LET 'EM VOTE!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

VETTING ILLEGALS

by Steve Fair

 On Friday May 8th, the Oklahoma State Senate took the day off.  Senate Pro Tem Lonnie Paxton, (R-Tuttle) said the Senate had gotten their work done early and had outpaced the State House in hearing bills.  Paxton said the Senate is largely done with the 2026 session.  The Oklahoma legislature, according to the state constitution, must complete their work by May 29th.  Not all GOP Senators believe their work was done. 

Ten GOP state senators posted a photo on social media showing them sitting at their desks in the Senate chamber. 

Rep. Josh West, (R-Grove) said House leadership met with Paxton and Sen. Julie Daniels (R-Bartlesville), the Senate Floor Leader, and thought they had agreed to run bills every day last week.  "We stuck to our commitment," West said.

Two of the bills the Senate refuses to hear is HB# 4422 and HB# 4423, the so-called SECURE acts.  These bills have been advocated by the Trump administration to deal with illegal immigrants receiving taxpayer funded benefits.  The two bills would require state agencies such as the Department of Human Services (DHS) and the Oklahoma Health Care Authority (OHCA) to use the federal SAVE system to ensure only eligible individuals receive benefits like SNAP and Medicaid. 

The Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program is a secure, online service operated by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that allows federal, state, and local agencies to verify an applicant's immigration status or U.S. citizenship. It is used to determine eligibility for benefits, licenses, and services.  Three observations:

First, like a pancake, every story has two sides.  Paxton has expressed concern the verification rules in the two bills would create a "chilling effect" among undocumented parents. He fears illegals would stop applying for essential benefits like SNAP, Medicaid, and TANF, leaving their citizen children without vital healthcare and nutrition assistance.

Paxton argues the SAVE system mandate could deter pregnant, illegals from seeking prenatal healthcare services. He says a baby in the womb deserves protection regardless of the mother's legal status.  "We shouldn't have kids starving to death because of what the parents said or what the parents did or didn't do," Paxton said. 

Those are valid arguments and every state Senator should seriously consider them before they vote.  But Paxton should allow the bills to the floor.  Let the merits of both sides be debated and a vote taken.  Too often legislation is not allowed to the floor because the leadership are afraid of the outcome.  If the majority of the majority Party members want to vote on these two bills, let 'em vote.

Second, taxpayers are tapped out.  With rising consumer costs, inflation, and increased tax burden, the working folk paying the bills don't need to be footing the bill for benefits for non-citizens.  But that doesn't mean there are not people who need help.

The sad fact is that many individuals eligible for government benefits don't apply.    Whether it's because of stigma/shame, or pride and independence, those who really need the help will not ask.  Many of those are taxpayers whose paycheck is gone before the week is over.  They shouldn't be expected to pay the bill for those who entered the U.S. illegally when they are struggling. 

Third, the current economic climate presents an excellent opportunity for Christians to really practice 'love their neighbor' and walk the walk. Instead of looking to government to solve a problem, maybe believers should be looking in the ditch like the Good Samaritan in Luke 10.

It's a reality they will be scammed, conned, duped, and fleeced by those seeking help.  But no more than they are being bamboozled by an incompetent government claiming expertise vetting illegals. 

On Wednesday, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt issued an executive order (EO) mirroring exactly what HB# 4422 and HB# 4423 would do if passed and signed into law.  The EO will likely face a lawsuit. 

Open Records request timing is suspect!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

WEAPONIZING OF FOIA!

by Steve Fair

In 1966, Congress passed the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).  It established the legal presumption government records are accessible to the public.  Up until the FOIC was enacted, a request for a government record required the requestor to demonstrate a specific "need to know."  The FOIA explicitly applies only to government agencies under the executive branch and requests are to be handled within 20 days. 

After the FOIA became law, many states followed suit and passed similar laws.  The Oklahoma Open Records Act (OORA) was added to the books in 1985 with the following stated purpose: "As the Oklahoma Constitution recognizes and guarantees, all political power is inherent in the people.  Thus, it is the public policy of the State of Oklahoma that the people are vested with the inherent right to know and be fully informed about their government."  OORA has been added to and amended several times in the last 40 years, but the stated purpose has remained consistent.

This past week, Oklahomans for Transparency in Government (OTG) sued Oklahoma State Treasurer Todd Russ.  OTG alleges Russ did not respond or recognize an open records request from March 16th.  OTG wants records on the state's contract with 'Way2GoCard," a debit card/direct deposit program for state employees.  OTG claims an unnamed whistleblower says Gateway Bank is involved.  Governor Kevin Stitt founded Gateway Mortgage, which merged with the bank.  OTG says using Gateway could be a conflict of interest.  They claim they have reached out to the treasurer's office three times with no response.  Russ said two status reports were provided and the request was “overly broad.” His office has reached out to the Attorney General’s Office for guidance.  Three observations:

First, the people have a right to know.   The secrecy by government agencies during the Cold War triggered the federal FOIA.  Democrat California Congressman John Moss led a bi-partisan campaign to make the FOIA law.  The people got tired of the lack of accountable by arrogant bureaucrats and elected officials.  FOIA's stated purpose was to allow citizens, journalists, and civic organizations to uncover waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government.   FOIA has increased accountability because all too often, people only do what is inspected, not what is expected. 

