LIBERTY & FREEDOM!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

LIBERTY & FREEDOM!

by Steve Fair

     A recent study conducted by two George Mason University professors on freedom ranked Oklahoma as one of the top five states in the U.S. in overall freedom.  The study evaluated the fifty (50) states in three broad categories: Fiscal policy, Regulatory Policy, and Personal Freedom.  Using thirty eight (38) sub categories, they complied the results and ranked the states overall.  The study has a definite liberal/libertarian slant, but the scholarship and research appears to be fair and in most instances accurate. 

     The two individuals who conducted the study provide their definition of freedom.  They write,   “In our view, individuals should be allowed to dispose of their lives, liberties, and property as they see fit, so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. This understanding of freedom follows from the natural-rights liberal thought of John Locke, Immanuel Kant, and Robert Nozick.”   The two Profs obviously lean libertarian and in some of the sub categories, they give high scores to liberal states on social issues and low scores to more conservative states, but the study is worth looking at. 

     In Fiscal Policy, Oklahoma ranks third nationally, down from second in last year’s rankings.  Tennessee moved ahead of us this year.  Fiscal Policy includes the sub categories of tax burden (we rank second), state government spending and debt.  It appears Oklahoma is doing better than other states on government debt and spending, but we are still at least eleven (11) billion dollars in debt in unfunded pension plan liability.  Before state leaders start congratulating each other, they should ask themselves the simple question:  Should state government be in debt at all?  Does our state constitution forbid lawmakers borrowing money without a vote of the people? Should state government be mortgaging our children and grandchildren’s future income?  While Oklahoma is doing fine vs. other states, we should heed the admonition of scripture which says comparing ourselves with other states concerning debt- it’s just not wise.

     In Regulatory Policy, Oklahoma ranks seventeenth (17), down from twelfth (12) last year.  It would appear the study took into account the ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court concerning tort reform.  This sub category includes tort policies as well as occupational licensing freedom.  Indiana is the state ranked first in this category.  Not surprisingly, California is last. 

     In Personal Freedom, Oklahoma ranks #28, same as last year.  Alaska is first, Illinois last.  This category includes victimless crime freedom (legalized prostitution/drug use) gun control (conceal/carry), access to gambling, and educational freedom.  Good news for homeschoolers- Oklahoma ranks #2 in the country in freedom for homeschoolers.  In gambling access, the study ranks the Sooner state at #28.  What?  I demand a recount.  The state did jump four spots from last year.

     The index did not include matters that fell squarely within the control of the federal government, such as immigration and homeland security. While those things do affect the experience of freedom in all 50 states, they do not fall within the control of state and local governments.

     What the index does show is that Oklahoma is a state that has more liberty comparatively than most other states across the nation, but it does reveal we have opportunities to improve. 

President Lincoln said, “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.” While Lincoln was talking about the issue slavery, it certainly applies to other areas of freedom.  Senator Tom Coburn said essentially the same thing when he announced his intention to resign from the Senate at the conclusion of this year’s session.  “I’m going home to live under the laws I supported and opposed while in Congress,” Coburn remarked.   He recognized that what he did in Congress impacted every American’s life. 

     So much of our personal freedom depends on who represents us in the state legislature and Congress.  Americans should understand that with every governmental giveaway program, tax, fee, or regulation, a portion of your freedom is sliced away.  Vet the candidates who are running this year.  There will be many seeking your vote.  Make sure the one who earns your vote will stand up for your freedom.

     As Patrick Henry famously said, “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

     To view the study, go to http://freedominthe50states.org/

 

BIG SHOES TO FILL!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

BIG SHOES TO FILL!

by Steve Fair

     No one is irreplaceable.  No one is indispensable.  There is always someone who has the ability to do a job as well as the person before them.  Occasionally the person who follows a highly effective person will do an even better job than the first person.  It is difficult to follow a highly successful person because they have set the bar for success so high.  The next junior U.S. Senator from Oklahoma will have a very difficult task following Senator Tom Coburn.

