Category Archives: U.S. Congress

Could Paul Spencer give Arkansas Democrats a shot?

Elections, Politics, U.S. Congress, Uncategorized

By Steve Brawner
© 2017 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Arkansas’ 2nd Congressional District just got more interesting, perhaps even almost competitive, and it might point the way for Arkansas Democrats in other parts of the state.

Paul Spencer is forming an exploratory committee to run for that congressional seat as a Democrat. It’s currently occupied by Rep. French Hill, a Republican.

Spencer was a founder of the group Regnat Populus, which tried in 2012 to get an ethics reform measure on the ballot that would limit campaign contributions. The effort failed to collect enough signatures, but legislators did respond by placing on the 2014 ballot a wide-ranging “ethics” amendment passed by voters. It did limit campaign contributions as well as gifts by lobbyists to legislators, but it also snuck in a provision weakening term limits, a measure Spencer later criticized.

Spencer has continued to stay active in politics, his primary focus being campaign finance and ethics reform. He’s also pro-life, which is kind of interesting considering the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Tom Perez, recently said all Democrats must support abortion rights. In his day job, Spencer is a history and government teacher at Little Rock Catholic High School for Boys.

It’s just an exploratory committee, but Spencer sounds like he’s running. In a statement, he said that “only the needs of special interests are being represented in the 2nd District.” He said recent Republican health care policy “demonstrates reckless disregard for the people of Arkansas.”

Arkansas Democrats have been beaten up pretty badly in recent years. In 2008, the party controlled five of the state’s six congressional offices, all seven statewide constitutional offices, and 102 of the 135 seats in the Legislature. Now Republicans control everything at the state and national levels, although Democrats still control the majority of local offices for now.

In 2016, the Democrats only managed to field one congressional candidate, and not a strong one. That was in the 2nd Congressional District, the one Democrats have the best shot of winning because it includes Little Rock and Pulaski County along with outlying counties that are much more Republican. Hill lost Pulaski County, while Hillary Clinton beat President Trump there by 19 points.

Spencer – who, let’s be clear, would be a long shot – truly believes in what he’s saying and can articulate why he’s running. His candidacy would give the party what it often lacks: a passionate, recognizable candidate who can offer a contrast with the Republican incumbent. Hill, a successful banker, is more of an establishment Bush Republican trying to navigate the party’s waters now that it’s led by President Trump, who is not Hill’s kind of candidate. His policies are conservative, particularly when it comes to business-related issues, but he has a moderate, measured style. So Hill the banker versus Spencer the crusader could be interesting.

One challenge for Spencer would be how to fund his campaign. After dedicating himself to limiting campaign donations, how would he collect enough money to run a credible race? On the other hand, as the 2016 presidential race showed, maybe money and the things it buys – an avalanche of 30-second ads and an army of consultants – isn’t as important as it used to be.

Spencer’s type of candidacy may point the way forward for Democrats in other parts of the state. The party’s traditional message –“We’re Arkansas Democrats, not national Democrats” – isn’t working anymore. Moving forward, the party can’t merely bash Trump and promise more government goodies like more pre-K classes, and it certainly won’t win in Arkansas embracing Hollywood-style cultural liberalism. You can call Spencer a liberal, but his message is bigger than that: It’s that the system is rigged against the little guy and needs to be fixed. For Democrats to make any gains in Arkansas, that’s the message that might work – less about providing more stuff, more about providing a fair shake.

The system’s rigged. Hmm. Come to think of it, that’s the same message that helped Trump take over the Republican Party.

Related: What matters: Voters’ view of the world

Tax cuts and rosy scenarios

Debt and deficits, Politics, State government, U.S. Congress

By Steve Brawner
© 2017 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Let’s say you’re planning next year’s family budget.

Should you (A) be honest about what you’ll probably spend and as realistic as possible about your likely income, taking into account there could be an unexpected downturn? Or (B) assure yourself you’ll get a big raise, tell yourself prices will fall, increase your spending, and obligate yourself based on a rosy scenario?

I hope you answered (A). Otherwise, I didn’t do a very good job writing that first paragraph. If you’re the architects of President Trump’s first budget outline, you instead chose (B).

The budget, released tellingly while Trump is out of the country, promises to transform the annual budget deficit that will be $559 billion this year into a $16 billion surplus by 2027. We’d still have the national debt – currently $20 trillion and growing – but at least we wouldn’t be adding to it.

Unfortunately, the budget relies on that aforementioned rosy scenario to get there.

On the spending side, it increasing money for defense while proposing cuts to spending programs, including popular ones such as Meals on Wheels, that are so deep that even conservative Republicans in Congress won’t support them. Meanwhile, it leaves untouched the primary drivers of the increasing national debt, Social Security and Medicare.

