It’s the most regressive tax of all. The poorer a family is the higher percentage of their income they pay for food. In Oklahoma the effective tax rate is the higher to the more poor you are, not lower. This is nothing short of evil.

I would like to see Gov. Fallin's tax reform program voted upon in a SQ. Getting rid of the sales tax on food and the corporate income tax would be great. The only question about it is would making up for lost revenues by imposing a sales tax on over a 100 services be acceptable to the people?

Dave literally never said that. Also, I totally agree with the main point of your second post, but calling the other side "evil" is hyperbolic, makes you seem crazy, and is not a good way to make converts. I've only ventured into the politics forum a couple times and thus have only a passing familiarity with Swake, so someone please tell me if I'm wasting my breath.
Swake never said or implied any "side" is evil. If you go back and read his post, you will read that he said the regressive tax on groceries is evil.

Chris, I understand that you are still young and you are dealing with the zeal of the convert and a not fully formed pre-frontal cortex, so you might not be able to fully understand this post until you are older, but the way you attack Christians makes your policy goals harder to achieve. I hope for society's sake you see the error you are making over and over again online.

References:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Zeal_of_the_convert

https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=1&ContentID=3051
Whoa, hold the condescending attitude. Chris is not attacking Christians, he is calling out a small fringe, subset. Christians are not a homogenized group with beliefs both religious and political at odds. It is disingenuous to imply otherwise.

Chris, I understand that you are still young and you are dealing with the zeal of the convert and a not fully formed pre-frontal cortex, so you might not be able to fully understand this post until you are older, but the way you attack Christians makes your policy goals harder to achieve. I hope for society's sake you see the error you are making over and over again online.

References:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Zeal_of_the_convert

https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=1&ContentID=3051

First, you assume way too much about me. Secondly, if certain prominent evangelical Christians want to continue to wage their culture war, they should expect some backlash. For the so-called party of "small government", some evangelicals are way too invested in controlling everyone's private lives. Most of the anti-Christian sentiment you see on the Left today is a direct result of the seemingly never-ending crusade by some evangelicals to be the nation's moral police. It all started in the 1980s with Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority. Conservatives love to throw stones at "liberal snowflakes" yet its certain evangelicals that are constantly upset over the smallest things, with the "War on Christmas" being one of many examples. Third, if you think pointing out the fact that many pastors pressure their flocks to vote for certain candidates that are culture warriors (when its against their best interest economically) is attacking Christians, I don't know what to tell you.

Hopefully a third solution and not just back to the folks who ran it into the ground for 70 years.

No kidding! You beat me to it.

Whoa, hold the condescending attitude. Chris is not attacking Christians, he is calling out a small fringe, subset. Christians are not a homogenized group with beliefs both religious and political at odds. It is disingenuous to imply otherwise.

I try to be a very good Christian. However, I do believe that the far right religious zealots should be held in check when they overstep in politics, and are ignorant of facts. The bible warns of this type of activity posing as real faith. Their faith issues do not make them business experts, or better administrators of government, or able to look inside others' souls to ascertain intentions. It does them no good to rail on and on about life issues that they want to hold everyone accountable for and then ignore huge gaps in their own or others' behaviours. They need to understand that God's word is infallible, but THEIRS isn't. They need to understand that learned scholars still disagree with some critical wording translations in the Bible and that THEIRS isn't the only translation or interpretation. It harms their cause to parse the Bible or to pass on fake interpretations or even misquotes to fit their own agenda and then apply it for their version of the public good.

I agree that the majority of Christians in this country do not try to manipulate government and control everyone else to suit their beliefs. But, the problem is, they allow others to represent them this way through their failure to understand and speak up. They fail by misunderstanding that this isn't a Christian country, but rather a country free for Christians. This country was founded based on freedoms, not on the belief of a single church or religion. Most of my Christian friends know this and understand this and are great citizens. We just need to get the message to our state legislature that they are for the STATE. They are not a Synod.

