Weekly Opinion Editorial

A FREEZE IS NOT A CUT!
by Steve Fair

Representative David Dank, (R-OKC) is the author of House Joint Resolution 1001 which if approved would allow Oklahoma voters to vote in November to freeze property taxes for seniors as long as they own their homes.
*****
Dank’s measure passed in the State House, but was amended in a Senate committee to simply raise the income level on the current program for seniors that qualifies them for a property tax freeze.

*****
Dank says the measure was watered down in the Senate because the education lobby lied and told Senate committee members his resolution would cut school funding. “The head of the state school board association actually alleged on Tuesday that this would cut school funding,” Dank said. “That is simply a lie. This measure would not cut one penny from any school or county budget anywhere in the state. All it would do would be to give Oklahoma’s 600,000 seniors assurance that their property taxes would not increase while they struggle to remain solvent and in their homes.”

*****
“This is in no way, shape or form a tax cut,” Dank said of the measure. “It is bogus to claim that it is. The people who claim to speak for schools ought to have more regard for the truth.”
*****

Dank said the property tax freeze for seniors was promoted by pleas from many seniors who are hard-pressed to live on fixed incomes with steadily rising utility, fuel and prescription bills, while also facing annual property tax increases. In some cases, he said, seniors facing medical costs or the need to place a spouse in a nursing home may be forced to sell their homes because of larger yearly property tax bills.

*****
Dank believes passage of HJR 1001 would make Oklahoma attractive to retirees by being fair to seniors. “Every senior who is forced out of his or her home by more and more bills from the taxman represents a dead loss to Oklahoma,” he said. “Doesn’t it make more sense to help them remain independent and in their homes as productive seniors than to drive them into nursing homes or assisted living centers because they can no longer afford the tax bill?”

*****
Critics of Dank’s bill include those who say that seniors can better afford increases in property tax than their younger counterparts. They also contend Oklahoma’s property tax is already among the lowest in the country and that Dank’s proposal simply freezes assessment of property.

*****
First, it might have been true in years past that seniors had more disposable income than the young, but that is not the case today. The golden years are not so golden for many seniors who are forced to sell their home because they can’t afford increases in property tax.

*****
American is a graying society and policymakers are increasingly targeting senior citizens to protect government’s revenue stream. At least five of the twenty tax hikes associated with ObamaCare directly target seniors, including a tax on pacemakers, wheelchairs and other items primarily purchased by seniors.

*****
Second, while it is true the devaluation of property has temporally impacted funding to schools; land is still a solid investment because it has a great track record of increasing in value over the long haul. According to smartcompany.com land and property are still viewed as a great investment by over 90% of Americans. Like Mark Twain said, “Buy land, they’re not making any more of it.”
*****

Government(schools) got spoiled when for years they could count on increased property values to increase their revenue each year. But shouldn’t schools and other government entities take a financial hit when the economic hits a snag? Individuals and business have to tighten their belt- it makes sense that government sucks it up as well.

*****
Third, there is no evidence that passage of Dank’s proposal would cut funding to schools. There is a big difference between a cut and a freeze. Having your paycheck frozen is not the most pleasant thing in the world, but having it cut means you get less money. Only in government accounting is a freeze considered a cut.

*****
If approved by the voters, the proposal would impact one in six Oklahomans who are seniors. Hopefully HJR 1001 will be restored to its orginal language and Oklahoma voters can decide in the arena of public opinion if they want to help seniors with their tax burden.

Weekly Opinion Editorial

PROTECT OUR RIGHT TO DEFEND OURSELVES!

by Steve Fair

Last week, the State Senate unanimously passed Senate Bill 1760, which amends Oklahoma’s current State of Emergency Riot Control Act. Authored by Senator Anthony Sykes, (R-Moore) and Representative T.W. Shannon, (R-Lawton), the NRA requested bill amends the current law by adding the following language; “Nothing in this section shall be construed to allow any official of a municipal or state entity to prohibit or suspend the sale, ownership, possession, transportation, carrying, registration, transfer and storage of firearms, ammunition and ammunition accessories during a declared state of emergency, that are otherwise legal under state law.” SB 1760 now moves to the House of Representatives for consideration

*****

Sykes said the bill would prevent what happened in New Orleans just a few years ago. “After Hurricane Katrina, the City of New Orleans actually began taking guns away from citizens. Instead of focusing on helping citizens who were completely vulnerable and in dire need of assistance, they were disarming people,” said Sykes, R-Moore. “The civil defense procedures and police department were clearly not functioning as they should have. Storm victims were becoming crime victims--they needed to be able to protect themselves.”