Meanwhile, Trump is promising tax cuts he says will spur so much growth they’ll pay for themselves – a promise that won’t come true, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Moreover, Trump’s budget relies on projections of 3 percent economic growth per year – an unrealistic number, considering the Congressional Budget Office expects the economy instead to grow 1.8 percent annually over the next decade.

I said “unrealistic,” not “impossible.” According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the economy has averaged 3.2 percent growth since 1950, and there have been times when it grew even faster – 4.3 percent in the 1960s and 3.5 percent in the 1990s.

The difference between now and then is us, says the Committee. We’re now an older country, and certain to grow older. The baby boomers are now retiring, and retired people produce less than working people. Meanwhile, as the number of older Americans increases, so does the number of people accessing Medicare and Social Security, which, you’ll recall, President Trump’s budget doesn’t touch.

Given the fact that 70-year-olds don’t usually have children, the fastest way to reduce the age of the workforce is to import workers from the outside. But even that would be only a partial solution causing other problems. Besides, as you may have noticed, increasing immigration is not exactly a priority of the president’s, or of Arkansas’ Sen. Tom Cotton, for that matter, who argues that immigrants compete with Americans for lower-wage jobs.

It’s possible that some kind of private sector advance could spur the economy, much as the dot-com bubble helped make the 1990s boom possible. But remember, we call that a “bubble” for a reason. Anyway, we’re already in the middle of one of those advancements. Technological innovations have let the United States approach energy independence, and gasoline is cheap right now. Nevertheless, the economy’s been plodding along for years – not terrible, but not great.

Because of all these factors, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says Trump’s plan will reduce revenues by $5.5 trillion. This would occur at a time when government expenditures for Social Security and Medicare are destined to increase, as will interest payments on the debt. And let’s face it, Congress isn’t going to cut spending drastically for Meals on Wheels.

Instead, the U.S. government should do what a prudent family does: Base its budgeting on what’s likely to happen – actually, worse than that – and on the basic math principle that subtracting from your income does not add to it. It doesn’t have to expect the worst-case scenario, but at least it shouldn’t depend on a rosy one.

Related: $23.33 less debt

For the rest of us, there’s non-teacher retirement

Debt and deficits, Legislature, Politics, State government, U.S. Congress

By Steve Brawner
© 2017 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Could Arkansas’ efforts to strengthen a program serving 43,000 offer an example for Congress to fix programs serving 60 million?

During this past legislative session, Arkansas lawmakers took steps – baby steps for sure, but steps – that might shore up the state’s Teacher Retirement System. Actuaries had determined it would take the system 29 years to catch up with the payments it will make to current and future retirees, and that’s too much. In the past, 30 years was considered acceptable, but the Government Accounting Standards Board has lowered that number to 18. Anything longer risks hurting the state’s bond rating and increasing the borrowing costs for schools and roads.

Because big fixes are hard, the system’s managers requested the flexibility to implement numerous little ones. Laws passed this session let the system’s board of trustees increase the rates paid by school districts and by current teachers if the projected payoff exceeds 18 years. Various retirement benefits could be reduced, and the system will be funded by school districts employing contracted employees working for private providers.

In other words, the Teacher Retirement System is not meeting professional standards meant to assure long-term survivability. So in response, the Legislature gave a governing entity the flexibility to make changes, rather than doing it in the politically charged halls of the State Capitol, where laws can be hard to pass and harder to change.

It remains to be seen if the changes will work. It could be that the state’s retirement systems need bigger fixes. The point is, fixes are being attempted for a popular retirement system serving 43,000 current beneficiaries, and those fixes involve less debt, not more. Solving the problem will require some people to pay more or get less, and these people vote.

Let’s compare that to the federal government’s programs that serve 60 million people. Social Security and Medicare both face long-term funding issues far more serious than the state’s Teacher Retirement System. According to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the trust fund for Medicare Part A, which covers hospital payments, runs out of money in 2025, and then it will have to rely solely on the taxes being paid at the time. At that point, doctors and hospitals under the law will face a 13 percent pay cut, leading some to simply stop seeing Medicare patients. Social Security’s trust fund runs out of money in 2034, at which point all recipients under current law will receive an automatic 21 percent cut. The trust fund has been borrowed from to pay for the government’s other programs, but the government has promised to pay it back, so we’ll just have to take its word for it.

The numbers don’t work and will grow worse as the baby boomers age and retire. By 2027, the costs of mandatory spending programs, of which Social Security and Medicare are the major parts, plus interest on the national debt will equal 99 percent of all federal revenues. That means, 10 years from now, 1 percent will be left for everything else the government does, including the military, which means even more borrowing. In the following decades, the unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare reach incomprehensibly high numbers in the trillions of dollars.