Oklahoma government agencies should be willing to comply with reasonable requests for records, but therein lies the issue- who determines what is reasonable? 

Russ said about OTG's request: “As written, the request is overly broad and encompasses thousands of records. Based on its language, the Office is unable to identify with reasonable specificity the records being sought. The hours required to fulfill the request are likely in the hundreds, as documents must be reviewed for personal identification, information and other sensitive material requiring redaction under the law.” 

Second, open record laws have been weaponized.  Many open record requests are made simply to harass, overwhelm, intimidate, and hassle public officials.  Broad, excessive, duplicate requests are made not for transparency, but as a tool of disruption.  Those requests cost taxpayers millions of dollars each year.  The goal of those type requests is not accountability/transparency- it's chicanery/trickery. 

Third, if Gateway is involved, that should be disclosed.  Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt founded Gateway and has reportedly placed his ownership into a trust to avoid conflicts of interest, but he still retains ownership of the company.  No laws may have been broken even if Gateway was used, but citizens have a right to know the truth.

The timing of OTG's lawsuit is suspect.  Russ is up for re-election and has drawn a Republican opponent.  There appears to be no direct link between Russ' opponent and the OTG request, but expect politics to come to play.  With a June 16th primary looming, expect a hit piece on Russ to be in your mailbox soon.  Recognize it for what it is- politics.

DON'T REFORM TSET IN A SMOKE FILLED BACK ROOM!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

POT MEET KETTLE!

by Steve Fair

 

The Oklahoma Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust (TSET) was created in 2001 after voters in November 2000 approved State Question #692 (SQ692) by a 2 to 1 margin.  It set aside 75% of the settlement funds into a constitutionally protected trust.  TSET is governed by two boards- one group handles investing the assets- the other the expenditure of funds and approval of grants. 

SQ692 specified only 'earnings on investments' from TSET were to be spent.  The monies were to be used for tobacco prevention, cancer research, and other health-related programs. TSET uses the money, through grants and programs, to improve the health and quality of life of all Oklahomans by funding programs and services that address, prevent and reduce tobacco use and obesity – health behaviors that contribute to the leading causes of death in Oklahoma, cancer and cardiovascular disease. TSET funds programs like the Oklahoma Tobacco Helpline, Tobacco Stops with Me, and Shape Your Future.

On Thursday, the Oklahoma State Senate rules committee passed 14-4 House Joint Resolution 1077 (HJR1077), authored by Rep. Trey Caldwell, (R-Faxon) and Sen. Lonnie Paxton, (R-Tuttle).  HJR1077 would send to Oklahoma voters a proposal to take $1 billion dollars out of the TSET trust fund (about 1/2 of the total assets of TSET) and place it under the state legislature's control.  Caldwell and Paxton state they want to invest the $1 billion to improve health and educational outcomes in Oklahoma.  “This is simply asking the voters if they would like to split this fund up so some of it can be used by the Legislature to help out in their communities,” Paxton said.  If approved, HJR1077 would appear on the August 25th primary runoff ballot.  Three observations:

First, the legislature is relentless in pursuing the TSET money.  In March, a state House report alleged TSET's overhead is high.  The report claimed 15% of TSET's funds go to administration.  It also suggested TSET's mission overlaps with the State Department of Health.  Last year, after the TSET board, the governor and the legislature clashed over funding for a hospital, HB#2783 was passed.  It amended the seven-year terms of office of the TSET board.  In January, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled 8-1 HB#2783, was unconstitutional.  The legislature sees this big pile of money and they can't control themselves.  They have to go after it.

Second, TSET needs reformation.  How TSET has spent money hasn't produced great results.  According to the American Lung Association, 15.6% of Oklahoma adults smoke cigarettes.  In Texas, that number is 11.8%.  Oklahoma has the highest rate of e-cigarette smokers in the U.S.- 10.1%.  About 1 in 4 Okies were puffing away in 2000 when SQ692 passed and while less are firing cigs up 25 years later, Oklahoma's percentage of smokers remains near the highest in the nation.  TSET needs to use more of their assets on rural health care and less TV ads on Thunder broadcasts. 

Third, changes to TSET must be transparent.  The idea to place HJR1077on the primary runoff ballot should be scrapped.  What is HJR1077 hiding? Placing the SQ on a low turnout ballot might help get it passed, but it is not good public policy.  What are the proponents scared of?  Voters already believe deals are made in smoke filled back rooms and tactics like putting issues on low turnout ballots validate those concerns.  If changes to TSET are needed and valid, then the legislature has nothing to fear.  The reason a quarter of century ago voters put the TSET money in a trust fund is because they didn't trust the legislature.  Putting HJR1077 on the primary runoff ballot validates that distrust.

