Weekly Opinion Editorial

SCOTUS WILL HEAR PRO-LIFE CASE!

by Steve Fair

     The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has announced they will hear Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health in the Fall of 2021.  The case involves a 15-week abortion ban law passed by Mississippi in 2018.  The Oklahoma legislature passed a similar law this year and it was signed into law by Governor Stitt.  There are 1,200 abortion restriction laws across the U.S.      

     The state of Mississippi lost their case in the fifth circuit appeals court and appealed to the high court.   This will be the first major SCOTUS abortion case since Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court.  Three observations:

     First, if this case is decided for the state of Mississippi, it could potentially unravel Roe vs. Wade.  In 1992, the SCOTUS upheld Roe vs. Wade in a lawsuit involving Planned Parenthood.  In that ruling, the court said restrictions on abortion could not pose an undue burden on someone seeking an abortion. The expectation is the interpretation of what constitutes an ‘undue burden’ will be the central issue in the case.

     Second, the pro-abortion advocates are worried.  Their argument is restrictions on abortions before the baby is able to live outside the womb are unconstitutional.  Their biggest fear is the SCOTUS uphold the 15 week abortion ban and then rules the abortion issue is up to each individual state.  They want the court to side with the appeals court and strike down the Mississippi law and also reaffirm the Planned Parenthood ruling.  That scenario is not likely considering the current makeup of the court. 

     Third, Democrats want to expand abortion and have the American taxpayer pay for it.  Last week, the 45 year old Hyde Amendment, which prohibited tax dollars to be used for abortions, was removed from the federal budget by the House Appropriations Committee.  The vote was 32-27 along Party lines.  Congressman Tom Cole, (R-Moore) is a member of the committee.  Cole said this: “This bill goes even further than just forcing American taxpayers to foot the bill for abortion on demand. This bill also deletes conscience protection language added 16 years ago by then-Congressman Dave Weldon. That language protects American doctors, nurses and other health care professionals from participating in or providing an abortion if they have a moral objection. This is an essential right of every American and its removal is a danger to us all.” If the Hyde amendment is not restored to the federal budget, then American taxpayers will be footing the bills for abortions.  The 2022 budget bill now goes to the full House for a vote. 

     Democrats are using the abortion issue to ‘fire up their base’ for the mid-term elections.  They know elections have consequences and the only way to keep abortion on the books is to get more pro-abortion candidates elected.  If the SCOTUS rules for the unborn in the Dobbs case, then expect Democrats to redouble their efforts.

     The first right granted to Americans is the right to life- followed by liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  That right should extend to life in the womb, but for 48 years, that has not been the case.  With the addition of three conservative Justices to the SCOTUS, many unborn Americans may have a shot at liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

NON-CONSECUTIVE TERM?

by Steve Fair

     President Grover Cleveland was the first Democrat president elected after the Civil War.  He served two non-consecutive terms- the only president to do so in American history.  Cleveland was elected in 1884 as the 22^nd president.  He was defeated in 1888 by Republican Benjamin Harrison, after losing his home state of New York.   in 1888, they met again, with Cleveland winning what historians say was the ‘cleanest, quietest and most creditable in the memory of the post-civil war.’  President Harrison’s wife was dying of tuberculosis and he did not personally campaign at all.  His wife died two weeks before the election and by that time both candidates had stopped campaigning. 

     Four other times in our nation’s history, former presidents have sought to win back the White House.  In 1840, Martin Van Buren lost his bid for reelection and then ran again for the Democratic nomination in 1844 and 1848, losing both times.  In 1850, Millard Fillmore became president when Zachary Taylor died in office.  He didn’t get the Whig party nomination in 1852, but did in 1856 and got just eight electoral votes.  Ulysses S. Grant wanted to run for a third term in 1876, but was persuaded to not run by Republican Party leaders.  Grant sought the GOP nomination in 1880, but was defeated by James Garfield.  Teddy Roosevelt became president in 1901, when William McKinley was assassinated.  He won in 1904 and then declined to run in 1908, instead endorsing William Howard Taft.  He became upset with Taft and challenged him for the GOP nomination in 1912.  After losing to Taft, Teddy ran as an Independent under the Bull Moose Party banner.  Teddy spilt the vote and Taft finished third and Democrat Woodrow Wilson won.

