Big Question: Did Ken Miller Author and support this tax/fee/revenue increase bill?


By Kaye Beach

All of this may seem very confusing but don’t despair, there are really only a few points you need to consider in order to know whether or not Ken Miller bears responsibility for the Health Care Claims Levy;

  1. Ken Miller authored the bill
  2. A bill cannot be altered or advanced without the approval of the author meaning that the author has sole power to withdraw their bill.
  3. If Ken Miller really opposed the bill, he could have killed it.
  4. He didn’t kill it.
  5. The bill authorized a “revenue increase” of 70.6 million dollars
  6. The “revenue increase” is derived from a 1% TAX on medical insurance providers
  7. If it were a “fee” the payer would receive some service of benefit in return.
  8. With this bill, he payer does not gain anything in return.
  9. The revenue increase, by definition is a TAX
  10. And the health care providers are REQUIRED to pay.

All of the above are documented facts.


A.Ken Miller’s assertion that he did not author or support a tax increase is deceitful.

B.Ken Miller did author and supported a TAX INCREASE

C.I do not want a state treasurer who is deceitful

D.I will not vote for Ken Miller.




The final flurry of activity in the 2010 session of the state Legislature, enacting a number of “revenue enhancements” (or fees, or tax hikes, depending on whose interpretation one endorses), remains a source of great controversy.

One piece of the puzzle is House Bill 2359, a revenue increase of $70.6 million. The boost in government tax income came from a combination of provisions, including a decrease in discounts for vendors, and caps on total discounts to vendors, as well as an increase in fees on coin-operated devices. At dawn of the last day of the 2010 regular session, authors of H.B. 2359 were listed as state Rep. Ken Miller of Edmond and Sen. Mike Johnson of Kingfisher.

House conferees reported the bill in what became its final language at 1:45 p.m on that last day — Friday, May 28. The House conferees were Speaker Chris Benge of Tulsa, Rep. Jeff Hickman of Dacoma, and Rep. Ken Miller.

Miller was the author.

As House author, only he could change language in the bill. The conference committee report reflects his agreement to the language.

At 2:11 p.m., Rep. Miller, as House author, asked to be removed as principal author of the bill. He was replaced by Rep. Guy Liebmann of Oklahoma City.

At the same time, Miller was added as co-author of the measure.

At 3:33 p.m., Rep. Miller voted for a motion on “previous question” which passed 61-33. Miller voted for previous question, i.e. to cut off all questions.

Passage of this motion had the effect of preventing further debate on the matter.

Then, at 3:37 p.m., H.B. 2359 was approved in the state House on “fourth reading” by a vote of 61-35, with Rep. Miller voting in opposition.

At 3:40 p.m, a motion to attach an emergency clause to the bill failed narrowly. Although the emergency secured 66 votes, with 32 against, it was short of the votes needed to prevail.

Miller voted against the emergency clause.

Then, at 3:42 p.m., a motion to reconsider the emergency clause for H.B. 2359 passed 67-18.

Miller was one of 16 members who refrained from casting a  vote.

At 3:44 p.m., the emergency clause passed 69-23, with nine members absent.

The motion had barely enough votes to prevail. Miller was one of the absent members.

The measure then went to the Senate, where it passed on fourth reading, at 4:48 p.m., by a vote of 39-9.

The Senate adjourned at 5 p.m.

The bill went to Gov. Brad Henry, who signed it a few days later.

(emphasis added)


5 responses to “Big Question: Did Ken Miller Author and support this tax/fee/revenue increase bill?

    Title 76. Torts
    Section 3 – Definition of Deceit.
    A deceit, within the meaning of the last section is either:
    1. The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true by one who does not believe it to be true.
    2. The assertion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who has no reasonable ground for believing it to be true.
    3. The suppression of a fact by one who is bound to disclose it, or who gives information of other facts which are likely to mislead for want of communication of that fact; or,
    4. A promise, made without any intention of performing.
    Title 76. Torts
    Section 4 – Deceit – Intent to Defraud Individuals.
    One who practices a deceit with intent to defraud the public, or a particular class of persons, is deemed to have intended to defraud every individual in that class, who is actually misled by the deceit.
    Title 76. Torts
    Section 2 – Liability for Damages for Willful Deceit
    One who willfully deceives another, with intent to induce him to alter his position to his injury or risk, is liable for any damage which he thereby suffers.
    Title 76. Torts
    Section 1 – Every Person Bound not to Injure Person or Property of Another or Infringing upon His Rights.
    Every person is bound, without contract, to abstain from injuring the person or property of another, or infringing upon any of his rights.

  2. Very handy, Joe. Thank you

  3. Good job Kaye! Let’s smoke these cockroaches out into the daylight and stomp them.

  4. Joe,
    I think we are safe in saying, Ken Miller was deceitful.

  5. Pingback: List of Injuries and Usupations by Amanda Teegarden, OK-SAFE | AxXiom for Liberty

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s