Tea Party & the IRS

Weekly Opinion Editorial

TEA PARTY AND THE IRS!

by Steve Fair

In May 2013, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) admitted that it had targeted certain conservative political groups for closer scrutiny when they applied for tax exempt status.  The IRS code allows certain non-profit organizations to be exempted from having to pay federal tax.  The IRA admitted that beginning in March 2010, they begin to more closely scrutinize certain organizations applying for tax-exempt status with certain words in their names.  For example if a group or organization’s name had the words, Tea Party,  Patriot, or 9/12 Project in it, your application was flagged and the IRS would go over it with a fine tooth comb.
*****
President Obama claims he knew nothing about the targeting and said "This is pretty straightforward. If, in fact, IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that is outrageous, and there is no place for it, and they have to be held fully accountable, because the IRS as an independent agency requires absolute integrity and people have to have confidence that they are applying the laws in a non-partisan way. You should feel that way regardless of party. But I have got no patience with it, I will not tolerate it, and we will make sure that we find out exactly what happened on this."
*****
Four observations:
*****
First, it’s highly unlikely President Obama was completely unaware of the targeting.  That doesn’t mean the president ordered it, but he likely knew about it.  On Friday the Treasury department’s inspector general testified before Congress that he told his boss at Treasury in June 2012 that the IRS was engaging in blatantly unfair treatment of conservatives. One of those he told at Treasury was Tim Geithner’s top deputy, Neal Wolin.  It’s highly unlikely that Wolin didn’t tell Tim Geithner, the former Secretary of Treasury and its unlikely Geithner didn’t tell the President.  And if he wasn’t told, doesn’t that reflect on the president’s leadership ability?
*****

Second, the IRS slow play on tax exempt applications for conservative groups benefited President Obama and libels.  Non-Profit organizations which can provide a receipt for tax deductable donations get far more contributions than those who can’t provide one.  The groups the IRS targeted were politically conservative ‘grassroots’ organizations whose change in status would have financially benefited conservative candidates and their cause.

*****    

Third, what hasn’t gotten a lot of press, but should have is the use of the IRS to enforce the defunct “Fairness Doctrine” on broadcasters.  According to National Religious Broadcasters CEO, Dr. Frank Wright the IRS had Dr. James Dobson submit samples of his radio broadcasts to the IRS before they would consider granting him tax exempt status.  According to Dobson, an IRS agent indicated that his criticism of President Obama would prevent his ministry from getting a certain form of non-profit status. In other words, Dobson’s views were singled out by the IRS because they were conservative, Christian, and critical of President Obama. 
*****
Fourth, this is not the first time the IRS has been misused.  President Nixon famously had an ‘enemies’ list and one of the tools in his tool chest was the IRS.  You crossed Nixon- the IRS would audit you.  During a Rose Garden news conference last week, President Obama was asked about comparisons between himself and Richard Nixon.

“I’ll let you guys engage in those comparisons,” Obama said in reference to the president who resigned in disgrace in 1974. “You can go ahead and read the history, I think, and draw your own conclusions.”
“This is an agency with an enemies list,” commentator Lou Dobbs said on Fox News This is Nixonian. This is a president whose inner Nixon is being revealed.”
*****

If President Obama is innocent as he claims, he should appoint a special prosecutor to investigate this scandal.  After all, Nixon said he was ‘innocent’ and he appointed one to investigate Watergate. 

History repeats itself!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF!

by Steve Fair

The American diplomatic embassy at Benghazi Libya was attacked on September 11, 2012 by a heavily armed group of Islamic terrorists. The attack began during the night at a compound that is meant to protect the consulate building. A second assault in the early morning the next day targeted a nearby CIA annex in a different diplomatic compound. Four people were killed, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. Ten others were injured. The terrorists who attacked the mission have not been captured.  Initially, the Obama administration said the attack was nothing but a violent protest and not the work of terrorists.

According to CNN, an e-mail discussion about ‘talking points’ the Obama administration used to describe the deadly attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, show the White House and State Department were more involved than they first said in the decision to remove an initial CIA assessment that a group with ties to al Qaeda was involved.

On Monday, President Obama said the Benghazi debate a “sideshow,” saying he called the attack a terrorist attack from the very beginning.  Obama said that proves there was no cover-up or any effort to downplay terrorism.  But Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., called Obama’s account "revisionist history." John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., called it "flatly untrue."   "This definitely is a creative rewriting of history," Bolton told Fox News.  It is true Obama referred to ‘acts of terror’ the day after the attack, but one week later he was saying it wasn’t clear the attack was the work of terrorists.  

