Skip to main content

COVID-19 Exposes TSET’s Uselessness: Let’s Get Rid of It


After more than a month of COVID-19 house arrest, Oklahoma is reopening. However, the government-created economic disaster that shutdown orders have caused will be studied by epidemiologists, economists, and other social scientists for decades to come. In the meantime, we have to deal with the consequences as they occur, everything from a lack of toilet paper on store shelves (hopefully, that’s over) and hair that’s grown too long to what will undoubtedly be a host of bankruptcies. In the meantime, there is a timely question that truly ought to be answered in Oklahoma. Where has TSET (Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust) been in this time of crisis?

Recall that TSET was created as a quasi-independent government by constitutional amendment as part of the 46-state tobacco settlement wherein tobacco companies agreed to pay states as reimbursement for the Medicaid costs of treating tobacco users for tobacco-induced illnesses. Instead of using the money to reduce taxes for Oklahomans, who presumably were the ones who actually suffered the financial impact of treating tobacco users, we got talked into handing a quarter of each year’s payment to the legislature with the rest to pile up in an endowment - TSET. Investment proceeds are used to make the commercials we see on a regular basis encouraging Oklahomans to stop smoking, stop vaping, and warning about the supposed dangers of secondhand smoke, in addition to admonitions to get out and exercise. Grants are given to local governments, researchers, and schools, among other things.

The state constitution explicitly states that TSET can spend its investment proceeds on tobacco-related cancer research, tobacco-use cessation programs, health programs for children and senior citizens, common and higher education, and administrative costs. The italics emphasize a part of TSET’s mission that is entirely compatible with using its resources during the COVID-19 crisis, namely to give information to the citizens of Oklahoma, and perhaps actually save some lives in so doing. After all, TSET apparently knows how to make commercials.

Throughout the COVID-19 crisis, it has been well known among epidemiologists that the young are at low risk from the disease. Rampaging epidemics through nursing homes, on the other hand, have proven terribly deadly. It should have been a priority for government to inform the general public of who, exactly, was at highest risk from this viral outbreak and what voluntary steps those at risk could take to protect themselves. Mostly, we’ve been fed misinformation through misguided actions, one of the first having been to close the schools, which led people to believe we were all at equal risk, regardless of age or health condition. It turns out, school-age kids are more likely to get the virus from older people than the other way around.

TSET could have set the record straight, perhaps in cooperation with other departments, or by acting entirely independently. Instead, it ran commercials completely unrelated to the current crisis and clearly made long before COVID-19 became an issue. As usual, their commercials focused on tobacco help lines and urging people to get out and exercise (a good idea, really), but not warning anyone to take special care for grandma and grandpa, much less any admonitions to keep one’s social distance. We needed nursing home personnel tested and screened right away. Sure, we could hope an overworked health department would get to it, but there’s TSET sitting on a pile of resources, ready to do … absolutely nothing.

So, the question occurs, just what additional proof does anyone need to show that the creation of TSET was a mistake and that this nearly completely independent and unaccountable waste of resources should be abolished?

The only real question that should be asked now, is what to do with the over $1 billion this error, TSET, is sitting on? Here’s an idea.

On top of the damage the ill-advised economic shutdown due to COVID-19 has done to state revenues, we are also dealing with an oil-price collapse brought on by the Russians and the Saudis (as well as the COVID shutdown). No doubt, this state’s pension funds, just like those of every other state, have taken a hit. It’s not like Oklahoma’s Teacher Retirement System was healthy in the first place. Even before the government-induced recession, the state’s retirement plans were underfunded to the tune of $7.9 billion. Let’s use TSET funds to at least partly catch up on these funds and then switch all new employees to defined contribution (401(k)-style) retirement plans.

We should have a new election about whether to end TSET and transfer its assets to the pension funds. Then, we should also decide what to do with future tobacco settlement funds. Perhaps we should let the legislature, which actually stands for election every two years, unlike the TSET board, decide what to do with the money. Given how evil the income tax is, perhaps they should use the money to drop income tax rates, even if it’s only a modest fraction of a percent.