     Although nothing in the original U.S. Constitution limited presidents to two terms, George Washington declined to seek a third term and suggested two terms of four years were enough for any president.  That became the unwritten rule for presidents until 1940, when Franklin Roosevelt won his third term and then won a fourth term in 1944.  He died just months into his fourth term.  In 1947, Congress passed the 22^nd amendment, which limits the POTUS to two terms.  It was ratified by the states on February 27, 1951. 

     Former President Donald Trump appears to be a 2024 presidential candidate.  His speech at the CPAC convention in Dallas was vintage Trump.  It resulted in Trump winning the ‘straw poll’ for 2024 potential GOP candidates by a wide margin.  Three observations:

     First, Trump is a known commodity.  That means he has a strong base of support, but he also faces strong opposition in his own Party.  One of the keys to winning a general election is to get those who supported another candidate in the primary to support you in the general election.  Trump polarizing personality could make that challenging.  Most anti-Trumpers in the GOP wouldn’t vote for a Democrat, but they can stay home. 

     Second, the swing vote is the key.  Trump won in 2016 because he appealed to organized labor with his ‘America First’ theme.  In 2020, he didn’t do as well with that group.  They didn’t turn out in the numbers necessary to push him over the top.  Part of that was due to the slow down of the economy due to the pandemic, but many felt like the return of manufacturing to the U.S. Trump had promised was too slow. 

     Third, if Trump loses the nomination and then runs on a third-Party ticket,  the Democrat will be elected.  President Teddy Roosevelt is an excellent example.  Ross Perot ran as a third-Party candidate and got Bill Clinton elected by siphoning votes away from President George HW Bush. 

     It seems too soon to be talking about the 2024 presidential election, but expect Trump to clear the field on the GOP side if he decides to do something no president in modern history has done; seek a non-consecutive second term.

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

SERVITUDE TO THE GOVERNMENT!

by Steve Fair

     Does civic engagement or political involvement really make a difference?  Do elected officials (at any level) listen to the average citizen or do they heed only their close advisors and/or their donor base?  Is the U.S. political system driven purely by money?  What is the function of a political Party?  These are frequently asked questions.  Let’s briefly examine each.

     First, being involved in civic life does make a difference.  Engaging in politics can mean different things to different people.  It can run the spectrum from watching political news shows, studying political science, voting, becoming a candidate for office, volunteering on a political campaign, to having a career in consulting, strategy or public relations.  Political activists, no matter their Party affiliation, who have been engaged for years move the needle.  They have established a track record of staying engaged and elected officials usually don’t ignore them. 

     Second, elected officials listen to those who hold them accountable.  That starts with citizens showing up, whether it’s a town hall meeting, campaign event or a public appearance.  The world is run by those that show up. 

     Elected officials should be delighted, elated, and ecstatic to respectfully explain a vote or position on an issue to their constituency.  It is logical elected officials listen to those who help them get elected (donors/campaign advisors), but constituents who challenge elected official’s votes and positions are hard to ignore.  Without accountability from an informed constituency, elected officials can become intelligently lazy, unconcerned and complacent.

     Third, money is the mother’s milk of politics.  Political campaigns, at all levels, cost an incredible amount of money.  Few candidates can self-fund, so they by necessity solicit donations from individuals, industry associations, and advocacy groups to pay for their campaign.  Virtually every campaign contribution comes with ‘strings,’ whether the candidate recognizes it or not.  Those big donors expect the candidate, when elected, to listen to them- and they do or they don’t get a second check.  All donors are not corrupt and they have the right to lobby an elected official, same as other citizens.  Sadly, sometimes elected officials forget they represent an entire constituency/district, not just those who donated to their campaign or voted for them.   

     Fourth, a political Party provides infrastructure for candidates.   Elected officials sometimes say they don’t believe their Party does anything for them.  That is simply not true.  The Party provides a ‘brand,’ an ‘identity’ for a candidate.  If a candidate/elected official truly believes a Party doesn’t do anything for them, perhaps they should run as an Independent the next time they file for office.  Having the Party label helps a candidate- it gets them the base vote.   

