It does annoy me that the state permit is considered a revenue source. As originally implemented the fees were supposed to fund the permit process, not create a beuarocratic revenue source.
That's always the original (and proper) purpose of a fee associated with a permit or license. And governments can't seem to remember that for very long. In this case, it seems the permit process has grown to a level that requires a certain number of people to run it. If Oklahoma is like my state, the people behind the process are union members, which means if the permit is eliminated and their
raison d'etre evaporates, the state can't just up and lay them off. So the permit becomes self-perpetuating, not because it serves a valid purpose but because the state has all those workers who must be retained and paid.
I'm an architect. When I first got my license in 1974, it cost $25 a year. Since there's no such thing as a national license to practice architecture, there were a LOT of architects from other states who held licenses here just in case they ever got a project here. (I did the same -- for many years I maintained active licenses in California and Maine along with my home state license.)
In the late 70s or very early 80s, the state was (as always) cash-strapped, so they raised professional licensing fees on all professions -- doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers, hairdressers ... every profession. They didn't raise the fee just a little. They didn't even "just" double it. They went from $25 a year to $150 a year. And the first thing that happened was that thousands of out-of-state professionals who were willing to pay $25 a year to keep the license "just in case" took a hard look and said, "Ya know, I've had this license for 20 years and I've never used it -- I guess I really don't need it." So all those out-of-staters -- in all the professions -- just let their licenses lapse, and the net gain for my state from the obscene e fee increase was virtually zero.
