TAXPAYERS PAYING FOR FREE LUNCH!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

FREE LUNCH

by Steve Fair

     Back in 2020, Oklahoma voters narrowly approved Medicaid expansion.  The expansion provided health care to around 200,000 previously uninsured low-income adults aged 19-64 whose income was less than $17,000 a year individually or up to $29,000 for a family of three. Back then, the federal government was paying 90% of the cost, while the state paid 10%.  Supporters of the expansion said Oklahomans would be fools to turn down ‘free’ money.  But as is often the case, the ‘free’ money the federal government was supplying to expand Medicaid is being cut.  That cut will put a great deal of pressure on Oklahoma state government.  Three observations:

     First Medicaid expansion was a short-term solution to a long-term problem.  More than 900,000 Oklahomans- 1 in 4- depend on Medicaid.  Oklahoma is among one of the unhealthiest states in the U.S.  It is also one of the poorest. Back in 2020, rural health care providers (hospitals) needed the Medicaid expansion money to help their bleeding bottom line.  The providers and recipients were willing to take the bait offered by the feds for ‘free’ money, even if they recognized it was temporary.    

     According to the Legislative Office of Fiscal Accountability (LOFT), if the feds stop funding Medicaid expansion, it will cost state taxpayers over $200 million annually starting next fiscal year.  That $200 million has to come from somewhere, so basic services (public safety, etc.) will likely be impacted. 

     Second, government should not be in the health care business.  Government’s function, according to Article 1, section 8 is to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the country.  Liberals interpret “general welfare” as the founders endorsing socialized, taxpayer funded health care.   While it is true, "general welfare" has been interpreted to include health care programs, like Medicare and Medicaid, the Supreme Court has never interpreted it as the U.S. Constitution explicitly guaranteeing right to health care.  Like pretty much everything else it touches, government involvement in health care has led to degradation and decay, not discovery and development.

     Third, free money doesn’t exist.  Somebody is always paying the bill.    Like everything else, taxpayers pay the cost of Medicaid expansion.  Government has no ‘free’ money to give.  The only money government has is what is collected from hard working citizens and then returned less a large handling fee. 

     Years ago, bars provided a ‘free’ lunch to patrons who purchased at least one drink.  The ‘free’ food was unusually high in salt, so the customers would buy more beer.  In his book, “There’s no such thing as a Free Lunch,” economist Milton Friedman points out the patrons were not really getting a free lunch, but were being duped by the bar.  The purchasers all eventually paid for their ‘free’ snack. 

     Back in 2020, Oklahoma voters-prompted by elected officials and health care providers- prioritized immediate gains over long-term consequences.  Just slightly over 50% of voters approved the expansion of Medicaid, but now 100% of Oklahoma taxpayers will pay for that non-existent free lunch.

GOP NEEDS TO DEVELOP AND NOT DIVIDE !

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

PURPLE OKLAHOMA?

by Steve Fair

     Thirty years ago (1995), there were 1,823,748 voters registered in Oklahoma.  62% were registered Democrat, 33% were Republican, and 5% were Independent. As of January 2025, the numbers are much different- there are 2,470,437 registered voters in the Sooner state:  52.6% are registered Republican, 26.6% Democrat, 20% Independent, and 1% Libertarian.

     Oklahoma voted Democrat in all but two presidential elections through 1948, but has not gone Democrat since, except in the landslide win for Lyndon Johnson in 1964.   In 2024, Donald Trump defeated Kamala Harris by 66% to 32%, the sixth consecutive election the Republican nominee has won by over 30%.  Every county in Oklahoma voted for Donald Trump the last three elections.  All members of the Oklahoma federal delegation (2 Senators/5 Representatives) are Republican.  All statewide elected officials are Republican.  Republicans dominate county offices.  How did the Republicans flip voter registration in Oklahoma?  First, Oklahoma is a conservative state.  As the national Democrat Party became more liberal on social issues, conservative Democrats changed their Party affiliation and joined the Republicans. Over 70% of Oklahomans identify as Protestant, and most of those voters are socially conservative. They support the Republican Party's platform on abortion, same-sex marriage, and gun control.  Second, the oil and gas industry is a major player in the state.  The GOP tends to be more supportive of the energy sector than the Ds.  The Democrat’s war of fossil fuel didn’t set well with the thousands who make their living in that industry.  Third, Oklahoma is a rural state.  Almost two thirds of the state’s population is in rural areas.  Rural voters tend to be more conservative and traditional in their values.   But the GOP shouldn’t take their dominance for granted.  Three observations:

     First, Oklahoma is changing.  The state is gaining population, after years of little growth.  Oklahoma's population grew about 1% last year.  The OKC and Tulsa urban areas show the highest levels of net migration.  Rural Oklahoma population  remains flat and some rural counties have experienced population declines.  Many of the new Okies are from western states and they bring with them their politics and values (not as conservative).  That trend has been reflected in voting in the urban areas in recent elections.  GOP margins have declined and are thinner than in years past in the larger population areas.

