Salute for a job well done
IN Washington, D.C., this week, 23 veterans from Oklahoma had the opportunity to view the World War II Memorial and the other military memorials in the nation’s capital. They didn’t pay a dime for the trip — Oklahoma Honor Flights picked up the tab. State Rep. Gary Banz, R-Midwest City, a U.S. Army veteran, started the Oklahoma Honor Flights program in 2010 with his wife, Linda, and other volunteers. They replicated a program that had begun in Ohio five years earlier.
This week’s trip was the 24th and last for Oklahoma Honor Flights, which served 2,055 men and women. It began as a way to give World War II veterans the chance to see their famous memorial; over the years, the flights were opened to veterans of the Korean and Vietnam wars. The waiting list of World War II applicants closed in November. All those remaining took part in this week’s flight.
One of those attending this week was 103-year-old Cecil “Zeke” Ledbetter, of El Reno, an Army Air Forces veteran of World War II. “This is first class all the way, well-organized,” Ledbetter said. “And the people who put it on deserve more than I do.”
To be sure, Banz and his wife, and all those who contributed financially and otherwise to make the Oklahoma Honor Flights program such a success, deserve the thanks of all Oklahomans.
Moving on
Lee Slater’s planned resignation as executive director will leave a large void at the Oklahoma Ethics Commission. Slater, 72, is resigning effect June 30, the end of this fiscal year. In his three years with the commission, Slater has worked to bring clarity and transparency to Oklahoma’s campaign finance reporting system. He overhauled (and trimmed) the agency’s rules, some of which had been on the books about 40 years. Among other things, Slater pushed to allow campaign contribution limits to be handled on a per-person basis, instead of the longstanding per-family per-campaign, or per-family per-year limits. Another rule change increased to $500 per year (from $100) the amount a lobbyist could spend on a lawmaker for meals. More frequent and thorough reporting of lobbyist spending was also adopted. Slater said when he took the job that his goal was “to make the rules easy enough to comply with that we get a high, high percentage of voluntary compliance.” He’s to be commended for his service.
Work pays off
A common complaint about Congress is that “nothing ever gets done.” Recent federal grand jury indictments in Kentucky provide a rebuttal. An attorney, Eric C. Conn, was indicted for allegedly paying a doctor and a Social Security administrative law judge to rubber-stamp fake disability claims. Prosecutors say the scheme produced $600 million in fraudulent payments. What’s the tie with Congress? Former U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Muskogee, and his staff helped to expose it. Coburn and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., looked at various Social Security disability cases. One case, from Huntington, W. Va., “processed more disability cases than any other office in the nation,” Coburn told a House oversight committee in June 2014. And much of those could be traced to Conn. “When we looked more closely at Mr. Conn’s operation, we found reasons for serious concern,” Coburn said. Federal prosecutors ultimately did as well, and now Conn faces the prospect of a long prison stretch.
Every vote counts
Tuesday’s elections included one race that generated an unusual outcome. John Barton, a member of the Muskogee School Board, sought re-election and was challenged by Bobby Jefferson. After all precincts had reported, Barton had received 938 votes, and Jefferson had received 937, meaning Barton may have won by a single vote. Making the issue even more interesting, one provisional ballot was cast that could not be opened until three days later. That vote held the potential to either turn the race into a tie or guarantee Barton’s victory. Under state law, the election board is required to decide the winner of a tie race by lot. Such outcomes are rare, and when other Oklahoma races have generated outcomes where one person won by just a handful of votes, legal challenges ensued. Still, these examples show once again that an individual’s vote can make a difference.
Impressive youngsters
Congratulations to Ana Marie Lopez of Oklahoma City, named Oklahoma Youth of the Year in a state competition of the Boys & Girls Clubs of America. But the greatest beneficiary may be the state of Oklahoma. All those who participated were impressive young men and women. All went through a rigorous process that included volunteer work, essay writing, interviews and public speaking (which polls often show is something many people fear more than death). Those who worry about our nation’s future would have less reason for concern upon exposure to these young people. The Boys & Girls Club Code includes an affirmation of belief in God and the right to worship; belief in America, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; and belief in honesty, fair play and sportsmanship. That many youngsters from a wide range of backgrounds, including those living in very challenging circumstances, embrace those ideals is cause to celebrate.
Defying the odds
Two economic models predict narrow Republican wins in this year’s presidential race. One model, by Yale professor Ray Fair, relies on per capita growth rate of gross domestic product in the three quarters before an election, inflation over the entire presidential term, and the number of quarters during the term growth per capita exceeds 3.2 percent. The other, by Emory University’s Alan Abramowitz, measures the incumbent president’s job-approval rating by the end of June of the election year, the economy’s growth during the first half of year, and how long the incumbent party has been in the White House. In contrast, a third economic model by Moody’s Analytics predicts an Electoral College landslide for the Democratic nominee. Based on current polling, the Moody’s prediction appears the most likely outcome if Donald Trump is the GOP nominee. With Trump, it seems two out of three economic models can be wrong.
Clinton on abortion
Donald Trump isn’t the only politician to stumble regarding abortion. In a recent “Meet the Press” interview, Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton was asked if a baby in the womb has any constitutional rights. “The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights,” Clinton said. “Now that doesn’t mean that we don’t do everything we possibly can in the vast majority of instances to, you know, help a mother who is carrying a child and wants to make sure that child will be healthy, to have appropriate medical support.” She also indicated support for some restrictions in the third trimester of pregnancy. Diana Arellano, manager of community engagement for Planned Parenthood Illinois Action, quickly tweeted that Clinton’s comments “further stigmatizes #abortion. She calls a fetus an ‘unborn child’ & calls for later term restrictions.” Trump was criticized for sounding too extreme; Clinton was slammed for not being extreme enough.