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.