We recently suggested that those arguing Oklahoma’s economy is harmed because we’re not known nationally for “diversity” mistake cause and effect. When jobs are plentiful, you attract a wide range of people to your state, not the other way around.
We also noted that diversity is interwoven throughout Oklahoma’s population and history.
The fact that two black judges — Tom Colbert and David B. Lewis — are poised to lead the Oklahoma Supreme Court and Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, respectively, supports our contention. In addition, state Rep. T.W. Shannon, R-Lawton, is about to become the first black speaker of the House.
These men have achieved distinction based on individual merit, not arbitrary racial promotion. Oklahoma is a place where anyone from any background, regardless of race or income, can rise to prominence. We should all celebrate that fact.
In denying a name-change request in a transgender case last year, Oklahoma County District Judge Bill Graves was guided by his aversion to such procedures on moral grounds. But Graves is compelled to follow the law, and on those grounds he failed.
This week a three-judge panel of the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals ruled unanimously that Graves must order the name change for Steven Charles Harvey, who had asked to change his name to Christie Ann Harvey.
Judges may deny a name-change request if they find it’s being sought “for an illegal or fraudulent purpose.” Graves said people can’t really change their gender because their DNA remains the same, so in essence they’re perpetrating a fraud.
Poppycock, the appeals court said: “The relevant issue in a name change proceeding is not whether the applicant’s DNA corresponds with the traditionally male or female name preferred by the applicant. The statute does not change the sex of the applicant, only the applicant’s name.”
Graves’ decision was ridiculous, its appeal an easy call for the court.
Recently, there’s been a push to overhaul Oklahoma’s liquor laws and allow grocery stores and similar outlets to sell wine or strong beer. So far, sellers benefitting from current restrictions have won the day; state regulations have remained intact.
Recent trends suggest many entrepreneurs expect little change in future years.
The number of liquor stores in Oklahoma has reached 666, the highest total in decades. In 2001, there were just 538. Some have suggested wine sales in grocery stores would increase underage drinking, but it would seem the growth of liquor stores would have the same potential impact.
From a free-market perspective, the increased number of outlets should boost competition and keep consumer prices lower, benefiting consumers. But allowing grocery stores to sell wine would do the same.
As a result, the growth of liquor stores is actually undermining arguments for the sales restrictions that benefit them.
Oklahoma City has done it again. People in this generous city wasted no time rallying to save the annual Red Andrews Christmas Dinner, which just a week ago seemed headed for oblivion when it was announced it wouldn’t be held this year due to health issues involving leading organizers.
Early this week, one of Red Andrews’ nephews, Larry Cassil, said he would take on the challenge of hosting the dinner, a fixture since 1940s and which last year fed about 6,000 less-fortunate Oklahomans. By Wednesday, it was announced a foundation had been formed to make sure the dinner continues.
“Collectively we have implemented a plan to ensure the dinner’s success in perpetuity,” said attorney Robert Goldman, whose family has long been involved with the event. He said response to the original announcement had been “overwhelming.”
Goldman is chairman of the foundation’s board. Other board members are Cassil and attorney John Yoeckel, a member of the Oklahoma City Planning Commission.
“Many citizens in this city found the news of the discontinuation of the Red Andrews dinner unacceptable,” said Teresa Rose, director of community relations for Chesapeake Energy Corp. “Calls were made, and we discovered that a lot of people felt the same way.”
So the needy in our community still have a place to go on Christmas Day for a hot meal and a gift. Kudos.
Want a glimpse of what happens to businesses reliant on government regulation to stay viable? Take a look at California, where cheese makers benefit from a state law governing the price they pay for milk.
The price has been so low that many dairies are now going out of business — an estimated 100 out of roughly 1,600 this year. Dairy owners obviously favor raising the price. Cheese makers argue a milk price increase could drive them out of business given the high cost of operating in California due to its other excessive regulations.
To offset the impact of overreaching government regulations, cheese makers are forced to promote … other overreaching government regulations. Instead of competing through the marketplace and letting consumers ultimately determine price, California’s dairies and cheese makers must compete in lobbying state lawmakers.
That’s no way to run an economy.
It hasn’t taken long for U.S. Rep. James Lankford to make an impression on fellow Republican members.
In April 2011, four months after taking office, Lankford, R-Oklahoma City, was chosen to give the Republican response to President Barack Obama’s weekly radio address. He continued to shine as chairman of a House subcommittee on intergovernmental relations and with his work in helping craft a federal highway bill.
This week his stock rose some more when he was elected chairman of the House Policy Committee, the No. 5 spot in the House Republican hierarchy. The committee helps craft House GOP positions on issues and makes sure members are up to speed on them.
Two of Lankford’s Oklahoma colleagues saw this coming. Rep. Tom Cole, R-Moore, recently raved to The Oklahoman’s editorial board about Lankford’s first two years, and Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Cheyenne, who’s about to begin his 19th year in the House, called Lankford “the most unfreshman freshman I’ve ever seen.” Congratulations!
In the Oklahoma House of Representatives, lawmakers take their oath of office in November, but the House speaker isn’t formally elected until January. State Rep. Mike Reynolds, R-Oklahoma City, suggests that means the House Speaker-elect may not be authorized to expend funds during those two months.
That’s nonsense, because the House budget was authorized in July. Taken to its logical extreme, Reynolds’ argument would have House employees go without pay for two months and then get back pay in January. What public purpose would that serve?
Such Pharisaical legalism is pointless, but then Reynolds often specializes in such objections. He once debated against his own amendment on the House floor.
Reynolds’ actions appear united not by ideological commitment, but by the unseemly desire to disrupt orderly operation of the Legislature — even when it’s to the detriment of citizens and the cause of good government.
Critics have warned Oklahoma officials who are considering expansion of the Medicaid program in order to obtain Obamacare subsidies that the cost of the program is already unsustainable and will only get worse if more people are added to the rolls. Evidence for that argument can be seen in neighboring Arkansas, where that state’s Medicaid program has a shortfall of $358 million.
Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe is proposing a combination of new spending (including one-time funds) and budget cuts to address the problem. And that’s the situation without an expansion of the program.
In Oklahoma, lawmakers in recent years have raided the Insure Oklahoma fund, which is meant to help citizens obtain private insurance, in order to prop up Medicaid. Medicaid’s Oklahoma costs continue to escalate even without the Obamacare expansion.
In both Oklahoma and Arkansas, an expansion of Medicaid could be the triumph of hope over budget experience.
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has grown weary of Republicans using filibusters to block legislation. So instead of forwarding better legislation, Reid is considering a vote in January to change the rules of the Senate — and doing so with the backing of a simple majority of members.
It normally takes a two-thirds vote to change Senate rules. Reid says he doesn’t want to end the filibuster, “but we’re going to make the Senate a more meaningful place, we’re going to make it so that we can get things done.”
That’s comical coming from a man who hasn’t seemed to mind that the Senate he controls hasn’t submitted a budget proposal in three years.
Changing the rules by simple majority is called the “nuclear option” for a reason. If he follows through, Reid is sure to feel the heat from that blast.
The re-election of President Barack Obama should be good news for two Oklahoma men who have waited a long time to be confirmed to federal benches.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert Bacharach of Oklahoma City was nominated by Obama in January to a post on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. Tulsa attorney John Dowell is in line for a federal judgeship in Tulsa.
Both men sailed through confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, but their nominations got high-centered this summer by political gamesmanship.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Muskogee, who refused to buck his party when an opportunity arose in July to move Bacharach’s nomination forward, says both judges should now “fly through” the Senate. We hope so. The 10th Circuit seat has been vacant more than two years.