Excavate the U.S. Department of Education!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

HOLLOW OUT!

by Steve Fair

 

In October 1979, President Jimmy Carter signed into law a bill that created a new federal agency and a cabinet position focused on education.  The bill was opposed by many in the GOP, who saw creation of the department as unconstitutional, unnecessary, and federal bureaucratic intrusion into local affairs.  But alas, the United States Department of Education (USDOE) began operating in May 1980. 

During the 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan called for the total elimination of the newly created U.S. Department of Education.  After he was elected, President Reagan reduced the budget at USDOE, but by the time he left office in 1989, the Gipper had increased the budget at USDOE.  To be clear, Republican leaders have been inconsistent on the elimination of USDOE.

In March, President Trump signed an executive order (EO) directing the Secretary of Education to take all necessary steps to facilitate the close of the USDOE and 'return education authority to the States.'  Permanent elimination of the USDOE requires 60 votes in the Senate, so until the GOP gets a few more seats in the upper chamber, USDOE will still exist.

Like all government agencies, the USDOE has grown over the years.  In 1980, the USDOE budget was $13 billion.  In 2024, it was $238 billion dollars.  At its creation, the agency had 3,000 employees.  Until President Trump's EO, the staff had grown to 4,133.  Trump's EO cut the staff to 2,183. 

In March 2023, a House Republican effort to abolish the USDOE failed because sixty (60) Republican members joined Democrats and voted against the measure.  Three observations:

First, education should be controlled at the local level.  Community control over curriculum, funding and operations will align public education with local values.  That has been the fundamental issue.  The USDOE has required local school districts to promote diversity, inclusion, and social issue ideologies inconsistent with local values to get federal funding.  Instead of encouraging more parental involvement, the USDOE's actions has created conflict rather than collaboration.  

Second, Oklahoma should be granted a Return to the States waiver.  Back in August, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon was in Oklahoma on her 'Return Education to the States' tour.  She participated in Governor Stitt's signing of SB#796.  SB#796 prohibits institutions within the Oklahoma State System of Higher Education from using taxpayer money to support diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs or activities.  McMahon has publicly supported local control of education.

Last week, McMahon announced Iowa was the first state approved for a 'Returning Education to the States' waiver.  It will give the state more control over nearly $9.5 million in federal education funding over the next four years.  Iowa had asked to control all $157 million they get from the feds, but only were granted control of $9.5 million, but that's a start. "We know that (one size fits all) mandates fail. States should lead. Washington should support their sound approaches and get out of the way," McMahon said. 

The waiver allows the Iowa Department of Education to give local school districts local flexibility in how their federal money is spent.  Expect federal educational dollars to be pushed to the local level over the next three years under the Trump administration.

Third, the USDOE should be eliminated.  The Republican Party's consistent stated position for the past 45 years has been one of opposition to a large federal role in education, but the walk hasn't matched the talk.  Virtually every GOP candidate campaigns for the elimination or significant downsizing of the USDOE, but it still exists. 

Getting moderate Republicans in the House and Senate to terminate the agency are not likely to happen.  Trump understands that so his strategy is to 'hollow out' the USDOE.

A significant percentage of federal education tax dollars are spent on red tape (compliance).  According to McMahon, teachers leave the profession because they spend too much time filling out compliance forms and neglect actual teaching. 

It's past time to excavate the USDOE and leave a shell.

 

DON'T CALIFORNIA OUR OKLAHOMA!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

by Steve Fair

 

Benjamin Franklin said, "the world is run by those that show up."  Talking and having good intentions don't cut it.  Sporadic, inconsistent, patchy involvement produces little. True meaningful influence and progress are the fruit of people who consistently put in the effort and do the work.  Most who 'show up' are not flamboyant or theatrical.  They are methodical and structured.  They are not influenced by hyperbole, exaggeration, and sensationalism.  They walk the walk, not just talk the talk. 

 Advocates for changing Oklahoma's primary election system point to the state's low voter turnout, which ranked last nationally in 2024.  They claim going to a California model primary system will increase voter turnout.  But that hasn't been the case in California.  California’s turnout was down (-5%) in 2024, so that theory is flawed.  Three observations:

 First, voter turnout is a science.  It's also big business.  Political operatives charge big bucks to help campaigns determine who will vote. They charge more money to 'get out the vote.'  The goal is to get 'their voters' to the polls.  They will use whatever means necessary.  For them, it's a game of numbers.  By getting their voters to the polls at a higher rate than their opponent, their odds of winning increases.  Many campaigns aren't above lying, cheating or stealing to 'get the vote out.'  Sadly, situational ethics reign in politics.    

