Category Archives: U.S. Congress

For the rest of us, there’s non-teacher retirement

By Steve Brawner
© 2017 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Could Arkansas’ efforts to strengthen a program serving 43,000 offer an example for Congress to fix programs serving 60 million?

During this past legislative session, Arkansas lawmakers took steps – baby steps for sure, but steps – that might shore up the state’s Teacher Retirement System. Actuaries had determined it would take the system 29 years to catch up with the payments it will make to current and future retirees, and that’s too much. In the past, 30 years was considered acceptable, but the Government Accounting Standards Board has lowered that number to 18. Anything longer risks hurting the state’s bond rating and increasing the borrowing costs for schools and roads.

Because big fixes are hard, the system’s managers requested the flexibility to implement numerous little ones. Laws passed this session let the system’s board of trustees increase the rates paid by school districts and by current teachers if the projected payoff exceeds 18 years. Various retirement benefits could be reduced, and the system will be funded by school districts employing contracted employees working for private providers.

In other words, the Teacher Retirement System is not meeting professional standards meant to assure long-term survivability. So in response, the Legislature gave a governing entity the flexibility to make changes, rather than doing it in the politically charged halls of the State Capitol, where laws can be hard to pass and harder to change.

It remains to be seen if the changes will work. It could be that the state’s retirement systems need bigger fixes. The point is, fixes are being attempted for a popular retirement system serving 43,000 current beneficiaries, and those fixes involve less debt, not more. Solving the problem will require some people to pay more or get less, and these people vote.

Let’s compare that to the federal government’s programs that serve 60 million people. Social Security and Medicare both face long-term funding issues far more serious than the state’s Teacher Retirement System. According to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the trust fund for Medicare Part A, which covers hospital payments, runs out of money in 2025, and then it will have to rely solely on the taxes being paid at the time. At that point, doctors and hospitals under the law will face a 13 percent pay cut, leading some to simply stop seeing Medicare patients. Social Security’s trust fund runs out of money in 2034, at which point all recipients under current law will receive an automatic 21 percent cut. The trust fund has been borrowed from to pay for the government’s other programs, but the government has promised to pay it back, so we’ll just have to take its word for it.

The numbers don’t work and will grow worse as the baby boomers age and retire. By 2027, the costs of mandatory spending programs, of which Social Security and Medicare are the major parts, plus interest on the national debt will equal 99 percent of all federal revenues. That means, 10 years from now, 1 percent will be left for everything else the government does, including the military, which means even more borrowing. In the following decades, the unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare reach incomprehensibly high numbers in the trillions of dollars.

Unlike the Teacher Retirement System, there is no mechanism for boards of trustees to tweak the systems, because the financials are locked into law. In fact, because the programs are considered to be “mandatory,” Congress doesn’t even take a hard look at them. Moreover, the spending is not governed by anything like that 18-year provision. The government just pays more year after year until the programs hit the wall in 2025 and 2034, and then benefits suddenly will be cut.

Whether it’s the Teacher Retirement System, Social Security or Medicare, when revenues doesn’t meet expenses, policymakers have three choices: more revenues, less expenses, or some combination of both. Congress has chosen the easier fourth option: Do nothing because the consequences happen long after the next election.

Could Congress, which long ago decreed the changes would happen suddenly in the future, instead somehow make them happen gradually and less painfully – using some of the same principles adopted by the Legislature? The pain could be lessened by addressing the problem now, even though it would involve some people paying more or getting less, and those people vote.

Hopefully, Congress will do something. Most of us aren’t teachers, but most of us hope to retire, eventually.

Related: $23.33 less debt

Can The Centrist Project pioneer a new way?

By Steve Brawner
© 2017 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Forty-four percent of Americans are independents, according to Gallup, but only 2 percent of United States senators are, and one of those is Sen. Bernie Sanders, who’s really a Democrat. Could a few more independents form a decisive voting bloc that would force Republicans and Democrats to solve problems?

That’s a question Joel Searby and the other founders of The Centrist Project are trying to answer.

Searby ran the 2016 independent presidential campaign of Evan McMullen, a former Republican congressional staff member and ex-CIA officer who won 21 percent of the vote in Utah and 1 percent in Arkansas.

Now, Searby and others with The Centrist Project are trying to recruit and strategically fund credible independent candidates in 2018, with one focus being the U.S. Senate where they could make the most difference.