Unlike the Teacher Retirement System, there is no mechanism for boards of trustees to tweak the systems, because the financials are locked into law. In fact, because the programs are considered to be “mandatory,” Congress doesn’t even take a hard look at them. Moreover, the spending is not governed by anything like that 18-year provision. The government just pays more year after year until the programs hit the wall in 2025 and 2034, and then benefits suddenly will be cut.

Whether it’s the Teacher Retirement System, Social Security or Medicare, when revenues doesn’t meet expenses, policymakers have three choices: more revenues, less expenses, or some combination of both. Congress has chosen the easier fourth option: Do nothing because the consequences happen long after the next election.

Could Congress, which long ago decreed the changes would happen suddenly in the future, instead somehow make them happen gradually and less painfully – using some of the same principles adopted by the Legislature? The pain could be lessened by addressing the problem now, even though it would involve some people paying more or getting less, and those people vote.

Hopefully, Congress will do something. Most of us aren’t teachers, but most of us hope to retire, eventually.

Related: $23.33 less debt

Can The Centrist Project pioneer a new way?

Elections, Independents and third parties, Politics, U.S. Congress

By Steve Brawner
© 2017 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Forty-four percent of Americans are independents, according to Gallup, but only 2 percent of United States senators are, and one of those is Sen. Bernie Sanders, who’s really a Democrat. Could a few more independents form a decisive voting bloc that would force Republicans and Democrats to solve problems?

That’s a question Joel Searby and the other founders of The Centrist Project are trying to answer.

Searby ran the 2016 independent presidential campaign of Evan McMullen, a former Republican congressional staff member and ex-CIA officer who won 21 percent of the vote in Utah and 1 percent in Arkansas.

Now, Searby and others with The Centrist Project are trying to recruit and strategically fund credible independent candidates in 2018, with one focus being the U.S. Senate where they could make the most difference.

Congress, you may have noticed, is a partisan mess where the focus is more on scoring political points than solving problems. In the past, the two parties were each a diverse mix of conservatives, liberals and moderates who could work across party lines. But Republicans have moved right while Democrats have moved left, with few left in the center to bridge the gap.

The Centrist Project is trying to step in and find a few states where the climate is best-suited to electing independents to the Senate and elsewhere who are fiscally responsible, practical minded, problem solving, environmentally responsible and socially tolerant.

What does all that mean? Searby said it’s more about an approach to government than a set of ideological beliefs. Regarding being “socially tolerant,” he says he’s a pro-life, pro-family conservative, but the centrist approach means not vilifying the other side or holding other issues hostage.

“That’s how (parties) frame every issue is around enemies and friends, and so we’re just really trying to overcome that,” he said.

Three to five independents in the U.S. Senate could control the balance of power by voting with one party or the other based on the issue, forcing Republicans and Democrats out of their us-versus-them comfort zone. The new independents could work with current independent Sen. Angus King of Maine along with Republicans and Democrats who have independent streaks, including Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Nebraska, and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia.

Searby said the Project is looking for attractive candidates with the ability to self-fund or attract a potential network of supporters – like McMullin or Greg Orman, the Kansas businessman who ran a strong but ultimately losing campaign for the U.S. Senate in 2014. It is talking with potential Senate candidates in eight states where an independent might have success because of a state’s political climate and size – a small, cheap state like Maine being preferable to a big, expensive one like California. Meanwhile, it’s also targeting other races in an effort to get wins wherever it can.

Arkansas does not have a Senate race in 2018 is not a target, anyway. The state’s rapid transformation from a conservative Democratic state to a Trump-Republican stronghold makes it less likely an independent could emerge here, Searby said.

It’s going to be an uphill climb. Most Americans who tell pollsters they are independents aren’t really. The reality is, whether they admit it or not, most are reliably voting for one party or the other. Moreover, congressional gerrymandering (drawing lines to benefit a party) and Americans’ self-sorting personal decisions have made most districts reliably Republican or Democrat. In other words, we typically live amongst people who vote like us in states that are either red or blue. Meanwhile, the parties have huge, well-funded infrastructures and have written election laws to favor themselves. The system strongly encourages voters to choose one party over the other, even if it’s just to pick the lesser of two evils.

After running McMullin’s long-shot campaign, Searby believes that independents eventually will break through. He said political professionals who are fed up with the two parties seemed open to different kinds of candidates. Members of the media seemed ready to tell a new story.

“The bottom line is, we know we’re pushing against decades of trends and beliefs and partisan work and money, and it’s going to be hard, but just because something’s hard doesn’t mean that it’s not worth doing, and just because something’s hard doesn’t mean that it’s not going to come,” he said. “We really believe that we are pioneering a new way in American politics.”