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.    

AMERICANS HAVE A LOT TO BE THANKFUL FOR!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

NEW BIRTH OF FREEDOM

by Steve Fair

The Bible encourages believers to continually offer a 'sacrifice of praise to God' and to enter His gates with thanksgiving.  Christians are instructed to thank God in all circumstances- both in good and challenging times.  True biblical thanksgiving involves acknowledging all good gifts come from a sovereign, eternal God. 

In America, the event most commonly associated with the "first Thanksgiving" was a three-day feast in the autumn of 1621 following the Pilgrims' first successful harvest.  The Wampanoag people, who had helped the colonists survive their first year, joined them for the meal. 

In 1789, President George Washington proclaimed the first National Day of Thanksgiving. Other presidents made similar proclamations, but it was not until 1863 that Abraham Lincoln declared a national Thanksgiving to be held on the last Thursday of November.  In 1941, after a 36-year lobbying effort by journalist Sarah Hale. Congress officially established Thanksgiving as the fourth Thursday in November.  Most Americans view Thanksgiving as a day to feast, watch football and plan Black Friday shopping, but it should be a day they count their blessings.  Three observations: 

First, Americans should be a thankful people.  Few people in history have experienced the fundamental rights of freedom and democracy like Americans.  Americans have economic prospects like few other citizens in the world.  The founders of the United States established a self-governing system that puts citizens in control of their government.  The people hold power, exercised through a system of elected representatives rather than through direct democracy.  The U.S. is a democratic republic with a constitution that provides the framework for the representative democracy. 

Second, Americans should be a hopeful people.  A key feature of the American Dream is the foundational belief hard work and perseverance can lead to a better life.  Americans have always been a hopeful people.  The American narrative has always emphasized resilience and an ability to "renew ourselves" and "reach for the light" after division or setbacks.  President Ronald Reagan quoting President Teddy Roosevelt said, "We, here in America, hold in our hands the hope of the world, the fate of the coming years; and shame and disgrace will be ours if in our eyes the light of high resolve is dimmed if we trail in the dust the golden hopes of man."

Third, Americans should be a resolved people.  Americans are politically deeply divided.  A record number of citizens (80%) believe the country is divided on core values.  Most would like to see civility and common ground restored in the political arena. A significant number of Americans don't trust their government.  Despite the perception of deep division, Americans often agree on more issues than they realize, but finding that common ground has become next to impossible.  

Elected officials refuse to work together because they would rather settle for nothing than something.  The uncompromising, inflexible, hardline approach to policy creates disunity and strife.  

President Abraham concluded the Gettysburg Address by saying:  "It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." 

On this Thanksgiving Day 2025, America could use a 'new birth of freedom.'

Statewide Salary Increases Need Explanation!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

RULES MATTER

by Steve Fair

 Oklahoma legislators have an annual base salary of $47,500. In addition, they receive a per diem payment of $165 per day while the legislature is in session.  The pay was raised about $12,000 six years ago.  Two years prior, the Board on Legislative Compensation (BLC) had cut lawmaker's pay after legislators angered then Governor Mary Fallin, who controlled the members of the BLC.  Fallin openly lobbied to retaliate by cutting legislative pay. 

The BLC is composed of 5 members appointed by the governor, 2 members appointed by the President pro Tempore of the Senate and 2 members appointed by the Speaker of the House. The appointments must meet certain criteria to insure it represents a cross-section of Oklahomans.  The BLC is a constitutionally created body that meets the third Tuesday of October in every odd-numbered year to consider legislative compensation.  In October, the BLC voted to leave legislative pay where it is and not make any changes.  They did vote to increase the legislative per diem.      

A similar board to the BLC is the Statewide Official Compensation Commission. (SOCC).  It was created this year by the legislature to set salaries for the nine key statewide elected officials.  The members of the SOCC are the same ones that serve on the BLC.  The SOCC recommended 25% raises for all state-wide elective offices, but governor.  The next Oklahoma governor will get a +5.4% raise, moving their salary to $155,000, but they are provided a home and transportation.  If approved, this would be the first raise for statewide office holders since 2009.   

When the BLC and SOCC met in October, a former legislator turned lobbyist, James Leewright, voted as a member of both bodies.  Lobbyists are forbidden to be members of the BLC, so Leewright was ineligible to vote.  The two bodies are meeting again on Tuesday at the State Capitol to vote again.  Leewright has been replaced on both panels with Lawtonian Krista Ratliff.  Three observations:

First, a workman is worthy of his hire.  Elected officials sacrifice their time, talent and treasure to serve in office.  They should be adequately compensated.  While the amount of the raises is hefty, bear in mind it has been 16 years since there have been increases.  That is one of the reasons the SOCC was created- to avoid long periods without evaluation of compensation.  Elected official's salary should increase just like their constituents.  They earn their money.

