Tuesday, May 31, 2011




Our 12 noon luncheon for Wednesday, June 1st will be held at
Italiano’s restaurant, 4801 North Lincoln in OKC. Our speaker this
week will be newly elected Labor Commissioner, Mark Costello. The
previous commissioner was imbalanced in his approach as he favored
organized labor. Commissioner Costello has worked to reduce the
regulatory costs to do business in Oklahoma, as well as meet the needs
of working Oklahomans. We look forward to hearing about changes to the
office since the election.

My apologies for failing to get last week’s e-mail out. After
returning a week ago Sunday from an 11 day trip to Oregon for a family
reunion, I quickly wrote a short e-mail, added a few names to our list
then forgot to send the e-mail out before I began to sort through the
5 to 6 hundred new e-mails gathered in my in-box while I was away. Our
crowd was down to about 75 last week and I owe our speaker Jonathan
Small of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA) along with
those who may have come if they had known of our program an apology.
Jonathan is another of those bright young home school students. He is
a CPA, has worked for the state office of management and budget, and
is today responsible for OCPA policy regarding Oklahoma’s budget
issues. Jonathan was very informative last week. He basically said
things were improved under Republican control of government, but
things could be improved a great deal more from where they are now.


I received quite a few responses regarding my position toward
legislation to create a health insurance exchange. The session ended
without creating any kind of a health insurance exchange which
surprised me as I was convinced we were going to get some kind of
legislation passed in this regard. That is where I was wrong. Having
been convinced to the contrary, I gladly endorsed the senate
alternative which rejected the 54 million in federal dollars and left
it up to the private sector or the state to create an alternative.

Some folks were mad that we would have to spend state tax dollars
rather than the federal monies. However, sources told me, the
intention was to spend whatever was necessary from the tobacco
settlement fund. That is money extorted from tobacco companies and by
law the earnings must be spent toward tobacco cessation or health care
issues. I am not sure those funds would meet the requirements to set
up a health care insurance exchange?

Other folks were mad that the federal tax dollars we paid to
Washington would not come back to Oklahoma, but go to some other
state. In reality, none of that 54 million coming from the feds were
tax dollars sent to Washington. All of what we send to Washington is
already spoken for, the 54 million would be borrowed or newly printed
money, which becomes what we call deficit spending.

In talking with several senators, I was assured they were not going to
take the federal dollars and the senate alternative had certain
safeguards and a sunset clause. I was told that what was trying to be
accomplished through the alternative was to create something that
would satisfy the feds and hopefully buy some time to allow for the
lawsuits to stop Obamacare or hopefully have an election outcome next
year that would allow for the dismantling of the horrific legislation.

However, in talking with Representative Key and the folks with OK-
SAFE, they remained opposed, saying the rejection of the $54 million
was not the most important issue, but rather the creation of any kind
of an exchange would be crucial to the implementation of Obamacare.

Therefore, I reproduced Representative Key’s letter to the editor (it
was published in the Oklahoman a couple of days later) and suggested
to OCPAC readers, if they wanted this stopped, they were going to have
to contact their lawmakers and tell them no to this legislation.

Much to my surprise, nothing was done. Leadership has called for
hearings to take place before next year’s session with Senator
Stanislawski and Representative Mulready, both from the Tulsa area,
responsible for conducting that effort. I particularily like the
statement in this regard from Senator Stanislawski, when he said
everything is on the table, including totally rejecting the creation
of an exchange. I will try to keep folks posted in regard to the times
and locations for these hearings.


Following the outbreak of tornados last Tuesday, Commissioner John
Doak was quoted in the paper as saying incentives were needed to
encourage people to build safe rooms or underground storm shelters.
One of the incentives suggested would be tax credits.

Sorry commissioner Doak, but that is not a proper function of
government to take money from one taxpayer against their will and give
it to their neighbor for that neighbors benefit, I don’t care how good
the purpose might be. The situation I just described would refer to
the neighbor who didn’t pay taxes at all or a tax amount that was less
than the tax credit. If the tax credit was less than the tax
obligation of the neighbor, that would mean he got some of his tax
dollars back to use for his benefit and left it up to the rest of the
tax payers to fund government.

Besides such a redistribution scheme being morally wrong, it is not
needed. According to an interview with several people in the business,
the phones are ringing off the wall with people wanting some kind of a
storm shelter. That is called the free market working and no
government intervention is needed. I have had two of my customers ask
for referrals as it has now become a higher priority for their family.
I can’t tell you how many people I know who take cruises, have
swimming pools or experience many of life’s luxuries and don’t have a
storm shelter, it just isn’t a priority with them.

