Retirement Lottery!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

RETIREMENT LOTTERY!

by Steve Fair

Wouldn’t it be great if you could retire with a pension that paid you more than you made when you worked?  That’s doesn’t often happen in the private sector, but according to Gary Jones, Oklahoma’s State Auditor and Inspector, over 500 retired Oklahoma elected officials are drawing more taxpayer money in retirement than they did when they were in office.  How is that possible?  

In 1988, the Democrat controlled legislature passed a bill that allowed an Oklahoman who toiled for years as a state or county employee to hit the retirement lottery if they managed to be elected to public office.  Governor Henry Bellmon, a Republican, vetoed the bill, but the Democrat legislature overrode the veto.  The bill provided that when an elected official retired, their higher pension rate as an elected official was applied not only to their elected years, but also to the years they were a non-elected employee.   
For example, former Oklahoma State Auditor Clifton Scott who worked 20 years in state government before being elected Auditor and served 20 years as Auditor.  Scott now draws 160% of the average of his final three years salary- around $147,000 annually.  He is just one example.  Jones said this loophole has cost Oklahoma taxpayers over a billion dollars.  The legislature closed the ‘loophole’ in 2008, but these overpayments continue to those who were ‘grandfathered.’ into the old formula.
Past Oklahoma legislatures didn’t just ‘feather their own nests.’  They promised teachers and state employees pension benefits and then didn’t fund their pension plans.  Their irresponsible behavior created a shortfall of over $11 billion dollars in the seven pension plans managed by the state.  Since Republicans took over the legislature in 2006, they have made progress in the Oklahoma pension fund crisis, but they the pension plan are still only about two thirds funded.

Three observations:

First, elected officials are public servants.  They deserve to be paid for their work and are entitled to a competitive wage and benefits, but having a retirement pension that is more than double what they made as an elected official is ridiculous.  Most contributed little to their retirement fund.  What’s unfair about stopping the overpayment to retired elected officials the portion of their pension they didn’t earn?   There would be weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, but all good things must come to an end. 

Second, this crisis was created by ethical lapses by past legislatures.  Pension benefits were promised, but funds were not appropriated to fund the benefits.  The vast majority of the participants in the seven state pension plans are average folks (teachers, firefighters, state employees) who have contributed to and earned their retirement.  It’s important for the plans to be solvent.  Participants need to remember the current legislators are part of the solution, not the problem.    

Third, the solution will require time.  These pension funds didn’t get into this mess overnight and the solution to fix them will take time.  There are proposals to have new hires in state government in a ‘matching fund’ pension plan similar to a 401K.  Some want to consolidate the funds, but consolidation will not save near enough money to fix the issue.  Raising taxes to fund the plans has also been proposed. 

A recent poll by Wells Fargo published in Forbes magazine found an alarming 37% of middle class Americans believe they’ll work until they’re too sick or until they die.  Another 34% believes retirement will come at the ripe age of 80.  According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, fewer than one in five private sector workers qualify for a pension.  It’s a grim look at the state of retirement which seems to be getting worse for middle class Americans.  The gap between pension plans in the private and public sector continues to widen.    
 
What would make it worse would be for hardworking Oklahoma taxpayers to be saddled with a tax increase to pay pension benefits for retired elected officials who didn’t earn them.

FIRST VOTE!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

PARTY AFFILIATION IS 
YOUR FIRST VOTE!

by Steve Fair

 People often ask me the difference between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party.  “All political parties are alike,” they will often say, but is that true?  Not really.  I want to point three distinct differences between the two major political parties:

     First, the Republican Party is a party of limited government, Democrats believe in an expanded government.  Republicans believe in empowering individuals and businesses.  They believe that government should have just enough revenue to provide basic core services, aka roads, infrastructure, law enforcement.  Republicans believe in providing those in real need with a hand up, but not a long term hand-out.  The Democrat Party believes government has a moral obligation to provide for citizens.  In addition to core services, they believe the government should provide food, shelter and health care for every citizen.  The money to provide those programs are collected from the general public in the form of taxes and then redistributed to those in need.