Legislators claim TSET is bureaucratic, doesn't spend money wisely, and doesn't respond to the needs of Oklahomans.  Sound a lot like the legislature.  Oh, the irony.  Pot meet kettle.

VOTE NO ON SQ#832!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

VOTE NO SQ#832!

by Steve Fair

 

Only one state question qualified for the June 16th primary ballot- State Question #832 (SQ#832), which if approved would immediately increase the minimum wage in Oklahoma to $9.00 an hour.  It would mandate automatic increases for the next three years to a rate of $15 per hour in 2029.  There has not been an increase in the federal minimum wage since 2009.  Three observations on SQ#832:

First, labor costs are ultimately paid by consumers.  Companies don't pay wages- consumers do.  Higher labor costs result in price increases on goods and services.  That would result in inflation.  Voters should recognize if SQ#832 became law, they would be paying the higher wages, not employers. 

Increasing the minimum wage would likely lead to a 'ripple effect,' where all wages increase- not just those earning the minimum wage.  Employers can't absorb or eat labor cost increases- they have to pass it on to remain viable. 

Second, SQ#832 would hurt those it claims it would help.  Employers operate on a labor cost factor.  If the minimum wage is increased, employers will have to lower the number of employees to remain profitable.  A business has two fundamental choices: (1) raise their prices or (2) adjust their staffing numbers down to avoid price increases.  Those getting paid the minimum wage are overwhelmingly entry level and have little training or experience.  SQ#832 would reduce the number of people getting that on the job experience.

Third, every employee works for themself.  No one in America is forced to work for someone else- slavery is illegal in the U.S.  If an employee isn't satisfied with what they are getting paid, they should find another job.  They should sell their services to the highest bidder.  People with skills or experience can leverage their productivity to get higher wages.  If a short sighted, skin flint employer is short changing employees, they will/should pay the price.  Their most marketable/employable people will leave.  Talented productive people will find gainful employment.   

Advocates for SQ#832 claim raising the minimum wage will help combat the affordability crisis.  They point out the price of food, housing, child care, health care, and utilities are up in the United States.  Their solution to fighting this issue is to force businesses to increase wages.  They fail to see raising the minimum wage would result in higher prices and inflation.  It would disproportionately hurt those making minimum wage.

Raise the Wage, the group pushing for SQ#832's passage have some interesting backers.  The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma has contributed $25,000 to the yes campaign.  Some liberal out of state groups will fund the group's campaign, so expect to see lots of misinformation about how increasing the minimum wage is good for Oklahoma. Raise the Wage will have money to get their message out.  Voters should recognize the consequences of approving the socialist policies of SQ#832. 

Good productive employees don't require a mandated wage- bad employees don't deserve one.  Vote No on SQ#832!

OKLAHOMANS OVERPAYING THEIR TAX BILL!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

by Steve Fair

 

This week, the Oklahoma legislature passed a nearly $13 billion dollar state budget for fiscal year 2027- SB#1177.  The budget is slightly more than last year.   SB#1177 passed the House 76-18 (7 members didn't vote) and the Senate 28-17 (3 members didn't vote).  It barely got the votes it needed in the Senate (25).  Seven of the eight Democrats in the Senate voted no, joined by ten GOP state senators.

Oklahoma has a 'balanced budget' amendment in the state constitution, but the real goal of a state budget should be reduced government spending, rather than a balanced budget.

SB#1177 sets aside $200 million to create a permanent investment fund.  Similar to the state's rainy-day fund, the fund's stated goal is to generate a reliable revenue stream to safeguard essential services during down economic trends.  

House Speaker Kyle Hilbert, (R-Bristow) said: "This budget reflects our commitment to investing in Oklahoma’s future while remaining responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars.” The budget includes teacher pay raises, increased funding for the Department of Mental Health and the Oklahoma Healthcare Authority. 

First, Oklahomans are clearly overpaying their tax bill.  Government never adjusts its budget down, like citizens have to. 

Oklahoma taxpayers are struggling in these challenging economic times- higher prices on gas and food, but no increase in wages.  Taxpayers have to live on less, but government never takes a hit, no matter the economic climate. 

Instead of putting $200 million into an investment fund, return that money to the people it belongs to- the taxpayer who worked and earned it.  Legislative leaders and the governor constantly talk about eliminating the state income tax.  They devise clever schemes, hold marathon meetings, but no stratagem includes ever simply sending the money back to the taxpayer.  When government holds in escrow the overpayment of tax dollars to avoid cuts during the 'hard times,' it's telling taxpayers government knows how to manage taxpayer money better than those who toiled for it.  Refund the overpayment.