     Sadly, political Parties are often maligned and attacked by those not involved in Party politics.  Long term political Party volunteers unselfishly give of their time, talent and treasure, not because of the glamorous, alluring nature of the job.  They stay involved because they care about the cause.  They should be respected and commended for their faithfulness, not attacked, criticized and belittled by those who just woke up from their apathic deep sleep, decided to get involved and blame all the problems with politics on those who have been involved longer than fifteen minutes.   

     Vigilance is the action or state of keeping careful watch for possible damage or difficulties.  The vigilant are alert and attentive for an extended period of time. John Philpot Curran said, “The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.”  Sadly, the scarcity of vigilance by everyday Americans to be involved in their own government has placed them in servitude to that government.

Weekly Opinion Editorial 

HYDE AMENDMENT UNDER ATTACK!

by Steve Fair

         The Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision that bars the use of federal tax dollars to pay for abortions, except to save the life of the woman or if the pregnancy arises from rape or incest.  It was passed in 1976 by a vote of 312-93 in the U.S. House.  It was named for Republican Congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois and has saved an estimated 2.5 million unborn children since it’s inception.  It was the first major legislative gain by the pro-life movement after the Roe vs. Wade ruling by the Supreme Court in 1973.  Congress has altered the Hyde amendment several times through the years.  In 2017, then Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, (R-Wi) passed HR 7, which would have made the Hyde amendment permanent, but it failed to pass the Senate and did not become law. Three observations:

     First, the Democratic Party platform calls for the repeal of the Hyde amendment.  It was added to the platform in 2016.  It says: We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion—regardless of where she lives, how much money she makes, or how she is insured.  Democrats believe the American taxpayer should fund abortion- whether they agree with it or not.

     Democratscite statistics that the Hyde amendment disproportionately affects lower income women, saying that 42% of abortion recipients live below the poverty line.  In President Biden’s 2021 budget to Congress, he removed the long-standing ban on federal funded abortions.  Biden, a lifelong Catholic, supported the Hyde amendment for decades but during the 2020 presidential election he promised he would work to get it repealed.  “Women’s rights and women’s health are under assault like we haven’t seen in the last 50 years.  If I believe health is a right, as I do, I can no longer support the Hyde amendment,”Biden said during the campaign.

     Second, the fight to retain the Hyde amendment will be in the U.S. Senate.  With Democrats in control of the U.S. House, it is likely they will vote to repeal the amendment.  There are just two pro-life Democrats left in the House.  There are only three Democrats in the Senate.  Those five are the firewall.  It appears the Hyde amendment will not be repealed this year, but the Democratic Party has primaried pro-life members in the past two election cycles, defeating a Democrat pro-life Congressman last year.  It makes the 2022 election cycle very important for the unborn.    

     Third, a majority of Americans oppose taxpayer funded abortions.  In a January 2021 poll conducted by the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, 58% of Americans oppose or strongly oppose using tax dollars to pay for abortions.  The poll found 65% of voters registered Independent, 31% registered Democrat and 85% of Republicans opposed.  Democrats run the risk of aliening pro-life Democrats if they continue to push for repeal of Hyde.

     The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports there are 11.2 abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age in America.  There are over 800,000 babies aborted in the United States each year.  President Biden says he believes in the right to health care, but the unborn American’s’ ‘right to health care’ is under savage assault.  The first shot of the assault is the repeal of the Hyde amendment.

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

INFLATION IS A MUGGER!

by Steve Fair

     Inflation occurs when the purchasing power of the dollar declines.  When the price of a basket of selected goods and services rise due to increased costs to produce the good and service, inflation happens.  For years, economists have believed increased US government economic policy(regulations/restrictions/intervention) would keep inflation to a minimum.  But in the past six months, major grain. oilseed and edible oil prices are at historical highs, crude oil prices are at six times the year ago level and freight rates are up +25%.  Food prices according to the USDA have increased by 3-4% each month since March.  Investors are nervous and Wall Street has stalled.  Consumers are seeing increased prices at the shelf and at the pump.  Inflation has returned and it is the result of bad economic policy.  Three observations:

     First, some inflation can be healthy for an economy if it is a by-product of a growing economy.  But it needs to be controlled and temporary.  The current inflation trend is neither.  Criticism of President Biden’s economic policies comes from not only Republicans, but Democrats as well.  Lawrence Summers, former Secretary of Treasury in the Clinton administration and a former economic advisor to President Obama says President Biden’s stimulus plan has been the driving force behind recent inflation.  Summers says Biden and his policies are causing “inflationary pressure of a kind we have not seen in a generation, with consequences for the value of the dollar and financial stability.”