     Second, the Republican Party believes that life begins at conception; Democrats believe it begins at birth.  According to Prolifephysicians.org, there is a universal consensus in the scientific community as to when life begins.  They state, “According to most elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From that moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species).  Non-living things do not do these things.  Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her.”  U.S. Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Florida), chair of the Democratic National Committee, says defining that human life begins at conception is “an extreme and radical step.”  The Democrat Party national platform statement on abortion says; The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay.  

     Third, the Republican Party believes in the right to keep and bear arms, Democrats believe in restricting personal gun ownership.  Democrats favor more gun control laws e.g. oppose the right to carry concealed weapons in public places. Republicans oppose gun control laws and are strong supporters of the Second Amendment as well as the right to carry concealed weapons for self defense. 

     In general Democrats tend to favor an active role for government in society and believe that such involvement – be it environmental regulations against polluting or anti-discrimination laws – can improve the quality of people’s lives and help achieve the larger goal of opportunity and equality. On the other hand, Republicans tend to favor a limited role for government in society and believe that such reliance on the private sector (businesses and individuals) – be it avoiding unnecessary environmental regulations or anti-discrimination laws – can improve economic productivity and help achieve the larger goals of freedom and self-reliance.
       Remember your party affiliation is your first vote!  Are you aligned with your values?

     For more information on the difference in the two major parties, go to http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democrat_vs_Republican.

  

CONSEQUENCES!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

CONSEQUENCES!

by Steve Fair

     In July, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the former Governor of Kansas, said the government was ‘on target’ to handle the anticipated volume to the federal health care exchange site.  Last month, Gary Cohen, the federal official in charge of health insurance exchanges, promised federal legislators that, “on October 1^st ‘consumers will be able to go online, they’ll be able to get a determination of what tax subsidies they are eligible for, they’ll be able to see the premium net of subsidy,’ and they will be able to sign up.”  Right.

     Now even some supporters of the Affordable Care Act worry the flaws in the system, if not quickly fixed, could threaten the fiscal health of the insurance initiative, which depends on throngs of customers to ‘spread the risk’ and keep prices low.   

     Despite repeated warnings the system was faulty, the Obama administration went ahead with the federal health care exchange. Back in April, ObamaCare architect and U.S. Senator Max Baucus (D-Montana), said “I just see a huge train wreck coming down if we don’t get some of the glitches fixed.”

     Even the chief digital architect for the Obama administration’s online insurance marketplace had his doubts about the system.  In March, Henry Chao told industry executives that he was deeply worried about the Web site’s debut. ‘Let’s just make sure it’s not a third-world experience,’ he told them. 

     Welcome to the third world. 

      A week after the federal Web site opened, technical problems continue to plague the system. Officials said they are working 24 hours a day to improve the system and that they were confident it would soon be able to meet the demand. They added that there was ample time to correct the site to allow consumers to get insured by January 1^st.  Some estimate it will take months for the federal government to get the system up and functioning as it should.

     Four observations:

     First, the Obama administration had ample time to get this right.  They knew that states were opting out of creating their own exchanges and that would increase traffic to the federal site.  This was not a big surprise.  They were just unprepared.  They failed because they failed to plan.  They should have delayed implementation until they were sure the system could handle the volume.

     Second, simply delaying the implementation would have been reasonable and logical.  The reason they forged ahead is because they rightly fear they will lose control of Congress in the mid term elections.  They believe it is a likely possibility the Affordable Care Act will be repealed and if they delay they will miss the opportunity to move America to a federal government controlled health care system.

     Third, this online digital system has cost taxpayers $400 million and counting!  That is just for the computer system to sign up consumers! That doesn’t include the cost to taxpayers for the government subsidies the Affordable Care Act provides those who sign up online.  This program simply costs too much and we don’t have the money to provide health care to every American. 