Congress, you may have noticed, is a partisan mess where the focus is more on scoring political points than solving problems. In the past, the two parties were each a diverse mix of conservatives, liberals and moderates who could work across party lines. But Republicans have moved right while Democrats have moved left, with few left in the center to bridge the gap.

The Centrist Project is trying to step in and find a few states where the climate is best-suited to electing independents to the Senate and elsewhere who are fiscally responsible, practical minded, problem solving, environmentally responsible and socially tolerant.

What does all that mean? Searby said it’s more about an approach to government than a set of ideological beliefs. Regarding being “socially tolerant,” he says he’s a pro-life, pro-family conservative, but the centrist approach means not vilifying the other side or holding other issues hostage.

“That’s how (parties) frame every issue is around enemies and friends, and so we’re just really trying to overcome that,” he said.

Three to five independents in the U.S. Senate could control the balance of power by voting with one party or the other based on the issue, forcing Republicans and Democrats out of their us-versus-them comfort zone. The new independents could work with current independent Sen. Angus King of Maine along with Republicans and Democrats who have independent streaks, including Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Nebraska, and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia.

Searby said the Project is looking for attractive candidates with the ability to self-fund or attract a potential network of supporters – like McMullin or Greg Orman, the Kansas businessman who ran a strong but ultimately losing campaign for the U.S. Senate in 2014. It is talking with potential Senate candidates in eight states where an independent might have success because of a state’s political climate and size – a small, cheap state like Maine being preferable to a big, expensive one like California. Meanwhile, it’s also targeting other races in an effort to get wins wherever it can.

Arkansas does not have a Senate race in 2018 is not a target, anyway. The state’s rapid transformation from a conservative Democratic state to a Trump-Republican stronghold makes it less likely an independent could emerge here, Searby said.

It’s going to be an uphill climb. Most Americans who tell pollsters they are independents aren’t really. The reality is, whether they admit it or not, most are reliably voting for one party or the other. Moreover, congressional gerrymandering (drawing lines to benefit a party) and Americans’ self-sorting personal decisions have made most districts reliably Republican or Democrat. In other words, we typically live amongst people who vote like us in states that are either red or blue. Meanwhile, the parties have huge, well-funded infrastructures and have written election laws to favor themselves. The system strongly encourages voters to choose one party over the other, even if it’s just to pick the lesser of two evils.

After running McMullin’s long-shot campaign, Searby believes that independents eventually will break through. He said political professionals who are fed up with the two parties seemed open to different kinds of candidates. Members of the media seemed ready to tell a new story.

“The bottom line is, we know we’re pushing against decades of trends and beliefs and partisan work and money, and it’s going to be hard, but just because something’s hard doesn’t mean that it’s not worth doing, and just because something’s hard doesn’t mean that it’s not going to come,” he said. “We really believe that we are pioneering a new way in American politics.”

$23.33 less debt

By Steve Brawner
© 2017 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

The past couple of weeks showed two different ways to react when you don’t have enough money coming in: the Arkansas state government reaction, which is relatively effective, and the federal reaction, which isn’t at all.

Why the difference? One big reason is that Arkansas has a structure for responding to budget shortfalls and, more important, a culture that respects that structure. The federal government has neither nor the structure nor the culture.

Let’s start with Arkansas. The state’s budgetary decisions are governed by the Revenue Stabilization Act, a law passed in 1945 that is amended by the Legislature each budget cycle and sets the parameters for a balanced budget. Under the act, state spending is divided into categories: an essential Category A and a much smaller, spend-it-if-we’ve-got-it Category B.

State revenues this year have been a little lower than was budgeted because sales and corporate income tax revenues are lower than expected while income tax refunds have been higher.

Faced with a deficit, on Friday Gov. Asa Hutchinson announced that various state agencies would see total cuts of $70 million in Category B (out of a $5.33 billion general revenue budget) to make up the difference. The announcement took up part of a half-hour news conference that also covered the death penalty and the health care-related legislative session occurring this week. And that was that.

Contrast that with what happened in Washington, D.C., where members of Congress, faced with a looming government shutdown, managed last week to pass a continuing resolution to fund the government for another week – a process that happens so often these days that Americans hardly even notice anymore. Then on Monday it was announced that the Trump administration and Congress had agreed to a $1.1 trillion spending bill that increases money for defense and other areas while not cutting much elsewhere. The bill does not affect Social Security and Medicare, the government’s biggest programs, which Trump has vowed not to cut.

