Category Archives: Politics

Next GOP presidential candidate in Arkansas? Ted Cruz

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

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz will be the next Republican presidential candidate to visit Arkansas. The Texas senator will appear August 12 at the Crawford County Lincoln Day Dinner.

The news was confirmed at the Reagan-Rockefeller Dinner Friday in Hot Springs following the appearance there by businessman Donald Trump. Trump drew a crowd of 1,000 Republicans to hear him proclaim himself the best candidate for the job because of his deal-making ability and because he won’t accept outside campaign donations.

The visit by Cruz will be the third by a Republican presidential candidate this year. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee announced he was running for president May 5.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will speak at the party’s Jefferson-Jackson Dinner Saturday.

No good options in Iran

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

The question is not whether the deal struck between the American-led coalition and Iran is a good option. The question is, is it the least worse of a lot of bad options?

The deal would cut in half Iran’s number of centrifuges, require it to redesign one of its reactors, and allow inspections. In return, economic sanctions would be lifted, Iran eventually would be allowed to import and export conventional weapons, and after periods of years it could research advanced centrifuges and produce unlimited amounts of nuclear fuel. Supposedly in the short-term, the deal expands the “breakout time” – how long Iran would need to produce enough fuel to build its first bomb – to at least a year. The long term is a different story.

Iran is a fundamentalist Islamic state that sponsors terrorism, uses “Death to America” as a rallying cry, and seeks to destroy Israel. Its previous president was probably the world’s leading Holocaust denier. It’s the country that 35 years ago was holding hundreds of Americans hostage. Any deal with this country – especially one that lets it keep its nuclear program – must be a bad one.

On the other hand, will the currently imposed sanctions prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon forever? They haven’t stopped it from getting close now. Moreover, sanctions cause significant hardship for average Iranians, who, TV images to the contrary, are mostly going about their lives and have little influence over their leaders. If staying with the sanctions won’t stop Iran from eventually obtaining a bomb, then that’s a bad option, too.

How about increasing the sanctions – make them even tougher, so that the Iranians really suffer? That option leads to some difficult moral questions, it’s bad PR, and most importantly, the rest of the international community won’t support it. So it’s probably out.

That leaves war – not the video game kind, but the real kind, like the conflicts the United States hasn’t been able to completely stop fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan since the early 2000s. Anybody who wants war should be prepared to drive down to the military recruiting station and sign up. That’s not many of us.

I do not fault President Obama for choosing bad option number one. Every day he hears a briefing about the world situation that, the evidence has clearly shown through the past few presidents, turns a person’s hair gray. He concluded that continuing bad option number two, the sanctions, would not stop Iran from developing a bomb, and the best alternative is to get into that country and inspect.

Nor do I fault Arkansas’ congressional delegation for its opposition – including Sen. Tom Cotton, who attracted a lot of attention earlier this year with his open letter to Iran warning the ayatollah that any deal could be rescinded by the next president.

Diplomacy is not Cotton’s strong suit, but who can blame him for planting the flag on this one? Regardless of which bad option we dislike the least, we all are horrified at the prospect of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. If an officeholder truly believes this deal makes that more likely, he or she must fight it with every tool available.

It should be pointed out that the deal did not provide for four American hostages: pastor Saeed Abedini, imprisoned for being a Christian; Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian; former Marine Amir Hekmati, who was visiting his family in Tehran when he was abducted; and Robert Levinson, a former FBI agent and CIA contractor who vanished in Iran in 2007 and whose whereabouts are not publicly known.

Of all the big, bad, scary things in the world right now, a terrorist obtaining a nuclear weapon is the biggest, baddest, and scariest.

One reason it’s the scariest is that it seems almost inevitable. Someday in some part of the world, something terrible eventually will happen. The national debt? Maybe we’ll start paying it down. Climate change? Maybe the scientists are wrong. But to prevent nuclear terrorism, the good guys must pitch a perfect game from now until mankind is no longer here.

Because nobody is perfect, the best we probably can hope for is to keep pushing that terrible day back as long as we can without giving up everything that matters in the process. And so presidents and members of Congress will continue to choose from bad options, trying to select the least wrong one.

In Greece and the U.S., economies are based on trust

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

Remember the bank run scene in the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life”? George and Mary are traveling to their honeymoon when they see a crowd gathering outside the bank. George runs to the Bailey Bros. Building and Loan to find a crowd of worried customers wanting to withdraw their savings. He explains to them how financial institutions work. (“The money’s not here. Why, your money’s in Joe’s house … and in a hundred others.”) Then he begs them not to panic and starts handing out his own $2,000 in honeymoon savings to tide them over. Meanwhile, across town, Mr. Potter, the richest (monetarily) and most powerful man in town has just become richer and more powerful by taking control of the bank, which would be shut down for a week.

That scene is unfolding on a national scale in Greece.