Rep. James Lankford, R- OKC is a member of the U.S. House Oversight Committee, which held a hearing last week on the Benghazi attack.   The witnesses at the hearing were State Department whistleblowers with direct knowledge of the circumstances of the attack.  These four career diplomats have served America in both Democrat and Republican administrations and are probably as close to apolitical as you can get.  All the witnesses were critical of the Obama administration and their unwillingness to provide proper security in not only Benghazi, but also at the official US Libyan embassy in Tripoli.

According to Lankford, the Department of State was actively trying to “normalize” the mission in Libya by drawing down uniformed security forces. State denied several requests by security personnel for increased security. Diplomats on the ground reported active terrorism in the area even as the State Department in Washington withdrew security forces. The hearings also revealed the facility was inadequate for even the most modest attack and there was a lack of preparation or warning systems at the facility. 

It is said that those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. 

Back in 1998, Islamic terrorist attacked American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya with truck bombs.  The two attacks killed 223 people and injured thousands.  The mastermind behind the attacks was Osama bin Laden.  In both the Tanzania and Kenya attacks, The State Department had ignored diplomats on the ground requests for increased security. 

Interestingly even the liberal news media is now asking questions about the Benghazi attacks, particularly the roll of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  Back in January at a Senate hearing, Clinton yelled at Senator Ron Johnson after he asked if the attack was a terrorist attack or just a protest; “What difference at this point does it make?” Clinton yelled at Johnson.  It makes a lot of difference.  If the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, there is significant documentation between the diplomatic team on the ground and top leaders in The State Department asking for more security and warming of a possible terrorist attack.  Those requests and warnings were ignored and Americans lost their lives.

Budget could be better!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

BUDGET COULD BE BETTER!

by Steve Fair

Governor Fallin and legislative leaders have agreed on a budget for Fiscal Year 2014.  The proposed budget includes a $91 million dollar increase for common education, a $33 million dollar increase for Higher Ed and a $3 million dollar increase for Career Tech.  It also gives the Oklahoma Health Care Authority a $40 million increase, the Department of Mental Health an additional $17 million and the Department of Human Services an increase of $44 million.  Overall the budget will increase $267 million over this year’s budget. 

This is the third year in a row the Republican led legislature has spent more money than the previous year, which prompted Michael Carnuccio of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA), the state’s leading free market think tank, to tell CapitolBeatOK, “For the third budget cycle in a row, Republican control of state government has produced increased government spending, no immediate tax cuts for families, and continued earmarks for pet projects.”

OCPA has been pushing the legislature to work toward total elimination of the state income tax.  While no one wants to pay any more tax than they should, it should be noted OCPA’s income tax elimination plan did not include equal cuts to the spending side of the ledger.  A better well thought plan on the elimination of the income tax must be fleshed out before it is implemented and that plan must include cuts to government.

A couple of observations on the proposed budget:

First, Oklahoma continues to pour money down the education rat hole without getting substantive returns.  We are spending three times more on common education in the Sooner state than we were just 25 years ago.  No other state agency has experienced an increase of such magnitude during that period.  It’s a lead pipe cinch the average Oklahoman’s income has not tripled in the past 25 years.  Our leaders continue to dodge the real issue in Oklahoma- WE HAVE TOO MANY SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND ADMINISTRATORS!  There are 527 school districts in Oklahoma, each with a superintendent and district staff.  294 of those schools have less than 500 students. The simple economies-of-scale rule should warn us that we’re spending a lot of money that never gets near a classroom where it really would make a difference. 

As of 2011, Oklahoma had over 3400 school administrators, earning an average of $74,858, or about one administrator for every 12 teachers. That's an increase of about 15% in the number of administrators in the past 15 years— even though the total number of school districts in the state has declined slightly.   

Oklahoma spends over 50% of the money allocated for common education on non-classroom related expenditures.  With all that increase in funding, you would expect our students to have showed significant improvements, but ACT scores have remained at about the same level they were in 1990.  It’s clear that throwing more money at education is not the key to educating children- at least not the way we are doing it.

Second, this budget does nothing to address waste in state government.  It simply continues to fund the status quo.  The one size fits all mentality in budgeting will never reveal the real areas where substantive cuts should be made.  “Across the board” cuts and increases reward the wasteful agency and penalize the prudent ones.  The legislature should consider ‘zero based budgeting,’ where every item in an agencies budget is justified.  It will be a lot more work for agency heads and legislature leaders, but if Oklahoma is serious about making government more efficient and productive, it must be done.

