Category Archives: Politics

Levees and the era of neglect

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

A column with the word “levees” in the headline probably won’t attract a record number of readers. Unless you live in a floodplain, they’re just big piles of dirt, right?

Well, not really.

The recent floods have drawn attention to Arkansas’ deteriorating levees. Really, “forgotten” is the better word. As reported in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Sunday and elsewhere, it turns out that, in many cases, no one’s really in charge of maintaining them, or even caring whether or not they exist. They were built when the need was obvious, such as after the Great Flood of 1927, when the overflowing Mississippi River submerged much of the state. Local boards were set up to maintain them, and legislation was passed to ensure their independence. The board members – those with memories of those floods – grew old and died or for whatever reason stopped paying attention. Those big piles of dirt continued to function fine for decades – until, this past spring, when at least a couple of them didn’t.

A levee is just like anything else in that it becomes less effective over time unless it is maintained. Dirt erodes. Vegetation overgrows. Mankind intrudes. As the Democrat-Gazette reported, one levee nearly failed because someone once dug a hole at its base for a construction project.

This spring was a wake-up call, so legislators are scheduled to hold hearings June 24. It helps that one of them, Sen. Jason Rapert, R-Conway, saw his property submerged under water during the flooding. The issues will be the same as they often are in a democracy: Should someone be in charge, and if so, who? And, where will the money come from?

Were this only about piles of dirt, I probably wouldn’t be writing about it, but Arkansas’ levee situation is part of a larger story – in fact, one of today’s biggest.

For centuries, this was the land of sacrificial investment. Immigrants came here knowing it might take a generation for the family to really enjoy the benefits. Wars were fought where more than just a few contributed. Railroads were laid. Roads and bridges were built. Arkansas taxpayers in the early 20th century paid extra so that’s today’s taxpayers would have an extra sturdy State Capitol to conduct the people’s business.

Contrast that with today, when it’s way too much about the present, and we’ll let our children fend for themselves. The obvious example is the $18 trillion national debt – equivalent to $57,000 for every American man, woman and child – almost all of which has been created since 1980.

But there are other less obvious ways in which we’re passing on the costs of the things we take for granted because of misplaced priorities and waste. For example, the nation isn’t properly maintaining its aging transportation infrastructure, much less making significant improvements. Instead of making tough choices and really addressing the deficiencies, Congress patched a hole in the highway budget this past year partly through an accounting gimmick that borrows from the next 10 years. That money has been spent, future taxpayers will be paying, and yet the Highway Trust Fund is nearly insolvent again. Meanwhile, plumbing systems in many cities are aging. In some cases, they’re more than a century old. Few care as long as it goes away when they flush, but someone will have to fix those pipes eventually.

Americans often assign names and characteristics to generations: the baby boomers, Generation X, the Millennials, but it won’t take long for future Americans to lump us all into one category. We think of the 1700s as the age of exploration and the American Revolution, the 1800s as the era of expansion and the Civil War, and the 1900s as the century of American victory and ascendancy. I fear they’ll someday say ours was the Era of Neglect.

It doesn’t have to be this way. We’re still capable of investing. Maybe this recent scare will result in a renewed emphasis on levee maintenance. Everyone recognizes it costs much less to maintain a big pile of dirt than it does to rebuild a flooded community. Meanwhile, Congress at least recognizes the need to invest in the nation’s transportation infrastructure, even if it hasn’t figured out how. Sometimes those old plumbing pipes actually do get fixed.

I’m struggling to come up with something positive to say about the national debt. How about this? Americans have overcome worse.

Let’s just hope it doesn’t take the equivalent of a flood before we’ll try.

Huckabee’s debt approach not serious enough

Uncle Sam hangs on for webBy Steve Brawner
© 2015 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee made some headlines this past week when it came to light that he had made a joke about transgender people during a February speech. He said that, given the chance in high school, he “would have found my feminine side” so he could take showers with the girls in P.E. This was newsworthy, apparently, because of the attention surrounding Bruce Jenner becoming Caitlyn Jenner.

This column is not about that joke. Let’s instead focus on something Huckabee has been saying when he’s completely serious.

Huckabee has released a pledge in which he makes 17 promises, including to “protect Social Security and Medicare and never rob seniors of the benefits they were promised and forced to pay for.” He has criticized other Republicans for proposing to change those two programs, which together compose 38 percent of all federal spending and are growing.

