Category Archives: U.S. Congress

Who got us into this debt?

Debt and deficits, Politics, U.S. Congress

By Steve Brawner

Who was the last Republican president to preside over a budget surplus throughout an entire fiscal year? When was the last time a Democratic Congress created a surplus? And when did a party create a surplus while controlling both the White House and the Congress?

It’s been a while in all three cases.

Let’s start by explaining the terms. The federal government’s fiscal year starts Oct. 1 and ends the next Sept. 30. A budget surplus occurs when the government collects more than it spends during a single fiscal year’s time. Most years our government runs deficits, which over time have created a $17.5 trillion national debt – an amount equal to more than $50,000 for every American. If the government were to run a $100 billion surplus this year (which it won’t), the national debt then would be $17.4 trillion.

The last time the federal government ran a surplus was 2001, when it collected $128 billion more than it spent, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget.

That was President George W. Bush’s first year in office, so he’s the last Republican president to preside over a surplus, right? Well, not really. The fiscal year began Oct. 1, 2000, nearly four months before Bush was president. His predecessor, Bill Clinton, signed almost all the bills that funded the government for 2001. Bush can’t get much credit for something that happened under Clinton.

The federal government also ran surpluses from 1998 to 2000 under Clinton’s watch. During that time, Republicans were in charge of both the House and Senate, so those surpluses occurred under a Democratic president and Republican Congresses.

Before that, the federal government had run budget deficits every year since 1969. That means that, each year, the overall debt grew larger. Working backwards, those deficits occurred annually under Republicans George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, Democrat Jimmy Carter, and Republicans Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon.

Fiscal year 1969, a surplus year, ended during Nixon’s first year in office, but at that time the fiscal year started July 1, 1968, so Democrat Lyndon Johnson was president for more than half of it. Democrats controlled Congress the entire fiscal year.

That was the last time a Congress controlled by Democrats created a surplus. It was the year the United States first landed on the moon, and it was 45 years ago.

The previous surplus occurred nine years earlier in 1960 under Dwight Eisenhower, who also presided over surpluses in 1956 and 1957, working each year with Democratic-controlled Congresses.

Eisenhower therefore was the last Republican president to preside over a surplus during an entire fiscal year – 54 years ago. I like Ike.

When was the last time a surplus occurred when a single party controlled both the White House and Congress? The surplus year of 1969 started under Johnson and occurred under a Democratic Congress. You could say it was that year.

However, the last time a party ran a surplus throughout an entire fiscal year while controlling Congress and the White House was 1951, when President Harry Truman and a Democratic Congress were in power. The last time Republicans balanced a budget while running everything was 1930 under President Herbert Hoover.

This is, admittedly, a simplistic analysis. The sample size is small. Since 1930, there have been only seven Republican presidents and only seven Democrats, and it’s relatively rare for a party to control the White House and both houses of Congress. Also, the fact that fiscal years don’t align with election years complicates things. Finally, budget surpluses and deficits are dependent on many factors a president and Congress can’t really control, including the actions of their predecessors.

Still, it should be clear that both parties share the blame for this $17.5 trillion debt we’re passing on to our children. Just getting rid of that Democrat in the White House or firing only those Republicans in Congress will not solve this particular problem.

Both Republicans and Democrats led us into this hole. So who’s going to lead us out?

Should states decide on immigration?

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

By Steve Brawner

Should immigration be more of a state issue than it is now? Ken Hamilton, Libertarian candidate for Congress in the 4th District, says it should be. The federal government sure can’t seem to solve it on its own.

Here’s how immigration would work if Hamilton, 58, an El Dorado accountant with Murphy USA, got his way. The federal government would continue to enforce border security and decide who gets to come into the country, but it would do so based on requests from the states. Some states would want a lot of immigrants, others not so many.

So say California decides it needs 10,000 farm workers. The federal government would grant that many visas to work in California only.

Then California would take it from there. Immigrants could work wherever they want within that state’s borders – unlike today’s employer-based visas, which force them to serve a particular boss who is regulated by the federal government. Immigrants could travel to other states, but they couldn’t work in them legally. However, certain immigrants such as migrant farm workers could receive visas allowing them to travel between states based on growing seasons. California could offer permanent state residency to those immigrant workers who follow the rules. It also could allot visas to members of its current illegal immigrant population. Eventually, immigrants could earn U.S. citizenship. In the meantime, states could determine what benefits they receive.

“The states can tailor the program to what they need,” he said. “If they need high-tech, they can do it. If they need farm workers, they can do it. I think that’s the best way to do it rather than a top-down, one-size-fits-all program out of the federal government.”