Third, the ‘pay as we go’ plan on fixing the Capitol and other state buildings is the right thing to do.  Mortgaging (issuing bonds) our kids and grandkid’s future is never a good idea and I applaud the Governor and the legislature for finding a more responsible way to fix the crumbling Capital building.

While the budget could have been far better had it addressed wasteful spending, it does address some important issues such as infrastructure and public safety in a responsible way.  I would encourage legislative leaders to require zero based budgeting from all state agencies when they submit next year’s requests and to address education funding in a responsible way.

Finally!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

FINALLY!

by Steve Fair

Real workers compensation reform is within sight in Oklahoma!  Senate Bill #1062, authored by Senator Brian Bingman, (R-Sapulpa) passed the State House 74-24 last week.  It now heads back to the Senate for approval on the House amendments that were added and then to the Governor’s desk for signature.

SB#1062 will move Oklahoma from a judiciary workers compensation system to an administrative system. Oklahoma is one of only a handful of states that still uses the court system to settle workers comp disputes.  It is an adversarial system that reduces the amount of payment to injured workers and forces Oklahoma employers to pay some of the highest workers comp insurance rates in the country.  Under the current system, workers who are injured on the job could wait years for a benefits judgment due to the slow and costly legal process under the current judicial system.

SB#1062 will implement a system similar to Arkansas.  Back in the early 1990s, Arkansas moved from a system similar to what Oklahoma has to an administrative system.  Since then, workers compensation insurance premiums to employers have dropped steadily.  Last year, Arkansas’ workers comp premiums were 63% of the national average, Oklahoma’s was 147% of the national average.

"There's too much litigation in Oklahoma," said Allyn Tatum, a former Arkansas Workers Compensation Commission chairman and Tyson Foods executive.  "In Arkansas," said Tatum, "the incentive is for employers to put employees back to work, and for employees to go back to work."

In an interview with Capitalbeatok, Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner John Doak said, “Workers’ Compensation reform is a subject that I identified as critical and important to our state from the moment I was elected. Oklahoma has one of the highest average costs of Workers Compensation benefits in the nation at a rate of $830 per employee. Because Arkansas and Texas are under $300 per employee, this has not only had an impact on our state economy, but also limits the growth of local businesses.”

Oklahoma Labor Commissioner Mark Costello told CapitalBeatOK what might, politically, be the most significant thing about anticipated passage of the administration system, saying, “The days where trial lawyers dominated Oklahoma politics for their own economic interests are at an end. After all, it is workers’ comp, not lawyers’ comp. 

Three observations about worker’s comp reform:

First, don’t expect existing Oklahoma businesses to start hiring more workers immediately because of the reduction in workers comp premiums.  It takes some time for the impact of a price reduction to filter its way to the public.  The long term impact will be significant, particularly on the recruitment of new businesses to the Sooner state.  For years, the knock on Oklahoma by potential businesses was we didn’t have right-to-work; we had high workers compensation premiums and a state income tax.  Two out of three of the issues have been addressed and the legislature is making progress on the income tax (reducing it to below 5%).

Second, credit the Republican-led legislature with having the courage to address the issue.  Past legislatures have nibbled around the edges of workers comp reform for years, making some progress, but still leaving the lawyers in the system.  They were simply afraid of upsetting the powerful trial lawyer lobby who didn’t give up easy.  When Senator Anthony Sykes, (R-Moore) presented workers comp reform two years ago, he was attacked relentlessly by the trial lawyer lobby.  While Sykes didn’t waffle or crack under the pressure, their tactics were effective enough with other legislators to derail a total change in the system. 

Third, workers compensation reform(SB#1062) is a win-win!  Oklahoma’s injured workers will get more money in settlements.  Oklahoma employers will pay lower premiums.  The system will be more civil and less adversarial.  What’s not to like about that? 

Thanks to the legislature and Governor Fallin for addressing an issue that others have simply kicked down the road.

Common Core is Rotten!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

COMMON CORE IS ROTTEN!

by Steve Fair

The American Diploma Project(ADP) was created in 1996 by the National Governors Association and some private sector business leaders to help states raise academic standards in public schools to better prepare students for college and life. The American Diploma Project had specific goals:

First, it aligned standards and assessments with the knowledge and skills required beyond high school. Second, ADP required all high school students to take challenging courses that actually prepare them for life after high school. No more basket weaving or hay hauling. They were supposed to take more math and science. Third, the project asked state education leaders to hold schools accountable for graduating students.

Fast forward a few years and the ADP has morphed into Common Core Standards. The Common Core State Standards Initiative brings diverse state curricula into a common one size fits all for all states. Just another in a long line of failed attempts by the feds to fix the public school system, Common Core has become the flavor of the month.

