AWOL editors

The Oklahoman has surprised me of late. A few days ago, I was convinced that we'd see a new dust-up in the evolution "debate" the paper loves to push as part of its theocratic agenda. And yet, it has remained eerily quiet to date.

And then, we get today's well-reasoned letter about taxes from Donnie Elms of Harrah, who writes:

This isn't the time to pass income tax cuts. Our roads, bridges, infrastructure, etc., are in need of repair, as are our schools. Teachers and prison guards are underpaid. The only place any taxes should be cut is on medicine and groceries, which would benefit everyone.

Before getting to the nuts and bolts of the content of this letter, observe how wonderful it is in its simplicity! There are no odd, disjointed uses of sarcasm, or the questionable use of metaphor, or tired, childish insults. Moreover, the letter addresses several relevant themes. One wishes that-- regardless of the argument presented-- the Oklahoman could run more letters like this.

In addition, the actual sentiment of the paper is a breath of fresh air, especially when compared to the cognitive disconnect that seems to plague the editors of the Oklahoman. After all, these are the people who routinely lament the poor condition of the state's infrastructure and services. Even their news-- which is often just the propaganda arm of their own right wing agenda-- talks about such things. Yet, at the same time, they argue that cutting taxes is a must-- even then the average family would receive virtually nothing from such cuts.

When they do come to terms with their own contrary views, the editors sound pathetic:

Oklahomans are justifiably proud that the state has a balanced budget requirement. It avoids the irresponsible deficit spending of the federal government. But balancing the budget requires lawmakers to make hard choices. To keep the cost of government from ultimately imposing a greater tax burden on working Oklahomans, lawmakers will have to say “no” to even many worthy proposals.

So... in the hope of making sure that Kevin Durant doesn't pay as much in income taxes, we have to under fund (at best) services and needed improvements? As they already noted, the current proposed tax-cut plan would " [provide] just $39 per year for a median-income family" in tax savings. Is that really a "greater tax burden" as they claim above??

The only defense of this that the editors have offered is the standard fall-back: how much more impact would that [$39 per family] have if left in the private sector?

Ah yes, the private sector. Where, if every family spent that $39 at a national chain restaurant, we'd all magically have new roads and more police officers.

To be sure, there is a time when a strong case can be made for tax cuts. But given the state of the economy when compared to the state of Oklahoma's infrastructure, Mr. Elms' letter makes much more sense than the always-cut-taxes mantra espoused by the plutocratic editors of the Oklahoman.

In the past, I'd argue that the editors' proven penchant for running opposition letters only so that they can run letters responding to that opposition (often spouting standard right wing talking points) means we are in store for some poorly-written letters attacking Mr. Elms for his "socialist" views. But the editors seem to have been on vacation of late. Only time will tell...