I try to be a very good Christian. However, I do believe that the far right religious zealots should be held in check when they overstep in politics, and are ignorant of facts. The bible warns of this type of activity posing as real faith. Their faith issues do not make them business experts, or better administrators of government, or able to look inside others' souls to ascertain intentions. It does them no good to rail on and on about life issues that they want to hold everyone accountable for and then ignore huge gaps in their own or others' behaviours. They need to understand that God's word is infallible, but THEIRS isn't. They need to understand that learned scholars still disagree with some critical wording translations in the Bible and that THEIRS isn't the only translation or interpretation. It harms their cause to parse the Bible or to pass on fake interpretations or even misquotes to fit their own agenda and then apply it for their version of the public good.

I agree that the majority of Christians in this country do not try to manipulate government and control everyone else to suit their beliefs. But, the problem is, they allow others to represent them this way through their failure to understand and speak up. They fail by misunderstanding that this isn't a Christian country, but rather a country free for Christians. This country was founded based on freedoms, not on the belief of a single church or religion. Most of my Christian friends know this and understand this and are great citizens. We just need to get the message to our state legislature that they are for the STATE. They are not a Synod.

This is spot on! Thanks for posting this.

This is an incredibly ill-informed opinion, and one that I honestly hope is some sort of joke. Either way it is in very poor taste to compare the situation of someone in America making a reasonable wage to the plight of the billions around the world who live in abject poverty.

Twenty-five percent of Oklahoma children live in poverty and 30% of Oklahoma parents lack secure employment. I didn't say Oklahoma is a third world country. I said Oklahoma increasingly resembles a third world country through its failing institutions (see the original post article for a list of those). I am not sure you can find another U.S. state with such systemic problems across the board where there is such complacency from citizens. The gap between the haves and have nots, or the decision-makers and those who suffer from those decision, is incredibly wide. I mean, the state literally has a self-induced earthequake crisis and there's hardly a public response for accountability for those who knowingly created and continue to benefit from the dangers. Many Oklahoma schools can't afford to go to school for five days a week. Oklahoma separates mothers from their families more than any location in the world. The inability to deal with basic problems such as these are similar to the problems that third world countries deal with. There's an upper class that does well in those countries as well. So, no Oklahoma is not equivalent to a third world country, but it's increasingly resembling one in my humble opinion. Forunately, Oklahoma has far more means than third world countries to address these problems. There's just not political will to do so yet.

Anybody who compares Oklahoma to third world countries obviously hasn't traveled much or failed to recognize what they saw. Go, and you will see for yourself what I mean. While we have some critical things to correct here, hysteria and hyperbole don't fix the problems. Getting involved in government and working hard does. Internet chatter doesn't, but working change through participating and influencing does.

Anybody who compares Oklahoma to third world countries obviously hasn't traveled much or failed to recognize what they saw. Go, and you will see for yourself what I mean. While we have some critical things to correct here, hysteria and hyperbole don't fix the problems. Getting involved in government and working hard does. Internet chatter doesn't, but working change through participating and influencing does.

I agree. As many problems as Oklahoma has, calling it "third world" is quite an overstatement. I think a better way to state it is that in terms o the US, Oklahoma used to be consistently ranked middle to lower middle of the pack and lately it's more often ranked at the very bottom with the likes of Mississippi and Arkansas, two states that have chronically been among the worst and most dysfunctional states in the US. Question is, does Oklahoma want to settle for that?

I don't know that the state has ever been ranked in the middle on anything.

We are near the bottom in every possible way and that doesn't seem to change if oil is $100 / barrel or if there is a recession.

And that's because our tax structure and collections are far below what they need to be for any area to even reach the status of average.