In reality, they will probably go through life never needing one, but
in the event that occasion should occur, they can trust their fate to
the collectivist efforts like going to a school with hundreds of
others and their smelly pets. Another very reasonable response,
employed by many last Tuesday, was to get in their car and drive two
or three miles in a right angle to the storm’s path and wait for it to
go by.

My wife and I built a home about 7 years ago and spent an extra $4,000
for a safe room. We made that choice and didn’t need any kind of
government incentives. Had they have been available, and they were
shortly after we built, we still would not have applied as it is
morally wrong to take from or neighbors or be allowed to spend our tax
obligation upon ourselves and let our neighbors fund the proper
functions of government.


There were many good pieces of legislation passed this year and a lot
of bad legislation that didn’t get passed. If the Democrats held the
governor’s office or one or both of the bodies in the legislature, I
would grade this year’s performance with a B+ or perhaps an A-.
However, the legislature and governor’s office are all in the hands of
the Republicans and as such I must give this year’s session a D+ or
perhaps a C-, based upon how much more could have been done with such
a strong majority.

If conservatives were in a majority and not just Republicans, we could
have reduced the size of government a great deal more, cut taxes, got
worker comp reform done rather than lawyer comp reform, passed better
legislation regarding labor unions, better legislation regarding
retirement fund reforms, illegal alien legislation, better second
amendment legislation, and on and on. Just remember, when Republicans
are in control and they aren’t true conservatives, they simply nibble
around the edges, they aren’t game changers.

Meanwhile, in Kansas with a conservative governor, they eliminated
government funding for government owned TV, the arts council and
embarked on an 8 year plan to eliminate their income tax. If they are
successful, I wonder what our tax will be in 8 years with Texas to our
South and Kansas to our North, neither with and income tax?


Many seemed to be shocked and outraged at the guilty verdict of murder
in the first degree for Jerome Earsland, the pharmacist who shot and
killed a robber. I was also shocked, but not at the outcome. Based on
the evidence of the robber being unconscious but still alive 45
seconds after he was first shot, a fair minded jury could have handed
down no other verdict than guilty after Earsland walked up to the
unconscious robber and shot him 5 more times when he was obviously no
longer a threat.

I was shocked that a fair minded jury could be found, a jury that
would look at the facts and make a judgment according to the law. A
jury that would not be swayed by their emotions, but base their
verdict on a rational examination of the evidence. I say that because
before the trial and after, talk radio has been aflame with EMOTIONAL
opinions by people who didn’t care about the law or the evidence. They
didn’t think a man going about his business until a couple of thugs
walked in to commit a robbery should deserve punishment for defending

With that I agree, but unfortunately Earsland went beyond defending
himself and decided to become a judge, jury and executioner. If in the
initial shooting he had pumped 15 shots into the robber that would
have been fine, but you don’t shoot him then come back later and shoot
him again, when he is on the floor, on his back, and unconscious with
his hands open and his palms up.

Earsland further complicated his problems when he fabricated one lie
after another. Had he confessed that he was just so angry that he came
back and shot him 5 more times to make sure he was dead, I might go
for some degree of leniency in his punishment. However, I believe he
knew the law and knew he had done wrong and immediately began to
fabricate his story to cover up for what he had done. Therefore, I
won’t be signing any kind of petition for leniency, though others can
if they chose. Justice was done in this case, much to my surprise.


As May comes to a close, we now have 202 dues paying members for this
year. That is just 15 short of our record for a non election year. If
you have not joined as yet, please consider doing so. We are scheduled
to vote for the top ten issues for this year’s conservative index on
June 22nd. Then a week or two after that vote we will select this
year’s outstanding lawmakers as well as vote for this year’s winner of
the RINO award in both the Senate and House.

To be eligible to vote you must be a dues paying member 2 weeks prior
to any vote and you must be present at our meeting. As of the end of
April, we had raised just under $15,000 for the year. Besides
supporting good candidates for the legislature, as soon as the
conservative scores are out, we will determine which of the RINO house
and senate members we will target. Once that is determined, we will
begin an education campaign to Republican voters in their districts.

Remember, we don’t need more Republicans in the legislature. We
already have super majorities in both houses. What we need are better
quality Republicans and that has always been our objective. To join
please fill out the information below and send it in with your check.

I look forward to seeing everyone this Wednesday.

Charlie Meadows

No comments: