support our work.

We are a 501(c)(3) funded by grants and contributions fromindividuals, organizations and businesses. You can donate atokpolicy.org or send a check to:

Oklahoma Policy Institute

P.O. Box 14347

Tulsa, OK 74159-1347
http://www.okpolicy.org/http://www.okpolicy.org/bloghttp://www.okpolicy.org/bloghttp://www.okpolicy.org/

Oklahoma's Fiscal Outlook (June 2012)

Documents

Transcript of Oklahoma's Fiscal Outlook (June 2012)