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. 

ELIMINATING RULE 22 WILL HAVE CONSEQUENCES!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

CLOTURE

by Steve Fair

         

     A cloture vote is a procedural vote in the U.S. Senate used to end a filibuster and limit debate.  It allows a bill, nomination, or other measure to proceed to a final vote. Invoking cloture generally requires a three-fifths supermajority (60 votes) in the Senate, though exceptions exist for some nominations and legislation. The vote to invoke cloture occurs two calendar days after the motion is filed and, if successful, typically sets a 30-hour limit for further debate before the final vote. Three observations:    

      First, the cloture vote process is not in the Constitution.  The U.S. Senate adopted its first cloture rule in 1917 (Rule 22).  That rule required a two-thirds vote to end debate in the Senate.  The rule change came about largely due to a filibuster led by a small group of anti-war senators, notably Senators Robert La Follette and George W. Norris, both liberal Republicans, who opposed arming merchant marine ships at the start of WWI.  Rule 22 was further modified in 1975, lowering the threshold for most legislation to three-fifths (60 votes).  Cloture is not the law of the land- it's a rule in the Senate.    

     President Trump has called for the permanent elimination of the cloture.  If that is done, the stalled budget bill would likely pass.  Republicans hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate, and could pass the bill without any Democrat support.  But many Republican senators oppose the canning of the cloture, including both Oklahoma senators.  Senate majority leader John Thune, (R-SD) has said he would oppose as well, calling the action short sighted.    

      Second, historically, the cloture was used sparingly.  Sadly, consensus and bi-partisan legislation doesn't exist in the modern Congress and cloture is now used most often to block legislation.  Several times in recent years, the U.S. Senate has reduced the number of votes needed to a simple majority to approve nominations or to pass legislation.  It has happened under Republican and Democratic control.  That may occur again if the government shutdown drags on much longer.        

      Third, eliminating the cloture could have consequences. Republicans have the majority in the Senate and are currently in the majority (53-47).  That could change as soon as Jan. 2026.  Sen. Markwayne Mullin, (R-OK) recognizes the GOP may not always control the upper chamber.  "If we want to do something very, extremely limited" to "avoid shutdowns in the future, I may consider that," he said." But to nuke, to go nuclear into the filibuster — we all know that the Senate goes back and forth, and it's in our favor when we have the minority,"   Mullin said.

     Many Congressional Democrats ran in 2024 on nixing the filibuster, but the Ds have used Rule 22 to stop the funding bill and shut down the government.  "We ran on killing the filibuster and now we love it." Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa. said. Has Rule 22's time past?  Is the cloture rule outdated and hurting the country?

     Rule 22 can be eliminated by either changing Senate rules with a two-thirds vote or using the 'nuclear option.'  The 'nuclear option' involves a senator raising a point of order against the 60-vote requirement, the presiding officer ruling it out of order, and then a simple majority vote to uphold the ruling, thereby changing the threshold to 51 votes.    

     It is not likely the Senate will vote to permanently eliminate Rule 22, but perhaps its time to put closure to the Democrat cloture.

Don't Sign the Marijuana Petition.

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

DON’T SIGN SQ#837

by Steve Fair

         

     A group seeking the legalization of recreational marijuana in Oklahoma is nearing the deadline to gather the needed 170,000 signatures to put State Question #837 on the ballot.  Oklahomans for Responsible Cannabis Action claim legalizing pot for those over the age of 21 addresses loopholes in current Oklahoma law.  "Our enforcement arms will not protect our children. We are attempting to do that," Jed Green, executive director of Oklahomans for Responsible Cannabis Action (ORCA), said.  ORCA has until November 3rd to get the necessary signatures.  They are working 24/7 to hit their goal. Three observations:

     First, Oklahoma's marijuana consumption has increased in the past 6 years.  According to an October 2024 study, nearly 18% of Sooner state residents regularly use marijuana.  That ranks #15 in the U.S.