Huckabee is right that benefits should not be cut for current beneficiaries or for those who are nearing retirement age. They’ve paid into the system their entire lives and planned their retirements based on the rules, with no real say in what those rules were. People a little older than me (I’m 46) and younger, on the other hand, are probably going to have to accept some changes.

But in an interview with Fox News’ Neil Cavuto after speaking in Florida June 2, Huckabee said that the rules shouldn’t be changed for anyone paying into the system, including for those just starting out as teenagers who won’t collect for another 50-something years. He openly told Cavuto that he is differentiating himself from other Republicans who have tiptoed toward this politically hazardous issue.

With the aging of the baby boomers, longer life spans, and increasing health care costs, Social Security and Medicare need some fixes. For example, Social Security’s non-existent “trust fund” is due to become insolvent in 2033. That’s 18 years from now, not 50. If the actuarial tables are correct, whoever is in office that year will be forced to either cut benefits by 23 percent, raise taxes, make deep cuts elsewhere, or borrow from the future. He or she will have to make difficult decisions then because current political leaders won’t make them now.

One honest way to continue paying current Medicare and Social Security benefits is to raise taxes and cut other government programs, including the military. If that’s what America wants to do, I’ll write my check now so my kids don’t have to.

The problem is that Huckabee doesn’t propose anything like that. Among his 17 promises are to “support a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution,” but then he pledges to “secure our borders,” “restore our military infrastructure,” and “end the national disgrace of failing to properly care for our veterans” – all worthy goals individually, but none of them free.

There are not a lot of spending cuts in those 17 promises. He does pledge to deny government benefits for illegal immigrants and to repeal Obamacare. That’s not nearly enough to balance the budget, and besides, the pre-Obamacare health care system was a growing driver of the national debt, too. He did say in his speech that the country should redirect its health care spending toward curing diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer’s. If those efforts were successful, Medicare would be much more sustainable.

Meanwhile, he promises to “oppose and veto any and all efforts to increase taxes” and to replace the current income tax with a national sales tax. He says the new tax system would grow the economy, generate revenue, and be a better way to pay for Social Security and Medicare than cutting spending or raising taxes.

A national sales tax might or might not be a good idea, but it certainly would be a huge experiment. If it raised less revenue than expected, then would Huckabee cut spending?

For decades, Republicans and Democrats have engaged in the same politics: Grow government first, and then worry about paying for it later, or never. At least Huckabee is being honest about the fact that he won’t cut Social Security and Medicare or raise taxes.

But by doing so, he’s contributing to the national misperception that this impossible math is all going to work. Americans haven’t accepted the hard truth that if they want these government programs, they’ll have to pay for them. Leaders must tell them that truth.

Let’s hope Huckabee will use his considerable skills to do so. The national debt is no joke.

Taking stock of third parties, independents

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

Three events have occurred the past two weeks that are noteworthy, particularly for the growing number of voters who call themselves independents and the small percentage who actually vote for candidates who are not Republicans or Democrats.

First, on May 29, Gov. Asa Hutchinson signed into law a bill moving Arkansas’ 2016 primary elections from May to March 1. The stated goal was to include Arkansas early with other Southern states in the so-called “SEC primary” so the state would have more of a say in who the Democrats and Republicans nominate for president. It might help Mike Huckabee in his campaign a little by giving him an early state win.

A consequence is that challengers have less time to decide if they want to run against incumbents. That’s particularly the case for independents, who unlike party-affiliated candidates must collect signatures to qualify for the ballot. Under a bill passed in 2013, independents must submit their signatures by the end of the filing period. This election, that would be November, so they must begin collecting signatures in August for an election that won’t occur for another 15 months.

Mark Moore of Pea Ridge, who ran as an independent for the state House of Representatives in 2012, says the 2013 law requiring independents to file so early is unfair and unconstitutional. After all, it gives them the same deadline to qualify for the ballot after collecting signatures that it gives party candidates to merely sign up with their filing fee. When the primary is in May, independents must collect signatures in the dead of winter. The election before the law’s passage, seven independent candidates ran for the state Legislature, including Moore, who won 39 percent of the vote in a two-person race. In 2014 after the law was passed, only one independent ran for that body.

Moore wants a return to the old law, which allowed independents to file first and then collect their signatures. He’s filed a lawsuit and says legal precedents are on his side. His day in court is July 27.

