Category Archives: Politics

Kasich, the anti-Trump

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

The newest candidate to announce for president is among those I’d most want to see win. Which means he probably won’t.

The reason for both is that Gov. John Kasich, R-Ohio, has a record of doing what I want the next president to do, but which the political system doesn’t reward a candidate for doing: work with others to balance the budget.

Kasich has done it twice, actually. In the late 1990s, he was the chairman of the House Budget Committee when, for all of the other nonsense that was occurring at the time, Congress and President Clinton actually sort of balanced the budget. For a brief time, the national debt wasn’t growing much, and Kasich is a big reason why. Kasich flirted with running for president in 1999 but dropped out and endorsed George W. Bush, who as president failed to keep the nation on a fiscally responsible path.

Kasich was out of office for a while but then returned to public life to run for governor of Ohio in 2010. At the time, Ohio was $8 billion in debt. Today, it has a $2 billion surplus and lower state taxes, though some say this was accomplished at the expense of local governments. In a purple state that can go either Republican or Democrat, Kasich was re-elected with 64 percent of the vote.

Kasich is hard to define and doesn’t always toe the party line, which means he’ll have a tough time winning the Republican nomination. He’s the only candidate who can say he had anything to do with balancing the federal budget, and he did it at the state level as well. But, to many Republicans’ chagrin, he accepted Medicaid money for Ohio – the same money Arkansas turned into the private option – and he talks openly about helping the poor being not just a national moral responsibility, but a personal, spiritual one. He’s changed his position on immigration – but unlike other Republican candidates who’ve also changed their positions, he’s moved toward endorsing a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. In interviews and public appearances, he openly calls himself a flawed human being. In other words, he’s the anti-Donald Trump. Who’s currently leading the Republican polls.

Kasich can be personally combative but also politically cooperative. In his 45-minute announcement speech this week, he never once mentioned Hillary Clinton or President Obama. Instead, he talked about his own biography, the family members who inspired him, and what he would do if he’s elected. So if you want a candidate who at least wants to debate the issues rather than sling mud, here’s your guy.

He’s starting near the bottom of the polls, from which it will be difficult to emerge. The Republicans’ first debate is in Ohio Aug. 6, and because so many (16) have announced, only the top 10 candidates in the national polls will be on stage. It’s probable that Kasich will not reach that plateau in time to qualify for that first debate in his home state.

But if Republicans want to win this next election, they’ll give him a look. Perhaps the most oft-quoted political fact each election cycle is this: No Republican has ever been elected president without winning Ohio. Kasich has won it statewide twice, the second overwhelmingly.

Why is Ohio so important to Republicans? First, it’s a big state with 18 electorate votes, each of which will be precious in an election when so many states are so reliably red or blue.

Second, Republicans who appeal to Ohioans also appeal to other Americans in the middle, like Pennsylvanians, Iowans and Wisconsinites. The state is a microcosm of America – red and blue, Midwestern and urban, home to the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame and also the only state north of the Mason-Dixon Line with a college football national champion since 1997.

So far, the presidential campaign has offered a lot of what’s not so good about modern American politics – an avalanche of money, political family dynasties, candidates pandering to the base, and Trump’s celebrity-based candidacy. Kasich, as he himself admits, is a flawed man, but he offers three important and sometimes overlooked qualities – competence, sincerity and empathy – along with the chance for Republicans to win the states they must have.

That doesn’t necessarily mean he should be the next president. But surely, in this Republican field, he belongs in the top 10.

Steve Brawner is an independent journalist in Arkansas. Email him at brawnersteve@mac.com. Follow him on Twitter at @stevebrawner.

Clinton, Trump: Some things are inevitable

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

This past week in politics was all about the inevitable: a gaffe by Donald Trump, and Hillary Clinton’s march to the Democratic nomination.

Trump spoke before a crowd of 1,000 at the Republican Party of Arkansas’ annual Reagan-Rockefeller Dinner, where he exceeded my expectations. His speech was funny and entertaining, and he handled the media well in a press conference. I left thinking he would be a factor until the crowded GOP field shrinks and the party’s support coalesces around a more acceptable candidate.

Then on Saturday, Trump said that Sen. John McCain, who spent 5.5 years as a prisoner of war in Hanoi, is not a war hero. His explanation – “I like people who weren’t captured” – was an insult to all prisoners of war. Trump later said he didn’t serve in Vietnam because he had bone spurs in his heels.

You don’t insult veterans, especially if you did not serve. The reaction was swift. Many Republican candidates condemned the remarks. So did the Republican National Committee, which indicates it was waiting for the opportunity.

So that’s probably enough about Donald Trump.

Clinton did not say anything particularly memorable Saturday speaking before 2,500 Arkansas Democrats at their Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Little Rock. She also did not put her foot in her mouth, which is why, come next spring, she’ll still be in the race.

Because we all want campaigns to be interesting, there’s some talk about Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont socialist who is making Clinton work a little for the nomination.

That’s a temporary flirtation. Some Democrats want to send a message to Clinton, the former member of Walmart’s board of directors whom they believe also is too close to Wall Street. She’s the party’s nominee.

She is not, inevitably, the next president. Republicans have some advantages going into the 2016 election. The country tends to swap parties every eight years. Republicans are raising a lot of money. And of course, Clinton has a long public record they can attack.

But there are at least three reasons why it’s more likely she’ll win than lose.

One is that Democrats have an advantage in the Electoral College. It takes 270 votes to win the election, and in each of the last six of them, Democrats have won at least the same 18 states and the District of Columbia, a coalition worth 242 votes. If that trend holds – and it won’t necessarily – then Clinton needs only to find 28 votes elsewhere. Republicans, meanwhile, have won the same 13 states six straight times for a total of only 102 votes. That’s a big gap, though it narrows when only the last four elections are included.

Another Clinton advantage comes from the Democrats’ long-standing lead among minorities, and Republicans’ failure to change that – or lately, even to try. According to the University of Connecticut’s Roper Center, President Obama in 2012 won 93 percent of African-Americans’ votes and 71 percent among the fast-growing Hispanic population. Mitt Romney won among whites, 59-39.

Those percentages are not that different from 1984, when Ronald Reagan won 49 states. But in 1984, whites made up 86 percent of voters, compared to 72 percent in 2012, and that number will continue to shrink. No wonder Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican presidential candidate, once said his party is in a “demographic death spiral.”

Republicans must win more votes among minorities. If they don’t, they’ll still compete well in mid-term elections, when older white Americans compose a disproportionate share of the electorate. But they’ll lose a lot of presidential elections. And frankly, they’ll deserve to.

Clinton’s final advantage is that the United States is in the midst of a major cultural shift. Voters have elected and re-elected the first black president. The Supreme Court legalized gay marriage with the support of six in 10 Americans. Many Americans even expressed support for Caitlyn Jenner’s gender identity switch. If the election is seen as a choice between breaking the glass ceiling with a female nominee and voting for yet another guy named Bush, the trend would favor Clinton.

There’s a significant percentage of voters who don’t merely oppose Obama, but despise him, and they spend a lot of time thinking and talking about how much they despise him. Many of those people feel the same way about Clinton.

They should reconsider their perspective lest they spend 16 years of their life mad all the time. Clinton’s election is not inevitable, but it’s more than half likely.

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.