     Medical cannabis was legalized in Oklahoma in 2018 but recreational weed is technically still illegal. Medical marijuana has become increasingly affordable in the Sooner State, thanks to the numerous cultivation licenses, reduced barriers for commercial growers, and heavy competition among dispensaries. Which leads to the second point: 

     Second, marijuana has medical benefits.  Most health care professionals acknowledge marijuana does relieve chronic pain by reducing pain and inflammation.  Cannabis can help chemotherapy patients with nausea and vomiting.  CDB has been proven to reduce seizures in some types of epilepsy.  Multiple sclerosis sufferers can benefit from CDB.  Marijuana can lower pressure in the eye, which benefits glaucoma patients.  But Oklahoma's current law allows for citizens to get a medical weed card with little examination or screening, which has resulted in pseudo recreational use already.     

     Third, Oklahoma has already rejected recreational weed.  In 2023, SQ#820 was defeated 61%-39%, which sought to do much of the same thing SQ#837 does.  But national interests will not give up until they are successful.  If passed by voters, SQ#837 would amend the Oklahoma state constitution and the legislature would be powerless to fix any flaws it might have.      

     The Oklahoma Association of Chiefs of Police (OACP) is leading the opposition to SQ#837.  Police chiefs across Oklahoma have seen firsthand the unintended consequences of the state’s existing medical marijuana program. Before we expand marijuana access even further, we must first address the lack of enforcement tools, regulatory gaps, and the growing illegal market operating under the guise of legal “medical” use., OACP said in a news release. 

      The OACP says the normalization of drug use will allow for more impaired drivers on Oklahoma roads.  The point out there is currently no reliable tool to detect marijuana related DUI in real time.  They point out how the legalizing of medical marijuana has resulted in an erosion of employer rights to maintain drug-free workplaces.  “This initiative does nothing to strengthen our communities. It undermines them. We urge Oklahomans to reject State Question 837 and prevent it from reaching the ballot,” OACP says.

     How close to 170,000 signatures Oklahomans for Responsible Cannabis Action (ORCA) are is unknown.  ORCA has kept their progress close to the vest.  What is clear is out of state interests are funding their efforts and if SQ#837 reaches the ballot, even more money will flow into the state.  If asked, do not sign the petition.  SQ#837 is not good for Oklahoma.

U.S. BELONGS TO ALL CITIZENS- NOT JUST POLITICAL ACTIVISTS!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

YELLOW PHARISEES

by Steve Fair

    

    In 1782, American military troops were not being paid by the Continental Congress.  The Articles of Confederation (precursor to the Constitution) allowed Congress to set up an army in time of war, but no way to collect taxes.  They relied on individual states for revenue, who had no money, so troops went months with compensation.  Troop morale was understandably low.  In frustration Colonel Lewis Nicola wrote what has become known as the 'Newburgh' letter to General George Washington, who was camped at Newburgh, NY.  The first part of Nicola's letter described the hardship many of the army were facing.  The second part criticized the 'republic' form of government.  Nicola suggested General Washington declare himself King of the United States and force citizens to pay their fair share and fund the army.

     Washington's response to Nicola's suggestion was swift and direct.  He rejected the idea of a monarchy form of government and said Nicola's suggestion deeply troubled him.  Many colonial Americans already feared Washington would become like England's Oliver Cromwell. Cromwell ruled as 'Lord Protector' of England for years-essentially as a king.  Washington was sensitive to the Cromwell comparison and repudiated any suggestion he become a king of the new nation. 

     This past weekend, a reported 2,000 "No Kings" rallies were held across the United States.  This is the second time these rallies were held since President Trump took office for his second term.  Across the country, liberal Democratic elected officials addressed the attendees, criticizing Trump for illegal immigration enforcement, cuts to government spending, and the current government shutdown.  Three observations:

     First, the United States is not a monarchy.  No Kings is right about that.  America's form of government is a constitutional republic.  Citizens elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf, and the government's powers are limited by the constitution. The system separates power into different branches (executive, legislative, and judicial) to prevent any one entity from becoming too powerful. 