I guess I wasn't clear in presenting my ideas. My bad. I do NOT think Oklahoma is a third world country. I think the state of Oklahoma's inability to address basic problems through its state institutions is emblematic of what you see from third world governments. The inability of the state to fund five days of education a week is not something you expect to hear in a first world country. And I could go on with the other problems from the article, which also are not things you expect to hear from first-world countries. However, Oklahoma has the financial means to fix all these problems, but chooses not to. So to clarify, Oklahoma's economy is clearly not that of a third world country, but the government shows many similar attributes to one. I never called Oklahoma a "third world" country and I don't think anyone else did, but if I communicated my ideas poorly then my bad.

Turns out that everything is fine, and education funding is fake news:

http://m.newsok.com/declining-school-funding-fake-news-says-state-rep/article/5562242?rotator=true

I don't know that the state has ever been ranked in the middle on anything.

We are near the bottom in every possible way and that doesn't seem to change if oil is $100 / barrel or if there is a recession.

And that's because our tax structure and collections are far below what they need to be for any area to even reach the status of average.

Our per capita personal income is ranked 28th and our gross domestic product is ranked 29th. I've mentioned this before on other threads when someone concludes that Oklahoma ranks at the bottom in everything, and when I bring up these two rankings, I get nothing but crickets.

So if we rank near the middle in per capita income and GDP and our services are not adequately funded, then that's the solid proof that our tax structure and collections are far below what they need to be.

Turns out that everything is fine, and education funding is fake news:

http://m.newsok.com/declining-school-funding-fake-news-says-state-rep/article/5562242?rotator=true

That's a legislator that doesn't know calculus.

Our per capita personal income is ranked 28th and our gross domestic product is ranked 29th. I've mentioned this before on other threads when someone concludes that Oklahoma ranks at the bottom in everything, and when I bring up these two rankings, I get nothing but crickets.

So if we rank near the middle in per capita income and GDP and our services are not adequately funded, then that's the solid proof that our tax structure and collections are far below what they need to be.

Exactly, Oklahoma politicians use the excuse that we are poor for failing to support schools and infrastructure when that is NOT the case. Oklahoma was dealt a huge advantage with our energy resources and yet never fails to squander that advantage to the benefit of it's citizens. Big energy owns the politicians in this state. Oklahoma politicians pander and use state level pointless wedge issues like abortion and guns and gays to get elected so they can serve their energy industry overlords.

Would you vote for someone who you believed would murder children?

What the state needs is someone anti abortion (electable) and pro education. Driving a wedge into the dominant culture over abortion kills the chances of helping the students and teachers in our public schools. If you want change in Oklahoma you need the pro-life vote.

I think Christians are vilified here, sometimes unfairly, but in many cases, they are just ignorant rubes who don't understand the issues. Not supporting a candidate for the state legislature because they aren't anti-abortion is something only a rube would do.

Would you vote for someone who you believed would support abortion rights ? You shouldn't care--and it doesn't matter how you feel about the issue, It's not a state issue. No state legislator has the power to place any undue burden on the right to have an abortion. That's Supreme Court law and no state legislator can affect it in the least. Sure they can pass anti abortion laws, but all of those get overturned immediately because they are unconstitutional--which actually creates more pro-abortion precedent. A state legislator who comes out strong against abortion is either ignorant of the law (not good) or pandering to people he or she thinks are rubes (also not good).

Voting against a state legislator for their position on abortion makes as much sense as not supporting a state legislator because of that individual's stance on U.S. foreign policy to North Korea. Know what you're voting for, what their job is and how their positions are relevant to the job.

I have a great example of this, actually. Dan Fisher is running for Governor and he doesn't know what the governor does. He has boiled down his ideas to 4 letters--ASAP. And none of them are things the Governor can do.

https://fisherforgovernor.com/

Abolish Abortion--as discussed, the state can't do this without amending the U.S. Constitution or the SCOTUS undoing many years of precedent. This is not something remotely in the Governor's wheelhouse. He can, however, support legislation which will rack up legal fees which will be paid to the AG's office and private attorneys protecting abortion rights. So in a sense, Dan Fisher wants to subsidize pro-abortion lawyers, mostly from out of state by signing unconstitutional laws which won't do anything but strengthen precedents supporting abortion rights.