     Fourth, many Americans are finding their out of pocket costs of the ACA are higher than advertised.  In many cases across the country, consumers are finding that out of pocket deductibles and monthly premiums are more than they anticipated.         

     Elections have consequences and implementation of poor policy also has consequences.  The reaping of those consequences may be seen in the 2014 midterm elections next November.

J.C. Watts for ??????

Weekly Opinion Editorial

J.C. WATTS FOR ????

by Steve Fair

On Saturday morning in Tulsa, former 4^th district Congressman J.C. Watts spoke at a re-election fundraiser for Tulsa Mayor Dewey Bartlett.  Watts can still draw a crowd, even on a chilly Saturday morning, and is still a rock star in politics.  After wholeheartedly endorsing Bartlett for re-election, JC laid out some very important principles for every American.

First, it’s important to be involved in politics at the local level.  J.C. correctly pointed out the government closest to you has the most influence on your life.  Using his former congressional district- the 4^th- as an example, he pointed out that when he was elected to Congress in 1995, there was only two Republican state legislators out of twenty one from south of I40 and west of I35.  In 2013, there are only three Democrats in that quadrant of the state.  Why the change?  Because conservative Democrats came to the realization they were really Republican and started to vote that way.    “Politics is local,” Watts said.  “The Democrats figured that out years ago. They won the city council and mayor’s races.  They won the school board and the county commissioner races while Oklahoma Republicans were winning the Congressional races.  The Republicans in the 4^th district of Oklahoma made a difference by winning the local races and ultimately changed Oklahoma with that strategy.”  Why have Republicans fared better in the 4^th district of Oklahoma than other parts of the state in the past decade?  Local Republican activists have educated the public on the issues and have labored tirelessly in local races.

Second, Watts said the Republican Party needs to look like heaven.  Watts, a Baptist preacher, wasn’t saying the GOP is heavenly in their behavior.  He was pointing out how the GOP needs to be diverse and embrace all races and people groups.  His message is simple; don’t skip anybody!  In the past, political hacks/consultants convinced GOP candidates and party leaders to skip minority neighborhoods because the minorities didn’t vote for Republicans.  That strategy became a self fulfilling prophecy.  GOP candidates didn’t ask for their vote, so they didn’t vote for the GOP candidate.  Thankfully that is changing.  Republican values know no racial, ethic or economic boundary. 

Third, Watts said politics needs to be more civil.  “I have met some really nice Democrats through the years,” Watts said.  “I don’t agree with them politically, but we have a very civil relationship.”  His point is that rational people can disagree.  “We can’t just arrogantly thumb our nose at anyone who disagrees with us, Watts said.  “We need to make sure we are nice.  Nice goes a long way with me.”  That simple admonition is something all politicos- no matter your party affiliation- should heed.  No matter the issue, no matter the circumstance, we need to be civil and respectful in our debate.

When asked when he was going to run for elective office again, Watts said, “I can see myself in public office five years from now and I can see myself not in public office.”  How’s that for clarity?  “But I don’t ever see myself as part of a body- like back in Congress,” J.C. concluded.  Hummm.

Term Limts and Balance the Budget!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

TERM LIMITS AND BALANCE THE BUDGET!

by Steve Fair

     The federal government of the United States operates on an annual budget that runs from October 1^st to September 30^th.  Each year, Congress (both chambers) authorize/budget each department or government agency to spend a specific amount of money and then the President signs the budget. 

     The Budget Act of 1921 requires the President submit his ‘Budget Proposal’ to Congress by the first Monday in February.  President Obama has only met that deadline once – in 2010.  This year he was sixty five (65) days late. 

     With much and often heated debate, both chambers of Congress hack away at the president’s Budget Proposal to come up with its own version, known as the Budget Resolution. Like any other piece of legislation, the House and Senate versions of the Budget Resolution have to match.  Roughly one-third of the spending in the federal budget is “discretionary” spending, meaning it is optional. Just for your information, spending for Social Security and Medicare is referred to as “mandatory” spending. 