The bottom line is this. TSET is a useless luxury funding goofy little animated commercials and creating a crony intergovernmental network, taking credit for tobacco-use reductions in the state that likely would have happened anyway. Appropriately enough, it’s been closed due to its nonessential nature. The COVID-19 epidemic has illustrated just how useless TSET is. 

Hey Legislature and Governor Stitt, let’s have a vote, preferably in November.

Byron Schlomach is 1889 Institute Director and can be contacted at bschlomach@1889institute.org.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.

Popular posts from this blog

Licensing Boards Might Violate Federal Law: Regardless, They Are Terrible Policy

Competition is as American as baseball and apple pie. “May the best man win” is a sentiment so old it doesn’t care about your pronouns. The beneficial effects of competition on economic markets are well documented. So why do we let powerful business interests change the rules of the game when they tire of competing in the free market? Most of the time when an occupational license is enacted, it is the members of the regulated industry who push hardest in favor of the license. Honest competition may be fundamentally American, but thwarting that competition through licensing seems to be fundamentally Oklahoman. Oklahoma doesn’t have the most occupational licenses, but when they do license an occupation, the requirements tend to be more onerous than the same license in other states. But what if, instead of merely breaking the rules of fair play to keep out would-be competition, Oklahoma licensing boards are also breaking the law? Normally a concerted effort to lock out competition would v

Undo 802

Why is it that when conservatives suffer a major loss, they give up, accept the new status quo, and fall back to the next retreat position? When progressives suffer a major loss, they regroup and try again. And again. Until they finally wheedle the American public into giving in. I propose a change in strategy. The Oklahoma Legislature should make undoing State Question 802 its top legislative priority for 2021. This will not be an easy task (legislators seem to prefer avoiding difficult tasks) but it is a critical one. The normal legislative process, with all its pitfalls and traps for the unwary, will only bring the topic to another vote of the people. So why spend so much political capital and effort if the same result is possible? Three reasons.   First is the disastrous consequences of the policy. Forget that it enriches already-rich hospital and pharmaceutical executives. Forget that it gives the state incentives to prioritize the nearly-poor covered by expansion over the des

Liability In the Time of Covid: When Should Businesses Be Sued for the Spread of Infectious Disease?

When businesses reopen, what liability should they face related to the spread of Covid? Can businesses who remained open during the pandemic, or those who were open before the lockdowns began, be held liable if their customers caught the virus within the businesses’ walls? If so, what would a customer-plaintiff need to prove?   Defending even a meritless lawsuit can be prohibitively expensive. For this reason, it is important to define ahead of time what harms can lead to successful lawsuits. Limitations on causes of action can reduce unwarranted suits by kicking them out of the legal system earlier in the process. So what should businesses be liable for? There are two distinct categories of business liability that might arise from Covid. The first is products liability. The second is liability for infection spread within a business.   Products Liability First, any willful fraud perpetrated in relation to Covid should be severely punished. This would include selling f

How Biden/Harris and Well-educated Sophisticates Are Wrong in the Age of COVID-19

Vice President-elect Kamala Harris often declared during the campaign that “We believe in science.” And judging by the tendency of the college-educated , especially among the sophisticates living on the coasts, to agree with Harris’s positions on everything from climate change to proper precautions amid COVID-19, belief in “science” seems to many a mark of knowledge and wisdom. But is it? The modern belief in “science” increasingly appears to be a religion wherein the words of certain recognized experts are received with the reverence once reserved for the Pope. A college diploma almost serves as a permission slip to suspend one’s own judgment and reason in favor of taking the word of certain experts to heart, especially if they work in government, certain universities, or gain media credence.   This tendency to turn experts and the media into high priests of all knowledge is nothing new. In 1986, 60 Minutes ran a story about a phenomenon people experienced in cars with automatic tra