     Second, President Biden’s economic policy is not free market driven.  By continuing to send citizens stimulus checks and unemployment payments, Biden has hurt the economy.  Employers across America can’t get people to work because they can stay home and make as much money not working.  Promoting laziness, idleness and sloth is not good economic policy.  The cornerstone of Biden’s economic policy is tax increases and more government spending, which he believes will get inflation under control.  President Reagan said, “People who think a tax boost will cure inflation are the same ones who believe another drink will cure a hangover.”

     Third, millennials have no reference point in regard to economic inflation.  Before most of them were born, in the late 70s and early 80s, inflation was out of control in the U.S.  In 1975, the annual inflation rate was 10.1%.  It was 9.6% in 1981.  Home mortgage rates were over 10% APR.  In 1980, President Jimmy Carter was defeated by Ronald Reagan, primarily because of inflation and the economy.   President Reagan took a three-pronged approach to curbing inflation; (1) Reduced government spending on domestic programs, (2) Reduced taxes, and (3) Reduced the burden of regulations on businesses.  During Reagan’s two terms (8 years), the U.S. economy was turned around and inflation brought under control, using supply side economic policy.

     The real issue with inflation is wages don’t increase as fast as consumer prices increase.  That hurts consumer confidence and stalls the economy.  President Reagan said, “Inflation is as violent as a mugger, as frightening as an armed robber and as deadly as a hit man.”  Hopefully the inflation rates of 40 years ago will not be seen again, but socialist economic policy coupled with more government regulation could make that possible.

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

G7 USES U.S. AS ATM!

by Steve Fair

     In 1973, then Secretary of Treasury George Schultz convened an informal meeting of the five top economic democracies in the world in order to discuss how to get inflation and monetary exchange rates under control.  That group evolved to became the Group of Seven(G7), an inter-governmental political forum that seeks solutions to issues of trade, security and economics in the world. The seven countries- Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom(UK), and the United States account for 10% of the globe’s population, but have 60% of the world’s net wealth and one third of the worlds GDP.

    This past week, President Joe Biden made his first out of the country trip since being elected, attending the G7 summit in England.  He said the gathering was ‘an extraordinarily collaborative and productive meeting.’  He went on to say that his engagement with the other leaders in the G7 was met with ‘genuine enthusiasm.’  Biden announced at the meeting that American taxpayers will pay for 500 million coronavirus vaccine doses to be used throughout the world.  The president pressed the group to push for a minimum 15% corporate income global tax.  A point of fact; corporations don’t pay taxes, consumers do.  Corporations simply pass taxes and fees onto their customers in the form of price increases. Biden also walked back President Trump’s demand that European countries pay their fair share in NATO.

     “America’s back in the business of leading the world alongside nations who share our most deeply held values.  I think we’ve made progress in reestablishing American credibility among our closest friends.” Biden said.  Three observations:

     First, most of the members of the G7 do not share the U.S.’s most deeply held values.  America is a democratic republic founded on a specific written document.  The US constitution grants unprecedented and very specific rights to American citizens.  It is codified(written down/systematized).  In the UK the constitution is uncodified(unwritten).  The British form of government allows parliament to enact laws no other body can challenge.  Most of the members of the G7 are democratic socialist nations, with similar forms of government to the UK.  Most despise capitalism and a constitutional republic form of government. 

     Second, a friend doesn’t let you pay their bills.  The reason President Trump wasn’t popular among G7 leaders was because he pushed them to pay their fair share.  The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was founded to stop the Soviet Union from propping up shadow governments in Europe after WWII.  It was to be funded by the member nations.  Since it’s formation, the US has foot the bill. 

     In 2014, after some pressure, Germany agreed to spend 2% of GDP on their military defense, but have never spent more than half that.  Germany, and 27 other nations in the alliance, allow United States taxpayers to fund 70% of the cost to protect Europe.  Those types are called freeloaders, moochers, bloodsuckers, leeches or parasites, but certainly not friends. 