*****

Sykes, a lifetime NRA member, said, “I was very pleased to make sure this important issue was addressed in our statutes. “If Oklahoma ever faces an event as catastrophic as Katrina, it would be more important than ever for our citizens to be able to protect themselves.”

*****

The current State of Emergency Riot Control Act in Oklahoma gives the Governor the power to suspend sales of alcohol, impose a curfew, stop public assembling, and close streets and roads as well as stop any ‘such other activities as he reasonably believes should be prohibited to help preserve and maintain life, health, property or the public peace.’ during an emergency.

*****

Some would call Oklahoma’s Emergency Riot Control Act the ability to declare Martial law, but it doesn’t suspend ‘habeas corpus.’ which is the right to a hearing on lawful imprisonment- a guaranteed U.S. Constitutional right. But the statue does grant authorities a broad range of latitude to maintain control in the public square during an emergency.

*****
Martial law is the imposition of military rule by military authorities over designated regions on an emergency basis—(usually) only temporary—when the civilian government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively (e.g., maintain order and security, and provide essential services). When Martial law is declared, habeas corpus is suspended.

******
Contrary to many media reports at the time, martial law was never declared in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, because no such term exists in Louisiana state law. However, a State of Emergency was declared, which gave unique powers to the state government similar to those of martial law.

*****
And that didn’t stop New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin from declaring “martial law” on the evening of August 31, 2005. He in effect suspended habeas corpus and said that New Orleans police officers didn't have to observe civil rights in stopping the widespread looting in the city. Nagin reassigned the 1,500 New Orleans police officers from search and recue operations to riot control using the powers in the State of Emergency declaration. One of their jobs was to gather up weapons honest citizens had in their homes under the guises of ‘protecting the public.’ Cops were told to ‘shoot looters on sight,’ although it seems uncertain who gave the order. Eleven alleged looters were shot by police in the aftermath of Katrina.

*****
Sykes bill guarantees Oklahoma citizens the right to protect themselves in the event a state of emergency is declared- a fundamental right guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution by the second amendment. Contact your State Representative and encourage them to vote yes on SB #1760.

LET US VOTE!
by Steve Fair

This Thursday is the deadline for the Oklahoma House of Representatives to vote on HJR1075 authored by State Representative Jason Murphy, (R-Guthrie). The measure would send to a vote of the people a state constitutional amendment giving authority to the State Auditor & Inspector to conduct independent performance audits of nonfederal governmental entities or programs in Oklahoma.

*****
Murphy calls HJR1075 “one of the most important components of this year’s House government modernization effort.” In filing the resolution, Murphey called the proposed constitutional amendment an important measure “to ensure the performance audits remain free from political interference.”

*****
If approved in the House, the resolution moves on to the state Senate where, if it agrees, would place a state question on the ballot before voters this November.

*****
HJR1075 would make the performance audits at the discretion of the State Auditor. The scope of the proposed performance audits would include the identification of cost savings, reduction or elimination of services, and possible outside contracting of services to the private sector. In order to fund performance audits, the proposal earmarks 1/10 of 1% of current state sales and use taxes.
*****
What exactly is the difference between a normal audit and a performance audit? A regular audit only deals with the financial side of an organization. In a regular audit, so long as the debits and credits balance, everything is good.
*****
A performance audit examines a program, function, operation or the management systems and procedures of the audited entity to assess whether the entity is achieving economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the employment of available resources. Simply put, a performance audit determines if the government entity is spending the taxpayer’s money in an efficient manner.
*****
The Pew Center on the States writes, “Performance auditing and evaluation is an essential part of assessing government performance and holding agencies accountable for the tax dollars they receive.” The report goes on to say, “State auditing entities should have broad authority to audit any government entity, program, activity or function, and it’s critical to their effectiveness that they are able to conduct performance audits and evaluations free from the influence of other entities, such as the legislature or the executive branch.”

*****
Just how important are ‘performance audits?’ Last week, State Auditor Gary Jones released an investigative audit of the Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE). The audit revealed that former State Schools Superintendent Sandy Garrett had a slush fund she used to put on elaborate receptions in conjunction with continuing education seminars. The money collected for the fund was solicited by state employees on state time from private companies with OSDE contracts.
*****
During a ten year period, this fund spent $2.3 million dollars according to Jones. Although Garrett stated she saw nothing wrong with the fund, she shut it down before she left office. While an investigative audit is not exactly like a performance audit, they both go behind the normal ‘numbers’ audit.
*****
Giving Jones the authority and the money to do performance audits is not without some opposition. Critics of HJR1075 correctly point out the proposal would expand the powers of the State Auditor’s office. While that is true, isn’t identifying and eliminating government waste what most taxpayers want from their elected officials, especially the State Auditor?
*****
Representative Murphey said, “It is vital for the State Auditor to have the tools to thoroughly expose the inefficient and antiquated processes that are conducive to wasting taxpayer funds and corruption.”
*****
Murphey added, “This proposal will allow the Auditor to make the decision to audit based on need, not on political influence, funding or bureaucratic resistance.”