State Sovereignty--Dan wants to restore state sovereignty whatever the hell that means. I believe that was tried in 1860 and it didn't go very well. If you want to see what quixotic warrrgarbls against federalism will get you, take a look at the song and dance coming from the Texas Congressmen who yammered about wasteful spending during Hurricane Sandy, but are suddenly pro-FEMA when Houston gets hit. A smart leader looks for win-wins with the federal government and works with them rather than against them. Especially when you're a state which receives more money than it pays in.

Audit Everything--we already do that, Dan. Talk to the State Auditor, Dan. Gary Jones does a fine job, Dan.

Proper Government--Jesus, Dan, this is nearly "faith/family/freedom." We ask the government to do "too much"? I'm sure some out there would advocate for abolishing DHS and the public school system, but I can't for the life of me think of any branch of Oklahoma's government which needs to be reduced or eliminated. We run extremely lean right now after budget cuts everywhere since 2008 despite a growing population.

Dan thinks you're a rube. His entire platform is bull****. The problem is that there is a significant part of the GOP electorate which gobbles up Dan's B.S. This is the same electorate which sent a church camp counselor to the U.S. Senate.

Sorry if I come off as hostile, but I am extremely frustrated with the unChristian Christians who put these guys in office. We can do better but we're too dumb to vote in our own best interests because of things like abortion which aren't actually things.

Midtown, it sounds like you are a fan on James Lankford. Next time you are in DC on a Wednesday you could have 'java with James'. Think of how much fun you would have!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hHetbk4LjlE

James kicked my lil brother out of Falls Creek for challenging the hellfire and brimstone bull**** they were selling there. He's a jackass.

James Lankford may be a Christian rightist but he isn't Dan Fisher. Dan Fisher is in a class above people like Fallin, Lankford, Pence, etc. Dan Fisher and others of his ilk such as Sally Kern, Paul Blair, etc literally want to set up a theocracy and want the Bible to take legal precedence over the Constitution of the United States. They are particularly fond of the "small government" buzzphrase but what that really means is less government services but more government control over your private life. Dan Fisher represents why Oklahoma is currently in the dire situation its in and he wants to double down. If he wins, it will be an absolute disaster for this state.

Lankford is just a party line guy who parrots talking points but lacks any sort of deep understanding of the issues. Don't expect critical thought from him or for him to go against the will of his party.

Fisher is basically a member of the Christian Taliban.

Lankford is just a party line guy who parrots talking points but lacks any sort of deep understanding of the issues. Don't expect critical thought from him or for him to go against the will of his party.

Fisher is basically a member of the Christian Taliban.

HHE, I was really hoping you'd comment on why Christians vote the way they do because of abortion when abortion has nothing to do with the office they're voting for. Do you care what the Insurance Commissioner's stance on abortion is? Why?

Our per capita personal income is ranked 28th and our gross domestic product is ranked 29th. I've mentioned this before on other threads when someone concludes that Oklahoma ranks at the bottom in everything, and when I bring up these two rankings, I get nothing but crickets.

So if we rank near the middle in per capita income and GDP and our services are not adequately funded, then that's the solid proof that our tax structure and collections are far below what they need to be.

I believe that the latest numbers that reflect disposable income and costs (real buying power), Oklahoma comes in at number 16 among states. People here have disposable income. Apparently our legislature thinks we prefer to spend it on fast food and ski-boats than to pay for a decent education and safe roads, or even our environment.

I think Christians are vilified here, sometimes unfairly, but in many cases, they are just ignorant rubes who don't understand the issues. Not supporting a candidate for the state legislature because they aren't anti-abortion is something only a rube would do.