Second, Rep. Nate Bell of Mena, ironically the co-sponsor of the law Moore is suing to end, announced June 2 that he himself is now an independent and no longer a Republican. So now the 135-member Legislature has only 134 Republicans and Democrats.

The third-term legislator, known for being quite outspoken, has not given a reason for his switch other than to say it would enable him to better serve his constituents. He was a strong opponent of moving the primary to March, arguing that it was unfair to candidates and their families.

Finally, just hours after Bell’s announcement, the Libertarian Party of Arkansas submitted 15,709 signatures to the secretary of state’s office, far more than the 10,000 signatures it needed to qualify for the 2016 election as a “new” party. Arkansas law requires it to do so because its candidate for governor did not receive 3 percent of the vote in the last election. Under state law, if the Libertarians’ presidential candidate does not win 3 percent in 2016, they’ll have to collect signatures again for 2018.

Libertarians call themselves the “party of principle,” and that principle is that they want much less government. They would cut all federal government programs significantly if not completely, including Social Security and Medicare, and they also would cut defense spending while legalizing marijuana.

The party’s newly elected chairman, economist Dr. Michael Pakko, points out that every Arkansas voter had at least nine Libertarians on the ballot in 2014, including all congressional races and all state constitutional offices. In the statewide races, no Libertarian candidate won more than 6.4 percent. A numbers guy, Pakko knows the party is not ready to win major elections, but he says the party is growing and will be a viable alternative if enough voters ever decide they’ve had enough of the major parties.

The way the American political system is set up almost guarantees a two-party system, despite the fact that parties are not mentioned in the Constitution and despite George Washington imploring his fellow Founding Fathers not to succumb to party politics.

America’s economic system, meanwhile, is designed to offer unlimited choices. In the cereal aisle I have dozens of viable alternatives.

I don’t want that many choices in the voting booth. But it seems like the political system could learn from the economic system, and give me more than two.

Should secret political donors be disclosed?

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

About 70 people turned out for a political demonstration on the State Capitol steps Tuesday – a fraction of the number that would have appeared if the subject were a controversial social issue, but I’ve seen plenty of smaller crowds there.

The issue was campaign finance reform. A coalition of groups were calling attention to their coming effort to gather signatures for a ballot initiative serving two purposes. First, it would make Arkansas the 17th state to call on Congress to advance a constitutional amendment allowing it and the states to regulate campaign funding. That’s just a request. Second, it would require independent political groups in Arkansas to disclose their donors. That would be the law.

Among the speakers was Rhana Bazzini, an 81-year-old Floridian who previously had marched from Sarasota to Tallahassee to protest current campaign finance laws. Bazzini pointed out, correctly, that every issue – education, health care, the national debt – is connected to how we elect our public officials.

And how we elect our public officials is through legalized bribery. I mean, let’s call it what it is. Serious candidates ask donors for money; unless they are super-wealthy, they have no choice. Groups who want something from the government give candidates money, which buys access, sympathy and loyalty. The more they give, the more access, sympathy and loyalty they receive. You know that version of the Golden Rule that says, “He who has the gold makes the rules”? That’s a fundamental part of American democracy.

This has always been the case, of course, but the dots between money and politics are becoming ever more connected. In America, money is speech and corporations are people, and under the 2010 Citizens United ruling, corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts on campaigns.

The result of that ruling has been the creation of independent groups spending enormous amounts to spread half-truths and slander political candidates while hiding under the cloak of anonymity. A single donor, or a small group of them, essentially can buy their own candidates in legally approved secrecy. Because more money is going into judicial races, justice increasingly is for sale.

I am not sure if there are easy answers for this. Money tends to find its way to power like water finds its way to the bottom of a hill, no matter what laws are passed. Also, I can see the argument that spending money to advance a political idea is a form of political speech, as well as a property right.

The obvious problem with that last argument is that more money equals more speech, which, after all, is supposed to be “free.” We know this current system is having a corrosive, corrupting influence on our politics. It’s creating a class of ultra-wealthy political sugar daddies. It’s accelerating the transfer of wealth from middle class taxpayers to the one percent. (Remember the bank bailout?)

It’s also affecting our daily lives. According to the Declaration of Independence, one of the reasons the colonists broke away from Great Britain was to better enable the pursuit of happiness. The constant barrage of negative political ads isn’t making anyone happy except those who get paid to produce them.