This is happening within the context of a federal government that is expected this fiscal year to spend $4 trillion but only collect $3.4 trillion, leaving a $559 billion deficit ($1,731 per American) that is being added to the $20 trillion national debt ($62,000 per American).

Meanwhile, President Trump released the bare outlines for tax cuts that the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget guesstimates will reduce federal revenues by $5.5 trillion over the next decade. His administration promises the tax cuts will spur enough economic growth to pay for themselves, but history has shown that rosy scenario simply won’t happen. History has shown, however, that when a president calls for tax cuts, there’s a good chance taxes will be cut.

For comparison, the federal government’s deficit for 2017 is 14 percent of expected expenses, and nothing is being done to close the gap. In Arkansas, the $70 million shortfall – $23.33 per Arkansan – was 1.3 percent of the state budget, and Hutchinson filled it with nary a peep from the Legislature or the affected agencies.

So why can’t Uncle Sam do what Gov. Asa did? There are many reasons, but one of the biggest is the fact that the federal government doesn’t have effective structural controls like the Revenue Stabilization Act.

A national Revenue Stabilization Act is not the answer. Letting the president unilaterally make cuts would give him or her too much power and would be unconstitutional. One potential solution is an amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced budget, an idea that goes back to the Founding Fathers. Sometimes that idea gains some traction, but there always have been too many opponents who’ve stopped it without offering a better idea.

Even if it were to pass, the culture of Washington still would have to be changed. A balanced budget amendment could be bypassed like other parts of the Constitution are bypassed now.

On the other hand, a structure helps create a culture. Gov. Hutchinson acted so decisively and uncontroversially in 2017 in large part because the Revenue Stabilization Act, passed in 1945, has become ingrained in the way we do things here over the past 72 years.

Regardless, future generations of Arkansans can be thankful they someday won’t have to pay back that $23.33.

They can apply it to the $20 trillion.

Uncivil discourse

Sen. Tom Cotton, center, and Rep. French Hill at the town hall.

By Steve Brawner
© 2017 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

There’s regular intelligence, and there’s emotional intelligence, which is the ability to recognize and control your own emotions and to influence the emotions of others. If you’re a member of Congress, you need both, but if you’re a member of Congress participating in a town hall, and you can only be blessed with one, it’d better be emotional intelligence.

I write that paragraph after attending Monday’s 2 p.m. raucous town hall hosted by Sen. Tom Cotton and Rep. French Hill, where it didn’t matter what kind of intellectual arguments they made because they weren’t going to change many minds among the 750 attendees – some of whom totally supported them and many of whom were totally opposed. All that mattered was that they kept their cool amongst the booing, jeering, shouted interruptions and personal attacks, and they did.

This is one odd way we do political discourse these days. A Republican congressman – just as Democrats did in 2009 – hosts a town hall for some reason. Advocates alert the like-minded to converge and attack. The member of Congress stands on a stage before a mostly hostile room where audience members take their turns asking questions – most pointed, some insulting, and some better than the ones asked by journalists. Many in the audience cheer. The member of Congress answers – sometimes well, sometimes lamely. Many boo regardless.

That was the case Monday. When Hill said Congress must repeal Obamacare, the crowd reacted with a mixture of loud boos and cheers. Asked if Congress would subpoena President Trump’s tax returns, Cotton said Trump is still being audited, that he has completed a statement of financial interest, and that everyone knows where he does business because he attaches his name to his buildings. Few were convinced. At one point, some audience members chanted, “Lock him up” regarding Trump, an echo of the “Lock her up” chant in the 2016 campaign that Republican politicians unfortunately did little to tame.

The frustration expressed by many in the audience is explainable. All of us have a vision for how this country should look, but, in a democracy of 300 million people, none of us will get our way. Average Americans of all persuasions feel silenced in comparison to big money donors. The system is beset by partisan bickering and is unable to solve problems, even when compromise should be possible. Elected officials inflame the uncivil climate with their own rhetoric. If a politician uses the word “liberal” as an insult, then it should not be surprising that his liberal constituents feel insulted.

Town halls can be useful. They let members of a political minority express themselves in solidarity with kindred spirits. They remind elected officials, who tend to focus on their base of supporters, that some of their constituents feel intensely differently. At their best, they may even expose a member of Congress to new information. I don’t know if it has anything to do with the town halls, but Cotton’s rhetoric on health care has become more balanced after years of his merely criticizing Obamacare. Certainly, I would rather live in a country where average citizens loudly express their disapproval with the authorities than one where such behavior is not tolerated.