     Third, America’s credibility took a hit at the G7.  During President Trump’s term, he called out the member nations unwillingness to pay their fair share.   Credibility involves trustworthiness, integrity, and character.  Biden’s return to the same ‘open checkbook’ policies of the Obama years were met with enthusiasm, but rest assured the other six members of the G7 respected and feared America more under the Trump administration. 

     In its infancy the G7 forums served a purpose- to stabilize the world’s out of control inflation and fluctuating currency exchanges.  G7 still deals with those issues but its primary initiative has moved to spending taxpayer money on global initiatives that have little to do with economic stability.  G7 is an organization pushing a global agenda using the US as little more than an ATM machine. 

 Weekly Opinon Editorial

MORE THAN SELF

by Steve Fair

     Sunday June 6th marked the 77^thanniversary of the beginning of the Battle of Normandy- codenamed Operation Overlord.  The battle lasted for two months and ultimately resulted in the liberation of Western Europe from Nazi Germany’s control. 156,000 American, British and Canadian forces landed on five beaches along a 50 mile stretch of France’s Normandy region.  73,000 Americans, 63,000 British, and 20,000 Canadian troops, 5,000 ships and landing craft, and 11,000 aircraft were involved in the largest military assaults in modern history. General Dwight D. Eisenhower, commander of the Allied troops, told the troops: “You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months.  The eyes of the world are upon you.”   The landings have been called the beginning of the end of war in Europe.  Less than a year after the invasion, Germany unconditionally surrendered. 

      More than 8,300 American soldiers lost their life that day on the five beaches- Allied troops total losses were 12,000- most of them at Omaha Beach.  Germany had twice that number of fatalities.  That evening, in 1944, President Franklin Roosevelt spoke to the nation via radio.  Instead of making a speech, FDR offered a prayer.  That’s right, a liberal Democratic president prayed to Almighty God.  The text of that prayer is available online and every American should read it.    Three observations about D day:

     First, The Allied forces were liberating, not conquering.  Some critics of the invasion claim America wasn’t under any threat, even though Hitler had declared war on the U.S. in December of 1941.  They believe the thousands of young Americans who lost their life liberating people in a faraway land were simply pawns of the U.S. government.  But Americans in 1944 believed there was a cause.  Nazi Germany had killed millions of Jews, Poles, and other Europeans in Hitler’s attempt to build a ‘super race.’  Freedom in countries under Nazi rule was non-existent.  They saw Nazi Germany as a threat to their way of life.

     Second, we don’t really understand what a Nazi was.  The evil actions of Nazi Germany were some of the most oppressive, cruel and wicked recorded in human history.  When a civil rights activist calls a political opponent a Nazi, they reveal they don’t really understand what a Nazi was.  Nazis didn’t allow freedom of speech or dissenting in their totalitarian system of rule.   Throwing the term Nazi around those who disagree is reckless and careless.

     Third, it’s doubtful modern-day Americans could/would participate in another D day.  The dedication to the cause of freedom that doesn’t direct impact them isn’t there.  They will fight for their individual freedom, but collective freedom and a way of life?  It’s not their battle.  They take a laissez faire attitude toward any cause that doesn’t direct impact them.  They are woken, enlightened, and illuminated, but most lack the courage to storm a beach to fight for freedom. 

     President Ronald Reagan spoke from Omaha Beach in 1984 on the 50^th anniversary of the invasion.  He said, “What inspired all the men of the armies that met here? It was faith and belief; it was loyalty and love. The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next. It was the deep knowledge — and pray God we have not lost it — that there is a profound, moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt”

     Thank God for people who ‘more than self, their country loved,’ otherwise woken Americans would be speaking German.

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

ELIGIBLE VOTERS

by Steve Fair

     On Sunday, just before the 2021 session adjournment, the Texas legislature passed Senate Bill #7(SB7) along Party lines.  SB#7 is an election reform bill that cuts back on early voting hours, bans drive-through voting, makes it a jail felony for local officials to send mail-in ballots to voters that didn’t request them and expands access for poll watchers in the Lone Star state.  It further adds new identification requirements for mail-in ballots. 