*****
Taxpayers, regardless of party affiliation, want to know how their tax money is being spent. I predict that if HJR1075 makes it on the November ballot it will be approved three to one by Oklahoma voters. A recent survey by Sooner Poll shows voters across Oklahoma overwhelmingly want the State Auditor ‘following the money.’
*****
What could possibly be a valid reason for a state legislator to oppose HJR1075? That is a good question and one I would urge you to ask your legislator. Passage of HJR1075 simply lets the voters decide the issue of accountability in government expenditures. If it is such a bad idea, then it should be soundly defeated. Legislators should not be trying to protect ourselves from ourselves. They should let the process play out in the arena of public ideas. Oklahoma voters get it right an overwhelming majority of the time.
*****

Contact your state legislator today and tell them to pass HJR1075 and let us vote!

Weekly Opinon Editorial

ALL RACES ARE PARTISAN!
SB#327 an attempt to blur the lines between candidates

by Steve Fair

Last week, the Rules committee in the State House of Representatives approved Senate Bill #327 which would make the office of County Sheriff in Oklahoma a non-partisan office. The disappointing thing is five Republicans voted with the Democrats on the committee to move the bill to a floor vote. Previously, the bill had passed the Senate 29-17.
*****
The House author of the bill, Representative Randy Grau, (R-Edmond) says, “Legislators have an opportunity to show whether we want to be statesmen more than we want to be politicians. The public safety of a community is not a partisan matter. Lawmakers make decisions as to the law, county sheriffs execute it. This is absolutely no need for a partisan sheriff.”
*****
Is a Sheriff partisan? What is partisan? Webster’s defines a partisan as ‘someone who is a proponent of a Party, cause, faction, person or idea.’ Really, being a partisan is not necessarily a bad thing. Everyone is partisan! All of us advocate for our ideas, a cause or people. The key is to be partisan based on absolute truth and not on emotions, opinions, or circumstances. Where do we find the truth- in God’s Word. We should be partisan for those things He is for and against those things He is against. I want to know if my Sheriff is a conservative or a liberal. I want to know if he is a Republican or Democrat.
*****
This non-partisan issue has come up before. In 2007, then Representative Rob Johnson, (R-Kingfisher) ran a bill to make all county offices non-partisan. The bill failed. Johnson has since moved to the State Senate when his Dad termed out and is the Senate author of SB#327. Here are two reasons why I am opposed to SB #327:
*****
First, political party affiliation defines a candidate! It’s their first vote. If a candidate does not have to declare what Party they are registered in, it makes it difficult to determine what they stand for. Republicans are traditionally more conservative and Democrats more liberal. That is even truer today than it was twenty years ago. Removing those labels from a race will lead to confusion for the voter. Candidates should be proud of their Party affiliation and be willing to defend why they are registered with a certain Party. We should know whether a person has a liberal or conservative bent when they run. Their Party affiliation will likely tell us how they will view issues while in office.
*****
Second, Democrats are behind this bill and their motive is not about partisanship, it’s about staying in office. The major proponent of moving to non-partisan Sheriff’s races is the Sheriff of Oklahoma County, John Whetsel. Whetsel, a Democrat, realizes that being a Democrat on the ballot in 2012 will hurt his chance of re-election. Whetsel and Democrats are advocating this ‘statesman-like’ change as Republicans are quickly becoming the majority Party in Oklahoma. This is nothing less than opportunistic and the proposed change is not rooted in conviction, but in convenience.
*****
Some legislators have correctly pointed out that making county offices non-partisan is in the current State Republican Party platform. Sadly, that is true and that plank should be removed. Years ago, after losing county race after county race with Republican candidates that were infinitely more qualified then the Democrat, I said we should make all county office races non-partisan. Democrats opposed the idea and they were right and I was wrong! I repent in sackcloth and ashes. I failed to see the importance of knowing a person’s ideology and philosophy and their their Party affiliation helps do that.
*****
Because Republicans now outnumber Democrats in county offices across the state, Democrats all of a sudden want to remove the labels. Removing a candidate’s Party affiliation blurs elections for voters. It’s difficult enough to find out information about people who run for office. Knowing a candidate’s Party affiliation gives us at least an idea of their basic ideology.
*****
Every office- municipal, judicial, school board- should be partisan. By declaring one’s Party affiliation, voters can better identify the liberals and conservatives. Running in partisan elections forces candidates to take a stand- a key characteristic of the leadership they will need to be effective elected officials.