Would you vote for someone who you believed would support abortion rights ? You shouldn't care--and it doesn't matter how you feel about the issue, It's not a state issue. No state legislator has the power to place any undue burden on the right to have an abortion. That's Supreme Court law and no state legislator can affect it in the least. Sure they can pass anti abortion laws, but all of those get overturned immediately because they are unconstitutional--which actually creates more pro-abortion precedent. A state legislator who comes out strong against abortion is either ignorant of the law (not good) or pandering to people he or she thinks are rubes (also not good).

Voting against a state legislator for their position on abortion makes as much sense as not supporting a state legislator because of that individual's stance on U.S. foreign policy to North Korea. Know what you're voting for, what their job is and how their positions are relevant to the job.

I have a great example of this, actually. Dan Fisher is running for Governor and he doesn't know what the governor does. He has boiled down his ideas to 4 letters--ASAP. And none of them are things the Governor can do.

https://fisherforgovernor.com/

Abolish Abortion--as discussed, the state can't do this without amending the U.S. Constitution or the SCOTUS undoing many years of precedent. This is not something remotely in the Governor's wheelhouse. He can, however, support legislation which will rack up legal fees which will be paid to the AG's office and private attorneys protecting abortion rights. So in a sense, Dan Fisher wants to subsidize pro-abortion lawyers, mostly from out of state by signing unconstitutional laws which won't do anything but strengthen precedents supporting abortion rights.

State Sovereignty--Dan wants to restore state sovereignty whatever the hell that means. I believe that was tried in 1860 and it didn't go very well. If you want to see what quixotic warrrgarbls against federalism will get you, take a look at the song and dance coming from the Texas Congressmen who yammered about wasteful spending during Hurricane Sandy, but are suddenly pro-FEMA when Houston gets hit. A smart leader looks for win-wins with the federal government and works with them rather than against them. Especially when you're a state which receives more money than it pays in.

Audit Everything--we already do that, Dan. Talk to the State Auditor, Dan. Gary Jones does a fine job, Dan.

Proper Government--Jesus, Dan, this is nearly "faith/family/freedom." We ask the government to do "too much"? I'm sure some out there would advocate for abolishing DHS and the public school system, but I can't for the life of me think of any branch of Oklahoma's government which needs to be reduced or eliminated. We run extremely lean right now after budget cuts everywhere since 2008 despite a growing population.

Dan thinks you're a rube. His entire platform is bull****. The problem is that there is a significant part of the GOP electorate which gobbles up Dan's B.S. This is the same electorate which sent a church camp counselor to the U.S. Senate.

Sorry if I come off as hostile, but I am extremely frustrated with the unChristian Christians who put these guys in office. We can do better but we're too dumb to vote in our own best interests because of things like abortion which aren't actually things.

Yes. Our voters have forgotten that who they send should be persons who actually know what the important problems are that they CAN and ARE ENABLED to do something about.....LEGALLY. They should be people who know they represent ALL of us. They should be skilled with talents and experience that indicates they would be successful fixing them and can work with others of differing opinions to do so.
We keep electing those that LOOK like us or SOUND like our preacher rather than those who understand the job and can actually DO the job. We have to quit blaming the elected and look in the mirror and see if we are doing all we can to do what WE ARE EMPOWERED TO DO .... RUN, ADVOCATE, VOTE.

.

HHE, I was really hoping you'd comment on why Christians vote the way they do because of abortion when abortion has nothing to do with the office they're voting for. Do you care what the Insurance Commissioner's stance on abortion is? Why?

Since you asked me directly I'll answer.

I vote for the greatest good that can be accomplished. Therefore I want an insurance commissioner that has the skills to help the most amount of people as possible.

If an insurance commissioner states that he is pro-life in Oklahoma he is just virtue signaling. It would be the same as an insurance commissioner in California ranting on Twitter about the Mike Brown incident in Missouri.

I do not vote based on virtue signaling.