Second, politics makes for strange bedfellows.  The Democrats who opposed the budget did so because they wanted the state to spend more money.  The Republicans who voted no claim the budget is too big.  An ancient proverb suggests two parties can work together against a common enemy- "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." 

The GOP senators who voted no on the budget proposed a -4% cut across the board to all agencies, except education, mental health and health care, but were rebuffed by leadership.  It is significant that 25% of GOP state senators opposed the budget.  If those of like opinion are elected in November, they could partner with the Ds and make life difficult for senate leadership.

Third, passage of the state budget this early is unprecedented.  It is the single most important thing the legislature does, but the budget has historically been the last thing done in a session.  It is commendable Oklahoma Republicans (legislative and executive) have shown they can govern with a super majority.  Perhaps they are embracing negotiated compromise. Negotiated compromise is when both sides want something, and they work together to find common ground, with each side giving up something to get to the desired result.  Nah, they aren't going to change and work together, but citizens can always hope.

Passage of the budget sets up a possible scenario where Oklahoma lawmakers could end the legislative session before the 5 p.m. May 29 deadline.  2026 is an election year, and many GOP lawmakers would be thrilled to hit the campaign trail early.  They can't wait to tell us how fiscally conservative they are.

BUY A BIGGER MAILBOX!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

Caveat Sentio!

by Steve Fair

 

The 2026 candidate filings ended on Friday.  611 candidates filed for state, federal, legislative, and judicial offices.  That is the highest number of filings since 2018, when almost 800 filed for office.  The biggest surprise was when term-limited State Auditor Cindy Byrd flip flopped from the Lieutenant Governor race to the State Treasurer race.

Last week, President Trump endorsed former Oklahoma Speaker of the House T.W. Shannon for the Lt. Governor's race, catapulting him to front runner status.  Apparently Byrd saw the handwriting on the wall and exited stage right. 

Congressman Kevin Hern, (R-Tulsa) filed to fill the U.S. Senate seat left open by now-DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin.  Hern will have 3 GOP opponents, but is expected to easily run the race.  12 Republicans and 1 Democrat are running for Hern's 1st Congressional District seat. In the gubernatorial race, there are 9 Republicans, 3 Democrats, and 3 Independents. Current Deputy State Auditor Melissa Capps won the State Auditor race because she did not draw an opponent and won by default.  7 Republicans are running for State Superintendent of Public Instruction, 4 Republicans each filed for Labor Commissioner and Insurance Commissioner. 

A fourth of state legislators up for election drew no opposition- 7 senators, 26 representatives.   23 of Oklahoma's 27 district attorney (DA) positions were filled by default because only one candidate filed for each race, resulting in no opposition.  All but 8 District Judge and Associate District Judge races were not challenged.  Three observations:

First, let the voter beware.  The primary is Tuesday June 16th- 70 days.  Candidates have a short window to 'get their message' out, so every GOP primary candidate will going to tell you how conservative they are.  They will try to 'out hard scrabble' their opponent.  It's amazing how they all have poverty, relentless toll, barrenness and struggle in their past.  But because of their hard work, determination, character, values, and faith, they are where they are today.  They are now selfless, sacrificial, generous, component, wise and most of all humble. public servants.  Cutting through the rhetoric can be exhausting, but entertaining.  Voters need to be skeptics and ask candidates hard questions.  Caveat Sentio (Latin for Let the Voter Beware) must be the battle cry the next two months.

Second, Oklahoma has an apathy issue.  Many races had only one person file.  Many elected officials drew no opposition.  Some of those folk translate to they are doing a stellar job, but that is often not the case.  No one filed against them because sadly Oklahomans don't care!  Voter turnout in the state is the lowest in the country.  Citizen engagement requires vigilant attentiveness.  Paying attention once every two years feeds a cannibalistic political system that simply tells the voter what they want to hear.

Third, candidates need to pay attention to their message.  In his book, The Fallacy of the Rational Voter, Jay Shepard writes: "Politics is not a contest of information.  It is a contest of interpretation.  Voters who decide elections are not spreadsheets waiting to be filled with data; they are human beings navigating uncertainty, loyalty, fear, hope and belonging,” Campaign consultants craft a candidate's message out of cream cheese that will appeal to the public, ignore the truth, but win the election.  They have the advantage of not being incumbered with the truth.

Three things’ voters should remember the next 60 days: (1) There is no perfect candidate.  They are all flawed. (2) No one is indispensable or irreplaceable, (3) When you ask a question, don't give the candidate the answer.  Be wise in how you craft your quiz of a candidate. 

By the way- get a bigger mailbox- you are going to need it.

GOP leaders need to embrace MESSAGE DOCTRINE!

