LEGISLATURE WANTS THAT TSET MONEY!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

END RUN OR FAKE PUNT?

by Steve Fair

 

The Oklahoma Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust (TSET) is a public trust created in November 2000 after Oklahoma voters approved SQ#692 by a 59% margin.  TSET was created to manage monies from settlements or lawsuits against any tobacco company by the state of Oklahoma.  It specified that only 'earnings' from investments from TSET can be spent and only for tobacco prevention, cancer research, and other health related programs.  TSET was charged to use the money to improve the health for all Oklahomans.

The assets of TSET are invested at the direction of a five-member Board of Investors. That Board consists of the State Treasurer (Todd Russ), who serves as chair, and the designees of the Governor, Speaker of the House, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and the State Auditor.  The State Treasurer serves on the Board as long while in office and the appointed members serve four-year terms. 

The board of directors of TSET are appointed by seven statewide elected officials: the Governor, Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore of Senate, the Attorney General, State Treasurer, State Auditor and the State School Superintendent.  All members serve seven-year terms.  All appointed members serve seven-year terms.

There has to be at least one appointee from each Congressional district, and not more than two appointees from the same district.  In addition, not more than four appointees may be from any one political party. The board is responsible for spending the earnings from the trust.  They have normally spent about $50 million annually.

This week, TSET announced an award of $150 million through 14 grants to universities, clinics, and foundations throughout Oklahoma to strength health care systems in the Sooner state.  Using accumulated, unspent earnings from previous years, TSET exceeded the investment income provision in SQ#692.  Expect TSET's action to be challenged in court.  Three observations:

First, Oklahoma did the right thing in creating TSET.  Only two other states- Alaska and North Dakota did something similar and set aside their tobacco settlement money for prevention and reduction of tobacco use.  Most states used the money to fill budget holes or to pay off debt.  Two tobacco producing states- South Carolina and North Carolina- ironically used their settlement funds to help tobacco farmers.  Oklahoma voters chose to create an independent entity that would use the money for what it was intended- health care.  Crafters of SQ#692 knew if the legislature got their hands on the tobacco money, it wouldn't be used for what it was intended.  TSET was a wise decision.

Second, the legislature has been trying to do an end run on SQ#692 for years.  They have repeatedly tried to gain more control and access to TSET's funds.  After the TSET board, denied a request for an OU Health project, lawmakers passed HB#2783, authored by Rep. Trey Caldwell, (R-Lawton), and Sen. Chuck Hall, (R-Perry) in 2025.  HB#2783 allowed the statewide elected officials to remove their appointed TSET board members at will and ignore the term provisions of SQ#692.  HB#2783 passed the House on a vote of 60-30 and the Senate 36-8.  Gov. Stitt did not sign the bill, so it became law automatically in May 2025.  This week, the Oklahoma Supreme Court, in an 8-1 vote, ruled HB#2783 unconstitutional.  They noted voters the guidelines for how the board members are appointed and the length of their term was clearly set forth in SQ#692 and in the state constitution. 

Third, TSET needs revision.  SQ#692 guidelines require a significant amount of the TSET earnings go to education.  Instead of running out of date TV ads urging kids to not smoke, TSET should be spending money in rural Oklahoma to improve health care.  But any change to how TSET is governed and earnings are used require a vote of the people, Voters would likely vote to remove many of the restrictions that were wise in 2000, but make little sense 25 years later.  But the legislature should stop trying to circumvent the will of the people.  Bypassing what voters have approved isn't revision- it's an end run.

The legislature's action may have spurred the TSET board to action and their granting of the $150 million.  If that was the case, HB#2783 wasn't an end run- it was a successful fake punt. 

Excavate the U.S. Department of Education!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

HOLLOW OUT!

by Steve Fair

 

In October 1979, President Jimmy Carter signed into law a bill that created a new federal agency and a cabinet position focused on education.  The bill was opposed by many in the GOP, who saw creation of the department as unconstitutional, unnecessary, and federal bureaucratic intrusion into local affairs.  But alas, the United States Department of Education (USDOE) began operating in May 1980. 

During the 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan called for the total elimination of the newly created U.S. Department of Education.  After he was elected, President Reagan reduced the budget at USDOE, but by the time he left office in 1989, the Gipper had increased the budget at USDOE.  To be clear, Republican leaders have been inconsistent on the elimination of USDOE.

In March, President Trump signed an executive order (EO) directing the Secretary of Education to take all necessary steps to facilitate the close of the USDOE and 'return education authority to the States.'  Permanent elimination of the USDOE requires 60 votes in the Senate, so until the GOP gets a few more seats in the upper chamber, USDOE will still exist.

Like all government agencies, the USDOE has grown over the years.  In 1980, the USDOE budget was $13 billion.  In 2024, it was $238 billion dollars.  At its creation, the agency had 3,000 employees.  Until President Trump's EO, the staff had grown to 4,133.  Trump's EO cut the staff to 2,183. 

In March 2023, a House Republican effort to abolish the USDOE failed because sixty (60) Republican members joined Democrats and voted against the measure.  Three observations:

First, education should be controlled at the local level.  Community control over curriculum, funding and operations will align public education with local values.  That has been the fundamental issue.  The USDOE has required local school districts to promote diversity, inclusion, and social issue ideologies inconsistent with local values to get federal funding.  Instead of encouraging more parental involvement, the USDOE's actions has created conflict rather than collaboration.  

Second, Oklahoma should be granted a Return to the States waiver.  Back in August, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon was in Oklahoma on her 'Return Education to the States' tour.  She participated in Governor Stitt's signing of SB#796.  SB#796 prohibits institutions within the Oklahoma State System of Higher Education from using taxpayer money to support diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs or activities.  McMahon has publicly supported local control of education.

Last week, McMahon announced Iowa was the first state approved for a 'Returning Education to the States' waiver.  It will give the state more control over nearly $9.5 million in federal education funding over the next four years.  Iowa had asked to control all $157 million they get from the feds, but only were granted control of $9.5 million, but that's a start. "We know that (one size fits all) mandates fail. States should lead. Washington should support their sound approaches and get out of the way," McMahon said. 

The waiver allows the Iowa Department of Education to give local school districts local flexibility in how their federal money is spent.  Expect federal educational dollars to be pushed to the local level over the next three years under the Trump administration.

Third, the USDOE should be eliminated.  The Republican Party's consistent stated position for the past 45 years has been one of opposition to a large federal role in education, but the walk hasn't matched the talk.  Virtually every GOP candidate campaigns for the elimination or significant downsizing of the USDOE, but it still exists. 

Getting moderate Republicans in the House and Senate to terminate the agency are not likely to happen.  Trump understands that so his strategy is to 'hollow out' the USDOE.

A significant percentage of federal education tax dollars are spent on red tape (compliance).  According to McMahon, teachers leave the profession because they spend too much time filling out compliance forms and neglect actual teaching. 

It's past time to excavate the USDOE and leave a shell.

 

DON'T CALIFORNIA OUR OKLAHOMA!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

by Steve Fair

 

Benjamin Franklin said, "the world is run by those that show up."  Talking and having good intentions don't cut it.  Sporadic, inconsistent, patchy involvement produces little. True meaningful influence and progress are the fruit of people who consistently put in the effort and do the work.  Most who 'show up' are not flamboyant or theatrical.  They are methodical and structured.  They are not influenced by hyperbole, exaggeration, and sensationalism.  They walk the walk, not just talk the talk. 

 Advocates for changing Oklahoma's primary election system point to the state's low voter turnout, which ranked last nationally in 2024.  They claim going to a California model primary system will increase voter turnout.  But that hasn't been the case in California.  California’s turnout was down (-5%) in 2024, so that theory is flawed.  Three observations:

 First, voter turnout is a science.  It's also big business.  Political operatives charge big bucks to help campaigns determine who will vote. They charge more money to 'get out the vote.'  The goal is to get 'their voters' to the polls.  They will use whatever means necessary.  For them, it's a game of numbers.  By getting their voters to the polls at a higher rate than their opponent, their odds of winning increases.  Many campaigns aren't above lying, cheating or stealing to 'get the vote out.'  Sadly, situational ethics reign in politics.    

 Second, Oklahoma has a turnout problem.  In 1992, Oklahoma's voter turnout was 58.8% and ranked 24th in the country- 4 points higher than the national average.  It has steadily declined through the years.  In 2024, only 55.3% of voters cast a ballot in the Sooner state- dead last in U.S.  There are a variety of reasons people don't vote, but the solution isn't revamping a primary system that is both fair and logical.  The fix is to educate fellow citizens and encourage more people to show up.  But that requires long term commitment by citizens and political leaders, something neither has proven to embrace.  Until Okies take more equity in their own government, expect turnout to be an embarrassment.  FYI- until 2024, Texas voter turnout has consistently been lower than Oklahoma.

 Third, low information voters are easily manipulated.  Poorly informed voters represent a huge opportunity for political operatives.  By using emotional appeals and misleading tactics to influence voter behavior, the uninformed become simply a tool to win.  Misleading, caricatured distortions of opponent’s positions rule the day.  The principled practice unprincipled tactics to win.  Capitalizing on voter's laziness and unencumbered with integrity, political ads, mailers and messaging placate and kowtow potential voters.

 Some believe low information voters should simply stay home, but that is not the answer.  The solution is to encourage, educate, and develop fellow citizens into strong-willed, resolute, unimpressionable voters that can't be exploited, but that requires too much work for most politicos.      

 Three things to remember about the SQ#836 petition: (1) Oklahoma's current primary system isn't broken or unfair.  (2) Changing to a California style primary system will not increase voter turnout.  (3) SQ#836 would increase the number of 'low information' voters.

 Don't sign the SQ#836 petition.  Don't California our Oklahoma!  Start showing up!