Lankford is just a party line guy who parrots talking points but lacks any sort of deep understanding of the issues. Don't expect critical thought from him or for him to go against the will of his party.

How could Lankford possibly lack deep understanding of issues? He had such a great background before being elected on tough public policy issues like Apple Sauce or Tater Tots for lunch and which Bible passage to scare the children with at dinner.

Since you asked me directly I'll answer.

I vote for the greatest good that can be accomplished. Therefore I want an insurance commissioner that has the skills to help the most amount of people as possible.

If an insurance commissioner states that he is pro-life in Oklahoma he is just virtue signaling. It would be the same as an insurance commissioner in California ranting on Twitter about the Mike Brown incident in Missouri.

I do not vote based on virtue signaling.

I can appreciate that. So many Oklahomans seem to be in love with politicians who threaten to set themselves on fire because the Oklahoma courts followed SCOTUS precedent.

It's a bit of a side tangent, but since it's a civil discussion I'll throw my views on being a Christian and a voter in the mix as well. As a Christian I am somewhat conservative as to my views regarding things that may be considered to go against living a Christian life. This includes things like sexuality (I'm still very conflicted about homosexuality and marriage), substance abuse (including alcohol and tobacco), how to treat those less fortionate than me, etc. Those views haven't evolved all that much in the past two decades.

What has evolved is how those views interact with society at large, including when it comes to politics. Many years ago I voted for the gay marriage ban in Oklahoma. It was such an easy decision for a teenage Christian: God says "man and woman" so that's that. We have to protect what God build. Since then I have realized that forcing people to follow biblical "laws" doesn't actually do anything when it comes to Christianity. Passing Christian laws doesn't make Christians, it just forces non-Christians to do the things we think Christians should be doing. Following laws doesn't make people Christian, but we still keep on passing these laws. The entire Old Testament is a story of God saying "don't do these things" and it didn't work, that's the whole point of the Old Testament. To show our need for someone who can follow the laws, because we can't. So if God can't make people follow the law, what makes us think we can do better? Our country was also based on a constitution that says "no religious laws", so there is that whole issue.

So now I focus on voting for laws and policies that make life better for the less fortionate, and vote secular rather then theological. I might think drunkenness is a sin, but there is no real secular argument against alcohol law reform so I voted for it. If we make the state more supportive of the less fortionate, we might reduce abortion rates because people feel supported. And if we don't decrease abortion rates, we still end up with a state that "only" passed laws to help more people.

I think the best way for me to sum it up would be this: I would rather live in a secular state where sin is legal and people choose to follow Christ, than a state with "Christian" laws and people who don't have a relationship with God.

I still feel a lot of guilt about my gay marriage vote many years ago.

It's a bit of a side tangent, but since it's a civil discussion I'll throw my views on being a Christian and a voter in the mix as well. As a Christian I am somewhat conservative as to my views regarding things that may be considered to go against living a Christian life. This includes things like sexuality (I'm still very conflicted about homosexuality and marriage), substance abuse (including alcohol and tobacco), how to treat those less fortionate than me, etc. Those views haven't evolved all that much in the past two decades.

What has evolved is how those views interact with society at large, including when it comes to politics. Many years ago I voted for the gay marriage ban in Oklahoma. It was such an easy decision for a teenage Christian: God says "man and woman" so that's that. We have to protect what God build. Since then I have realized that forcing people to follow biblical "laws" doesn't actually do anything when it comes to Christianity. Passing Christian laws doesn't make Christians, it just forces non-Christians to do the things we think Christians should be doing. Following laws doesn't make people Christian, but we still keep on passing these laws. The entire Old Testament is a story of God saying "don't do these things" and it didn't work, that's the whole point of the Old Testament. To show our need for someone who can follow the laws, because we can't. So if God can't make people follow the law, what makes us think we can do better? Our country was also based on a constitution that says "no religious laws", so there is that whole issue.