     In recent history Congress has not been able to agree on a budget by September 30^th so they have been forced to pass a ‘continuing resolution’ to fund government until the budget is hammered out.  A ‘continuing resolution’ simply means that government will run as usual until the budget is completed. 

     No doubt you have read or heard about the 2014 budget and the funding/defunding of the Affordable Care Act- aka Obama Care.  House Republicans want to delay funding the controversial program and keep the existing government running.  Senate Democrats has taken the stance they will not compromise.  The Ds have said either pass the bloated, wasteful budget with Obama Care intact or they will shut the government down.  Three observations:

     First, the 2014 budget has a huge amount of wasteful spending in it and it is not limited to just the ACA.  The problem is government spending as a whole.  Lawmakers should be trying to identify waste in ALL the budget and eliminate it.  That is a more permanent solution than passing CRs.  In fact, the CR agreement the US House has proposed violates the Budget Control Act and funds the federal government at a higher rate than last year. 

     Second, registered Democrats and Independents should be as concerned about the government spending problem as Republicans.  Our current federal government spending trajectory is not sustainable.  America is broke.  When the economy collapses because America can’t pay her bills, it will impact everyone regardless of political affiliation.   

     Finally, what’s the harm in delaying implementation of the Affordable Care Act for a year?  It’s clear that a majority of Americans do not approve of the takeover of healthcare by the federal government and oppose it.  The most frequently asked question on the website for the ACA is; “How can I be exempted from the ACA?”   A majority of the states have refused to set up health care exchanges, so that proves the ACA is a not a popular program.  By delaying it allows government to work out some of the kinks in the law.   

     What is the long term solution to our budget woes?  Two amendments to the U.S. Constitution would help.  The first is a ‘balanced budget’ amendment.  Congress and the President must be forced to spend no more revenue that what is collected.  No family can spend more than they make and prosper long-term.  The federal government violates that simple common sense principle each and every year.  All U.S. States except Vermont have a balanced budget amendment.  If it’s good enough for the states, it’s good enough for the feds.  We can't expect our elected officials to show discipline in spending our money.  They have proven time and time again they don't understand simple economics.

     The second amendment is for term limits (12 years) for members of Congress (unless they are serving prison terms).  Our founding fathers never meant for elected officials to be career politicians, but the political ‘industry’ (lobbyists/consultants/policy hacks/big donors/elected officials) has become one of the most corrupt and incestuous businesses in the country.  Incumbents win over 95% of the time, so it's hard to get 'new blood' elected.  It's time to send the career politicians home to get a real job and to live in the real world. 

HERE WE GO AGAIN!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

HERE WE GO AGAIN!

by Steve Fair

In this year’s legislative session, the Oklahoma legislature passed and Governor Fallin signed into law, Senate Bill # 1062.  The bill replaced Oklahoma’s adversarial court-based worker’s comp system with an administrative system, similar to those in other states. 

Last week, Oklahoma Speaker of the House T.W. Shannon, (R- Lawton) expressed his excitement and gratitude to fellow conservative legislators after the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. announced a projected double digit decrease in workers’ compensation costs.

The NCCI reported state businesses will see a projected average of -14.6 percent decrease in loss costs starting January 1. The NCCI credited the decrease to the workers compensation reforms in SB #1062.  That means there will be more money available to Oklahoma businesses for expanding their business, which translated means more jobs for Oklahomans.

“Oklahoma continues to be a leader by proving to the country that conservative pro-business policies lead to economic growth and prosperity,” Shannon said.  “By replacing an archaic adversarial system with a modern administrative system, we have opened the doors for employers and employees to settle claims in a fair and affordable manner. Businesses will see a reduction in costs and injured employees remain protected.”

Not all Oklahoma legislators believe workers comp reform is a good thing for Oklahoma.  On Tuesday, a lawsuit was filed with the Oklahoma Supreme Court asking the high court to determine the constitutionality of SB # 1062.  The suit was filed by Senator Harry ‘Turn’ Coates, (R-Seminole), State Representative. Emily Virgin, (D-Norman), and Rick Beams, president of the Professional Firefighters of Oklahoma.