 BOOK REVIEW

Throughout this 23-chapter, 203 page read, Shepard touts the Message Doctrine and points out the rational voter is a myth.  His example of irrational voter behavior is when voters elect a liberal followed by a conservative in the same district, which appears to make no sense.  Shepard blames the voter’s interpretation of reality.  The laziness of GOP political candidates and operatives to not ‘develop a message,’ has led to campaigns based on sensationalism, exaggeration, and drama.

Jay writes, “Republicans win when they operate at a higher strategic level- one grounded in behavioral reality rather than national assumptions.  It does not call for manipulation.  It calls for literacy.”   

This read is insightful and practical.  It challenges the traditional cookie-cutter campaign strategy by what Shepard describes as the Consultant Industrial Complex (Chapter 13), which ‘thrives in confusion and struggles in clarity.’ 

There is a chapter on dealing with the press that will prove to be invaluable to a candidate and their campaign team.  Another chapter on crisis, scandal and recovery is a must read. 

It's refreshing when a political insider like Jay Shepard has the courage to say the emperor has no clothes.  Shepard served on the Republican National Committee for several years and is a highly respected political operative in his home state of Vermont. 

The final chapter of the book sums up Shepard’s Message Doctrine.  “Politics is not a contest of information.  It is a contest of interpretation.  Voters who decide elections are not spreadsheets waiting to be filled with data; they are human beings navigating uncertainty, loyalty, fear, hope and belonging,” Shepard writes.  Every political candidate, operative, consultant, and activist should read this book!  It rightly challenges conventional ideas on campaign messaging.

Here is a link on where to buy the book: 

https://us.amazon.com/Fallacy-Rational-Voter-Republicans-Behavioral/dp/B0GT6PFT62

SLEEPER CELLS MAY BE WAKING UP!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

by Steve Fair

 

Albrecht Dittrich was born in 1949 in Russia.  His father was a schoolteacher and a committed Marxist/Leninist.  In 1969, while a senior in college, Dittrich was approached by the Committee for State Security (KGB) and asked to join the agency.  He moved to East Berlin, where he was taught Morse code, cryptography and English.  In October 1978, he moved to New York City, taking the name of a dead ten-year-old- Jack Philip Barsky.   

Dittrich's mission was to insert himself into American society, make contact with foreign policy think tanks and try to befriend President Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski.  That proved harder than the KGB anticipated due partly to Dittrich's abrasive, confrontational personality.  He was a sleeper agent for the KGB in the U.S. for ten years- 1978-1988.  After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, his name was revealed to American spy agencies and they monitored his activity for 8 years.  In 1997, Dittrich/Barsky was arrested for espionage, but never charged.  Dittrich has appeared on cable news networks as an expert on espionage.  He is a frequent commentor on the Russian interference in U.S. elections.  His autobiography, Deep Undercover, was published in 2017. 

Intelligence experts have raised alarms about potential Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) or Hezbollah-linked sleeper cells being activated in the U.S. and Europe. 

Sleeper cells are dormant, undercover agents or terrorist operatives embedded within a population, waiting for orders to activate and conduct attacks. These networks exist to disrupt, spy, or commit violence, often established well in advance to avoid detection. Concerns currently focus on Iran-linked proxy networks potentially activating across Europe and North America.

During the Biden administration, about 1,500 Iranians were intercepted at the southern border, but who knows the number who got through.  At least 700 were released into the United States.  "We have no idea how many people got around obviously. The numbers are deeply concerning,” Senator. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, says.  Three observations:

First, illegal immigration is a national security issue.   A cornerstone of America's identity is that it is a land of immigrants.  But immigration is a contentious issue. The vast majority of illegal immigrants crossing the southern border are coming to America for jobs, but not all.  Some want to destroy the U.S. and our way of life. Detecting and screening out the bad actors is the challenge. 

Second, they live among us.  It's not if sleeper cells exist in the U.S.- it's how many.  Sleeper cell operatives often live as ordinary citizens for years, sometimes acting with support from within the country or from abroad.  Dittrich married, had a daughter, held a job, and interacted with Americans undetected for years.  He was exposed only after the USSR fell.  Moles are hard to detect because, by nature, they are good at hiding. 

Third, Americans are not defenseless.  Thank God for the Second Amendment.  The United States is the most armed country in the world, with over 120 guns per 100 residents.   When the sleeper cells raise their ugly head, they will face significant civilian opposition in the U.S.

The public acts as the 'eyes and ears' for potential threats.  All Americans should be aware of unusual, out of the ordinary behavior- even from those people they think they know.  Report suspicious activity like individuals conducting surveillance on infrastructure, attempting to gain access to restricted areas, or displaying unusual behavior that raises a red flag.  It's better to be safe than sorry.

If Iran yells 'Olly olly oxen free,' Americans should be locked and loaded!

---

 

TAKE THE STAGE & SELL THE IDEA TO CHEAT!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

by Steve Fair

House Resolution #7296 (HR#7296) aka the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act is legislation establishing new federal requirements for voter registration and identification. HR#7296 proposes to amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requiring documented proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections.  It passed the U.S. House, along Party lines, 218-213, but faces strong Democratic opposition in the Senate.  Republicans currently lack the 60 votes needed in the Senate to invoke cloture, overcome a traditional filibuster, and bring HR#7296 to a floor vote.