      Dr. Tom announced last week he will resign from the US Senate early, due in part to his health.  Governor Fallin set the ‘special election’ to fill the remainder of Coburn’s term to coincide with the 2014 primary and general elections in Oklahoma.  Congressman James Lankford, (R-OKC) has indicated he will seek the seat.  Congressman Tom Cole, (R-Moore), and Attorney General Scott Pruitt have said they will not run for the open seat, but will instead seek reelection to their current posts.  Other candidates, both Republicans and Democrats will no doubt get in the race.

     Coburn’s legacy in politics is one worth examining.  Dr. Tom ran for Congress from a very Democrat congressional district in eastern Oklahoma in 1994.  Swept into office with former Congressman J.C. Watts and Steve Largent, these young conservatives became immediately effective within the Republican House caucus; Coburn and Largent, for their challenging of then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich’s leadership, and Watts for his ability to formulate and articulate the conservative message.  Coburn pledged to only serve 6 years in Congress and kept that promise.  In 2000 he came back to Muskogee and resumed his medical practice.

     In 2004, former U.S. Senator Don Nickles announced he would not seek reelection after four terms in the Senate.  A mad scramble ensued and a ‘passing of the baton’ was attempted by several prominent elected officials.  They encouraged the OKGOP to help ‘clear the primary’ for their chosen candidate.  Republican grassroots activists persuaded Dr. Coburn to get in the race late and he won the three way primary with 61% of the vote.  In 2010, he was re-elected in the general election with 70% of the vote. 

     Four things I want to point out about Dr. Coburn.

     First, Dr. Coburn is a true citizen legislator.  He believes the founders of our country never meant for career politicians to run our government.  He has always said citizens should consider setting aside their vocation and serving ‘briefly’ in government.  He is a consistent voice for term limits.  Because he has that mindset, he never thinks about the next election- he’s thinking about the next generation. 

     Second, Senator Coburn hates wasteful government spending.  No one in Congress has been more consistent on fiscal issues than Dr. Tom- and that means no one!  He has published his WASTE BOOK for years exposing where our tax dollars have been wasted and misused.  He has no sacred cows.  His annual Waste Book exposes unbelievable waste in the Defense Department which he dubbed The Department of Everything.  He has endured the ridicule of both conservatives and liberals when he has attacked their pet projects.  He has stood in the gap for taxpayers when other so-called fiscal conservatives were justifying their so called ‘essential’ projects. 

     Third, Senator Coburn has been a consistent voice for the unborn.  As an OBGYN, he has delivered over 4,000 babies in eastern Oklahoma.  He has debated and been an outspoken opponent of abortion on demand.  He believes life begins at conception.  

     Fourth, Dr. Tom is solid in his convictions.  That attribute is one that has angered both sides of the political spectrum.  Critics of Coburn claim he doesn’t listen to their side of an issue because he already has his mind made up.  There is certainly a sense in which that allegation is true.  Dr. Coburn is not swayed by popular opinion or polls.  He votes his convictions. 

     Senator Tom Coburn is not just an Oklahoma treasure, but a national treasure.  He has been a game changer in the U.S. Senate.  The next junior US Senator from Oklahoma has BIG shoes to fill.  Tom Coburn comes as close to being irreplaceable as any elected official in my lifetime. 

FAIR VOTE ISN'T FAIR!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

FAIR VOTE ISN’T FAIR!

by Steve Fair

     In 1966, I was in the eighth grade, in Civics class our teacher presented why the founders of America had used the ‘electoral college’ as a mechanism to elect the president.  He carefully explained the Electoral College concept was not one of the three original proposals of the founders to elect the POTUS. 

