.

.

OCPA Questions the Raid On The Rainy Day Fund

WAS IT LEGAL TO DRAIN OKLAHOMA’S RAINY DAY FUND?
  • Posted:2017-04-13 12:19:43 UTC-05:00
    I would like to hear from our gubernatorial candidates about the draining of ("borrowing from") our Constitutional Reserve Fund ("Rainy Day Fund").

    The article [from Trent England of OCPA] provides a breakdown of the constitutional provisions forming the fund and the government's allowed ability to dip into it. It sure sounds like it was not done in accordance to the Constitution, but I am not aware of all details.
    Is there anything I am missing? Is Trent's criticism valid?

    WAS IT LEGAL TO DRAIN OKLAHOMA’S RAINY DAY FUND?

    April 3, 2017 - 5:11pm CDT



    Trent England

    Gov. Mary Fallin’s administration has drained Oklahoma’s Constitutional Reserve Fund, often called the Rainy Day Fund. Executive branch officials spent all $240 million from the Fund to pay the state’s monthly bills rather than declare a larger or additional revenue shortfall. Whether or not this was good budget policy, was it legal?
    Can the executive branch spend money from the Constitutional Reserve Fund at will, so long as they promise to repay those funds before the end of the fiscal year? Here is a look at the law.

    Oklahoma’s Constitutional Reserve Fund is established and governed by the Oklahoma Constitution, section 23 of Article 10. The section creates the framework for the state’s budget process and begins as follows:
    Read the rest at OCPAthink.

Popular posts from this blog

Tenth Amendment Center: Permission not Required: “Constitutional Carry” Bill Introduced in South Dakota

Image
...from Tenth Amendment Center PIERRE , S.D. (Jan. 11, 2019) – A “Constitutional Carry” bill introduced in the South Dakota House would make it legal to carry a firearm without a license in the state, fostering an environment hostile to federal gun control. Sen. Lance Russell (R-Hot Springs) introduced Senate Bill 38 ( SB38 ) on Jan. 6, with eight cosponsors from both chambers. The bill seeks to repeal numerous sections of state law requiring state residents to have a license in order to carry a concealed weapon, while still allowing county sheriffs to issue permits. Under current state law , residents are required to have a conceal carry license to have a weapon in their vehicle. Former Gov. Dennis Daugaard rejected similar measures in the past, but with the election of Kristi Noem, supporters hope the legislation can be signed into law this time around. Gun shop owner Brandon Maddox told news station KSFY that a concealed carry permit is redundant. “I think that the secon...
Read more

Tenth Amendment Center: Hemp Decriminalized in Washington, But Opposition Remains Strong

Image
...from Tenth Amendment Center OLYMPIA , Wash. (May 5, 2017) – A bill recently signed by Washington Gov. Gov. Jay Inslee removed industrial hemp from the states controlled substance list, authorizing hemp production despite federal prohibition. But at least one state agency refuses to go down without a fight and essentially wants to help attorney general Jeff Sessions wage his war on cannabis. House Bill 2064 ( HB2064 ) simply removed industrial hemp from the state’s controlled substances act. While marijuana is legal in Washington state, it is still considered a controlled substance and heavily regulated. Passage of HB2064 removed hemp from regulation as a controlled substance, opening the door for a full-scale commercial hemp market in the state by treating it like any other crop for farming. But the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) wants to license and regulate hemp cultivation, and ensure that all hemp growers comply with federal regulation. Another bill passed...
Read more

Tenth Amendment Center: Taking Madison out of Context

Image
...from Tenth Amendment Center Establishment conservative and liberal constitutional “experts” have been telling us – for years – that James Madison opposed nullification all the time, in every instance. They’re either ignorant, or lying.  Or both. Like they do for all their twisted views, they trot out a quote from Madison, but it’s used entirely out of context. Unfortunately, however, many people in the general public pick up on this, and – maybe they’re just too lazy to read more than a simple quote.  But, the end result is that they will often post that quote in a comment stream in the hopes of saying that Madison – opposed nullification. He didn’t. First of all, here’s the quote:   Simply reading Stephen’s comment – one might be led to believe that Madison did, indeed oppose nullification. However, like the way our opposition excludes the phrase “in pursuance thereof” when talking about the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, many people seem to...
Read more