“As a longtime      businessman, I recognize that it’s necessary to have workers compensation rates as low as possible,” ‘Turn’ Coates said. “In fact, I believe we need a workers compensation administrative system, just not the unconstitutional and unworkable system created by Senate Bill 1062.”  

The lawsuit alleges the new workers comp commission violates the state constitution’s separation of powers; that the law discriminates against certain classes of workers; and that it excludes certain injuries and conditions from compensation.  It also invokes the state constitution’s ‘single subject’ provision.  The suit names Gov. Mary Fallin, who signed the bill and Attorney General Scott Pruitt as defendants.
Fallin said she was disappointed by the legal challenge. “For decades, Oklahoma has one of the most expensive and inefficient workers compensation systems in the country, a constant obstacle for business owners looking to expand operations or create jobs,” Fallin said. Oral arguments are set for October 16. 

This suit is just a continuation of recent challenges to conservative legislation.  Lawmakers just concluded an unnecessary special session to address lawsuit reform after the Oklahoma Supreme Court found that a measure passed in 2009 was unconstitutional because is supposedly violated the ‘single subject’ rule.  Judicial activism is alive and well in the Sooner state.
 
It’s time lawmakers placed a state question on the ballot to return the selection of all Oklahoma state civil, criminal and supreme court justices to a direct vote of the people.  Justices should have to run on a partisan ballot.  Party affiliation is your first vote and voters should know if they are voting for a liberal or a conservative.

OBAMACARE RATED XXX!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

OBAMACARE RATED “XXX!"

by Steve Fair

     When the 2,572 page Affordable Health Care Act was being considered by the U.S. House in 2010, then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi famously said, “We have to pass it to find out what’s in it.”  You may be surprised to find out what’s in it is rated “XXX.”

    Betsy McCaughey, the former Lt. Governor of New York, and the author of, “Beating ObamaCare,” says the next time you go to the doctor- whether it is a dermatologist, cardiologist or your primary care physician, be prepared to answer some very intrusive questions about your sex life.  According to McCaughey, one of the tenets of ObamaCare is getting physicians to gather information about their patient’s sex life.  If they refuse, they face financial penalties.  

     “This is nasty business,” says New York cardiologist Dr. Adam Budzikowski. He called the sex questions “insensitive, stupid and very intrusive.” Budzikouski couldn’t think of an occasion when a cardiologist would need such information — but he knows he’ll be pushed to ask for it.  

     Four comments:

     First, asking Americans to reveal such private information is unconstitutional! The U.S. Supreme Court has found that the Constitution implicitly grants a right to privacy against governmental intrusion. This right to privacy has been the justification for decisions involving a wide range of civil liberties cases heard by the high court through the years.  This breach of our personal liberty in ObamaCare should make every American- no matter their political Party affiliation- livid. 

     Second, physicians will have to violate their Hippocratic Oath to comply!  Part of the oath says, “What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself holding such things shameful to be spoken about.” Physicians should not have to choose between the government and their patients. 

     Third, we can’t trust the government to keep information confidential!  Look at the NSA mess and the number of times a government agency gives out someone’s social security number.  Bureaucrats can’t be trusted to show up for work on time, much less keep information to themselves.

     Fourth, Most Americans have no problem telling their physician very personal information because they trust their doctor.  This requirement, if implemented, will damage the doctor/patient relationship.  Many Americans will either lie or refuse to answer questions that in years past they would have answered candidly. 

     Thanks to the National Rifle Association, Section 2716 of the ObamaCare law does forbid the federal government from compelling doctors and hospitals to ask you if you own a firearm.  They wanted to know if you had a weapon, but the NRA effectively killed that idea. But rest assured, the liberals will not give up. 

     The late Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandis was a long time advocate for personal privacy.  Brandis said, “Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."