     The founders rejected having the president selected by Congress or by the state legislatures; because they believed it would have created an oligarchy- a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. They also rejected electing the president by ‘popular vote,’ because they believed the larger more populous States would have too much influence over the government.  They referred the issue to a committee of eleven who came up with the Electoral College concept. 

     The reason they choose this method of indirectly electing the president was for two very important reasons. First, they wanted to reinforce the concept America was a republic and not a pure democracy.  By indirectly electing the president, the ‘representative’ form of government became reality.   Second, they wanted to give the smaller, less populous States a slightly greater voice, proportionally speaking in their government, which the Electoral College does. For example, California is the largest State in population and their electors represent significantly more population than electors in Wyoming, the smallest State. It was a question of states rights.  Individual states were given power, not individual voters, again reinforcing the republic form of government.

     The concept seemed to be clear to all of us in the eighth grade civics class and the teacher marveled at the wisdom of the founders.  They understood we were the United STATES of America, he said.  They rejected what he called ‘mob rule’ or a true democracy.  It appears some Americans were asleep in their eighth grade civics class.

     The Electoral College has been under attack for years by various groups.  Because the concept is not taught like it once was in school, most Americans don’t understand the Electoral College.  That has given rise to groups who advocate our abandoning the Electoral College and elect the president by popular vote. 

     One such group is FairVote, whose Chairman Krist Novoselic is one of the founding members of the rock bank Nirvana.  FairVote also wants to establish what they describe as ‘proportional representation’ for electing members of Congress.  They want to abolish the congressional district lines and allow Representatives to be elected ‘at large.’  FairVote is holding a conference in Miami Beach this week with six members of the Oklahoma legislature in attendance.  If this group can get the attention of legislators from conservative Oklahoma, can a National Popular Vote or Proportional Representation bill in the Sooner state be far behind?

     Why should Oklahoma citizens be concerned about FairVote?

     First, if the president were elected by popular vote, Oklahoma would lose.  We currently get little or no attention in a presidential race, but in the Electoral College, we have a disproportional amount of influence in the process.  If the president were elected by popular vote, nominees would only concentrate their efforts on large population centers. If you think Oklahoma is a fly over state now, wait until the president is elected by popular vote.

     Second, these concepts are the European model for electing political leaders.  Europe has nothing we need in America.  Europe has out of control government spending, low worker productivity, citizen discontent and their governments are disintegrating before our very eyes.  Wealth redistribution hasn’t worked out in Europe and will not work here.  Our founders established a ‘REPUBLIC,’ form of government, far superior to a Democracy.  Citizens of Europe would happily exchange their government for ours. 

     Third, Proportional Representation violates the concept of a representative form of government.  The current system requires a Congressman to represent a specific geographic area with a specific population.  They must be aware of how issues will impact their specific district.  By blurring the lines, a ‘federalist’ mindset is established and government is removed from the intents of our founders.  If you think your representatives to the U.S. Congress don’t listen to you now, wait until you go to proportional representation.

     FairVote is NOT a fair concept.  If left unopposed, it will move America toward federalism.  Call your Oklahoma state senators and representatives today and tell them to oppose the National Popular Vote and Proportional Representation proposals.

     For more information on FAIRVOTE, go to http://www.fairvote.org/. 

Consumers, not companies pay TAXES!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

CONSUMERS, NOT COMPANIES PAY TAXES!

by Steve Fair

     It goes without saying that Oklahoma as a state is very dependent on the energy sector.  The oil and gas business provides thousands of jobs across the state.  There is a great deal of drilling and exploration in Oklahoma.  Part of the reason is because the state legislature lowered the tax on horizontal drilling to one percent from seven percent to encourage more drilling in the state.  The reduction is set to expire in July 2015. 

     Oklahoma State Speaker of the House T.W. Shannon, (R-Lawton) has announced that he will introduce legislation in the upcoming session to make the one percent tax permanent in order to continue to encourage drilling.