     Second, Oklahoma Republicans have underperformed.  From elected Rs not

delivering on campaign promises to GOP Party leaders constant infighting, Republican creditability with the average Oklahoma voter has been shattered.  That’s why 1 in 5 Oklahoma voters are registered Independent, even though the GOP doesn’t let them vote in their primary. A cynical, skeptical, and suspicious public view GOP elected officials and Party leaders as grandstanders and self-promoters.  They detect little to no difference between the Ds and the Rs.  Past strategies to educate voters has been abandoned by the GOP for boasting, bragging and self-glory.  Until the Republican Party resumes making the main thing the main thing, expect the average voter to be lukewarm to the GOP. 

     Third, Oklahoma GOP politics has become nasty.  Name-calling, backbiting, talebearing, gossiping is unrestrained.  Professing Christians proudly proclaim their spiritual superiority and ‘thank God they are not as other men are, even this poor fellow Republican.’  Loving thy neighbor has been cut from Bibles with a penknife, in the name of standing for righteousness.  There is no tolerance for an opposing view.  Instead of civic debate, there is required harmony.  Failure to agree (heresy) results in being burned at the stake.  If the nastiness continues, the Oklahoma GOP will whittle the base down to where they can handle it. 

     Oklahoma is trending purple.  The urban areas will continue to grow at a faster rate than the rural areas, resulting in a more progressive/liberal state.  The GOP better get their act together and start developing instead of dividing before the Ds take over Oklahoma politics.

SQ#836 would change Oklahoma- and not for the better!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

DIVIDES & DILUTES!

by Steve Fair

     For nearly a century, the Democratic Party ruled Oklahoma.  When Republicans took control of the state House in 2004, it was the first time in over 75 years the GOP had a majority in the legislature.  Oklahoma was a one-party state and corruption ruled.  From Supreme Court bribery scandals to payoffs to county commissioners, Sooner tax dollars lined the pockets of crooks. Dishonesty and duplicity have been reduced since the GOP took over state government and while Oklahoma government isn’t perfect, it’s better than it was when the Ds were in control.

     A group called Oklahoma United is planning to run an initiative petition drive to get State Question #836 on the ballot.  They want the Sooner state to move to a top-two primary, where all candidates are listed on the same ballot, regardless of Party affiliation.  The top two would go the general election.  It is possible the top two would be from the same Party.  They have to get 173,000 signatures to get SQ#836 on the ballot.  Three observations:  

     First, it’s about winning elections.  Democrats face an uphill battle in elections.   Republicans now dominate Oklahoma government.  The GOP has super majorities in both chambers.  All statewide offices are held by Republicans.  County officials are overwhelmingly Republican.  Instead of educating the public on the virtues of being a Democrat, the Democratic Party’s response is to get their candidates to register R and run as a Republican.  For voters in Oklahoma, winnowing out the chaff (Republicans in name only) from the wheat (true Republicans) has become difficult.  Party affiliation used to mean something, but now it’s just a brand to win an election.

     Second, a political Party should choose their own nominee.  It shouldn’t be necessary to state the obvious, but Republicans should choose the Republican nominee- Democrats the Democrat- Libertarian the Libertarian. The Baptist don’t let the Methodist vote on who their pastor is going to be.  The Rotarians don’t let the Ambucs vote in their officer election.  Their processes are closed- as they should be.  A closed process doesn’t exclude- it simply prevents outsiders from ‘raiding’ a Party primary and nominating a weaker candidate. 

     Third, Party affiliation is a person’s first vote.  Party affiliation should be a matter of conviction, not convenience.  People often align with a Party so they can vote in primary elections or based on family tradition or geographies. While no political party is perfect or has all the answers, there is a distinct difference between the two major parties and honest citizens should align with the Party that reflects their convictions.  If someone wants to vote in the GOP primary, register Republican.  This isn’t brain surgery. 

