Category Archives: U.S. Congress

What Dale Bumpers was

Politics, U.S. Congress

Dale Bumpers By Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

In 1992, I interviewed the late Sen. Dale Bumpers while working my first reporting job for the Arkadelphia Daily Siftings Herald. As we sat on the hood of his gray Pontiac Bonneville outside Ouachita Baptist University’s football field, I asked him why he had never run for president despite once being included as a possible contender on the cover of Time magazine. He looked wistful for a moment, munched some popcorn, said I didn’t have enough space to print the reasons, and then talked about the strain that being president would cause for his family.

His campaign tagline that year while being challenged by future Gov. Mike Huckabee was, “What a senator should be.”

Bumpers, who died last week, would never be president. But even though I was a fan of Huckabee’s at the time and not covering the race as objectively as I should have, I remember thinking that the tagline was appropriate.

The important word in that tagline was “be,” not “do.” I can’t always agree with what Sen. Bumpers did, which is no criticism of him. For example, he voted against President Reagan’s military buildup, which many say hastened the end of the Cold War, which needed to be hastened. I buy their argument.

But more important than what Bumpers did was who he was. He was an orator and a statesman who respected the Constitution and appreciated history. Because of who he was, he took unpopular stands – against banning flag desecration, for handing the Panama Canal to the Panamanians – and then trusted that voters would understand his reasoning and be fair. Back when he was a country lawyer, he advised the Charleston School Board to obey the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka to let black students go to school with white students. Charleston became the first school district in the former Confederacy to do so.

He had common sense and understood simple math – specifically, that if you want to spend more, you’ll have to collect more. As governor of Arkansas, he increased teacher salaries, which he funded by raising taxes, not by financial trickery or by the state accepting money from Uncle Sam.

He was one of three senators to vote for the Reagan budget cuts but against the Reagan tax cuts of 1981, believing that the numbers did not add up in the midst of the defense buildup described a few paragraphs above.

Boy, was he right on that one. In 1981, the national debt, accumulated over nearly two centuries, was $1 trillion. By 1986, it had more than doubled. In the years since then, it’s grown to $19 trillion.

A big reason why is that a grand, unspoken bargain was created during the 1980s. The Republican Party had come under the spell of a theory, supply side economics, whose adherents promised that tax cuts would more than pay for themselves because of the increased economic growth they would spur. One unfortunate consequence of that thinking was that cutting government, while laudable, became not really necessary. That combination of growing government without paying for it obviously appealed to Democrats as well. No one had to make tough decisions because economic growth supposedly would fill in the gaps.

Only it didn’t. Government spent more, and tax receipts didn’t cover it. It was a great deal for officeholders in both parties and current taxpayers who’ve gotten a lot more government than they’ve paid for. But it’s been a terrible bargain for tomorrow’s taxpayers who will make up the difference or else follow our example and load up their own kids with debt. More than most in Congress, Bumpers refused to participate in the bargain.

Bumpers told me that day in 1992, “I want to be remembered as a guy who was proud of being a politician and who stood up for what he believed and what he felt was best for his country, even at times when it was very unpopular to do it.”

That is how he’ll be remembered – because of who he was, even more than what he did.

Tax-cut-and-spend Congress

Debt and deficits, Politics, U.S. Congress

Uncle Sam hangs on for webBy Steve Brawner
© 2015 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Many Republican members of Congress, including all six members of Arkansas’ congressional delegation, have signed the Americans for Tax Reform’s pledge not to raise taxes, and mostly they stick to it. Many Democrats have signed a pledge not to mess with Social Security. But there’s no group asking members of Congress to pledge to reduce the national debt.

Much as I hate all these pledges, maybe there should be.

This past week, Congress rushed through two legislative packages that will make the national debt bigger. One was a package that permanently extended tax breaks that, in fairness, mostly were being routinely extended temporarily before. We’re now assured of adding $700 billion to the national debt over 10 years, whereas before we at least argued about it every year. All four members of Arkansas’ House delegation voted for the deal, which was consistent with the pledge they have signed.

And that wouldn’t be a problem, if Congress had voted to cut spending elsewhere to offset the tax cuts. Just as you and I ought to cut back on spending if we decide to take a job that pays less, Congress ought to cut spending if it cuts taxes.

Instead, Congress also voted this week for a $1.1 trillion omnibus spending package that increases spending by $50 billion. The 2,000-page bill is full of provisions that range from the important (allowing the U.S. to compete in the oil exporting market) to the mundane ($65 million for salmon restoration). It was negotiated by congressional leaders behind closed doors and then presented to the membership with little time for them to read it and nothing else on the table to avert a government shutdown.