BAN TAXPAYER FUNDED LOBBYISTS!
by Steve Fair

Lobbying is defined as ‘the process of influencing public and government policy at all levels: federal, state, and local.’ Lobbying involves the advocacy of an interest that is affected, actually or potentially, by the decisions of government leaders. Individuals and interest groups alike can and do lobby government. When an individual citizens calls an elected representative to express their opinion on an issue or bill, they are ‘lobbying.’

*****
Some individuals and organizations form associations and contract with lobbying firms to advocate for their group with state and federal elected officials. The lobbyist for those groups represent a myriad of different causes from business to union workers. These hired guns often attempt to influence lawmakers votes and decisions with tinker toys, balloons and cotton candy. Actually it’s more like Thunder tickets, fancy dinners, and gifts. According to the latest information from the Oklahoma Ethics commission registered lobbyists spent over $12,000 between July and December on state legislators and the Oklahoma legislature wasn’t even in session.

*****
According to the Oklahoma State Ethics Commission, there were 331 registered lobbyists in Oklahoma in 2011. Nearly 25% of the registered lobbyists (79) represented 54 state funded entities. That’s right- Oklahoma taxpayers/citizens are paying lobbyists to convince the state legislature to give state agencies more taxpayer money.
*****

Senator Anthony Sykes, (R-Moore) has been railing about taxpayer funded lobbyists since he was elected in 2006. Sykes says, "I was just totally shocked that public tax dollars were being used to basically grow government. It's the machine feeding itself and the irony is, it's tax dollars being used to do it.” Sykes has vowed to introduce a bill to stop the practice in Oklahoma. "If the public knew about it, things might change," Sykes said. "For a couple of years that was one of my main issues ... I ran into a brick wall when it came to trying to either ban or make it transparent."
*****
First, all ‘lobbying’ is not bad. Every citizen should be their own lobbyist on issues they are passionate about. Lobbyists for private sector associations represent people who often can not come to the Capitol in person and lobby their legislator on an issue. Those lobbyists have a place in the political process. They supply valuable information to lawmakers on issues. It’s when paid lobbyists begin to utilize gifts and campaign donation to gain access to a lawmaker that they cross the line. It is when legislators begin to listen to lobbyists more than their constituents because of the gift/relationship/friendship when it gets off the rails.
*****
Second, state lawmakers should recognize there is no such thing as a free lunch. That term “free lunch” relates back to the once-common tradition of saloons and bars in the United States providing a “free lunch” to patrons who had purchased at least one drink. All the foods they offered were high in salt (e.g. ham, cheese and salted crackers) so those who ate them ended up buying a lot of beer, which they had marked up to pay for the ‘free lunch.’ When a lobbyist buys a ticket, a drink, a meal or leaves a box of chocolates with an elected official, they are expecting a ‘return on their investment.’ They have to pay for lunch in some manner. Any lobbyist or legislator who denies there are no strings to a lobbyist’s gifts is either lying or naïve. The lobbyist may only expect access to the legislator, but they expect something and at some point they have to collect.
*****
Third, taxpayer funded lobbyists should be banned in Oklahoma. For a state agency or university to spend Oklahoma taxpayer dollars to lobby for more of our money is ridiculous. Most Oklahoma state agencies have on staff a ‘legislative liaison’ whose primary job is to advocate on behalf of the agency with the state legislators. That may include lobbying for more money or it may be to work with lawmakers on bills that might improve the efficiency of the agency. These ‘liaisons’ are not required to register as a lobbyist with the Ethics Commission. But in addition to their liaisons, several Oklahoma state agencies hire contract lobbyists with taxpayer dollars to get more taxpayer dollars out of the legislature.

*****
Senator Sykes plans to offer another proposal to ban taxpayer funded lobbyists at the State Capitol. It is past time for other lawmakers to recognize that allowing state government to lobby itself for more money is not a good spend of taxpayer dollars.