What do you think? Should there be limits to the amounts that donors can give to candidates and/or independent political groups? Should campaigns be publicly financed, so that more candidates could run for office without having to rely on these legalized bribes? Or would that just open up new cans of worms?

At the very least, disclosure of donors to independent political groups ought to be required. If people are able to spend millions of dollars to elect a candidate, at least the rest of should know about it. That’s the law these groups want in Arkansas, and they probably are going to have to pass it through a ballot initiative. This past session, Rep. Clarke Tucker, D-Little Rock, tried unsuccessfully to pass a disclosure law through the Legislature, and it didn’t even advance past a House committee.

“Speaking” is by definition a public activity, so there should be no expectation of anonymity when doing so. If people want to spend their millions to shout from the hilltop, they can’t expect to do so from inside a cave. So when the canvassers ask for my signature to place this measure on next year’s ballot, I’ll enthusiastically write my name – in person and in public.

Leadership needed to keep the republic

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

As Benjamin Franklin was leaving Independence Hall at the end of the Constitutional Convention, a woman asked him if the delegates had created a republic or a monarchy. According to notes written by Dr. James McHenry, a Maryland delegate, Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

He did not say “democracy,” which the Founding Fathers saw as “mob rule.” Instead, they created a republic, where the people have ultimate authority by electing their officials but don’t stand in town squares and raise their hands to decide national issues.

Given that history, should elected officials vote their consciences, or should they follow popular opinion? Both, if they are doing their jobs. They should listen to their constituents and give great weight to their wishes, but if all they do is stick their fingers in the air and then follow the political winds, why should they exist? Why not just post every question currently facing Congress on the internet and let us all vote by clicking? How much funding should the Central Intelligence Agency receive this year? Click.

The character quality that’s needed, and the one that’s been missing far too long, is leadership. Elected officials must be willing to make tough calls, explain their decisions, and then accept the consequences. In some countries, if you lose power, you die. Egypt, for example, recently sentenced its previous president, Mohammed Morsi, to execution. In the United States, former Sen. Mark Pryor became a well-paid lobbyist after being “deposed,” as did Blanche Lincoln, Tim Hutchinson and many others.

And that brings us to the national debt. I think I first wrote about the subject in 1992, and frankly, I’m getting tired of trying to convince you people to be concerned about it. But I’ll try again. The debt has reached $18.2 trillion – roughly $57,000 for every American man, woman and child. It’s partly financed by foreign creditors, which is a really stupid idea. The government has many trillions of dollars in assets and is not bankrupt. But this is a growing problem because the government has made many trillions of dollars’ worth of promises that it cannot keep.

A number of groups – the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, the Concord Coalition, the Committee for a Responsible Budget – are trying to educate the American people about the debt, and, just as with my columns, it’s not getting through. Americans know no entity can indefinitely spend more than it collects and are concerned about the debt in the abstract, but they oppose specific cuts and don’t want to raise (their own) taxes. It’s hard to balance a budget if you don’t decrease outgo and/or raise income.

Anyway, democracy often doesn’t reflect the will of the majority on a particular issue, but the will of the loudest and most committed less-than-majorities. Any spending cut or tax increase will attract fierce opposition by the groups most affected. What matters is not what 51 percent want. What matters is what 15 percent want that the other 85 percent won’t fight for.

The debt is not the kind of issue that leads Americans to march on the Capitol. It’s a terrible injustice that affects mostly people who are too young to do anything about it. There will never be a groundswell of support for paying it down, even though the alternative is leaving it to our kids and grandkids, which surely few of us want to do.

Because there’s never going to be a groundswell, elected officials must lead. They must make tough decisions that they explain to the public, and then they either will be re-elected, or they will lose and become lobbyists. No one will lop off their head if they raise the gas tax or cut a program somewhere.

It takes a special person to do this, because apparently it’s very tempting in Washington to do whatever it takes to be re-elected. These types of republic-leaders can’t get elected without support. They need campaign donations – in larger increments from those who can, and in smaller increments from the concerned common man. I really wish those groups I mentioned, or at least their allies, would start playing a little more hardball.

There’s been enough talk about this subject. A few of us must lead, and a few more of us must have their backs. And if the American people won’t accept that this republic can’t keep going into debt, then I guess we won’t be able to keep it.