     The Oklahoma Republican Party filed a lawsuit last week in an attempt to block SQ#836 from reaching the ballot.  The GOP says it petition violates the U.S. Constitution’s first Amendment associational right’s clause.  It also states SQ#836 is a radical change to how current elections are conducted in the Sooner state and that is not disclosed in the petition.   Whether the state GOP will win in court remains to be seen.

     Oklahomans can do three things to stop SQ#836: (1) Don’t sign the petition. No matter how pretty the young lady is with the clipboard, resist signing.  If the group fails to get the required signatures, SQ#836 will not be on the ballot.  (2) Recognize SQ#836 is not about fairness- it’s about control.  There is nothing ‘fair’ about open primaries.  Open primaries are not more moral/ethical/righteous than a closed primary.  Open primaries actually promote gamesmanship, deception, subterfuge, chicanery and treachery.  (3) Recognize Party affiliation is important.  It’s not about exclusivity- it’s about values.

     Educate your family and friends.  Get the word out- liberals are trying to change Oklahoma- and not for the better.  SQ#836 doesn’t ‘unite’ Oklahoma- it divides and dilutes. 

Trump’s tariffs will work- if Americans will be patient.

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

TARIFFS

by Steve Fair

     A tariff is a tax placed on goods when they cross national borders, typically when being imported into a country.  The fee is ultimately passed down to the consumer in the form of a price increase.  Tariffs are paid for by the end user.  For example, a widget tariff on imported widgets will likely raise the price of all widgets, even those made in the U.S.  Domestic manufacturers often capitalize on the sell environment and raise their prices to maximize profit. 

     This week, President Donald Trump imposed a 10% tariff on all imports on all countries effective at midnight April 5^th.  Trump said the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) provides him the authority to address the large and persistent U.S. trade deficit.  Trump also says he will impose individualized reciprocal higher tariffs on countries with which the U.S. has the largest trade deficits.  Three observations:

     First, the U.S. trade deficit needs to be addressed.  In 2024, the United States had a $1.2 trillion trade deficit, with significant deficits with China, Mexico, Vietnam, Ireland, and Germany.  The United States has one of the lowest simple average most-favored-nation (MFN) tariff rates in the world at 3.3%, while many of our key trading partners like Brazil (11.2%), China (7.5%), the European Union (5%), India (17%), and Vietnam (9.4%) have simple average MFN tariff rates that are significantly higher.  Americans have the most disposal income of any country in the world and the U.S. is the largest consumer market in the world.  Trump’s imposing of reciprocal tariffs simply helps to level the playing field.

     Second, American consumers killed manufacturing.  Past administrations (Republicans and Democrats) willingness to open the American market to the world resulted in a flood of lower priced goods Americans loved. Low import tariffs for foreign manufacturers resulted in a competitive advantage over domestic manufacturers.  Corporate America responded by closing domestic manufacturing facilities and moving production facilities to low labor countries.  President Trump campaigned on bringing manufacturing back home, which he believes is critical to U.S. national security.  But until patriotic America consumers are willing to pay a higher price for goods made in America, manufacturers remain on a race to the bottom.

     Third, access to the U.S. is a privilege.  Because of the low threshold (tariffs) to enter the largest market in the world, foreign manufacturers have thrived and hurt domestic manufacturers.  Trump says he wants to impose the ‘Golden Rule’ on other countries: treat us like we treat them.  According to a press release from the White House: “The United States will not longer put itself last on matters of international trade in exchange for empty promises.”  Tariffs are necessary to ensure fair trade, protect American workers, and reduce the trade deficit. 

     Some theorical economists have little faith in the law of supply and demand.  They believe imposing high tariffs result in a “deadweight loss,” which is a loss of economic efficiency when a good is not produced.  Deadweight loss is an oversimplified, impractical model that is not real world.  Supply and demand work.  Higher prices result in lower demand.  Lower demand results in lower prices, which spurs higher demand.  The cure for higher prices is higher prices.  Trump’s tariffs will work- if Americans will be patient. 

DON'T CHEAT TO MAKE RURAL OKLAHOMA RELEVANT!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

ROADBLOCK NOT GUARDRAIL

by Steve Fair

     In Oklahoma, citizens have the ability to collect signatures to place a new statute or constitutional amendment on the ballot.  They can also get a veto referendum on the ballot to ask voters to uphold or repeal an enacted law.  Oklahoma is one of 26 states that has a mechanism/tool for citizens to petition and enact legislation and bypass the legislature.

