Category Archives: U.S. Congress

Can states fix what Congress messed up?

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

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

Can the usual processes that created the $18 trillion national debt – now more than $57,000 for every American man, woman and child – also be used to pay it down?

If your answer is yes, then I encourage you to check the history books. Almost ever year since the nation was founded, the federal government has added to the national debt, and under current projections, the debt will grow bigger each year, year after year, as far as the eye can see.

It should be clear by now that our nation’s capital will not suddenly see the light of fiscal responsibility, so can anything be done to reverse the slide? Apparently not by Congress, so two separate national movements are attempting to amend the Constitution by employing a never-before-used process led by the states. Under Article 5 of the Constitution, 34 states can call a convention, which would then propose amendments that must be ratified by 38 of them.

One of those efforts, the Convention of the States, proposes an open-ended convention tasked with limiting the powers of the federal government, with suggested amendments that would require a balanced budget, enact term limits, redefine the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, etc. In Arkansas, supporters are considering two versions, according to one of its supporters, Rep. Bob Ballinger, R-Hindsville. He believes at least one will pass.

Nationwide, the effort faces a much steeper climb. The Convention of the States’ goals and its rhetoric are so conservative that it will have a tough time reaching 34 states, let alone 38. Also, the delegates would be free to propose whatever amendments they want, leading to fears of a “runaway convention.” Those fears are unfounded, because any proposed amendments still would require approval by 38 states. But the fear that something crazy might happen has cost the movement some allies.

The other effort, the Compact for a Balanced Budget, also is a long shot but would seem to have a better chance. Unlike the Convention of the States, the Compact proposes a single amendment. The amendment states that the government cannot spend more than it collects unless it borrows under a debt limit that can be increased only with approval by a majority of state legislatures. Also, all future tax increases would have to be passed by a two-thirds vote of Congress, though a majority vote could close loopholes or replace the income tax with a national sales tax.

With the Compact for a Balanced Budget, we know what we’re getting. The states that sign up agree to the wording upfront. The delegates would assemble, vote yes and go home.

Alaska and Georgia have already signed on as members of the Compact. Organizers see Arkansas as one of 30 other states they must have. Then they would have to sway six other states where passage would be harder.

In Arkansas, Rep. Nate Bell, R-Mena, pre-filed a Compact for a Balanced Budget bill before the legislative session began. He was one of the early supporters of the Convention of the States, and although he still favors it, he thinks this is a better way.

I like it, too, and not just because it has a better chance of passing. It creates a mechanism that helps Congress be more fiscally responsible. It gives states the ability to rein in Washington. It makes it hard for Congress to raise taxes, but not impossible, particularly not by closing some of the loopholes that riddle the tax code.

Bell, who is on the Compact for a Balanced Budget’s national board, plans to push his bill, HB1006, later in the session. Will it pass? It depends on a lot of factors. Legislators, including Bell and Ballinger, have a lot on their plates as they consider thousands of bills in three months’ time.

One of those is the Revenue Stabilization Act, passed each session since 1945. Because of that act, Arkansas has a mechanism in place to produce a balanced budget – which is one of the main reasons the state, unlike the federal government, always has one.

Want to be heard? Focus on state, not D.C.

Legislature, Politics, State government, U.S. Congress

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

A new governor has assumed office, and legislators have begun the 2015 legislative session, but if you’re like most interested Arkansas citizens, you probably care more about what’s happening in Washington, D.C., than about what’s happening in Little Rock.

That’s understandable. The issues are bigger and the stakes higher in our nation’s capital. National politics lends itself better to story lines, heroes and villains. It’s the American flag to which we pledge allegiance.

Of course you should care about national politics, and you should try to change it for the better. But if that’s all you care about, and state politics is just an afterthought, I encourage you to focus more of your thoughts a little closer to home, for two reasons.

One is that in our state capital, democracy still works, and in Washington, it doesn’t – not the way it’s supposed to work, anyway. Washington politics these days is about pleasing special interests, scoring political points, and maintaining power. Republicans and Democrats have dug into their trenches and are mostly shooting at each other across no man’s land, and that’s not likely to change regardless of how much you or I yell at the TV.