Hamilton says a state-based approach would break the logjam in Congress. Democrats typically favor a path to citizenship. Republicans, meanwhile, are split between two factions. Establishment Republicans want a more open policy because employers need the workers and because the party needs to better appeal to Hispanics, a fast-growing minority that is siding with Democrats in elections. On the other side, a large faction of Republicans say a path to citizenship amounts to awarding amnesty to lawbreakers. Secure the border, they say.

The result has been a sometimes ugly debate that hasn’t solved anything. We all know the current system inadequately controls the border. We all know it’s resulted in millions of illegal immigrants living here as part of a shadowy underclass without a real stake in society or an opportunity to achieve the American dream. We all know this situation provides a lot of cheap labor but also hurts certain American workers. But, election to election, little changes.

Hamilton, of course, almost certainly won’t be elected. The United States remains staunchly a two-party system despite voters’ unhappiness with what’s happening in Washington.

But picking winners and losers is not the only reason we have elections. It’s also a chance to have a national debate about the issues. The two major parties, whether they are promoting a path to citizenship or favor just closing the border, haven’t gotten us anywhere.

They can’t even figure out what to do with illegal immigrants who were brought here as children by their parents and have much-needed technical skills. American taxpayers pay for an undocumented child immigrant to go to public school, sometimes from kindergarten through the 12th grade, but then it’s difficult for them to go to college and nearly impossible for them to fulfill their potential in the workforce. We won’t even give them a chance to earn their citizenship by serving in the military.

So now someone else is offering another option: If Washington can’t solve the problem, let the states take charge.

Got a better idea?

Hate my Congress, keep my congressman

Elections, Politics, U.S. Congress

By Steve Brawner

In April, just 11 percent of Americans said they approved of Congress’ performance, and 80 percent said they disapproved, according to an Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor Poll. A Gallup poll in May found only 22 percent of Americans say most members of Congress deserve re-election, while 72 percent say they do not. And yet guess how many midterm primary elections congressional incumbents have lost this cycle?

One.

As PBS Newshour pointed out, incumbents had won 139 of 139 contested races prior to this week. They won 45 of 45 last week. On Tuesday, Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Tex., became the first incumbent defeated. One of Congress’ last two World War II veterans, he is 91 years old and is in his 17th term.

We’ve all heard the Ben Franklin quote that nothing is certain except death and taxes. Almost as certain is being re-elected to Congress. In 2012, 90 percent of House incumbents running for re-election were victorious, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Going back to 1964, it’s never been lower than 85 percent, and five times it’s been 98 percent. Re-elections for Senate incumbents have not been quite as automatic through the years, but 91 percent were re-elected in 2012.

How can Americans hate Congress but so rarely vote to change it? One reason: The way the system is designed, voters don’t have a chance to vote against the institution. They only vote for or against their own congressman, who seems all right and may have helped them with a problem. Partly because of the way House districts have been drawn, there’s a good chance their congressman agrees with them on a number of issues. Using modern data-mining techniques, he or she knows what those issues are and how to communicate them. Because we live in such a polarized environment, voters often blame the other side instead of their own members.

There isn’t space to list all of the other advantages incumbents have, but money is an obvious one. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the average incumbent House member raised $1.6 million in campaign contributions in 2012, compared to $268,000 raised by challengers. U.S. Senate incumbents raised an average of almost $12 million, compared to challengers’ $1.4 million. Those numbers skew against challengers because they include all candidates who filed campaign reports, including minor candidates who raised little money.

The system’s imperfections aren’t insurmountable, of course. Thanks to the internet, almost all voters have access to enough information to make informed, creative choices at the ballot box. That would require us to base our decisions on research rather than impressions gleaned from 30-second TV ads and superficial media coverage – which, unfortunately, we don’t often do.

While incumbent congressmen rarely lose elections, there is turnover thanks to retirements and other causes. Some members don’t run again because they know they would lose or face a tough fight. The Cook Political Report revealed in December 2012 that, from 2008 to 2012, nearly 40 percent of the Senate had turned over. USA Today quoted Cook in January 2013 saying that 39 percent of House members, including nearly half the Republicans, started this current term with less than three years of experience.

That kind of turnover is reflected in Arkansas. After November, at least two of Arkansas’ six congressional seats, the House 2nd and 4th Districts, will be occupied by a new representative. If Rep. Tom Cotton defeats Sen. Mark Pryor, half the delegation would turn over this year. In fact, Arkansas’ entire delegation would be different than it was before the election of 2010. The only elected official remaining from that time would be Sen. John Boozman, but he was serving in the House four years ago.

So the good news is that turnover does occur in Congress, giving the institution new blood and fresh ideas. The bad news? It doesn’t usually happen because of the voters, who are unhappy with Congress but, for many reasons, don’t seem able to do much about it.