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

The Problem of Diffuse Costs and Concentrated Benefits

Do you ever find yourself observing a seemingly illogical government program , spending decision, or other strange practice and ask “how is it that no one has fixed that?” If you are like me, you encounter this phenomenon regularly. This often takes the form of a curious headline (Save Federal Funding for the Cowboy Poets!) that most people see and can’t believe is real. I would like to suggest that this phenomenon often results from the problem of diffuse costs and concentrated benefits. To understand this concept, consider a hypothetical law that assessed a $1 tax on everyone in the United States with the proceeds to be given to one individual for unrestricted use as he sees fit. The people harmed by such a law—the individual taxpayers—will not be very motivated to spend the time and effort to convince Congress to change the law. They might resent the dollar taken from them for a silly cause they don’t support, but the lost dollar isn’t worth the trouble of doing something about i...

About Those Roads in Texas

A s Sooner fans head south for the OU-Texas game next week, they will encounter a phenomenon most of us are familiar with: as you cruise across the Red River suddenly the road gets noticeably smoother. The painted lane stripes get a little brighter and the roadside “Welcome to Texas” visitors’ center gleams in the sunlight, a modern and well-maintained reminder of how much more money the Lonestar State spends on public infrastructure than little old Oklahoma. Or does it? Why are the roads so much, well… better in Texas? Turns out, it isn’t the amount of money spent, at least not when compared to the overall size of the state’s economy and personal income of its inhabitants. Research conducted by 1889 Institute’s Byron Schlomach reveals that Oklahoma actually spends significantly more on roads than Texas as a percentage of both state GDP and personal income . And that was data from 2016, before Oklahoma’s tax and spending increases of recent years. The gap is likely gr...

An Immodest Proposal to Improve Term Limits

No person elected to any office in the executive or legislative branch of any state, county, or local government shall be eligible to run for the same office in the election immediately succeeding their elected term of office.   In 1990 Oklahomans voted , by a two-to-one margin, to enact term limits for state legislators. Certainly, voters must have believed they needed to be saved from themselves (or each other). After all, every legislature in the country has term limits: they’re called elections. But now, three decades later, the question must be asked: have term limits returned power to the people?   In my observation, they have not. Rather than directing power back to the people, term limits have transferred power from the people’s representatives to… just about everywhere else. The courts have taken power for themselves time and time again. The Oklahoma Supreme Court is currently considering whether to uphold the opioid suit’s legislation from the bench. If they do,...

If Data Is Supposed to Be Our Guide, the Great Coronavirus Shutdown of 2020 Should End

According to the most widely cited model projecting the course of the coronavirus outbreak, today is supposed to be Oklahoma’s peak in daily deaths. Now is a good time to go back to the beginning of the Great Coronavirus Shutdown of 2020, review the goal of our policy, and assess our current status. If our policy should be “data-driven,” as we are constantly told, then let’s actually look at the data and determine our next policy steps accordingly. Spoiler alert: according to the terms set out by those advocating for the shutdown policy, the policy’s continuance is no longer justified. The stated goal of the shutdown policy was to “flatten the curve” so as to prevent hospitals from becoming overwhelmed with COVID patients. The fear was that the virus would spread so fast that at its peak, the number of cases would exceed the overall capacity of the healthcare system. If that peak could be stretched out over a longer period of time, lives would be saved. This concept was il...