The Tulsa World editorial on Aug. 17, "Sooner on the Potomac," was very disappointing. I read it expectantly and found it lacking.
Gov. Stitt wants to appoint someone to represent Oklahoma in Washington D.C. He had never voted in a gubernatorial race until be ran, and he apparently does not know how good government should work.
We need to elect people who will represent our views. The other ironic part is he wants federal money for Medicaid. He is supposedly the leader of Oklahoma government so he should take the money.
Why does the Tulsa World think the appointee will not be political? The fact it is an appointment and not an elected official makes it political.
I do not agree "we're all pulling on the same end of the rope," as the editorial states.
Many officials in Oklahoma are pulling the rope only the direction that will benefit them politically and not thinking what is best for the most citizens in Oklahoma.
An appointee in Washington paid out of our taxes is just another layer of bureaucracy for Stitt's gain.
The money for Medicaid is on the table. All Oklahoma needs to do is take it, and we do have representatives on the Potomac. Having Stitt's appointed representatives would be a costly step in the wrong direction.
New Cherokee Nation principal chief says tribe won't bail the state out for a decade of fiscal irresponsibility.
Letters to the editor are encouraged. Send letters to email@example.com.