 Second, Oklahoma has a turnout problem.  In 1992, Oklahoma's voter turnout was 58.8% and ranked 24th in the country- 4 points higher than the national average.  It has steadily declined through the years.  In 2024, only 55.3% of voters cast a ballot in the Sooner state- dead last in U.S.  There are a variety of reasons people don't vote, but the solution isn't revamping a primary system that is both fair and logical.  The fix is to educate fellow citizens and encourage more people to show up.  But that requires long term commitment by citizens and political leaders, something neither has proven to embrace.  Until Okies take more equity in their own government, expect turnout to be an embarrassment.  FYI- until 2024, Texas voter turnout has consistently been lower than Oklahoma.

 Third, low information voters are easily manipulated.  Poorly informed voters represent a huge opportunity for political operatives.  By using emotional appeals and misleading tactics to influence voter behavior, the uninformed become simply a tool to win.  Misleading, caricatured distortions of opponent’s positions rule the day.  The principled practice unprincipled tactics to win.  Capitalizing on voter's laziness and unencumbered with integrity, political ads, mailers and messaging placate and kowtow potential voters.

 Some believe low information voters should simply stay home, but that is not the answer.  The solution is to encourage, educate, and develop fellow citizens into strong-willed, resolute, unimpressionable voters that can't be exploited, but that requires too much work for most politicos.      

 Three things to remember about the SQ#836 petition: (1) Oklahoma's current primary system isn't broken or unfair.  (2) Changing to a California style primary system will not increase voter turnout.  (3) SQ#836 would increase the number of 'low information' voters.

 Don't sign the SQ#836 petition.  Don't California our Oklahoma!  Start showing up!

A MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS IS AMERICAN!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS

by Steve Fair

 

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Express (FIRE) is a group founded in 1999 by a college history professor and a civil rights attorney.  Their goal is to defend the right of free speech on college campuses.  FIRE fights censorship on campuses and attacks on individual fundamental freedoms. 

For the sixth year in a row, FIRE surveyed college undergraduates about their perceptions and experiences regarding free speech on their campuses.

This year’s survey includes 68,510 students from 257 colleges across the nation.  The results can be read at https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/2026-college-free-speech-rankings.

The survey showed a record number of students say it’s okay for students to shout down speakers, obstruct event entrances, or use violence to stop opposing views.  166 of the 257 schools received a failing grade on free speech.  Another 64 got a 'D' grade.  Many of those getting an 'F' were the most prestigious institutions in the country.  Three observations:

First, colleges have become institutions of indoctrination.   College used to be a place for the free and robust exchange of ideas.  Critical thinking was taught.  Professors challenged students to defend their positions by encouraging them to form their own opinions.  College professors demand conformity, abidance, and compliance.  Freedom of thought or disagreeing with the views of the text or teacher is not tolerated.  All in the name of tolerance.  Many conservative college students just regurgitate what the liberal prof expects to get through the class.  Rather than waste their time arguing with someone who requires total agreement with their views, students humor the idiot and move on.  That's not higher education, that's brainwashing.   

In 1967, the University of Chicago issued the Kalven Report in response to student protests over the war in Vietnam.  It argued that universities should remain neutral on political and social issues to foster lively debate.  "The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic," the report concluded. 

Second, free speech is not a partisan issue.  Free speech cuts both ways.  No matter the political ideology, everyone in America is constitutionally guaranteed the right to their opinion- and the right to express it.  Liberals and conservatives should be united in protecting the right of everyone to free speech.  They should embrace the right of someone to be wrong.  Sadly, attacks are free speech come from every corner of political ideology.   

Third, a marketplace of ideas is an American ideal.  America's founders believed open debate allowed for the testing and refining of ideas, that led to the discovery of truth and better judgment.  They did not believe in suppressing opposing viewpoints. 

The late Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote, the Founders believed “the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.”

The disturbing finding in the poll was that a significant number of current college students believe violence is an acceptable response to someone having a differing view from theirs.  Violence is never the answer to disagreement in politics.  Dr. Martin Luther King said, "The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy." 