     The most impactful initiative petition effort in Oklahoma history happened in 1991, when a group of rag tag citizens from across the Sooner state banded together and got State Question #640 on the 1992 ballot.  They didn’t pay professional signature gatherers to get voter John Hancocks.  They personally stood outside Wal-Marts and went door-to door.  Getting those 230,000 signatures was a high threshold, but they were successful.  Their efforts were rewarded when voters approved SQ#640 in March 1992 with 56.2% of the vote.  SQ#640 amended Article 5, Section 33 of the Oklahoma Constitution restricting how taxpayer money is spent.  Under SQ#640, a revenue bill can only become law if: (1) it is approved by a 3/4 vote of both legislative chambers and then signed by the Governor, or (2) it is referred to a vote of the people by the legislature and approved by a majority. 

     Since passage of SQ 640 in 1992, Oklahoma voters have approved only one state question to raise taxes: SQ#713, which increased tobacco tax in 2004.  No revenue bill had gotten the 3/4^th margin in the legislature until 2018, when HB#1010 was passed- the largest tax increase in Oklahoma history.  SQ#640 has resulted in Oklahomans keeping billions of their money in their pockets instead of sending it to 23^rd and Lincoln.

     This week, the Oklahoma Senate made it harder for citizens to get something on the ballot.  Senate Bill 1027 (SB#1027) authored by Sen. David Bullard, (R-Durant) and House Speaker Kyle Hilbert, (R-Bristow) would cap the number of initiative petition signatures that could be gathered from each county.  It passed the state senate along Party lines.  If SB#1027 becomes law, only 10% of the signatures of a petition could come from Oklahoma or Tulsa County.  In the other 75 counties the max number would be 4%.  According to Bullard, the current system allows petitioners to only solicit in urban areas to get the required signatures.  He wants to make signature gatherers to ‘diversify’ and get signatures from throughout the state.  Bullard said SB#1027 puts ‘guardrails” on the Oklahoma initiative process.  Three observations:

     First, SB#1027 violates the concept of one man/one vote.  The founding fathers believed in the one man/one vote concept so much that they required the government conduct a decennial census.  The purpose is to assure fair apportionment of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives among the states, based on population.  SB#1027 would make some Oklahoma citizen’s voice stronger than others.  It flies in the face of ‘equal and fair’ representation. 

     Second, SB#1027 isn’t a guardrail- it’s a roadblock.  Oklahoma’s initiative process doesn’t need to be reformed/revised/amended.  This isn’t the first time (and likely will not be the last time) the legislature has attempted to ‘manage’ the initiate petition process.  What misguided lawmakers fail to understand is in when they make it harder for liberals to get State Questions on the ballot, they do the same to conservatives.   SB#1027 is not conservative legislation and antithetical to liberty and freedom.    

     Third, SB#1027 would not change Oklahoma demographics.  Bullard and Hilbert believe they can legislate rural Oklahoma to significance.  The issue is the population shift in Oklahoma.  Urban areas are growing and are more liberal.  It could have a long-term impact on Oklahoma politics.  The key is educating, not legislating.  SB#1027 sends the message that urban citizens are not as important as rural.

     Contact your state representative and ask them to oppose SB#1027.  It is a roadblock, not a guardrail and a poke in the eye to citizens who championed SQ#640.   

PLAYING THE VICTIM IS USED TO GAIN AN ADVANTAGE!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

VICTIM?

by Steve Fair

     A victim is described as a person who suffers because of some adverse act by another person.  Victims are duped, tricked, swindled or deceived by others. 

     In modern America, many believe they are victims based on the color of their skin, religion, economic status, sexual orientation, gender or indebtedness.  They hold a pity party and cry about how everything and everyone in their life is predatory toward them. 

     The solution to modern victimhood seems to be to shout louder about your victimhood.  Moral authority in modern culture is directly proportional to how many ways a person can claim to have been to have been victimized.  The more victim categories people are in, the more empowered and authoritative they are.  Pick the right victim level and you can have a ‘free pass’ to do and say almost you want in modern America.  Three observations:

     First, there are real victims.  There are those in society who experience harm as victims of crime, abuse, natural disasters, and social injustice.  It is important a society acknowledge and address their needs.  Showing compassion and understanding to those who in need is a mark of a civilized Christian society.   Throughout the Bible, oppressing innocent victims is condemned by God.  People do suffer unjust evil at the hand of others.    