     SB#7 was aimed at Harris County (Houston), a Democratic stronghold, where during the 2020 general election 140,000 people voted from their cars at 24-hour polling places.  Critics of Harris County’s practices said there was little effort to insure those who voted were who they said they were.  Proponents said the practices allowed many who had never voted before to cast a ballot.  Governor Greg Abbott is expected to sign SB#7 when it reaches his desk.  Similar election reform measures have passed in Iowa, Georgia and Florida’s state legislature.  On Sunday, after it was passed, President Biden called SB#7 ‘wrong and un-American.  Four observations:

     First, it is past time Republicans took on election reform.  In their 2008 ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the state of Indiana’s voter ID law by a 6-3 vote and said there were ‘fragrant examples of voter fraud throughout U.S. history,’ thus the need to insure those who were voting were who they said they were.  Democrats have consistently opposed voter ID laws.  Why would anyone oppose such a common-sense idea as voter identification?  The only logical answer is they could care less about election integrity, only winning.

    Second, early voting should be limited.  Until the last decade, early voting was very limited.  A person could vote by absentee ballot, but otherwise, they had to show up on election day and cast their ballot.  In order to accommodate our ‘convenience/consumer driven’ society, early voting was implemented.  Initially, early voting was a couple of days before the actual election, but then some states expanded it to weeks before the election.  T

     There are two potential issues with early voting; (1) there must be a fool proof way to insure no one casts two ballots- one early and one on election day, and (2) in many elections, something major happens late in the campaign that might change a voter’s mind, but they have already cast their ballot. Oklahoma’s three days before the actual election early voting system is convenient enough. 

     Third, voter fraud is real.  On their website, the Heritage Foundation cite eleven examples, starting back in 1983 forward of election fraud.  They list nine methods of voter fraud- from voter impersonation at the polls to fraudulent use of absentee ballots.  In Harris County, Texas unsolicited absentee ballots were sent out and then allowed to be sent back with no voter identification verification.  SB#7 makes that a felony in Texas.  That should be the case nationwide.

     Fourth, Democrats are working on election reform as well.  HB#1, proposed by President Biden would implement Harris County’s 2020 ‘wink and nod’ practices to every voting precinct in the country.  That, Mr. President is ‘wrong and unamerican.’ 

     “In the 21^st century, we should be making it easier, not harder, for every eligible voter to vote,”the president says.  The two key words are eligible voter.  Just who determines who is eligible to vote?  According to Democrats, it is anyone who votes straight Democrat. 

     The Heritage Foundation is right when they say: “Election integrity is essential and the security of the ballot box cannot be left to a simple honor system. It is incumbent upon state governments to safeguard the electoral process, and ensure that every voter’s right to cast a ballot is protected.”

Weekly Opinion Editorial 

RECORD BUDGET PASSED!

by Steve Fair

     Last week the Oklahoma legislature passed the 2022 fiscal year budget.  The total budget is $8.8 billion, an increase of +14.3% over last year’s $7.7 billion.  Oklahoma has a ‘balanced budget’ amendment in the state constitution.  The legislature can’t spend more than revenue than they take in, but in the past five years the legislature has passed historical tax increases that have resulted in an increase of over $1.1 billion in revenue. 

     Oklahoma is heavily dependent on sales tax revenue.  45% of tax revenue comes from sales tax. 40% more comes from state income tax.  The new budget includes $3.2 billion for common education- up more than $210 million over last year.  That doesn’t include an increase of $27 million for textbook funding and school activity funds.  Over the past five years, the education funding in Oklahoma has increased by $776 million.   The education lobby shouldn’t complain about funding, but rest assured they will. 

     The budget does include a slight tax cut.  Personal income tax in the Sooner state will be reduced a whopping ¼ of 1%(from 5% to 4.75%) and corporate income tax will be reduced from 6 to 4%.  The decrease will place Oklahoma in the Top Ten for lowest corporate and personal income taxes in the country.  It also includes funding for the Attorney General to represent the state in legal challenges associated with the McGirt case.  Three observations:

     First, the legislature doesn’t fund the budget- Oklahoma taxpayers do.  In press releases by both chambers, lawmakers bragged about funding core services (and some not so core) with taxpayer money.  Taxpayers should never lose sight of the fact government has no money to fund anything.  Every dime government gets comes out of taxpayer’s pockets.  That simple fact is often forgotten, but it shouldn’t be.