In 2026, Americans better learn to agree to disagree without bloodshed. Otherwise, our way of life will be in jeopardy.

Taxpayers beware! Schemes to eliminate taxes just shift collection!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

THE DEVIL YOU KNOW

by Steve Fair

 

Oklahomans pay property tax administered at county level.  Property taxes are a funding source for local services like public schools, county government, career tech, and rural firefighting.  About 70% of property tax paid in Oklahoma goes to education.   The amount of property tax is determined by the value of a property's fair market value, assessment ratio, any exemptions, and the local millage rate.

State Senator David Bullard, (R- Durant) has introduced Senate Joint Resolution #23.(SJR23) aka the 'Ad Valorem Reform Act of 2026,." aka SQ#841.  Bullard is proposing Oklahoma voters be given the chance to vote on freezing and/or completing eliminating property tax for homeowners.  To make up the lost revenue, SJR23 would eliminate, he proposes citizens pay more in sales tax.

“For far too long, Oklahomans have essentially been renting their property from the government.  After all, do we really own our property if we pay taxes on it?" Bullard asks.

Bullard said any changes to the tax system would need to be implemented gradually to avoid destabilizing local budgets.  “We can eliminate this unjust tax, but any changes must be implemented slowly and carefully to ensure we don’t defund our schools or counties,” he said.   Three observations:

First, Bullard makes a good point about property tax.  If a citizen's property can be seized for non-payment of taxes, does the owner truly own it?  It's a good question, but not a new one.  It's been debated since the founding of America.  A settled aspect of the law is paying taxes is considered a reasonable condition of property ownership.  Courts have consistently ruled the government has the ability to seize property for lawful debts (with due process).

SJR23 seeks to shift simply collection of the lost revenue to another place- it wouldn't eliminate taxes.  It is possible citizens could pay more taxes to fund the listed entities. 

Second, a consumption tax is the most transparent.  With a consumption tax, citizens pay taxes when they choose to spend money.  The decision on how much tax you pay is through spending habits.  A consumption tax encourages savings, which boosts the economy and increases productivity and wages for all income levels. 

That's the problem with an income tax.  According to a study by the CATO institute, the current progressive tax system in America has the top half of income earners in the U.S. paid 97.1% of the $4.9 trillion of the federal income tax collected last year.  31.2% of Americans pay zero federal income tax.  A consumption tax simplifies taxes, eliminates deductions, and loopholes, making government more transparent. But few citizens track how much sales tax they pay. 

Third, Oklahoma's property tax is about average in the U.S.  The Sooner state ranks #25 nationally in property tax.  Oklahomans pay 0.77% of assessed value annually in property tax.  Texas ranks #7 in property tax, Kansas #12, but neither of those states have a state income tax.  Colorado and New Mexico have lower property tax rates- Missouri about the same.  Oklahoma's tax burden is #21 in the country.  The Sooner state ranks #43 in per capita income.  Therein lays the problem- Oklahomans remain overtaxed and underpaid.

Three things are certain- death, taxes, and politicians talking about taxes.  No one likes taxes, but making radical changes on how revenue is collected should be taken very seriously.  Oklahomans may not like paying taxes on property they own, but they can see how much they pay each year.  They are not likely to track how much sales tax they will pay each year to replace property tax.

SJR#23 has appeal in theory, but implementation is too sketchy.  Oklahomans should probably stick with the devil they know. 

WHERE WAS FAIRNESS WHEN DEMOCRATS RULED OKLAHOMA?

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

CAN’T BEAT ‘EM, JOIN ‘EM

by Steve Fair

 

For almost a century after statehood, the Democrat Party dominated Oklahoma politics.  From statehood (1907) until 1973, Democrats held over 80% of the seats in the state legislature.  The first eighteen governors after statehood were Democrats.  For over 65 years, the majority of Oklahoma's members of Congress were Democrats.  When Okies went to register to vote, they were told by election board officials they 'had to register Democrat,' or they wouldn't get to vote in county elections. Giving out that counsel was illegal, but it was common practice. 

 

When Ronald Reagan ran in 1976, that changed.  Reagan appealed to conservative Democrats and they changed their registration.  In 2004, Republicans gained a majority in the State House and they haven't looked back.  Republicans currently hold all statewide elected offices, both U.S. Senate seats, all U.S. House districts, and have supermajorities in both chambers of the state legislature.  As of January 2025, over 52% of registered voters in Oklahoma are Republican, while only about 26% are registered Democrats.  Oklahoma has voted for the Republican presidential candidate in every election since 1968 (except for the Lyndon Johnson landslide in 1964), and no Democratic candidate has won a single county in the state in any election since 2004. 