Some Republicans have urged Senate Majority Leader John Thune, (R-SD), to force the D's to physically hold the floor to sustain their obstruction- a 'talking filibuster.'   Remember "Mr. Smith goes to Washington?"  Thune and others believe doing that could backfire and delay other legislation.  Three observations:

First, the U.S. Constitution gives joint power of elections to states and the federal government.  By its terms, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, referred to as the Elections Clause, says state legislatures will establish the times, places, and manner of holding elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate, subject to Congress making or altering such state regulations. 

State authority to regulate the times, places, and manner of holding congressional elections has been described by the Supreme Court as the ability to enact the numerous requirements as to procedure and safeguards to ensure elections for federal offices are fair and honest and orderly.   Therein lies the problem- some states don't want fair, honest and orderly elections.  All of those states are governed by Democrats. 

Second, Democrats should be forced to physically filibuster.  They have done it before to block important legislation.  In 1964, a group of Democrat Senators blocked the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 60 days. During that debate, Senator Robert Byrd, (D-WV) spoke for 14 hours and 13 minutes.  But that's not the record for one person holding the Senate floor.  In 1957, Senator Strom Thurmond, (D-SC) spoke against the Civil Rights Act of 1957 in an attempt to prevent its passage for 24 hours and 18 minutes. To sustain his speech, he read the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and Washington’s Farewell Address.  If the American people are made aware of the absurdity of letting non-citizens vote in elections, they will rise in mass against the practice.  Let the Ds take the stage.

Third, HR#7296 is just common sense.  Requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote is not unreasonable.  Only cheaters oppose making sure those who vote are Americans.  Requiring voters present a valid government-issued ID to cast a ballot is not obstructive.  Only tricksters oppose confirming a voter is who they say they are. Requiring state election officials to regularly purge their voter rolls is not being difficult.  Only thugs oppose making sure voter rolls are current and correct.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, (D-NY) said HR#7296 would force Americans to register to vote in person- something he claims only about 5% of Americans do today.  He's wrong- it's about 11%, but the truth is voters should be required to register in person. When Schumer was a member of the House back in 1996, he supported voter ID.  He said requiring IDs was just 'common sense.' 

What happened in the last 30 years?  Democrats became dependent on non-citizen votes.  The Ds can't win without cheating, so Schumer flip flopped. 

Let the Democrats take the stage!  GOP Senate leaders should make them physically hold the Senate floor.  Make them sell Americans on their plan to have non-citizens vote to elect our leaders.

     

SQ#832 would hurt the very ones it claims it would help!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial 

by Steve Fair

A group called Raise the Wage Oklahoma (RWO) gathered enough signatures to get State Question #832 (SQ#832) on the June 16th primary election ballot.  If SQ#832 were approved by voters, the measure would increase the minimum wage in Oklahoma to $9 immediately and to $15 by 2029.  The current minimum wage in the Sooner state is the same as the federal rate- $7.25 hourly.  Thirty U.S. states have raised the minimum wage above the federal rate the past three years.   

The United States federal minimum wage, was established by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 1938, during the Great Depression, at two bits ($.25) an hour.  The objective was to ensure workers got a fair wage that would stimulate economic recovery.  FLSA also instituted a 44-hour work week and protected children from prematurely entering the workforce.  The minimum wage has been increased 22 times since its inception- the last time in 2009.   

Legislation is regularly proposed regarding raising the federal minimum wage- the latest was introduced in 2023. Three observations: 

First, one size does not fit all.  All employees are not the same.  Some are more productive than others.  When employers are mandated/required to pay all workers a minimum wage, it hurts their most productive workers.  When 'slugs' have to paid the same as 'eager beavers,' it's not fair to hard workers, resulting in an unfair division of labor.  Conscientious and dedicated workers have options and when not treated fairly by employers will leave.  Cream rises to the top.      

Second, everyone works for themselves.  Even enter level employees drawing minimum wage are ultimately responsible for their own career development, skills acquisition, and income generation.  Each worker is a solo entrepreneur of their career.  Loyalty in today’s labor marketplace is virtually non-existent.  The most productive workers have options and often go the highest bidder.  Today's employers treat their employees as expendable, resulting in high turnover and poor morale.  Employees should remember they are "solo entrepreneurs" of their own lives and allegiance is not valued as much as in the past. 

Third, consumers, not businesses pay the higher rate.  Businesses will pass the higher labor cost on in the form of price increases.  A higher minimum wage is not absorbed by businesses, because businesses are not sponges.  If they don't pass on their costs, then they go broke. 

Studies show increases in the minimum wage hurt small business more than large business.  Faced with the choice of reducing staff, increasing prices or accepting less profit, many small entities simply can't survive. 