So now I focus on voting for laws and policies that make life better for the less fortionate, and vote secular rather then theological. I might think drunkenness is a sin, but there is no real secular argument against alcohol law reform so I voted for it. If we make the state more supportive of the less fortionate, we might reduce abortion rates because people feel supported. And if we don't decrease abortion rates, we still end up with a state that "only" passed laws to help more people.

I think the best way for me to sum it up would be this: I would rather live in a secular state where sin is legal and people choose to follow Christ, than a state with "Christian" laws and people who don't have a relationship with God.

I still feel a lot of guilt about my gay marriage vote many years ago.

Great perspective here. I think of more people had this perspective, a lot of our cultural and ideological division we have in this country could be worked out and at least some mends could be made. One thing I want to add, and I touched on this in a previous post, is that I think that a lot of the criticism Christians receive and the disdain for the faith that a lot of people have in our day and age is a backlash against Christian Right leaders insistent on passing laws to force non-Christians to behave like Christians. I think evangelical Christianity would get a lot more respect and a lot less ridicule if their political leaders would stop pushing the agenda that this is a Christian nation and that we must have Bible-based laws (that are discriminatory against non-believers) to gain favor and blessings from God.

A perfect example of this is that most people respect the Amish and Mennonites. They may think they are strange for choosing to live a 19th century lifestyle in the 21st century but since they don't try to force it on everyone, most people respect them for living life the way they desire. After all, that's what America is supposed to be about.

nm

I suggest raising the pay of legislators to $50,000 in order to get more people to run. But then it can probably be said the current pay and benefits for legislators are higher than what many Oklahomans get from their jobs.

I'll consider running for state senator in 2020, if no other Democrat is willing to run. The current Republican senator, who was quoted as saying, "We need to ensure Oklahoma's economy has stabilized before additional revenue reductions are enacted," should not be spared the luxury of having no opponents to worry about on election day.

Oklahoma Is Not OK (http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/gist/2017/10/russell_cobb_on_the_failing_oklahoma_state.html)

Subhead is "Low tax rates, failing public services, and a governor who thinks prayer will fix the budget deficit. Why can’t Oklahoma get it together?" Hopefully we don't end up in the spots MS, AL, and LA generally do in polls (last in the good polls and first in the bad ones), although we're #1 in cutting education, so we're on our way there...

Haven't listened to it yet, but will try tonight or tomorrow.

Oklahoma Is Not OK (http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/gist/2017/10/russell_cobb_on_the_failing_oklahoma_state.html)

Subhead is "Low tax rates, failing public services, and a governor who thinks prayer will fix the budget deficit. Why can’t Oklahoma get it together?" Hopefully we don't end up in the spots MS, AL, and LA generally do in polls (last in the good polls and first in the bad ones), although we're #1 in cutting education, so we're on our way there...

Haven't listened to it yet, but will try tonight or tomorrow.

I listened to it. Didn't get much out of it from what I've already heard. I think most Oklahomans feel they're doing quite okay in Oklahoma. If I'm wrong, they shouldn't embrace the incumbents in the legislature once again on election day 2018.

It's generally only Oklahomans who rely upon the state for important needs who are really suffering, such as teachers and poor people. A single poor person with no children is only going to get $16 a month in food stamps. Poor working people need to join teachers in fleeing Oklahoma. The min. wage in Colorado is $9.30 to go up to $12.00 in 2020, compared to $7.25 in Oklahoma. Just stay out of Denver. The cost of living there is too high. Or move to Nebraska where the min. wage is $9.00 with cost of living similar to Oklahoma.

I also think many Oklahomans don't have much empathy for the less fortunate, as the audio brought up, especially when the source of help is from government.

Outrage at low property taxes, yet none at the regressive tax on groceries. Go figure.

Oklahomans seem to tolerate it pretty well. They probably thought abolishing tax on food means it would have to be made up somewhere, such as a sales tax on every kind of service. So they figured.