Category Archives: U.S. Congress

After a long campaign, here are reasons to vote FOR Cotton or Pryor

Elections, Politics, U.S. Congress

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

While sitting in a crowded waiting room the other day, my wife overheard a woman say she didn’t know what to do about the Senate race. Mark Pryor votes with Obama, the woman said, and Tom Cotton gets all his money from billionaires.

She no doubt reflects a lot of voters. After a year-and-a-half of campaigning and more than 50,000 television ads according to The Center for Public Integrity, the election for U.S. Senate is largely about these caricatures the opposing campaigns have painted about each other.

Who’s to blame? The campaigns, of course, for selling it, and voters for buying it. Members of the media are guilty, too, of course. We mostly just repackage the products the campaigns provide.

So I’m done. We all know why not to vote for these candidates. Here’s why you should vote for them.

You should vote for Tom Cotton because he’s disciplined, and strong, and brave. As a younger man, he took a break from his promising legal career to volunteer for tours of combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As a congressman, he’s shown he will not back down from a fight and will not compromise his convictions. He’s taken unpopular stances he knew would be used against him: for raising the retirement age, because the system needs reform; against Hurricane Sandy relief, because politicians had used that tragedy to pack the bill with nonemergency projects; against the farm bill, because most of the money is spent on food stamps, a program that he believes has grown too big in recent years.

You also should vote for him because, if Republicans take over the Senate while keeping the House, then Congress might again function at least somewhat like a legislative body that serves as a check and balance on the executive branch, instead of remaining the divided and dysfunctional mess it’s become.

On the other hand, you should vote for Mark Pryor because he’s compassionate, and determined, and willing to consider others’ points of view. He’s shown he can play the hand dealt him – a good one as the son of a popular former governor and senator, and a bad one fighting cancer or running under the same party label as an unpopular president.

As a senator, he’s been willing to meet with others in the middle when so much of that body has camped out on the wings. When the government shut down, he was part of a group of 14 practical-minded senators who bridged the gap and helped it reopen. He does not forget that the big-picture legislation he passes affects average Arkansans. He also does some of the little things, like helping create a database that keeps track of truck drivers who test positive for drugs and alcohol.

You also should vote for him because, after a half-century of one-party rule under the Democrats, Arkansas should not become a one-party state under the Republicans.

There are reasons to vote for the other two candidates, too. Both Libertarian Nathan LaFrance and Green Party nominee Mark Swaney have put their names on the ballot knowing they represent parties that have no money, no infrastructure, and no chance of winning. They’ve done this because those parties most closely represent their deeply held convictions. They’ve campaigned at their own personal expense and on their own time. When given the chance, they’ve proven able to eloquently explain and defend their positions.

At this point at the end of a long campaign, many of us have determined that all our choices are all bad. Certainly there is much about Cotton and Pryor that I cannot support – especially the way they have torn down each other. Regardless, one of these two men will represent us, and our decision as voters should be based at least partly on choosing who would do it better instead of simply avoiding the one who would do it worse. They both have flaws, and they both have admirable qualities.

So let’s try to vote FOR something, even if all we are voting for is the democratic process itself. People died for this.

Libertarian LaFrance pledges to limit own term, donate part of salary

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

By Steve Brawner

Nathan LaFrance of Bella Vista, the Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate in Arkansas, today announced a “Leading by Example” pledge stating that he would serve no more than two terms if elected and would donate all after-tax income earned above his 2014 income to chaNathan LaFrance Candidate photorities serving Arkansans.

LaFrance, an employee of the Walmart corporate offices’s Energy Department, said in a press release that he is promising “to live the changes he will fight for in Washington, D.C.” He supports term limits in Congress, including two terms for senators, and he proposes “the phase out and elimination of all federal income redistribution programs, to be replaced by private charitable organizations.”

As part of the pledge, LaFrance also promises that his office “will be available to all Arkansans on a first come, first serve basis.  … A corporate CEO will wait their turn in line behind a dairy farmer; a millionaire will wait their turn in line behind a working parent struggling to put food on the table.”

LaFrance received 2.5 percent support in a poll released this week by Talk Business & Politics and Hendrix College.

The chasm-bridger vs. the true believer

Elections, Politics, U.S. Congress

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

Which of these two paragraphs makes the most sense to you?

The problem with Congress is that nobody goes to Washington and fights for what’s right. America needs elected officials who will stand on principle. We got into this mess because too many politicians go along to get along.

The problem with Congress is that there aren’t enough members who’ll work with both parties. We can’t get out of this mess unless members of Congress will work with each other, compromise a little, and get something done for the American people

If you’re like me, you might think both paragraphs are true, even though it’s hard for one person to exhibit both qualities. Who do we want: Someone who’ll stand on principle, or someone who will work with others as part of a democratic government with diverse constituencies?

And that’s your Senate race.

Rep. Tom Cotton, the Republican, is paragraph 1. No one can question his willingness to stand on principle as a person or a policymaker. He voted against Hurricane Sandy relief because the package contained too much waste and not enough relief. The other members of Arkansas’ delegation decided they could live with the package’s flaws. He voted against the farm bill because he believes the government is spending too much on food stamps and because he believes food stamps and farm payments should be separate issues. But the reason they are paired is, to pass the bill, historically it’s been necessary to maintain a coalition of rural farm state congressmen and urban representatives with food stamp-receiving constituents. The rest of the state’s delegation voted yes.