In a nutshell, Greece’s debt has reached 180 percent of its gross domestic product, it’s not paying its bills, and the patience of its European creditors is wearing thin. Previous loan terms have required the Greek government to impose higher taxes and cut government spending, but the country is still mired in debt. The economy is collapsing. Unemployment is 28 percent. The banks have been closed, and Greeks have been limited to withdrawing the equivalent of $67 per day from their ATMs. On July 5, the Greek people defiantly voted not to accept the terms of a previous bailout proposal. It accomplished little but to strain the tolerance of their creditors, who forced Greek’s prime minister to accept an even worse deal.

Bankrupt debtors don’t get to set the rules.

International economics is above my pay grade. If you’ll pardon the pun, it’s mostly Greek to me.

Here’s what I know: Economies are based on trust. You and I work because we trust we’ll be paid. We deposit our money in banks trusting it will be there if we need it – without considering what would happen if everyone needed it at once. Trust is the basis for loans, investments and insurance. With it, an economy has a strong foundation. Without it, an economy becomes a house of cards.

The United States can’t yet be compared to Greece. America’s debt-to-GDP ratio is 103 percent. It’s still the world’s most dynamic economic engine, with abundant and untapped resources.

But let’s go there anyway. America’s national debt is now $18.2 trillion, or $57,000 for every American man, woman and child. In 1981, just 34 years ago, it was less than $1 trillion. Because of currently unfunded liabilities, that $18.2 trillion is projected to grow much larger. Meanwhile, the political system – long an inspiration to other parts of the world – has become incapable of doing anything about all this.

This behavior should be hurting the United States much worse than it is. One reason it’s not is because American taxpayers are paying very little interest on the debt. Why? Because investors see the United States government as one of the world’s safest places to store their money.

And that should concern us. If economies are based on trust, then what does it say about a global economy when one of the world’s most trustworthy investments is the one described two paragraphs ago?

It’s not just Greece or the United States that have issues. China’s stock market has been in a free fall lately, and Puerto Rico is practically bankrupt. In a global economy, what happens in these places matters, because, metaphorically speaking, our money isn’t just in Joe’s house. It’s also in Qiao’s.

In “It’s a Wonderful Life,” George Bailey prevented a panic by talking sense into his depositors and by handing out his own money. The building and loan survived that day because of the trust he had built.

But there are two realities that can’t be ignored. One is that trust can be lost very quickly. Had George failed to keep his institution open in the coming days, his customers would have pledged their loyalty to Mr. Potter, the powerful autocrat down the road who offered a little temporary security in exchange for some of their wealth and freedom.

The other reality is this: George Bailey was a fictional character. If trust in the real economy – domestic or global, there’s not much difference now – is lost, it’s going to take a lot more than an impassioned speech and $2,000 to calm people’s fears.

Talking religion and politics

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

You know that old saying, “Don’t talk about religion or politics in polite company?” It would be hard to agree to that as a columnist after these past couple of weeks, when so much has happened involving both.

Start with gay marriage. The Supreme Court’s declaration that it’s now the law of the land hasn’t completely settled things in Arkansas. One county clerk resigned rather than issue licenses, and one pledged to fight but then changed her mind. Meanwhile, the issue has created a division between Gov. Asa Hutchinson, who says the Court’s ruling is final, and others, particularly Sen. Jason Rapart, R-Conway, who say it’s not.

It is. Gay marriage will remain legal. It’s not just the Supreme Court that has spoken in this case, but popular opinion. Six out of 10 Americans support it. Support is even higher among younger Americans, who, as time passes, will compose more and more of the other four.

Instead, the real issue is the tension between two government aims that are competing in this case: preventing discrimination and protecting religious liberty. In Oregon, a baker who declined to participate in a gay marriage ceremony was ordered to pay the offended couple $135,000. In Kentucky, a t-shirt company that declined to promote a gay pride event won its case because the judge ruled it acted on the basis of the owner’s beliefs, not because of discrimination.

This is going to be a big argument, it’s going to be heated, and it’s going to last a while.

Meanwhile, another religious controversy arose this week over the Legislature’s decision, with the governor’s signature, to erect a monument to the 10 Commandments on the Capitol grounds. Extremely predictably, other groups, including Satanists, say they also might want monuments. Asked about the controversy, Hutchinson said everybody can’t have a monument and that the 10 Commandments are historically relevant to Arkansas in a way that other groups’ monuments would not be.

Finally, Hutchinson on Tuesday announced that a multi-faith statewide summit will happen this August in Little Rock to call houses of worship to act in two areas – finding foster homes for the 1,900 Arkansas children who have no place to stay, and helping the 6,000 inmates who will leave prison this year reintegrate into society. A steering committee composed mostly of Christians but also of two Jewish rabbis and a Muslim imam has been planning the event,

Asked by reporters, Hutchinson, an attorney, acknowledged that a partnership between churches and state is involved. Yes, he said, people of faith will have a faith-based motivation for participating. Yes, he said, state resources are being used to help organize and promote faith-based activities.