     "Some have suggested we should raise this tax or allow it to expire in order to bring more money in to the general fund and grow government," said Speaker Shannon. "But I don't believe in the tax more, spend more approach. The current tax rate on horizontal drilling has been doing exactly what it was designed to do: encourage more drilling in Oklahoma. Therefore, I believe we should make this rate permanent and send the message that Oklahoma is a place that welcomes the oil and gas industry, along with the jobs and economic development they bring to our great state."

     Four things to consider:

     First, Oklahoma state government is dependent on the energy sector.  More than ten percent of the revenue Oklahoma state government receives comes from the oil/gas sector.  Last year, that amount was nearly 800 million dollars.  Oil and gas, as an industry, contributes more than its fair share to Oklahoma government already.  Taxing an industry just because it’s a great source of revenue is short term thinking.  Capital is a coward and will go where the business environment is more friendly. Those who think companies will merely pay the tax and more on are foolish.

     Second, oil and gas companies don’t pay production taxes; consumers pay taxes.  As Steve Forbes often tells his audiences, taxes are a cost, just as paper and laptops are. That means he just passes those costs on to whoever is buying his product.  The oil and gas industry just consider taxes a cost of doing business.  When government taxes the company, they just take a price increase and the consumer ends up paying more for goods and services.  Those who oppose tax cuts either don’t understand simple economics or believe that ‘redistribution’ of wealth leads to economic prosperity.  Government can give you no more than they can take away from you, minus a large handling fee.

     Third, by its nature, government grows.  Government never stops growing.  The more revenue that comes in, the more government spends,  Thankfully, the Oklahoma state legislature has to ‘balance’ the budget, meaning they can’t spend more than they take in, but consider that Oklahoma government’s budget has grown from 6.6 billion in 2011 to an expected 7.1 billion in 2014-that is under Republican control.  While core services can’t be skimped on, you can bet there is plenty of waste in Oklahoma government.

     Fourth, we need to find the waste in Oklahoma government.  We do that by empowering and funding the State Auditor’s office.  Give the Auditor’s office the manpower to find the waste.  We know it’s there, but we seem reluctant to actually try to locate it.  Oklahoma government should go to a zero-based budget process; where an agency must justify EVERY dime in their budget and not just copy and paste last year’s budget. 

     Shannon’s proposal is a solid one and the lower tax rate should be made permanent to encourage drilling and exploration in Oklahoma, but even more important is stopping the growth of Oklahoma state government. Unfortunately that will have to be done by stopping the revenue stream to government.

INCONSISTENCY!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

by Steve Fair

      On December 17^th, the Oklahoma Supreme Court unanimously agreed that HB #2032, a state law that cut income tax and also created a fund for repairing the state Capitol building was unconstitutional.    The court’s opinion, written by Justice James Winchester, stated, “We hold the statute unconstitutional as it violates the single subject rule mandated by the Oklahoma Constitution.” What is the ‘single subject’ rule?

     Article V Sec. 57 of the Oklahoma Constitution states: Every act of the Legislature shall embrace but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, except general appropriation bills, general revenue bills, and bills adopting a code, digest, or revision of statutes.  The motive of the writers of the constitution was to attempt to stop the practice of ensuring the passage of a bill by which a legislator is forced to vote for an unfavorable provision in a bill to secure passage of a favorable one. The bill was authored by Speaker of the House T.W. Shannon, (R-Lawton) and was a priority of Governor Mary Fallin.  

       “I am extremely disappointed in the Supreme Court's decision to unravel a plan that would have provided tax relief to Oklahoma families as well as a way of restoring our crumbling Capitol building,” Fallin said.

     Speaker Shannon said. “I'm deeply disappointed the Supreme Court has once again ruled against the interests of those families. The good news is, help is on the way. I am prepared to act quickly with legislative leaders and the governor to restore what the Supreme Court has undone.”