Sen. Mark Pryor, the Democrat, is paragraph 2. He’s somewhat of a centrist in a party that has moved left while he represents a state that is voting to the right. He’s inclined to compromise, sometimes joining with other middle ground-seeking senators to try to bridge the chasm between the two sides. When the government shut down last year, he was one of 14 senators, Republican and Democrat, who produced a compromise that ended the impasse and reopened the government. But he’s not one who will lead the charge for a world-changing idea.

Seeing the glass as half empty in this race, either Arkansas’ next senator will stand for too much, or its next senator will not stand for enough. The glass-half-full side is, if there were no chasm-bridgers like Pryor in Congress, nothing would ever get done, and if there were no true believers like Cotton, nothing great would ever get done.

What works best in a democracy is “principled compromise” – the ability to stand on rock-solid principles and then work with others to enact polices that move the country in the best direction, often one small step at a time. Effective elected officials compromise not only because they must, but also because they see the value in another person’s perspective. For a senator to govern as if he cannot be wrong – that’s a dangerous quality to have. But we also know what happens when someone compromises too much. As country singer Aaron Tippin described it, “You’ve got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything.”

Let’s not forget the two other candidates in the race. Libertarian Nathan LaFrance wants less government than Pryor or even Cotton. Green Party nominee Mark Swaney is generally for more government on issues such as health care and the environment. They’re both paragraph 1 candidates campaigning on principle.

The candidate who wins the election hopefully will practice principled compromise in the Senate over the next six years – standing for what’s right while working with others, and compromising on policies without compromising his values. That’s a difficult tightrope for any of the 100 senators to walk, which is why, these past few years, we haven’t seen enough of them even try.

Passing health care reform – and a kidney stone

Elections, Health care, Politics, U.S. Congress

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

It was Saturday morning, March 29, and the pain in my lower back was growing more intense. I knew what was happening. It was not my first kidney stone.

If you’ve ever had one, you know the drill: the writhing, the fruitless shifting of positions hoping to find relief, the heaving. When I could take the pain no more, I shakily told my wife to wake the kids and drive me to the emergency room. When we arrived, I begged the admittance clerk to hurry. I underwent a CT scan and was given drugs that, blessedly, took away most of the pain. Surgery removed the stone a week later.

I’m grateful for modern health care, but no consumer product is free. The total out-of-pocket cost for that episode so far is nearing $6,000, including a big hospital bill that recently arrived – six months after the surgery. I’m hoping there will be no more surprises. My insurance company was billed more than $12,000 for the surgery alone and paid about $10,000 of that.

Ask me about health care reform, and I’ll generally say the system doesn’t function enough like a free market. Patients don’t act like consumers, and medical providers don’t act like a business. We must encourage patients to be more price-conscious so they’ll shop around and refuse unnecessary care. That kind of behavior will force medical providers to become more efficient and cheaper.

That’s Steve the political philosopher talking, and I’m not saying it’s wrong. But what did Steve the kidney stone patient do? Certainly not call the various emergency rooms at 6 a.m. on a Saturday looking for the best combo deal. I went to the only one in my hometown. There I was at the provider’s mercy not only as a patient but also as a consumer. I would have bought whatever service the hospital was selling in order to take away that pain.

Over the course of a week, my kidney was scanned numerous times, including the day before the surgery and the day of. At the hospital, already wearing my gown, I finally asked if it was really necessary to do it again. I was told the doctor liked to see if the stone had moved overnight. What would you do – refuse the scan? Of course I did what the doctor, who is also the seller, told me to do. I had no buying power in that situation.

Health care reform – that’s a hard one. Try as one might, it doesn’t fit neatly into any political ideology, including my fuzzy one. The mandate by the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) that all Americans must have insurance, which conservatives argue is an unconstitutional edict – it once was a conservative idea. A major issue in this year’s legislative races is the private option, which uses federal dollars to buy private insurance for poor people who make too much money for Medicaid. It was created by Republican legislators and Democrat Gov. Mike Beebe’s administration and now provides insurance to 200,000 people. Other Republicans say it’s just Obamacare by another name.

OK, it is more government, at least on the front end. But uninsured people generally wait until they are very sick to seek care, and then they go to the emergency room, and they can’t afford to pay for their care, so the rest of us pick up the tab. So what’s the easy answer on that one?

No matter how health care is reformed, there will be winners and losers. During Monday’s AETN debate, Sen. Mark Pryor described a church meeting with a diabetic constituent thanking him for voting for the Affordable Care Act. Because it made it illegal for insurance companies to reject his pre-existing condition, the diabetic has coverage for the first time in 15 years. On the other hand, Pryor’s opponent, Rep. Tom Cotton, had his own story: a dentist and his wife lost their insurance because it didn’t comply with all of the act’s mandates. Libertarian Nathan LaFrance said doctors are telling him their attention is now focused on entering computer codes instead of caring for patients.

Take the words “Obama” and “Obamacare” out of the picture. Whose story is more compelling? The diabetic’s, the dentist’s, or the doctors’?

Aren’t they all? Health care reform – that’s a hard one. I don’t know the right answer, but anyone who tells you there’s an easy one is probably wrong.