To their credit, Arkansas’ senators, Sen. John Boozman and Sen. Tom Cotton, voted against both packages, which were combined in the Senate into one vote. In the House, Rep. Rick Crawford and Rep. Bruce Westerman get credit for voting against the spending package. Meanwhile, I can’t blame the two House members who voted for that package, Rep. French Hill and Rep. Steve Womack. Time was running out, there was no alternative, and many Republicans want to give new Speaker Paul Ryan, who helped broker the deal, a chance to succeed.

Also, the tax deal isn’t that much of a break from past policy. It mostly extended tax breaks permanently that were being extended temporarily year after year. Now at least we have clarity.

The problem is that once again, members of Congress voted to cut taxes, increase spending, and add to the debt because they don’t have enough motivations to behave differently. People often complain about “tax-and-spend liberals.” The truth is that most members of Congress often are “tax-cut-and-spend Republicans and Democrats.” And that’s why the national debt is creeping toward $19 trillion, or $58,000 for every American.

In signing the combined packages into law Friday, President Obama said, “I think the system worked.”

He’s right. The system worked perfectly. It did exactly what it was designed to do: Cut taxes, increase spending, and make the numbers work because the costs will be borne by future generations who don’t yet vote.

This has been going on for almost all of America’s history. According to the U.S. Treasury’s website, the national debt was $71 million in 1790, and then it dipped to less than $34,000 at the beginning of 1835, and it’s been pretty much rising ever since, until recently, when it exploded under your and my watch. It took about 191 years for it to reach $1 trillion and then needed 20 years to reach $6 trillion. Under the last two presidents, it’s grown another $13 trillion. As of Dec. 16, it was $18,796,279,678,290.28.

Two things can change this dynamic.

One is voluntary. Voters can elect fiscally responsible candidates. In office, those lawmakers must place as high a priority on future generations as they do on cutting taxes and increasing spending today. Would signing a pledge to reduce the debt help? It’s helped elsewhere.

More likely, there must be a mechanism, such as a balanced budget amendment, that makes it easier for elected officials to make responsible choices because, if they don’t, they’re breaking or at least skirting the law.

That way the system would work only when it does right by everyone – those who vote, those who don’t, and those who can’t because they’re too young or not yet born.

Senate race not yet unpredictable

Elections, Politics, U.S. Congress

By Steve Brawner
© 2015 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Politics in Arkansas is becoming increasingly predictable: In statewide races and in many legislative ones, bet on the candidates with an “R” beside their names. The past week or so, things became, if not unpredictable, then at least mildly interesting in the U.S. Senate race.

On Nov. 4., the latest Arkansas Poll sponsored by the University of Arkansas’ Diane D. Blair Center of Southern Politics and Society revealed these numbers about U.S. Sen. John Boozman: 38 percent of respondents approved of his job performance, 18 percent disapproved, and 44 percent had no opinion or refused to answer the question.

It was the first and the last numbers that raised some eyebrows – particularly the last. That 38 percent approval rating is a little low. More striking is the fact that Boozman has been in the Senate for five years and in office for 14, and yet 44 percent of respondents don’t have much of an opinion about him. Arkansas’ other senator, Tom Cotton, who won his first race in 2012, had a 45-27 approval rating with 29 percent not knowing or refusing to answer.

The next day, CNN.com published a story saying national Republican Party leaders are becoming concerned that Boozman raised less money in the last quarter than did his 38-year-old Democratic challenger, former U.S. attorney Conner Eldridge.

Of course the Eldridge campaign tried to make hay with these two stories. Meanwhile, the day of the CNN.com story, I was called at home by an automated telephone survey asking about a hypothetical matchup between Boozman and former Lt. Governor Bill Halter, who forced Sen. Blanche Lincoln into a runoff in the 2010 Senate race. Halter did not respond to a request for an interview and it’s unclear who sponsored the survey, but someone seemed to be testing a Halter candidacy. For whatever reason, he’s not running.

Then on Nov. 9, the last day of the filing period, businessman Curtis Coleman filed to run against Boozman in the Republican Party primary. Coleman said he had been encouraged by supporters to run, and when he challenged them late last week to raise enough money to cover his filing fee before the end of the weekend, they responded by donating more than $20,000. Coleman said the conservative but low-key Boozman isn’t conservative enough and is not enough of a fighter.

Libertarian Frank Gilbert, who won 2 percent of the vote running for governor in 2014, also will be on the ballot.

All of this is worth a column, but is it enough for Boozman to be worried? Probably not any more than any incumbent with challengers should be.

This will be Coleman’s third statewide race. In 2010, he won 5 percent of the vote in an eight-candidate primary won by Boozman without a runoff. In 2014, Coleman won 27 percent in the Republican primary running for governor against now-Gov. Asa Hutchinson. Coleman said he now has statewide name identification and a grassroots network, but so does Boozman, and he’s the incumbent.