In Little Rock, meanwhile, Gov. Asa Hutchinson and legislators will engage in civil discourse about important issues during this legislative session. How civil? House Speaker Jeremy Gillam, R-Judsonia, appointed Democrats to chair four of the House committees, which would never happen in Washington. And how important? Over three months, legislators will cut taxes and decide if the state should build a new $100 million prison or instead change the laws so that fewer people are incarcerated. While elected officials in Washington will bicker endlessly about health care, elected officials in Little Rock eventually will come to a decision regarding the private option and the 200,000 people it serves.

The other reason to focus a little more on state politics and a little less on Washington? Let’s turn to the late Dr. Stephen Covey, author of “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.” Covey taught that we all reside in the middle of two concentric circles, a larger “circle of concern” and a smaller “circle of influence.” The circle of concern is what we care about but can’t affect. The circle of influence, we can affect. Invest your energies in the circle of influence, Covey taught.

Very few of us non-billionaires can influence what happens in Washington. Very few of us will ever meet President Obama.

But Arkansas governors are highly accessible. Hutchinson probably will appear at some event in your community or in a nearby one before too long, and you can approach him to share a concern or just ask him about his grandchildren.

State legislators, moreover, are regular people with limited staffs. They consider thousands of bills in three months’ time. On some issues they receive lots of constituent input, but on others not so much, so the words of a few carry a lot of weight. Sen. Jake Files, R-Fort Smith, thought of two instances off the top of his head where he sponsored and passed a bill based on the urging of a single constituent – one that changed a restitution law after someone’s four-wheeler was stolen, and one allowing police to administer a saliva test to suspected drunk drivers.

“Literally one or two phone calls can make a big difference in a yes vote or a no vote,” he said.

So Mr. Regular Arkansan, if you can make your case to your legislator, and if you’re a little persistent, you can change public policy in your circle of influence, which is the state of Arkansas.

Isn’t that better than yelling at the TV?

Time to renew the Constitution

Politics, U.S. Congress

By Steve Brawner
© 2014 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Think everything that’s wrong with this country is President Obama’s fault, or the Republicans’, or both? Nah. The real problem isn’t a person or party. The real problem is that America’s political system doesn’t work anymore. If we “threw out all the bums,” pretty soon we’d decide that the new bunch were bums, too.

Let’s illustrate the political system’s problems using Obamacare.

Remember what the health care system was like in 2008? If you were sick, the insurance companies wouldn’t cover you. If you were sick too long, they’d drop you.

The entire system was (and still is) based on compensating medical providers for treating us, not for curing us or preventing illness. As a result, American health care is misdirected and costs far more than it does elsewhere, making the country less competitive and adding to the national debt. People die because it’s based on the wrong incentives.

Such a system did not need tweaking. It needed an overhaul. A lengthy national conversation involving medical providers, insurers and patients should have occurred. Democrats and Republicans should have worked together to create solutions. Reforms should have occurred in stages, with the states serving as laboratories of democracy. It should have taken a decade.

Can you even imagine that? Not only did it not happen, but it could not have happened, for many reasons. Democrats and Republicans had no incentives to work together – except for the good of the country, and that wasn’t enough because playing politics was more important. The job had to be rushed because the 2010 elections began the instant after Obama took the oath of office in 2009. It’s all a big game now.

The system made it impossible to reform health care the way it should have been reformed. And so we got what we got – a law altering American life that was passed quickly without broad support. I don’t hate it as much as some people do, given what it replaced. A lot of people have health insurance that didn’t have it before. But it’s complicated, messy and too centrally directed, and it doesn’t do enough to contain costs. We’re not sure where it’s going, and so people fear it, and understandably so. Now that Republicans control Congress, they’ll pretend to try to torpedo it, but they don’t have anything to offer in its place.

This is no way to run a railroad.

The Constitution has served us well for more than two centuries and is an example for the rest of the world. But the political system can no longer address big problems responsibly. The Founding Fathers created a government. Today’s elected officials can hardly pass a budget.