     Second, the Oklahoma government budget has grown at twice the rate of Oklahoman’s income.  In five years the state budget has grown by +23%.  In 2017, the state budget was $6.78 billion.  According to the U.S. Census Bureau, during the same period, Oklahomans per capita income grew +12%.  It is not healthy for government to grow at twice the rate of those that fund it.

     Third, Oklahoma taxpayers may be pleased with the ’22 budget.  If so, that’s great, but the vast majority of citizens have little or no knowledge of how much of their money the state spends.  The ’22 budget has a plenitude of funding for a plethora of programs- some worthy- some not.  It’s the responsibility of the taxpayer/voter to call their respective legislators into account for how their money is being spent.

      Four fundamental economic principles should guide elected officials when they consider fiscal issues: (1) Every dime of spending must undergo a cost vs. benefits evaluation, (2) Government spending affects the growth of the private sector.  Every dime spent by the government in effect competes with private sector monies, (3) The private sector always delivers services in a more effective way than the government, (4) Government spending should work to spur individual responsibility, not discourage it.    

     The late U.S. Senator Tom Coburn said, “Republicans should simply focus on first principles and give the American people what they want-an honest Party dedicated to common sense, fiscal responsibility and limited government.”

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

MCGIRT RULING FALLOUT!

by Steve Fair

     The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals voted unanimously last week to strike down the conviction of Miles Bench for the brutal murder of Braylee Henry. The five-member court found Bench was a tribal member (Choctaw tribe) and the crime happened on tribal land (Chickasaw reservation) and therefore Bench should have been tried in federal court and not state court. The ruling came about because of the July 2020 U.S. Supreme Court McGirt vs. Oklahoma decision. Judge Gary Lumpkin said while he doesn’t agree with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on McGirt, he is still required to follow it. “This despicable crime occurred in Indian Territory and was carried out by a tribal member, so it left us no choice but to rule to strike down the conviction”Lumpkin said.

     Braylee Henry was just sixteen years old when Bench attacked her on June 6, 2012 at the Velma, Oklahoma convenience store where he worked. Henry went to the store to get a soda and candy. Her body was found on property owned by Bench’s grandparents. Bench was twenty-four at the time. Bench was tried, convicted and sentenced to death in 2015.

      At this point, Bench will not be released from jail. The U.S. Attorney’s office charged him in April with kidnapping resulting in death. Bench will face trial at the federal level for the crime, but the death penalty may not be on the table. According to District Attorney Jason Hicks, “the tribes have not consented to allow their tribal members to be executed by the federal government.” Two observations:

     First, the McGirt decision had/has serious implications for Oklahomans. When the SCOTUS ruled against the state of Oklahoma to exercise criminal jurisdiction over Native American tribal members who perpetrate violent crimes, or are the victims of them committed within the boundaries of the Creek Nation, they opened up a can of worms. The court claims the 1866 treaties with the Five Civilized Tribes remains intact and Congress failed to ‘disestablish’ the reservations of the tribes. Dozens of tribal members who are serving time after being convicted in state court have appealed to have their convictions struck down because the state didn’t have jurisdiction. Did Congress flub up in 1907 when they combined Oklahoma territory and Indian Territory into one and granted statehood to Oklahoma? Did Congress fail to ‘disestablish’ the reservations? If so, it should be fixed. According to a SCOTUS nineteenth century ruling known as the ‘plenary power doctrine,’ Congress has supreme supervisory authority over tribes. They should exercise that authority and disestablish the reservations.

     Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Robert Hudson called on Congress to make a ‘practical solution’ to the issues of the McGirt ruling. Congressman Tom Cole, (R-Moore) has proposed legislation that would allow compacts between the state and the Chickasaw and Choctaw tribes.  It’s not likely to be fast tracked so long as Democrats control Congress.

     Second, victims of crimes and their families shouldn’t have to endure this another trial.  That is a miscarriage of justice. Bench was tried and convicted by a jury of his peers in 2015- three years after the crime was committed. Where is the justice for Baylee Henry? Nine years after her death, her family will have to relive the nightmare of a second trial. “It is just heart wrenching that we have to re-live this again. I believe we are making heroes and lifting these criminals up instead of the victims and the lives they took,” Renee Henson, Baylee’s mother said after the court’s ruling.