The Democrats’ Eldridge is an attractive young candidate with a crime-fighting resume, family connections, and personal wealth, but he has a “D” by his name and was appointed to his post by President Obama. Republicans will make a huge deal of that.

As for those 38-18-44 numbers, Boozman can work with those. Twice as many like him as don’t, and he will have millions of dollars to court that 44 percent who don’t have much of an opinion about him. When only “very likely” voters are counted, his support increases to 44 percent. (Cotton’s increases to 51 percent.) At this point three years ago, Sen. Mark Pryor’s numbers in the Arkansas Poll were much worse: 33-41 approval-disapproval, with 26 percent having no opinion or not answering. He lost to Cotton.

Meanwhile, Democrats are fielding candidates in only one of the state’s four U.S. House races. In the 2nd District, former Little Rock School Board member Dianne Curry filed Monday to run against incumbent U.S. Rep. French Hill, a Republican. Hill also faces a primary opponent, Brock Olree, and a Libertarian challenger, Chris Hayes.

So things will be mildly interesting but still predictable: Arkansas’ congressional delegation in 2017 probably will look exactly as it does now. Then again, that’s a prediction, not a prophecy. There’s still an election to be had.

Do needy students merit more scholarships?

Education, Politics, State government, U.S. Congress, Uncategorized

By Steve Brawner
© 2015 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Let’s jump straight into the facts. According to a new report, “Closing the Gap,” by the Arkansas Department of Higher Education, 94 percent of Arkansas’ state-funded college scholarships are based solely on merit – ACT scores, etc. – while 6 percent also are based on need. Only two states and the District of Columbia are weighted more toward merit. The national average, on the other hand, is 75 percent need-based.

The fact that Arkansas is doing things differently than the rest of the nation should matter, considering it has the second lowest percentage of residents with a college degree. (Thank goodness for West Virginia!) About 14 percent of us have a bachelor’s degree, while 7 percent of us also have a master’s degree or higher. Another 7 percent have an associate’s degree.

The 94-6 percent ratio is the result of the growth of Academic Challenge Scholarships awards, which are largely funded through the lottery and are entirely merit based. In the past, the scholarships went to students who scored a 19 on the ACT or earned a 2.5 grade point average in high school. A law passed this year by the Legislature makes the 19 on the ACT the only requirement, which may have been a mistake because grade point average supposedly is a better predictor of college success than standardized test scores.

The problem with basing scholarships on merit alone is that it makes them harder to attain for students who grew up in tougher circumstances with fewer advantages. Those are the very students who need the money more – as long as they can put it to good use.

Let’s also be blunt about what’s really happening. People of all income levels buy lottery tickets, of course, but a certain percentage of those ticket-buyers are poor people looking for a little hope. That’s their choice, but state resources are encouraging them to “invest” in this pipe dream. Then their money pays for scholarships for bankers’ kids. I’ve got a banker friend who’s outraged by this.

The report says 25 percent of Arkansas scholarships should have a need-based component. If that’s the case, then what should those scholarships pay for?

According to the report, more than half of Arkansans – 57 percent, actually – have a high school diploma or less.

Of course, that describes a lot of smart, successful people. But moving forward, most of the good jobs of the future will require something more, though not necessarily a bachelor’s degree or even an associate’s degree. The report says that, by 2020, Arkansas needs to produce an additional 99,000 people with career and technical certificates, which often can be earned fairly quickly and at low cost to fill existing workforce needs. Arkansas actually will need 786 fewer people with master’s degrees than it has now, the report estimates.

The Academic Challenge Scholarship goes to students attending college, not earning a technical certificate, which is the better choice for many people. And it’s really targeted toward 18-year-old high school graduates, rather than adults who need to retool their skills to be more employable.

So however the state rebalances its state-funded scholarships so that they’re based more on need, it should remember that what people really need is the ability to earn a good-paying job, and preferably in the near future.

***

If you have 30 minutes when you’re washing the dishes or something, listen to Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse’s maiden speech on the U.S. Senate floor.

Sasse waited a year after being elected to make his first speech, which once was a Senate tradition. When he finally spoke, it was a bold call to action. He said the Senate is failing to address the nation’s big issues, allowing the executive branch to take too much power. Senators from opposite parties are privately friendly, even affectionate. But when the cameras roll, they talk in shallow sound bytes using politi-speech that sounds nothing like the way real Americans talk. The Senate doesn’t need less debating, he said. It needs actual debating about important issues in a respectful manner. Senators are elected to six-year terms so they can think long-term in what once was called the world’s greatest deliberative body. If they’re not going to fulfill their role, he asked, does the United States even need a Senate at all?

Good stuff. Last I checked, it had 3,837 views on YouTube. Here it is.