Three observations concerning this ruling:

     First, the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling on ‘single subject’ has been terribly inconsistent.  In June, the court ruled the tort reform laws passed in 2009 were unconstitutional because they violated the ‘single subject’ rule.  Then on December 16^th, the Supreme Court ruled the new workers comp reform laws WERE constitutional and did not violate the ‘single subject’ rule.  Bear in mind, both tort reform and workers comp were written and presented much the same way.  If one law violated the ‘single subject’ provision, then it stood to reason that both did.  And what about the behemoth HB #1017 passed by Oklahoma voters in 1990?  If tort reform violated single subject, then the education bill was certainly a violation.  Where was the high court then?    Oklahoma citizens should reasonably expect courts to rule with consistency and not legislate from the bench. 

     Second, Oklahomans must demand judicial reform.  Oklahoma has three appellate courts- The Oklahoma Supreme Court, made up of nine(9) justices, the court of Civil Appeals, twelve(12) justices, and the court of Criminal Appeals, five(5) justices.  All are appointed by the governor.  Of the twenty six (26) justices currently on the three courts, nineteen (19) were appointed by Democrat governors.  All of these judges face Oklahoma voters, on a rotating basis, every six (6) years on a ‘retention’ ballot.  Voters can either vote to keep them or replace them.  Since Oklahoma went to a retention ballot, NO justice has been replaced.  It is next to impossible to find out anything about the judges on the ballot.  Many voters just leave it blank or vote to retain.  This system is not working.  Justices should either be term limited or they should run on a partisan ballot like they do in Texas.  

     Third, the single subject provision needs to go away.  Anti-logrolling provisions in state constitutions were very common in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries.  While the rule does force the legislature to only deal with one subject at a time, the rule has resulted in overly narrow interruption by the high court.  Single subject requires the legislature to pass more bills to accomplish the same thing and is an ineffective mechanism for stopping corruption.  It is now being used to circumvent the will of the people by an activist judiciary.  It’s time we consider removing it from our state constitution.

     This is not the official position of the Oklahoma Republican Party.  I am not speaking in an official capacity as National Committeeman.  This is only my opinion as John Q. Citizen.  

Merry Christmas!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

by Steve Fair

     On Wednesday, we celebrate the birth of Christ.  I think the birth, death and resurrection of Christ are the most important events in human history. It is proper we mark and celebrate these events.  I recognize that December 25^th was probably not the day Jesus Christ was born, but it is the season when the world is more aware of the incarnation of God as man.   The scriptures do not command us to celebrate the birth of Christ, but I believe it presents an amazing opportunity for Christians to present the gospel.  Allow me to deviate from my normal political commentary to give you three thoughts on Christmas.

     First, Christmas is under attack.  For the last several years, Bill O’Reilly has documented a number of circumstances where the celebration of the birth of Christ is under attack in the United States.  In Denver, they have banned religious floats in their Christmas parade.  Nativity scenes are being removed all over the country because of protests.  The greeting, “Merry Christmas,” has been deemed insensitive and replaced with, “Happy Holidays.”  As America becomes more secular, any reference to Christ became offensive.  That shouldn’t surprise believers because Paul said in 1 Cor. 1:18-25 that Christ was a stumbling block to the world.  Americans are not as spiritual as they were just twenty years ago.  Church attendance is down.  According to a New York Daily Post poll, only 54% of believers who had attended Christmas worship services as a child will attend this year.  Why is that?  The reason is many mainstream churches have abandoned truth for relevance.  While that may result in filling the pews, it doesn’t change hearts.  These attacks on the birth of Christ are the fruit of many years of believers not sowing the Word of God.  Christians have no one to blame for this deterioration of our society but themselves. 