A minimum wage hurts those workers just entering the workplace.  Most businesses track their labor costs as a percent of revenue.  Labor costs can account for as much as 70% of total business costs according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Labor costs, like any other commodity, should be set by supply and demand.  Creating an artificial, government mandated price floor goes against America's capitalist economic system. 

Oklahoma voters should vote no on SQ#832.  It will hurt the very ones it claims it would help.

Who will be the 'placeholder' in the U.S. Senate?

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

MUSICAL CHAIRS!

by Steve Fair

 

U.S. Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., was nominated to lead the U.S. Department of Homeland Security this week after President Donald Trump removed Secretary Kristi Noem.   The move follows bipartisan criticism of Noem’s leadership, including contentious congressional hearings and scrutiny over departmental spending and media campaigns.

Mullin accepted the nomination shortly after the president’s formal offer and now awaits U.S. Senate confirmation.  “I am super excited about this opportunity. It came — not as a complete surprise — but it came at a little bit of a surprise for us,” Mullin said on the steps of the Capitol shortly after Trump announced Noem’s ouster Thursday afternoon.

Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt has 30 days after receiving Mullin's resignation to appoint a registered Republican to temporarily fill the seat after the senator leaves his post, but the appointee must sign an affidavit pledging to not run for a full term in November.   Many believe the restriction to prevent the appointee from running for a full term is illegal and would never stand up in court.  Oilman Harold Hamm has supposedly asked to fill the placeholder seat.  It remains to be seen who Stitt will appoint.   Three observations:

First, Mullin will follow Trump's orders.  Secretary Noem's poor judgment in policy and her personal life became a major distraction to Homeland's mission.  Removing her from the cabinet was a wise move.  Senator Mullin agrees with Trump's immigration policy and will carry out his directives without a hitch.  Mullin faces a Senate confirmation hearing, but it appears there is no organized effort to derail the nomination.  Senator Lindsey Graham, (R-SC) said about Mullin's nomination: "President Trump could not have chosen a better candidate to be Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security than Senator Markwayne Mullin."  With the GOP in control of the Senate, he should sail through the confirmation.

Second, the timeline for senate candidates is short.  Filing for federal, state and county offices is April 1-3.  The primary election is June 16th and the primary runoff August 25th.  Some claim a tight campaign schedule favors a grassroots candidate.  Others believe it favors a candidate who can self fund a high visibility advertising campaign.  Oklahoma 1st district Congressman Kevin Hern, (R-Tulsa) has indicated he is going to run for the full term.  Other potential candidates include Governor Kevin Stitt, Congressman Stephanie Brice, (R-OKC) and former State Senator and OKGOP Chair Nathan Dahm.  There is just 90 days until the primary.  Whomever decides to run will have to hit the ground running.  The race will be won in the GOP primary in June.  No Democrat has represented Oklahoma in the U.S. Senate in 30 plus years.

Third, Mullin's appointment creates a domino effect in Oklahoma.  If Congressman Hern or Brice run for the senate, a scramble to replace them in the House will draw multiple candidates.  Most likely state legislators would be among the aspirants for the Congressional seats, creating openings in their districts.  County elected officials would likely pitch their hat into the ring, creating openings for their offices. 

Musical chairs is a classic fast-paced game of elimination that tests reaction time and listening skills. Players march around a circle of chairs- numbering one less than the participants- while music plays.  When the music stops, everyone rushes to sit; the person left standing is eliminated, a chair is removed, and the game continues until one winner remains.  That is what is happening in Oklahoma politics. 

Cue The Laughing Policeman. 

ONLY THE DEAD HAVE SEEN THE END OF WAR!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

WAR!

by Steve Fair

 

The United States and Israel, launched a major, two-day military operation against Iran on Saturday February 28th.  The operation targeted nuclear and missile facilities.  Iran retaliated by launching missile attacks on U.S. military installations throughout the Middle East.  Three U.S. service members were reportedly killed and five others seriously wounded in the attacks.  Dubbed Operation Epic Fury by President Donald Trump , the stated objective is to eliminate remaining nuclear and missile capabilities.  The action comes after Iran has rejected several good-faith U.S. diplomatic negotiations and the regime's massacres of thousands of its own citizens during recent protests. 

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 86, was killed in the attacks.  The Iranian government confirmed the supreme leader's death and announced 40 days of mourning.  Approximately 40 plus top Iranian leaders and officials were also killed.  During his 36-year rule, Khamenei was unwavering in his steadfast opposition to the U.S. and Israel and to any efforts to reform and bring Iran into the 21st century.  President Trump called Khamenei’s death “the single greatest chance for the Iranian people to take back their Country,” and urged Iranian citizens to seize the opportunity and take back their country.  Three observations:

First, the attacks are inconsistent with Trump's MAGA mantra.  Republicans largely rallied around the White House in the hours after the attack — insisting the time for debating U.S. intervention in Iran had passed and the GOP must unify behind the president. But many of the president’s “America First” allies questioned the wisdom of intervening in global conflicts.  One of the fundamental planks in Trump's campaign platform has been a non-interventionist stance against 'forever wars,' from previous administrations.  Some Trump supporters are criticizing for practicing what he pummels. 