It’s early, but so far, no one has really complained. Maybe we’re too busy fighting over other things. Maybe all but the most hard-core among us recognize that the needs are so great that they’re willing to accept a little church-state partnering in order to provide homes for those kids and a second chance for those inmates. Some things are more important than our political arguments. So proceed with caution, Governor, but please proceed.

A chasm is widening between Americans who see the world very differently. What a person believes about legal issues like gay marriage often depends on how they personally feel about homosexuality or about Christians.

That is not how the Constitution is supposed to be interpreted. The real question should be, what is the role of government in enforcing social norms and in controlling behaviors and beliefs?

And the answer in a free society should be, as small a role as possible. Really, it’s best for all of us if we live and let live, and try to avoid using judges, law enforcement and the IRS to try to make people believe what we want them to believe.

It could be argued persuasively that this widening chasm is good for religion, which grows stale when it’s too acceptable. It’s definitely bad for politics, which in a country like ours requires people from different backgrounds to meet in the middle. The next president will have an impossible job.

Oh, well. Maybe sometimes we should just talk about the weather in polite company. There’s an old saying about it, too. In Arkansas, if you don’t like it, just wait, because it will change.

As do other things.

One state’s chaotic, creative conservatism

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

If I were to tell you that a state legislature this year passed a six-cent gas tax increase. abolished the death penalty, and voted to let young illegal immigrants brought by their parents to America obtain a driver’s license, what state would you guess that would be? California? Massachusetts? Maybe Colorado?

Try Nebraska.

Yep. The Midwestern state where three-fourths of the legislators are Republicans did all of those things. In fact, legislators overrode their newly elected Republican governor’s veto on all three bills.

This column has an Arkansas connection, but first, what’s up with Nebraska?

The sponsor of the gas tax increase, Sen. Jim Smith, told me the bill was simply an acceptance of financial reality. The roads needed more money, and legislators didn’t trust Congress to help. Two of Nebraska’s neighbors, Iowa and South Dakota, also raised their gas taxes this year.

Regarding the death penalty ban, which he voted against, he said some Nebraska legislators are Catholic, and the Church opposes the death penalty. Also, a number of Nebraska legislators are libertarian Republicans, which means they tend to distrust government in all walks of life, including social issues. As another Nebraska lawmaker explained, if she doesn’t trust government to manage her health care, she shouldn’t trust it to put someone to death.

As for young illegal immigrants with driver’s licenses, Nebraska was the only state that had such a ban. The thinking in ending it was, the residents have a legal status under President Obama’s executive order, and they need to be able to drive in order to get to work.

There are two other things worth noting about Nebraska. While its lawmakers are Republicans and Democrats, it’s the only state where they don’t run with a party label attached. Consequently, Smith said, “We have 49 independent contractors.”

Also, Nebraska is the only state with a unicameral legislature – in other words, just a Senate with no House. While Arkansas has 135 legislators, Nebraska has 49. While Arkansas lawmakers considered 2,200 bills and passed 1,288 into law this year, Nebraska legislators only considered about 600 bills and passed about 240 into law. Could a more focused agenda help legislators engage in serious debates about big issues? Just a thought.

Here’s another reason why I’m writing about Nebraska. Republicans everywhere tend to be ideologically unified. Officeholders tend not to wander too far from party orthodoxy, even when they want to, lest they be labeled a “RINO” (Republican In Name Only) and draw a primary opponent. Republican commentators, meanwhile, are so predictable that there’s usually little point in seeing what they have to say. Democrats, long the more disorganized party, are becoming more unified, too, but this column is not about them.

And yet in Nebraska, a legislature full of Republicans passed bills that raised the gas tax, ended the death penalty, and made life easier for illegal immigrants. Those are not the standard conservative positions, but it’s not hard to see the gas tax as pro-commerce, the death penalty ban as anti-government, and the driver’s license bill as pro-personal responsibility – all principles conservatives say they support.

So if that can happen in one conservative, Republican, mid-America state with an agricultural heritage and only one football team, could it happen in another? As the Republican majority becomes more entrenched in Arkansas, like it’s already entrenched in Nebraska, could we see the emergence of a more creative, chaotic conservatism that applies the party’s principles in new ways?

Certainly, divisions among Arkansas Republicans have already occurred over issues like the Medicaid private option. Some see it as a way to reform government health care, while others see it as capitulation to Obamacare. Arkansas Republicans also will divide along urban and rural lines just like Arkansas Democrats always did, and just like Republicans do in Nebraska.

What other types of factions will form? How often will one faction team up with Democrats? And just how chaotic will it often be? It certainly was chaotic when Democrats had a secure majority.

Maybe this was an unusual year in Nebraska. Maybe it was simply that the time had come for those three bills. Or maybe voters there will send some of those legislators packing during the next election.

Or maybe it’s still possible to buck the party orthodoxy, in either party in any state, if legislators see themselves as independent contractors.