     Second, Christmas is too commercial.  For years, people have spent more on gifts at Christmas than they could afford.  According to a study performed by the American Research Group, Inc., Americans will spend an average of $854 in gifts for friends and loved ones this year.  The average gift cost per child is now over $300.  One in ten parents will spend over $500 per child.  Many of those purchases will go on a credit card and paid out over the year, with interest.  The winners are banks, lending institutions and retailers.  Everyone agrees that Christmas is too commercial, but they are unwilling to stop buying expensive gifts because they feel pressure from a secular society.  Of the 2,000 people polled in the Post poll, only half said they viewed Christmas as a religious holiday, so it is not a surprise when we see Christmas becoming more commercialized.    

      Third and most importantly, Christ is not still the babe in the manager.  The message of the birth of Christ is not just his birth, but his death and resurrection.  Many people embrace the picture of a baby Jesus with an angelic halo above his head, who appears to be small and helpless.  But scripture says that Jesus Christ is at the right hand of God the Father making intercession for believers.  Why does He need to make that intercession; because we are dead in trespasses and sin.  Not sick, dead.  That babe was and is the only hope we have.  He is the omniscient and sovereign God who rules in the affairs of men. 

     The hope of America and for each individual American is not in electing more Republicans or getting more conservatives in office.  It’s not in getting the economy going.  It’s not in making sure everyone has affordable health care .  The hope of America is Jesus Christ.  He is the hope of all mankind.  Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Bill of Rights came from God!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

BILL OF RIGHTS CAME FROM GOD!

by Steve Fair

     Sunday December 15^th was the 222^nd anniversary of the adoption of the Bill of Rights.  The Bill of Rights is the name give to the first ten(10) amendments to the U.S. Constitution.  In 1789, twelve amendments were introduced by then Congressman James Madison to the 1^st US Congress as a series of legislative articles. They were adopted by Congress in September of 1789 and eventually ten(10) were ratified by three fourths of the states in 1791. 

     The Bill of Rights enumerates freedoms not explicitly stated in the main body of the Constitution, such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, a free press, and free assembly; the right to keep and bear arms; freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, security in personal effects, and freedom from warrants issued without probable cause. 

    When Madison, who was a Federalist, proposed the Bill of Rights, it was a controversial idea because a majority of the founding fathers had already entertained and rejected the idea of including a Bill of Rights in the original 1787 Constitution. Some of the Federalists(those who wanted a strong national government) also believed the concept bore too much similarity to England’s monarchy.  The Magna Carta, written in 1215, was a concession by King John to grant certain rights to his English subjects.  The Federalist founders wanted our founding document to present the concept of self-rule.  They said the reason was because ‘rights’ were given to man by God. 

     They also believed the Constitution was the only document that was necessary and called Madison’s amendments, ‘parchment barriers.’  Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper #84: “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”  Today, it seems almost inconceivable to not have a Bill of Rights, but in the early founding days of our nation, they were a source of controversy.   

     Why should Americans care about the Bill of Rights? 

     First, because they enumerate the basic freedoms we have as Americans; rights government can’t take away.  The Bill of Rights are like rules to a game.  You need to know what the rules are for being a citizen in America.  They educate citizens.  They serve to help keep government in check.  While they are not followed as closely by government as they should be, they do provide an effective deterrent to government expansion into our lives.   

     Secondly, the Bill of Rights are important today because they define what the founders meant when they said "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  A key phase in the Constitution is ‘unalienable rights.’  The founders were stating our rights, which cannot be taken away by government, originated with God.  But if our rights originated with God, as the founders stated, shouldn’t we find out what He said about government?  Romans 13:1 says Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

  That simply means President Obama didn’t win two presidential elections by accident- he was placed into office by God.  Hard to grasp for conservatives, but in fact if we believe that God puts leaders in power, we must understand He also controls and governs them.  The most effective lobbying effort a Christian has is not writing and calling his elected officials (which should be done), but when he lobbies God on his knees. 

     If God puts leaders into power, then we can logically conclude He also ordained the adoption of the Bill of Rights.  We should be grateful and thankful for His provision of these ten amendments.  They came from the hand of an omniscient, sovereign God who knows what we need better than we do.