     The No Kings organization states on their website: "This country does not belong to kings, dictators, or tyrants.  It belongs to We the People — the people who care, who show up, and who fight for dignity, a life we can afford, and real opportunity."   The second statement is where they get off the rails.

     Second, America belongs to all citizens, not just those who show up. Political activists, on both ends of the political spectrum, make the mistake of dismissing the views of taxpaying citizens who aren't as informed and engaged as they are.  These political Pharisees thump their chest and 'thank God they are not as these unconnected losers are- even these low information voters.'  They want their views and values to have a disproportionate influence on public policy. 

     They deny it but their actions advocate for America to be an oligarchy- a form of government where political power is held by a small group of people, rather than being distributed among the total population.  An oligarchy offers little opportunity for outsiders to join the ranks of the insiders.  Exclusivity, exclusion and cliquishness are practiced.  Instead of educating citizens, oligarchs spend their time, talent and treasure manipulating their fellow citizens.  They organize rallies and express selective outrage.  Their goal isn't better government- it is staying in power.

    Three, liberals continue to remain out of touch with the average American.  Their inability to recognize what is important to the average voter is why President Trump was elected in 2024.   Many people at the No Kings protests wore yellow, a color organizers said is to show unity, but the color yellow is most often associated with cowardness.  Fact is, the average American is color blind to politics.  If anything, they see red when it comes to politics.   The average citizen seeks policies that provide economic stability and security for their family.  Political stunts and tricks turn them off.  Participants in the No Kings rallies are the activist base of the Democratic Party, which has shown itself to be out of touch with the average American.  The 2026 midterm elections will tell the whether Americans are still with Trump or not?

     The use of executive orders (EOs) by presidents’ reeks of a monarchy.  EO use has increased in recent years.  When Biden opened the border with an EO, liberals kept quite because the action was consistent with their values.  When Trump used the same tool to close the border, he is a sovereign monarch.  Consistency in politics is lost.   Maybe all political activists are yellow Pharisees, just trying to remain relevant.     

RULES FOR THEE, BUT NOT FOR ME!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

POKE IN THE EYE!

by Steve Fair

 

     The United States National Guard is a state-based military force that becomes part of the U.S. military reserves when activated for federal missions.  The majority of National Guard members hold a civilian job full- time while serving part-time in the Guard.  From the nation's founding until the early 1900s, the U.S. maintained a minimal army and relied on state militias for the majority of military troops.  After the Spanish-American War, Congress was called upon to reform and regulate state militias' training.   In 1903, Congress passed a bill that provides funding for National Guard troops to receive the same training as regular troops.

     National Guard units can be activated for federal active duty during times of war or in the event of a national emergency declared by Congress, the President or the Secretary of Defense.  They can also be activated by a declaration of a state of emergency by the governor in a state.  When the National Guard is not under federal control, the governor in the state is the commander-in-chief for the units in their state.  There are over 443,000 members of the U.S. National Guard.

     In June, President Donald Trump activated 4,000 members of the California National Guard for 60 days to respond to violence in Los Angeles against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.  Last week, Trump federalized the National Guard in Portland, Oregon and Chicago, Illinois to help deal with crime in those cities.  Federal courts have repeatedly ruled against Trump's action.  The president has threatened to use the 1807 Insurrection Act if federal courts continue to try and block the Guard deployments.

     On Wednesday 200 members of the Texas National Guard were sent to the Chicago area.  Texas governor Greg Abbott supports the move.  Oklahoma governor Kevin Stitt doesn't.  In an interview with the New York Times, Stitt condemned the deployment of National Guard troops across state lines.  “Oklahomans would lose their mind if Governor Pritzker in Illinois sent troops down to Oklahoma during the Biden administration,” Stitt said.  Three observations:

     First, Trump's action stepped on toes.  Stitt is right-most Okies would go nuts if National Guard troops from a blue state were sent to the Sooner state.  Trump knew using Texans in the Chicago deployment would make the Sand-hillers mad.  While the president has the authority to deploy National Guard troops at his discretion, it would probably have been wise to use the troops from the state of Illinois.  The problem is Illinois Governor Pritzker has avoided dealing with crime in his state and left Trump little choice but to bring in carpetbagger troops.