Forty five states, including Oklahoma, has adopted Common Core, but not without controversy. In a letter sent to Governor Fallin last month, a number of state pastors wrote, “Let’s restore American exceptionalism and reject the [Common] Core Curriculum. We’re smart enough to make decisions about our own children and our own schools. Let’s return Oklahoma schools to Oklahoma control.”

One of the holdouts is Virginia and officials maintain that the state’s Standards of Learning are sufficiently challenging and they don’t want the feds to tell them how to run their schools. The fact is there is no indication or proof that higher standards result in higher student achievement. In a 2009 study by Russ Whitehurst of Brookings Institute found there was little or no detectable difference in scores between students from states with weak content standards as compared by to states with higher standards.

More recently, Tom Loveless from the Brookings Institute wrote a research paper entitled, “Predicting the Effect of Common Core Standards on Student Achievement. Loveless came to the same conclusion as Whitehurst; there is no direct coalition between higher standards in education and student achievement.

So why is Common Core a bad idea:

First, Common Core usurps local control over education. The quality of education in the U.S. has been in decline since we started to nationally fund the education system. Clearly these ‘one size fits all’ programs have failed to produce the results promised. Not to mention, the U.S. Constitution clearly delegates the federal government no power to determine the content, methods, testing, or staffing procedures of local American schools.

Second, we don’t know how much Common Core will cost. According to Eagle Forum, Common Core will cost the state of Washington $300 million to implement in a time when they already face a 2 billion dollar deficit. Oklahoma State Representative Gus Blackwell, (R-Laverne) said that taxpayers shouldn’t pay for a program that little is known about. Last week, Blackwell filed a House Joint Resolution to stop further implementation of Common Core until more is known about how much it will cost.

Third, we have absolutely no proof Common Core will result in better education. Take your pick- from the National Defense of Education Act in 1958 to Head Start to No Child Left Behind, the federal government’s track record of improving education has proven to be dismal.

At the recent Republican National Committee meeting in Hollywood, we unanimously passed a resolution stating that Common Core education standards are a bad idea and should be rejected by the states. At Saturday’s Oklahoma state GOP convention, the delegates unanimously approved a platform with a plank opposing the implementation of Common Core in Oklahoma.

I have talked to dozens of teachers through the years(I’m married to one) who have improved their student’s test scores and achievements, but not one educator has cited ‘higher standards’ as the reason the improvement happened. Curriculum is certainly a factor, but how teachers are trained, motivated and supported in the classroom is the key.

Term Limit the Judges!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

TERM LIMIT THE JUDGES!

by Steve Fair

The Oklahoma Supreme Court is no friend to the unborn.  In December, the nine member panel voted to overturn HB #1970 that would have simply required certain abortion-inducing drugs be administered in the way deemed safest by the FDA.  The liberal Oklahoma Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional because they said HB#1970 violated the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.   They also overturned HB #2780, which required that women have an ultrasound performed and described to her within an hour before having an abortion.

~~~~~

HB #1970 was defeated by a unanimous opinion from all eight judges and HB #2780 was defeated by seven of the judges. One judge recused herself from the case of HB #2780 because she had issued an injunction against the law in 2010.

~~~~~

After the actions of the State Supreme Court, Oklahoma State Attorney General Scott Pruitt filed a petition on March 4^th for review of HB #1970 with the U.S. Supreme Court. “We have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review Oklahoma’s law that seeks to provide full and accurate information to women about the outcomes of abortion,” Pruitt said. “We have an obligation to protect our citizens and to make sure a life-altering abortion is held to the highest medical standards.”

~~~~~

Last Monday, Americans United for Life filed a brief with the high court supporting Oklahoma's appeal. “Lives have been lost through cavalier use of dangerous, life-ending drugs,” said the group's president and chief executive officer, Charmaine Yoest.  Seventy nine (79) of Oklahoma’s 149 legislators, a majority of the two chambers, joined in the petition with AUL.

Yoest said the abortion industry is big business and it’s all about money.  The abortion industry's motivation in adopting protocols that endanger women and girls is as transparent as it is chilling.  Their flagrant misuse of abortion-inducing drugs means abortion providers can push these drugs on more women and pocket larger profits than they would receive if they followed the protocols put in place by the FDA. Oklahoma's law was enacted to stop this dangerous and exploitative scheme,” Yoest said.