After much thought and prayer, I am pleased to announce my candidacy for Oklahoma Republican National Committeeman. I have served as Stephens County(Duncan) Republican Chairman for almost twenty years and 4th district Chairman for 10 years. I have served on the State GOP Executive Committee, Budget Committee, and as State GOP Treasurer. I have been a National Delegate to the past two National Conventions.
*****
My platform is simple- we need a solid lasting foundation in the Oklahoma Republican Party that stays engaged. That can only be done by building our local COUNTY GOP organizations.
*****
All too often, the focus is on national and statewide races, but true change in our government comes from the bottom up. We must have a solid foundation. In order to leave a lasting legacy, we need a vital functioning COUNTY organization in every county in Oklahoma. I pledge to help build that infrastructure by aiding in fundraising, training and organization.
*****
The second tenet of my platform is I pledge to help keep Republican activists engaged in the process- all the time! We need fundraising events, educational events, and Party building events in County GOP organizations every year. Those events should attract crowds and harness energy that is needed to build a lasting organization that will change government for the better.
*****
The election for the Republican National Committeeman will take place in Norman at the Oklahoma State Republican Convention on Saturday May 19, 2012, In order to vote, you must be a credentialed delegate to the state convention.
*****
I look forward to visiting with you soon at your county or district convention. If you have questions, please let me know. You can email me at okgop@aol.com or call me at 405.990.7449

Weekly Opinion Editorial

LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION!
by Steve Fair

According to the Guttmacher Institute, nearly one half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended and forty percent of those pregnancies are terminated by abortion. Guttmacher also says over 1.21 million abortions are performed in America each year.
*****
Last Wednesday, the Oklahoma State Senate passed Senate Bill #1433 known as ‘The Personhood Act.” The Pro-life bill was the first of the 2012 session to pass the upper chamber. The floor vote was 34-8 with several Democrats joining Republicans to define that life begins at conception and to grant the same rights to the unborn as to those outside the womb. The bill now goes to the State House, where it faces almost certain passage.

*****
Senator Brian Crain, (R-Tulsa) and author of the bill said, “The unborn have no voice of their own. We must be the voice of the unborn. This bill will take us to the very limit of what the U.S. Supreme Court has deemed to be constitutional.”

*****
Senate Pro Temp Brian Bingman, (R-Sapaula), said "With this vote the Senate made a loud and clear statement—we believe life begins at conception. We believe in protecting the unborn. Oklahoma is a conservative pro-life state—we are proud to stand up for what we know is right. This bill is one of many Senate Republicans have advanced which affirms the right to life and I am proud to support it."
*****
It is amazing how far Oklahoma has come in just a decade. Ten years ago, the Democrat controlled Senate would not allow any pro-life bill to get past the Health/Human Resources committee and to the floor for a vote. State Senator Bernest Cain, (R-OKC), who served as Chair of the committee, was the point person to block pro-life legislation. Cain was very successful until Republican took over the upper chamber in 2006. After Oklahoma voters imposed term limits on the legislature, Cain, not to be confused with Crain, was termed out and a new day dawned for the unborn in Oklahoma.

*****
‘Personhood’ amendments are relatively new to the political scene. The one that received the most national press coverage was in Mississippi. SQ #26 would have banned virtually all abortions, including those resulting from rape or incest in Mississippi. It would also have barred some birth control methods, including IUDs and “morning-after pills,” which prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus. SQ#26 was defeated 58% to 42%.
*****
Why did a strong conservative, pro-life state like Mississippi vote down the ‘Personhood’ amendment? The primary reason was the pro-choice opposition to the amendment flat out lied about what the amendment did. If one is willing to cheat to win, they have a definitive advantage over principled opposition.

*****
The second reason was the issue of stem cell research and contraception clouded the overall issue of the ‘Personhood’ amendment. That fuzziness allowed pro-choicers to talk about ‘unintended consequences,’ and planted doubt in voter’s minds.
*****
Third, the pro-abortion crowd changed their tactics and strategy. Many pro-choicers now condemn the practice of abortion, but say it should be legal because the issue is one of personal choice, constitutional rights and personal liberty. Harnessing themselves to an emerging ‘libertarian’ movement, the pro-choice movement has gotten gained new allies and traction and that was manifest in Mississippi.
*****
The battle over abortion is one that never ends, mainly because the two major Parties differ greatly on this issue. The national Republican Party platform has this to say about abortion: “As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”
*****
The national Democrat platform states: “Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.”
*****
Note the stark contrast- Republicans are clearly pro-life- Democrats pro-choice. As the battle for the rights of the unborn continues, Oklahoma state legislators are right to legally define when life begins. If they do not stand up for the unborn, who will? Please share these platform planks with your pro-life Democrat friends and family. It's time they aligned with the Party that stands up for the unborn.