Meanwhile, the system has not prevented what the Founding Fathers hoped it would prevent. Government has grown far bigger than they intended. Service in Congress has become a career. A political class of lobbyists, campaign professionals and influencers make their livings by extracting taxpayer money and/or sowing discord. A wealthy aristocracy with unlimited resources exerts too much influence over policymakers.

The Founding Fathers anticipated some of this, but they could not have known what life would be like in the 21st century. And so the Constitution needs to be renewed through the amendment process. Examples to be considered should include, among others, term limits, campaign finance reform, and some kind of balanced budget requirement.

It’s hard to imagine Congress making any of this happen, but a movement, the Convention of the States, is trying to amend the Constitution through a states-led process that has never been used before. An Arkansas chapter is trying to pass a resolution through the state Legislature. Because it takes 34 states to call a convention, it will be an uphill battle nationally.

Our political system doesn’t do what it was meant to do and can’t solve new problems, either. The Founding Fathers rightfully made the Constitution difficult to amend. However, the Constitution itself was a revolutionary document written by people who understood that sometimes things need to be shaken up.

Uncertainty results in an unpaved road

By Steve Brawner
© 2014 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

The last gravel stretch of highway in Arkansas, part of Highway 220 in Crawford County, will not be paved for a while, providing the latest example of how uncertainty about the federal government affects so much of everything these days.

Highway Department officials decided not to move forward with that project, along with two others, at its next bid letting Jan. 27 because they can’t count on the feds. The process works like this: The state builds highways, bills the federal government, and then is reimbursed for part of the cost. Federal funding pays for about 70 percent of highway construction in Arkansas.

Highways traditionally have been funded mostly from state and federal motor fuels taxes, which have the advantage of being a user fee. Unlike so much of the government, the person benefitting from the government service at least indirectly pays for it. In Arkansas, the combined taxes are 40.2 cents per gallon of gasoline and 47.2 cents for diesel. At the end of each fill up, drivers can calculate how much they paid the government for their highways without needing an accountant and without fear of the IRS.

But the federal portion of the motor fuels tax (18.4 cents per gallon of gasoline and 24.4 cents for diesel) hasn’t been raised since 1993. Since then, highways have become more expensive to build and maintain, while cars have become more fuel-efficient, which means drivers are buying less fuel and paying less in fuel taxes.

As a result, the federal Highway Trust Fund, which pays for highways, almost dropped to zero in 2014. At the last minute, Congress, as it so often does, patched it with a quick fix funded largely by gimmicks that borrowed from the future and will only provide enough money until the middle of 2015. After that, money will come in and out, but it won’t cover everything, and there will be nothing in the bank. That situation makes it hard for highway departments to plan projects that cost millions of dollars and require years of work.

The quickest solution is to raise the gas tax, but that’s unlikely to happen because voters don’t want to pay more at the pump. So in recent years, money has been shifted to highways from the rest of the federal budget, adding to the national debt. Congress is looking for other solutions, some of which are responsible and some that are, ahem, more creative. Will it decide to do anything, and if so, what will that be? No one knows.

If this were simply about one stretch of gravel road in Crawford County, it wouldn’t be a big deal. Unfortunately, uncertainty about Congress and the federal government pervades the economy – which, it should be pointed out, is doing well right now. Maybe we’re all getting used to it, but these fiscal cliffs and government shutdowns still take a toll.

In December, Congress did pass a $1.1 trillion bill that will fund a big part of the government through the rest of the fiscal year, so there shouldn’t be too big of a crisis for a while. But Congress also kept some of the waters muddied by extending 55 tax deductions retroactive to the beginning of 2014 but not for 2015. The purpose of a deduction is to encourage behavior, but for that to happen effectively, people have to know what the rules will be moving forward. Beneficiaries of those deductions might assume Congress again will extend them retroactively, but they don’t know that with certainty, and that affects how they will plan and invest.

The big national argument is always about the size of the government, and rightfully so. But the truth is that people are resourceful, and if they know the rules, the economy can thrive even when the government is bigger than it should be. Like a tree growing on a rocky mountain, job creators of all sizes will take root and grow in less than ideal conditions.

But that tree only grows because the rules are clear – keep digging to find the nutrients, and reach toward the sun. This can be done even in inhospitable rocky terrain.

It’s much harder to do it in shifting sands.