     Second, Trump's action is divisive.  The president has the authority to activate troops and send them to other states.  Other presidents have done it during times of national emergencies.  President George W. Bush sent National Guard troops from throughout the country to Louisiana during Katrina.   But Trump's action was an intentional poke in Pritzker's eye.  He could have used Illinois troops, but decided otherwise. 

     Third, the federal government is always trying to undermine state rights.  The 10th amendment in the U.S. Constitution says: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  For decades, the federal government usurped the authority of states.  However, since the Supreme Court has taken more 'originalist' interpretation of the Constitution, many issues like abortion and gun control have been pushed back to the states.  Trump's action sends the opposite message.

     Governor Stitt is Chairman of the National Governor's Association (NGA), a non-partisan group.  His remarks were the first criticism about the deployments from a sitting GOP governor.  Several Democratic governors had threatened to leave the group if the NGA did not condemn the interstate use of troops.  Stitt said that wasn't why he spoke against Trump's action.  Stitt is right.  Republicans would have condemned President Biden had he done what President Trump has done.  You shouldn't have rules for thee, but not for me.

DEMOCRATS SHOULD OWN GOVENMENT WASTE!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

PULL THE PLUG!

by Steve Fair

 

     The U.S. federal government shut down October 1st.  Last week, the U.S. Senate took four votes on both Democrat and Republican proposals to fund the government with a Continuing Resolution (CR), but lacked the votes for passage.  After the votes, the Senate adjourned for the weekend.  The U.S. House is scheduled to return to DC on October 14th, but could come back early.      

     During a shutdown, federal employees designated "non-essential," are furloughed.  Essential services like air traffic control and the military are not impacted.  Past shutdowns have resulted in federal employees working without pay during the shutdown, but getting back pay once the shutdown ends.  Social Security payments are expected to continue, as are food stamps and WIC benefits.  Medicare and Medicaid will continue.  The IRS will continue to collect taxes.  Passport processing and services could experience delays.  Oftentimes, the average American doesn't even notice the government is shutdown.  Three observations:

     First, many U.S. federal government functions need to be shut down.  The federal government is notoriously bloated, wasteful and extravagant.  Government agencies spend tax dollars with impunity and no accountability. President Ronald Reagan said, “No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!”  The Trump administration has threatened to permanently layoff some federal workers during this most recent shutdown.  That would be unprecedented.  Does Congress have the political will to pull the plug on wasteful spending?  Time will tell.

     Second, federal government shutdowns are nothing new.  Since 1976, the government has shut down 20 times.  The longest government shutdown happened in 2018 and lasted 34 days.  The current shutdown is happening because Democrats will not support the Republican written CR.  The Ds cite four recent national polls showing Americans will blame President Trump and Republicans for the shutdown more than the Ds.  Sen. Chuck Shumer, (D-NY), said, "Donald Trump and the Republicans own this shutdown."  

     The opportunity to reduce government spending and waste shouldn't be wasted by the GOP.  They should 'own' the shutdown and force Democrats to own the waste.

     Third, Congressional Democrats are putting politics over people.  Holding the federal government hostage to force through a $1.5 trillion dollar wish list of pork is a risky strategy.  Refusing to support the Republican CR to keep the lights on is the height of partisan.  Obstructionism is the failed political scheme that put the Ds are in the Congressional minority.  Expect Congressional Ds to cave quickly because Americans will blame all elected officials, no matter Party, if a shutdown dawdles.

     In 1974, Congress passed a bill revising the budgeting process.  In the 50 years Congress has used the system, only four times have they passed all the required appropriations measures on time.  It wasn't the intent.  Rather than pass individual spending bills, like the '74 bill outlined, Congress has instead used omnibus bills and CRs to fund government.  An omnibus bill bundles 12 annual appropriations bills into a massive spending package and is hundreds of pages long.  It is often passed at the end of a legislative session, in the dark of night.  Tax payers should demand government spending be justified.  If it's not, pull the plug!