     Second, there are fake victims.   There are those who falsely portray themself as a victim to gain sympathy, attention, or to manipulate others for personal gain.  They falsely accuse others of wrongdoing and fabricate stories to promote themselves.  These self-entered, conceited narcissists never take personal responsibility for their actions.  The actions of "fake victims" undermine the credibility of genuine victims.  It makes it more difficult for true victims to receive support and justice. 

     Third, there are no victims.  Jesus, who was the ultimate innocent victim, did not adopt a victim mentality.  He recognized God is sovereign over all things.  Jesus (1) trusted the Father, (2) did not repay evil for evil, and (3) loved His enemies. Playing the victim can distort reality, damage relationships and suck the joy out of life.  Embracing a philosophy that everything happens for a reason is biblical.  John MacArthur says, “The default position of all fallen human beings is to blame someone else for our condition, blame someone else for our issues, and blame someone else for our troubles. We say to ourselves: I’m basically a good person but I’ve been affected by bad people.“ MacArthur says those who paint themselves as a  victim seek to avoid facing their own shortcomings.   

     Victimhood drives modern morality and politics.  Identity politics divides society into victims and oppressors.  Liberals and conservatives perceive different victims.   In the past, calling yourself a victim was synonymous with weakness.  Now it is used to gain an advantage over your opponent.  Playing the victim is cowardly.  Blaming events, circumstances in the past as a reason to misbehave in the present is spineless and shows weak character.

     Holocaust survivor and author Edith Eger, 97, says, “Suffering is universal, but victimhood is optional.”  

 

SAY NO TO THE OKLAHOMA FOOD POLICE!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

FOOD POLICE!

by Steve Fair

     “Should you be eating that?” people ask.  While trying to be helpful, they come across as bossy, overbearing, and intrusive.   The food police are everywhere- external and internal.  The internal judgmental voices in your head that condemn you for eating a piece of cake and those eternal self-righteous, pharisaic do-gooders who try to protect yourself from yourself.  The internal police you control- the external not so much.  In America, what you eat is under bi-partisan attack.

     Ten Republican led state legislatures are currently considering barring SNAP (Food Stamp) recipients from using their benefits to buy candy, soda and other items that are high in sugar and fat.  Similar federal legislation was considered in Feb. 2024 that would have done the same thing.  “American tax dollars should not be used to pay for junk food and endanger the health of the most vulnerable Americans. The fastest way to Make America Healthy Again is to encourage balanced diets and stop subsidizing unhealthy food choices," U.S. Senator Mike Lee, (R-Utah) says. 

     The Oklahoma state legislature has gotten into the act.  Senate bill # 4, (SB4), authored by Sen. Kristen Thompson, (R-Edmond), would ban 21 specific food ingredients in Oklahoma.  SB4 passed the Republican controlled Agriculture and Wildlife Committee by a 10-1 vote and now goes to the full Senate for consideration.  Only one lone Republican opposed it in committee.  SB4 has the exact same language as dystopian laws in California and Vermont.  Three observations:

     First, the government has no right to tell citizens what to put in their body.  The irony is that many of the same people who pitched a fit about mandatory COVID vaccines support telling people how to eat.  What inconsistency and hypocrisy! Liberty and freedom preaching zealots telling you what to eat expose their socialist side.     

     Second, the food police put undue burden on the food industry.  Ingredients bans, required declarations, warnings and other state mandates currently cost the industry (and ultimately the consumer) billions.  Some food processors elect to withdraw or not do business in states where the volume doesn’t warrant the increased packaging costs.  Consumers in those states have less choices and less freedom.

     When the feds last year were mandating what could be purchased with food stamps, the National Grocers Association (NGA) issued the following statement: “No consumer purchases have ever been subjected to this Orwellian level of snooping by the Federal government, and it would set a terrifying precedent of intruding on the most private areas of our lives.”    

     The temptation to restrict what recipients of SNAP can buy presents an ethical/moral dilemma for conservative Republicans:  Do they really believe in individual liberty or do they attach strings to a gift?  Sadly, many abandon their principles and side with special interests.

     Third, SB4 is unnecessary and intrusive.  The disappointing thing is Republicans authored it and passed it- not northeast liberals.  Oklahoma has become California.  It’s not likely any of the legislators who voted for SB4 campaigned on banning food ingredients.  Unnecessary cookie cutter legislation crafted by special interests is introduced by clueless lawmakers who campaign on seeking wise counsel from constituents, but never do.

     Evelyn Tribole,  the author of six books on cooking and health, says, "Unless you killed the chef, there is no morality or guilt in what you eat.” 

Just say No to the Food Police in Oklahoma!