By Oklahoma Institute for Child Advocacy CEO Joe Dorman
Growing up as a child in the 1970s, I enjoyed my fair share of television shows. One of my favorites was “Happy Days,” celebrating its 50th anniversary this year.
“Happy Days” starred Ron Howard, a Duncan native, who played Richie Cunningham. The show followed the Cunningham family and friends, one of whom was Arthur “Fonzie” Fonzarelli. Fonzie epitomized coolness for his teenage neighbor, and a lot of kids like me.
In Season 5, a three-part episode included a plot where Fonzie jumps over a shark on water skis. The term “jumping the shark” came to mean any creative work that is out of ideas and relies on extreme exaggeration.
Oklahomans saw many candidates “jump the shark” with their campaign literature and promises this year. People running for office made extreme overstatements on how bad their opponents are, or they promised policies that simply cannot happen without drastic changes. The side effect of this type of campaigning discourages many middle-of-the-road, or moderate, Americans – frustrated with the extremist rhetoric – from even voting.
As evidence, only 20 to 25 percent of registered Republican voters bothered to vote, with the only statewide race garnering just over 237,000 total votes. Democrats had no statewide elections, so turnout was even more sparse with just local races occurring. Expect the turnout percentage to be even less in the August 27 runoff elections.
What is dangerous about the campaign rhetoric is that the candidates want to appeal to the few they know will show up, moving policies farther to the extreme positions. Case in point, you will hear much about rejecting federal funds for operating government services, and you will also hear candidates want to cut taxes.
Our state government runs on a finite amount of money based upon our state tax collections. Some of those programs receive matching funds from federal taxes collected, including education/schools, children’s support services, road building, and health care programs, with the latter sometimes getting a seven-to-one match from federal appropriations.
If federal funds are rejected, the state must either drastically cut services or raise state taxes to pay for those programs. Here is the kicker, those federal funds many candidates say they do not want…that is our money, taxes we have paid to the federal government. If we do not accept them, you can bet some other state will.
One example is the rejection by the state of funds to provide food support in the summer for children who qualify for the free and reduced lunch program. The nonprofit sector is simply cannot meet the demand of hungry children, so the Legislature allocated more than $8 million of state money to assist with needs this year, a much-needed boost, and thank you to the state lawmakers who did that.
That $8 million of state dollars is only a fraction of the $42 million in federal matching dollars that was turned away. That difference of $36 million was taken from Oklahoma families who would have spent it in local grocery stores, making it an even bigger boost to our economy. Instead, it went to other states’ children.
Be wary of the rhetoric when it starts back up in August and again for November 5, the General Election; do not fall for exaggerations, and certainly do not sit out by not voting.
Voters need to elect reasonable, rational candidates who will vote on policies for the best interest of Oklahomans, and especially for children who cannot vote for themselves. If a candidate is going to “jump the shark” with their campaign promises, do you really want them to make decisions all Oklahomans?