To say the tide has turned is an understatement.

 

Tired of losing, Democrat leaders embraced a different strategy.  Recognizing the only way to win was to be an R, they encouraged former Democrats to join the Republican Party.  Their motto has become; if you can't beat them, join 'em.  The result has been a large number of RINOs (Republican in Name Only) being elected .  But Democrats still were losing.  Their next step was to claim Republicans were unfair for not allowing non-Republicans to select their Parties' nominee.  They want to change Oklahoma's closed primary system to a California style primary, where everyone runs in the primary- no matter Party affiliation- and the top two vote getters go the general election.  SQ #836 supporters are out in force and have until the end of January to get the necessary signatures to get it on the ballot.  Three observations:

 

First, Democrats didn't complain when they dominated Oklahoma politics.  In fact, they fought an effort to make county offices non-partisan.  When they were winning, they were uncooperative and ignored Republicans. 

 

Second, Oklahoma does have an apathy issue.  Oklahoma was dead last in the country in voter turnout for the last two presidential elections (2020 and 2024).  But the solution is not SQ#836- it's education.  It's encouraging fellow citizens to pay attention to what elected officials do after they are elected and holding them accountable.  That takes time and effort. 

 

Oklahoma has a substantial number of voters registered Independent.  Independents are traditionally not faithful voters.  In a closed primary state, a voter should pick a side and align with the Party that best represents their values. 

 

Third, SQQ#836 would move Oklahoma to the left.  That Is the whole point of SQ#836.  It isn't about fairness or increasing voter turnout.  It's about changing Oklahoma to a more liberal state. 

 

In the next couple of weeks, signature solicitors will be stationed at retail outlets telling voters Oklahoma's primary system is unfair.  But recognize SQ#836 is just the Democrat's effort to win elections.  They could care less about fairness.  Don't sign the petition!

SCOTUS TO HEAR IMMIGRATION CASE!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

THE GOLDEN DOOR

by Steve Fair

 

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has agreed to hear a case to decide if President Trump's order to end 'birthright citizenship' is constitutional.  Trump vs. Barbara is a class action lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and several other groups.  Trump has argued the 14th amendment adopted in 1868 was meant to apply to newly freed slaves and not to provide citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.  Those so called 'anchor babies' do not automatically grant legal status to their parents.  Having a child born in the U.S. doesn't change the immigration status of the parents.  They could still be subject to deportation if they illegally entered the country.  The SCOTUS will likely hear arguments in early 2026. 

President Trump signed an executive order immediately after taking office on January 20th to exclude children of illegal immigrants from automatic citizenship.  The link to the order is: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/

Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the response to Trump vs. Barbara: “Long after the Clause’s adoption, the mistaken view that birth on U.S. territory confers citizenship on anyone subject to the regulatory reach of U.S. law became pervasive, with destructive consequences.”  Three observations:

 First, what was the original intent of the 14th amendment?  The primary intent was to grant citizenship and equal legal rights to formerly enslaved people after the Civil War.  Congress wanted to ensure individual states would not deny fundamental rights like due process and equal protection to anyone.  The 14th amendment aimed to create a uniform standard of citizenship and civil rights, making Black Americans full citizens and protecting their liberties against state infringement. 

 In 1866, when Congress approved the amendment, the issue of 'illegal immigrants' was not an issue.  Immigration was essentially unhindered.  All immigrants were considered legal and entitled to citizenship after a minimum residence period.  That has obviously changed and the original intent of the 14th amendment has been twisted.

 Second, America is a land of immigrants.  Inscribed on the Statue of Liberty's pedestal are the words of poet Emma Lazarus: "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.  Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

But there are periods in American history when immigration has been restricted.  The 'golden door' has been closed.  Between 1900 and 1915, some 15 million immigrants arrived in the United States.  Congress considered immigration a problem to be closely managed.  They passed the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 and the National Origins Quota Act in 1924.  Immigration was limited between 1935 until 1965 to roughly 150,000 each year.  Proponents of managing immigration recognized an unrestricted policy promoted the possibility of America being invaded by foreigners. 