But we’ve all learned certain rules for dealing with other people, and those rules shouldn’t change in a town hall setting. Interrupting, shouting insults, putting people on the defensive, speaking without listening – these are not the most effective communication tools. Elected officials, especially polarizing ones like Cotton, know some of their constituents disagree with them, but for every person jeering at them in a town hall, there are hundreds at home or work whose votes cancel theirs out. Some make the calculation that it’s worth being yelled at for an hour or two in order to look like they’re representing everyone. Playing the martyr may even form the basis for a fundraising letter somewhere down the road.

If I were to design these meetings, I’d keep the disagreement and some of the passion, but I’d add a lot more civility to the discourse. I’d have less yelling and jeering, and more shows of hand – importantly, with the expectation that they might actually affect a congressman’s thinking. And I’d have more town halls, period, at accessible times of day.

But then, while all of us have a vision for how this country should look, none of us will get our way. I’ll try to keep my cool about it.

British States of America

By Steve Brawner
© 2017 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

In 1776, the United States declared its independence from the British monarchy. In 2017, the United States government looks like the British Parliament.

In Britain’s parliamentary system, there aren’t really separate legislative and executive branches, and partisanship is designed into the system. Voters elect members of Parliament (MPs) based largely on the MP’s party affiliation. The party winning a majority (or leading a majority coalition, because there are more than two) forms a government. The party’s leading MP becomes prime minister – currently Theresa May, who represents the town of Maidenhead. Other leading MPs administer parts of the government, much like our Cabinet. The other ruling party members, known as “backbenchers,” go along with their leaders on important matters unless they feel compelled to engage in a “backbench rebellion” – enough of which can bring down the government. The minority party, meanwhile, functions as a loyal opposition with limited power as it awaits the next election.

That sounds a lot like how we do things here, now. Last Friday, Justice Neil Gorsuch became the Supreme Court’s latest member based on the wishes of the ruling party, the Republicans. They pushed his nomination through the Senate over the objections of the minority party, the Democrats, who never had any intention but to oppose him. Democrats tried to use one of the minority party’s last remaining tools, the filibuster, where debate continues indefinitely unless ended with a 60-vote majority. In response, Republicans changed the rules to end the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, a move Democrats had done for lower courts and Cabinet officials in 2013. The changes are permanent.

A couple of weeks earlier in the House of Representatives, the majority party leaders, Speaker Paul Ryan and his lieutenants along with President Donald Trump, attempted to replace the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) with their own concoction, the American Health Care Act. The AHCA was created with little involvement from many rank-and-file Republicans and with absolutely no input from the minority Democrats. It failed as a result of a backbench rebellion when various Republicans said no.

In the past, the next step in the American political system might have been for Republican leaders to work with Democrats to write a bill that could win majority support from the centers of both parties while the wings on the right and left were left out. But we’re a British system now. Such bipartisan cooperation happens less often these days because the centers of the two parties are now far apart and pitted against each other. If Republicans go back to the drawing board, it will be to create something to appease their own backbenchers.

This is happening because of evolving political norms and larger societal forces. The United States is no longer so united. The country whose motto once was the Latin phrase “E pluribus unum” – “out of many, one” – increasingly might be better described by “E unum pluribus.” As a result, American voters, once cussedly independent, increasingly are becoming straight-ticket voters who pull the lever based on the “R” or the “D” by the candidates’ names.

Acting like a parliamentary system would be acceptable if it matched the designs of the Constitution. Unfortunately, it doesn’t. The Constitution doesn’t even mention parties, and George Washington warned against them in his farewell address. The struggle for power is supposed to be between the three branches of government, not two political parties. Members of Congress are elected not to follow their party leadership but to serve their own constituents and states.

The United States government can at least function as a parliamentary system when one party controls both the presidency and Congress, as Republicans do now. However, American voters commonly elect one party to control one branch and the other party to control all or part of the other, which can’t happen in Britain. When that happens, as it did from 2011-16, the result is gridlock and, potentially, abuse of power by one of the branches, probably the executive.

In short, American democracy’s informal habits reflect a British system without that system’s formal structure. Either the structure needs to change, or the habits. I’m not sure which would be easier, or even if either would be possible.