Second, what did the SOCC base their salary increases on?  They voted to more than double the state superintendent of public instruction salary.  Currently the superintendent makes $124,373.  The SOCC wants to increase it to $250,000 annually.  The SOCC voted to increase the Lt. Governor's salary from $114,713 to $145,000,(+26%) the Attorney General's salary from $132,825 to $185,000, (+39%) the State Treasurer from $114,713 to $175,000,(+53%) the State Auditor and Inspector $114,713 to $150,000,(+31%), the three members of the state Corporation Commission from $114,713 to $165,000 (+44%), the State Labor Commissioner from $105,053 to $135,000, (+29%), and the state Insurance Commissioner from $126,713 to $185,000 (+46%). 

If these recommendations are adopted, seven statewide elected officials will be making more money than the governor.  The state superintendent of public instruction will be the highest paid elected official in Oklahoma.  That doesn't seem right.  The SOCC has some explaining to do.  Ask your state legislator to explain how SOCC came up with their numbers.

Third, does anyone play attention to rules?  The constitution is clear that a lobbyist is not to serve on the BLC.    Leewright, a former legislator, is a registered lobbyist, yet he casts a vote?  Did he not know the rules?  Did he ignore the rules?  Does anyone care about the rules?  The fact that a revote is necessary should concern every Oklahoman.  Playing fast and loose with the rules means there are no rules. 

Mark Twain said, "If you obey all the rules you miss all the fun."  While that may be case, elected officials should play by the rules.  They are supposed to be accountable to the people. 

1 in 8 AMERICANS RECEIVE SNAP!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

SNAP HAMMOCK

by Steve Fair

         

During the Great Depression, the federal government developed the first Food Stamp program. Aimed to help farmers sell agricultural crop surpluses and help hungry people, the Food Stamp Act in 1939 created a nationwide program. It was designed to be a temporary safety net for citizens to receive basic food products i.e.: rice, beans, flour, peanut butter and fresh produce. It was discontinued in 1943.

Congress then passed the School Lunch Act in 1946, which mandated schools provide a healthy lunch to students at an affordable price. That program is still in place. In 1964, the Food Stamp program was re-implemented nationwide. Each state developed their eligibility requirements and households purchased food stamps at a reduced price. The stamps had higher value than what recipients paid. The federal government funded the program, but individual state agencies implemented/administrated the benefit. 

In 1972, Congress passed the Women, Infants and Children program. WIC provided nutrition assistance to low-income pregnant women, infants and children. Then, in 1977, the purchase requirement for food stamps was eliminated, making them free for eligible families.  

In 1988, the Electronic Benefit Transfer cards were rolled out. EBTs eliminated paper stamps and benefits were loaded monthly onto a debit/credit card for beneficiaries. 

In 2008, the food stamp program was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

According to the USDA, in fiscal year 2024, an average of 41.7 million people received SNAP benefits each month. This is approximately 12.3% of the U.S. population, or about 1 in 8 Americans. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, only 11.7% of Americans live below the poverty line. Somehow the math doesn't add up. 

This week marked 37 days of the “Schumer Shutdown.” Affectionately nicknamed after Democratic New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, this government shutdown is the longest in U.S. history. Senate Democrats have refused to budge on the budget vote, and as a result, November federal SNAP benefits to the states are not being funded as they normally would be. The Trump administration used an emergency fund to load 65% of what is normal to the EBT cards. Three observations: 

First, SNAP needs to clean up fraud. Trafficking benefits for cash, store fraud, and other scams cost American taxpayers billions of dollars each year. In 2023, the Government Accounting Office reported that the USDA estimated that 11.7% ($10.5 billion) of SNAP benefits were improper payments.  

USDA Deputy Secretary Steven Vaden claims some states do not require proper income and asset evaluations for individuals on SNAP and the USDA is stepping up their enforcement efforts by moving personnel from D.C. to the field. Vaden said the USDA has uncovered multiple instances of fraud and abuse regarding SNAP across the country.

Second, many private organizations have stepped up and shown that they are more efficient than our government. Local food banks, community feeding centers, and churches are closer to the food insecurity problem. They can screen out tricksters and swindlers to get food to those who really need it. Those organizations are often manned by volunteers who care about feeding those truly in need. Congress should expand their partnership with food banks and other organizations to insure people who need food are getting it.

Third, the food insecurity safety net has become a hammock. The stated purpose of SNAP is to provide temporary food assistance for people and move them toward employment and self-sufficiency. But according to the USDA, only 38% of able-bodied adults receiving SNAP benefits are employed. The other 62% are unable to work. There are some work requirements to receive benefits. SNAP recipients often eat better than the hardworking taxpayers funding the program. SNAP has become a handout and not a hand up. It is definitely in need of meaningful reform and oversight.