Second, the strikes were launched without prior congressional authorization.  Article 1- Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to declare war.  Throughout America's history, presidents have frequently circumvented the formal Article I by invoking their Article II authority as Commander in Chief to engage in military actions. While the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to declare war, historical practice has shifted significant control over initiating armed conflict to the executive branch.  Following World War II, nearly all large-scale military conflicts—including Korea, Vietnam, and the second Iraq War—were conducted without a formal declaration of war.   

Top Congressional Democrats and Republicans that make up a group known as the Gang of Eight — party leaders from both chambers, as well as the Intelligence committees' leadership — were notified by Secretary of State Marco Rubio shortly before the attack.

Third, it remains to be seen if the attacks were a wise choice.  If the 92 million Iranian citizens embrace the opportunity and take control of their country, they could throw off the current political system and bring about reform.  But Iran's political system is built around the concept of a 'Marja al-Taqlid.'  That is a senior cleric who citizens turn to for religious guidance and legal rulings.  Until a replacement cleric is chosen, a 3-member council is in charge.  President Trump says that council is willing to talk with him.  Time will tell if they will dial down the extremism and allow for reform. 

U.S. consumers are already seeing the impact of the attacks at the pump.  Some predict gas prices could get to over $3 a gallon in the coming months.  Because of underinvestment and sanctions, Iran, which has 12% of the world's oil reserves, only accounts for 4% of global oil supply.  But it's not Iran's oil supply driving the price up- it's the instability in the Middle East.  Instability in the Strait of Hormuz, where 20% of the world's oil travels through, is what could disrupt supply.

Since the 1930s, over half of the conflicts in the world have been disputes involving untapped oil reserves.  Oil-importing nations (the US is second behind China) tend to get involved to protect energy interests.  No matter the stated reason, countries go to war to protect their economic interests.

Philosopher George Santayana said, "Only the dead have seen the end of war."  

COURTS AND PRESIDENTS ARE NOT ALWAYS RIGHT!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

TARIFF RULING!

by Steve Fair

 

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) delivered a major blow to President Donald Trump last week by ruling (6-3) many of the tariffs Trump has imposed based on a 1977 emergency economic powers law were unconstitutional.  To say Trump was disappointed in the ruling is an understatement.  At a hastily called news conference after the ruling, he denounced the SCOTUS justices who ruled against him as a “disgrace” and announced wide-ranging new tariffs.  Trump used a different law to impose a 10 percent across-the-board tariff.  Three observations:

First, courts don't always get it right.  Courts and judges, at all levels, are made up of people and people are fallible.  They filter all their decisions through their worldview and political philosophy.  Often judges legislate from the bench and use their power to overturn laws and twist the original intent of lawmakers.  The SCOTUS is part of balance of power in America, but it is far from perfect and many of the high court's past decisions have been wrong.

Second, presidents don't always get it right.  No one gets it right all the time, including President Trump.  He could be right about the SCOTUS getting it wrong, but that remains to be seen.  Trump is correct the executive branch has the authority to Impose tariffs.  Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 allow the president to act regarding tariffs under specific, limited, and legally defined conditions.  

In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said: “we claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”

Third, the law is subject to interpretation.  There are two types of judicial philosophy: judicial activism, where judges are more willing to overturn laws, precedents and policies to shape social and political change.  Those who subscribe to judicial activism interpret the Constitution as a 'living' document.  That is normally the liberal view.

The second philosophy is judicial restraint.  Judges who subscribe to judicial restraint rule more often on the original meaning of the Constitution and defer to the legislative branch to make the laws.  This is normally the conservative view.  Neither philosophy is perfect, because even in its best day, human judgment is flawed. 

Trump's response to the SCOTUS ruling on the tariffs could impact future cases.  Insulting and degrading people who in the future will likely be ruling on cases you are involved in is probably not a wise strategy. 

Two of the three of the SCOTUS justices Trump appointed to the high court voted with the three liberals on the court and Chief Justice Roberts against Trump's tariff decrees.  Only Justice Brett Kavanaugh (appointed by Trump in 2018) sided with the president.    

It remains to be seem who got this ruling right, but Trump is not be the first president to be surprised by how a justice they appointed ruled.

When tariffs are put in place, they have to comply with the law.  If the law is wrong, then Congress needs to fix it.  Circumventing and dodging the law is illegal, no matter who does it. 

Court rulings are often frustrating and create roadblocks.  Routinely, the legislative and executive branches of government are at odds with the judiciary.  None of the three branches are always right. They all make mistakes.