~~~~~

Michelle Movahed, staff attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, the New York-based group that filed legal challenges to the state measure, said clearly the law is unconstitutional. “The law had only one purpose — to make it impossible for women to access a medically proven safe, effective and legal alternative to surgical abortion,” she said. “We are confident that the nation's highest court will reject this latest effort to chip away at women's constitutional rights and uphold the sound decisions of the state district judge and the Oklahoma Supreme Court.”

~~~~~

On a related note, the state of Indiana passed and signed into law last week similar legislation to the two bills just described.  The legislation in Indiana treats currently unregulated abortion-inducing drugs, such as RU-486, the same as surgical abortions by requiring women seeking either type of abortion to undergo a pre-procedure ultrasound and receive a state-designed "informed consent" brochure featuring color photos of fetuses at various stages of development.

~~~~~

How did conservative Oklahoma get such liberal thinkers on the state Supreme Court?  It doesn’t make sense.  Seven of the nine current members were appointed by a Democrat Governor, six by Henry,- just two appointed by a Republican. 

~~~~~

An Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice is appointed by the Governor for life or until they are not ‘retained’ by the voters.  The Oklahoma Judicial Nomination Commission, a fifteen member group of attorneys and non-attorneys, interview and vet possible candidates and then present finalists to the Governor who makes the final decision.  After appointment, the justices serve until the next general state election. At that time, they must face a ‘retention election.’ If retained, they begin a six-year term. 

~~~~~

Here’s the rub- Oklahoma has never turned a judge out of office since we begin using the retention ballot system.  Clearly the retention ballot system doesn’t work.  There is no way we have not had judges who needed to be out of office.  But no one knows anything about the judges so many just don’t vote or vote yes.  

~~~~~

It is past time Oklahoma enacted term limits for judges.  Legislation proposing that has been proposed in the last couple of sessions, but hasn’t gotten anywhere.  Contact your State Senator and Representative and ask them to support judicial term limits or go to a system where voters directly elect Appellate Court judges.  

~~~~~

So long as these appointed and retained liberals are on the Oklahoma Supreme Court, no baby is safe in the womb.  We must stand up for those who can’t stand up for themselves.

The Iron Lady!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

THE IRON LADY!

by Steve Fair

The ‘Iron Lady’ passed away on Monday.  Margaret Thatcher, former Prime Minister of Great Britain was 88.  Thatcher was the daughter of a grocer, who was also a Methodist preacher.  Maggie rose to become the first and only female Prime Minister of Britain.  She was a chemist and a lawyer, but she was best known for her uncompromising style of leadership.  She was unapologetically a conservative.  Thatcher and former President Ronald Reagan shared a unique friendship because they both believed in the free market system and private enterprise.  Thatcher served as Prime Minister of Great Britain for eleven(11) years, the longest in modern history.

Thatcher got the nickname, “Iron Lady” after a Soviet Union journalist described her that way in an article because she would not compromise in her stance against communism.  But she wasn’t just tough on foreign policy, Thatcher expected people to take personal responsibility in her country and described the attitude of most Brits in 1985 in the following way:

“I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand "I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!" or "I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!" "I am homeless, the Government must house me!" and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbor and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations.”

What made Thatcher unique in the political world? 

First, Maggie was a risk taker.  Her stand against labor unions in England was one that was risky from a political standpoint, but it was right for the country.  Great Britain’s manufacturing base was leaving the country.  Jobs were being lost, productivity was down and the country was headed to a welfare state (sound familiar?)  Thatcher correctly pointed out the country’s economy was headed to ruin.  She persuaded enough members of Parliament she was right and Great Britain made some strategic changes that turned their economy around.

Most elected officials base their votes/positions on issues on how it will impact their next election, but Thatcher never worried about that.  She was willing to risk her political future on a righteous cause.  That is the stuff great leaders are made of.

Second, Thatcher was unwavering after she determined the right course.  She never governed based on polling data.  When told that taking a stand against organized labor in England would end her political career, Thatcher simply shrugged the admonition off and stayed the course.  Effective leadership can get lonely.  Good leaders are often standing alone.  Thatcher was ethical and consistent in her positions.  Unlike the majority of politicians, who are guided by the political winds, Thatcher didn’t change.  There were times in England when Thatcher was not popular with the average citizen.  But her determination and resolve to stay the course changed not only her country, but the world.

Third, Thatcher accomplished all this as a woman.  Thatcher had to overcome the stereotype that a female leader just couldn’t handle the pressure or be tough.  Like Esther in the Bible, Maggie proved that women can lead and can do so quite effectively.  She surrounded herself with competent staff and advisors who shared her vision for Great Britain.  

We need more political leaders like Thatcher- male and female.  We need elected officials who are ethical, unwavering and risk takers.   The ‘Iron Lady’ truly made the world a better place to live.