 Third, America's immigration policy has been inconsistent.  It has been marked by cycles of restrictive and lenient approaches.  President Biden opened the borders.  President Trump closed them and built a wall.  Millions of immigrants who have entered the U.S. legally face massive legal waits and backlogs that often result in the loss of legal status.  Congress' inconsistency in failing to pass comprehensive reforms have led to competing executive orders.  America's immigration policy remains confusing and chaotic. 

The 15 million Immigrants that came to America in the 1900s assimilated into American culture.  They learned to speak English and accepted American values and customs .    Today's immigrants practice cultural pluralism.  Different cultures live side-by-side and interact, but preserve their distinctiveness. 

Consider the following statement: "Immigration is bringing to the country people whom it is very difficult to assimilate and who do not promise well for the standard of civilization in the United States.” The speaker was not Donald Trump on the campaign trail in 2024.  It was Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, (R- MA) in 1891.  Immigration has long been a divisive issue and it is past time for Congress to deal with it.

Don't expect wide spread treason to break out in the military!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

MUTINY

by Steve Fair

 

U.S. Senator Mark Kelly, (D-AZ) is a retired astronaut and former naval captain.  Kelly flew combat missions during the Gulf War before he was selected as a Space Shuttle pilot in 2001.  His wife is former U.S. Representative Gabby Giffords, who was shot in 2011 during a campaign event in Tucson.  Kelly, 61, is an identical twin and his brother, Scott, is also a retired astronaut.  Kelly was elected to the Senate in 2020 in his first campaign for elective office.

Kelly, along with five other Democratic members of Congress, recorded a video, accusing President Trump of "pitting uniformed military" against Americans.  All six of the Ds are military veterans or former intelligence officials.  In the video, Senator Kelly declared, "Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders."

Based on their statement advising military personnel to disobey orders, President Trump ordered Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to launch an investigation into what he described as 'seditious behavior.' 

On Meet the Press Sunday, Kelly said: “This president thinks he can bully and intimidate people, and he is not going to, he’s not going to stop me from speaking out and holding him accountable for the things that he does that are wrong and unlawful."   Three observations:

First, military officers are required to follow orders.  That is the cornerstone of military discipline.  Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 92, service members must obey lawful orders.   All military orders are presumed lawful. The burden falls on the service member to establish that an order is manifestly unlawful. This is a high standard, and hesitation or refusal can carry serious consequences.  If military officers can pick and choose which orders they follow, the chain of command breaks down and chaos reigns.

Senator Lindsey Graham, (R-SC) has sharply criticized the remarks by Kelly and the other five.  Graham says their call to disobey direct orders as, "unnerving, unconscionable, and the most irresponsible thing he has seen from Members of Congress."  Graham is a retired U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General (JAG).  

Second, military personnel's First Amendment rights are restricted.  Military service members do not completely give up their First Amendment rights during their time in the service.  But those rights are significantly limited due to the unique nature of military service and the need for discipline and order. While they retain constitutional rights, speech and other activities can be restricted if they threaten military order, loyalty, morale, or mission effectiveness.  

Over 50% of military personnel do not declare political Party affiliation.  That percentage is even higher among officers.  Avoiding partisanship and political activities is intentional in the military.  A key norm of the U.S. military is to remain politically neutral and serve the Constitution and elected officials, regardless of party affiliation.

Third, only the courts determine a legal or illegal order.  The only way to determine whether an order is legal or illegal is for a service member to obey, or refuse to obey.  Then after the fact, a military court, a civilian court reviewing a military decision, or a war crimes or human rights tribunal will decide if it violated the Constitution.  Service members are subject to the UCMJ and as such obey or disobey any order at their peril.  That is one of the risks of enlistment.  Disagreeing with an order doesn't mean it is illegal.   

Before military members start usurping authority, they should read USMJ 10 U.S. Code § 894 - Art. 94. Mutiny or Sedition.  The punishment for mutiny is severe. A person found guilty can be sentenced to death or another penalty decided in a court-martial.    

Was Kelly and crew's remarks inciting sedition?  Were the Ds encouraging military members to rebel against the authority of the commander in chief?  If so, they should face the full wrath of the law, but this is more political theater than mutiny.  It is sensationalism and puffery designed to stir up the liberal base.  Don't expect wide spread treason to break out in the military.  They recognize a circus when they see it.