Brevity shows respect for listener!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

by Steve Fair

Brevity is defined as the concise and exact use of words in writing or speech.  In Hamlet, William Shakespeare said, "Brevity is the soul of wit."  Getting straight to the point is not how most politicos communicate.  Three observations:

First, brevity and clarity show respect for the listener.  Having the ability to express profound or complex ideas using the fewest and most precise words ensures the main point remains the focal point.  Long-winded speakers over-explain, ramble, and cause listeners to lose focus and become frustrated.  Lacking situational awareness and not being able to pick up verbal or non-verbal cues, the verbose lose their audience and are often blind to how it happened.  Thomas Jefferson said, "Speeches measured by the hour die with the hour."

Second, concise is not the enemy of clarity.  Vagueness, complexity and insincerity are often the result of someone trying to bury what their views really are.  Cutting through the fluff so the core point stands out should be both a candidate and a voter's goal.  Voters shouldn't have to interrogate, quiz and cross examine a candidate to determine a position.

Third, politicians struggle with brevity.  Instead of preparing and having direct answers, candidates believe they must burn up every second of their allocated time.  They repeat themselves repeatedly, revealing a lack of preparedness.  True leaders will convey their policy positions honestly and clearly.  Voters shouldn't have to seek out a Code talker to translate what a candidate's stance is on issues.  Citizens should expect straight talk and not double-speak from true leaders.  In the next three weeks, candidates will be blitzing the electorate.  May they be brief, concise, and clear.

The model prayer is just 66 words.  Martin Luther said prayer should be 'short, but profound."  All of us should learn that example.

In the spirit of brevity, this week's column is about half the word count of normal.  Should practice what you preach. 

PRIMARIES ARE HEALTHY!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

EXODUS 18:21

by Steve Fair

 

Overall, incumbent candidates win 95% of the time.  Incumbents have the advantage of name recognition. the leverage to raise money, and an established campaign infrastructure.  Incumbents win because voters are predisposed to choose the status quo versus an unknown quantity.  The truth is the incumbent is the devil they know.    

Forty-one (41) sitting legislators in Oklahoma are facing primary challengers in 2026.  That number is up +41% over 2024.  Eleven state senators and thirty state representatives in the Sooner state have primary opponents.  For the first time in a long time, Oklahoma voters will have a choice about who their legislator will be when they go into the voting booth on June 16th.  Three observations:

First, primaries are healthy.  Elected officials/incumbents often are offended someone dared to file for 'their seat.'  But it isn't 'their seat.'  The seat belongs to the people.  Incumbents should be happy to run on their record.  Having a primary gives them an opportunity to present their positions and values to their constituents.  An elected official who is bitter because someone filed against them exhibits attributes that should raise a red flag to voters (pride/arrogance/selfishness).  When voters have alternatives, that is healthy for the political process. 

Second, voters should vet the candidates.  Each voter should take the time to find out about the candidates- incumbents and challengers.  Here are three suggestions on how to do that: (1) Personally ask the candidate what their position is on issues and their values.  This could involve attending an event or personally contacting the candidate.  Some candidates will shield themselves from the general public.  Their gatekeepers are told to keep voters from gaining access.  That should raise a red flag.  Find a candidate who is accessible and willing to tell you their policy position, even if they don't agree with you.  (2) Research candidates online.  You have to be careful because as Abe Lincoln said, "you can't believe everything you read on the Internet."  Recognize most online sources have an agenda and 'spin' information, but with patience and persistence, a voter can find a great deal out about a candidate online. (3) Seek out someone you trust for their opinion on candidates.  While that is a lot like letting someone else do your homework, it's better than not having a clue when you get in the voting booth.   

Third, seek candidates who don't do groupthink.  When an elected official is so predictable, it looks like they are on 'autopilot,' that likely indicates a lazy approach to thinking.  While consistency is the foundation of trust, being against or for an issue based on completely on personality is political theatre.  Independent-minded, critical thinking leaders challenge the status quo and base decisions on evidence.  Good leaders welcome a divergent perspective, are decisive, and are not blindly loyal to a special interest or group.  Elected officials who serve in a legislative body especially need to be able to collaborate, negotiate, and display exceptional persuasive skills.

With a record number of primary races in the Oklahoma legislature, voters have a choice.  Voters shouldn't take the incumbent or their challenger at face value.  They should do their due diligence. In Exodus 18:21, Jethro told his son-in-law Moses to appoint men not covetous, who were competent, trustworthy, and God-fearing.  Oklahoma primary voters should look for those same characteristics in candidates on June 16th.

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.