Erin Gillogly Brewer — Deer Creek PLAC, OKPLAC Communications Chair
Like many of you, I have watched the progression of this session's bills attempting to increase the cap on tax credits offered to donors to Oklahoma's Equal Opportunity Scholarship Fund. The current version, Senate Bill 407, is now being heard in Committees of the House. The bill aims to raise the amount the State will offer in tax credits to $30 million, up from $5 million that's available now. Donors of $1,000 filing individually, $2,000 filing jointly, or $100,000 as a corporation can claim 50 - 75% of their gift to reduce their taxes owed.
Today, I received multiple email responses from Representatives answering my message raising concerns about the proposal. To be clear, I shared my opposition to the increase in the credit cap not about the Fund itself (which provides scholarships to private schools and program grants to rural public schools.) I don't believe that Oklahoma can afford to lose $30 million from its general revenue fund that supports all core services.
I was pleased to be getting email replies until I realized that all the responses were the same. And, while they accused people like me of spreading "misinformation", these canned emails were full of inaccuracies. Take a look:
I appreciate that you took the time to write and share your concerns regarding SB 407.
Unfortunately, there has been some misinformation being circulated about this possible piece of legislation.
First, this is NOT a refundable tax credit (similar to those that the wind industry receives). This legislation does not take any funds from general revenue, and addresses money that the state never had and never will have. If citizens are looking for a way to reduce their tax burden, they will always find a way to do it. Why not use the dollars for both public and private school students?
Let's break that down. These Legislators are arguing that this tax credit does not take funds from general revenue because the State doesn't write each donor a check for the value of the credit like they would if it was "refundable." However, this credit DOES reduce taxes owed by allowing the donor to subtract the credit amount from their final tax bill. Which DOES reduce general revenue.
So, how about the notion that this is money the State "never had and never will have" because people "who are looking for a way to reduce their tax burden ... will always find a way to do it"? It's true, there are many State-sponsored opportunities to reduce one's taxes as well as tax code loopholes that allow filers to pay less. But, is that a sound argument for creating yet another way to avoid taxes? If we really believe some people will literally never pay taxes, why are we trying to charge and collect them at all? No one actually believes that - it's just a diversion tactic.
While we're on it, why should we avoid paying taxes? Don't we all enjoy the things our collective taxes provide? I like driving on well-maintained roads, calling on first responders when needed, living in a safe community and sending my kids to my local public school. Taxes are part of the privilege of living in a democracy where we all contribute in order to share benefits for the common good. Let's push back on the idea that the State is taking money that doesn't belong to it and rather, be appreciative of what we receive for our taxes paid.
This bill also makes the current law WAY better for public schools by providing a larger pool for grants and by removing the cap on the size of school that can apply for a grant. Now Edmond can apply. How cool would it be if our schools were able to apply for a grant to put in a STEM lab or get iPads or Chromebooks for every student?
This paragraph begins with fact. It is true that SB407 has been improved to allow far more public schools to apply for the grants and to expand the donation recipients to include public schools and their foundations rather than just a granting organization. And, yes it is "cool" for schools to be able to apply for grants. But, only a few schools will win. And, wouldn't it be cooler if ALL schools just got enough funding from the State to provide technology, STEM labs, Art and Music programs, new textbooks, smaller class sizes and all the things they needed to be their best for their students? Rather than give $30 million away, let's just put that into the common education funding formula.
Third, I do not believe that just because something benefits private schools, it is bad for public education. I find that legislation like SB 407 benefits both without having adverse effects on the state budget.
I plan to vote yes on SB 407 because I am forall children, whether in public or private schools and this bill uses private funds rather than state funds to help both.
This last point brings us to basic philosophy. It seems that these Legislators feel compelled to support both public and private schools at the State level. Private schools operate of their own volition. They should remain autonomous entities free from State interference. Which begs the question, why is the Legislature actively seeking to support private schools? Do our elected officials believe our public schools are deficient? If so, that notion couldn't be farther from the truth. Regardless, shouldn't the State seek to make its public schools the very best by giving them its sole focus and support?
I will continue to advocate against SB407 and bills like it. The best way to support ALL kids is to ensure that they live in a state with excellent healthcare, sound mental health services, safe roads, outstanding first responders, a fair criminal justice system, and a celebrated system of public schools creating a well-educated society. Allowing our focus to be distracted from any of those things is failing our citizens.
- Erin Gillogly Brewer
Erin is a public school grad, parent and advocate. She serves on the leadership teams of both the Deer Creek and Oklahoma Parent Legislative Action Commitees (PLAC).