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. 

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.