Category Archives: U.S. Congress

The campaign that wasn’t

By Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

This year’s U.S. Senate campaign would seem to fit neatly into a junior high textbook description of how the country’s two-plus party system operates. The incumbent, Sen. John Boozman, is a well-liked, mild-mannered Republican. He’s older and wiser and not one to rock the boat, which is a good or bad thing, depending on a voter’s perspective. He’s being challenged by a young, energetic Democrat, Conner Eldridge, who hasn’t previously run for elective office and has things he wants to do. Adding to the interest is the Libertarian candidate, Frank Gilbert, who makes an eloquent case for views not held by the majority of voters.

It’s not hard to imagine how that junior high textbook would describe such a campaign: as a contest of ideas where the candidates discuss the issues and the voters choose the best one.

Instead, it’s been the campaign that wasn’t. Most people’s attention, including mine, has been riveted on The Hillary and Donald Show at the top of the ticket. There have been times when I couldn’t take my eyes off that circus even when I wanted to.

Meanwhile, Arkansas is now such a red state that Boozman has been able to rely on his party label and the advantages of incumbency. Plus, maybe voters just think he has done a good enough job. You may not agree with him, but you can’t help but like him. So it’s no surprise that, in a recent Talk Business & Politics/Hendrix College poll, Boozman was leading his two opponents, 52-34-4.

With so much in his favor, Boozman adopted a simple strategy: Ignore Eldridge. Eldridge challenged him to a series of debates, but Boozman refused to take the bait, and, besides, it wouldn’t have made much of a difference. They debated once on AETN, and it didn’t fundamentally alter the race. Trying to break through, or at least get under Boozman’s skin, Eldridge drove a truck through the state with two lecterns to illustrate his charge that Boozman was avoiding him and debated Gilbert several times with an extra lectern supposedly meant for Boozman.

In other words, Boozman has behaved as anyone would behave with a big lead: by playing it safe and running out the clock. Eldridge has done what he could to change the game’s direction, but he never could raise the money to mount a challenge or gain momentum or just get some attention. Gilbert has shared his views with whoever would listen.

The campaign never could be about the issues, so then it became about non-issues. Eldridge has tried to make something of Boozman’s international travels, which would seem to be part of the job of being a senator, and has said Boozman hasn’t spent enough time in the district. He criticized Boozman for refusing to disavow Donald Trump, which wasn’t destined to have much success in a state where more Arkansans say they are voting for Trump than for Boozman. Boozman’s campaign, when it hasn’t pretended Eldridge doesn’t exist, ripped page one out of the GOP playbook and tied Eldridge to President Obama, who appointed Eldridge as a U.S. attorney. The issue has not been whether Eldridge had served well but that he had served, period.

Boozman is going to win. Regardless, a U.S. Senate campaign, especially one with three textbook candidates, ought to be a bigger deal to all of us than this, even when The Hillary and Donald Show is on.

A senator is an important official. There are only 100 of them, each state gets only two, they serve six years, and they aren’t term-limited. Sen. Dale Bumpers was in office 24 years – three times longer than any president except President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. And senators make important decisions, including ratifying treaties and confirming Supreme Court justices, according to the textbooks. A single senator taking advantage of the rules can just about grind Congress to a halt. But for all the reasons listed above, this year’s race just hasn’t reflected that importance.

The next Senate campaign in Arkansas is scheduled for 2020 – another presidential election year. It’s hard to imagine that one being as crazy as this one, but then, it was hard to imagine this one. Maybe that Senate race will get more attention. Sen. Tom Cotton, who arouses passion on both sides, will be on the ballot then – at least as a Senate candidate, and maybe more.

Related: How Conner Eldridge thinks he can win.
A husband first, and then a candidate.

Spend less to tax less

Lt. Governor Tim Griffin says tightening state government's finances is the necessary first step to cutting taxes.

Lt. Governor Tim Griffin says tightening state government’s finances is the necessary first step to cutting taxes.

By Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Lt. Governor Tim Griffin is pushing an idea: Cut spending first and then cut taxes. It’s so crazy it just might work, which is why he wants to try it in Arkansas and why, hopefully, someone will try it in Washington, D.C.

Griffin, who has announced he is running for re-election in 2018, points to the state’s ranking in the high 40s in many areas. Sitting across the table from me in a Little Rock coffee shop, he said the state can’t get to the top by tweaking. “Bold is the only option” he said.

A top priority would be the state’s income tax. It ranks in the middle of the country, according to the Tax Foundation, but the top rate, 6.9 percent, is tied for 14th highest and hits all filers with incomes of $35,099, which is not exactly Walton money.

Arkansas’ top rate is higher than all its surrounding states, including Texas, which has no income tax. Thus the state is at a competitive disadvantage, which is one reason Gov. Asa Hutchinson wants to cut income taxes next year, as was done in 2015. Hutchinson probably will propose relatively modest cuts. Griffin wants to go big.

The problem, Griffin says, is that elected officials who talk about tax cuts run into a brick wall erected by those who argue that the state won’t have enough revenues to meet critical needs. To get past that, the state must make reforms to meet those needs with fewer dollars.

The simplest way of looking at how the state spends money is its general revenue budget, which in fiscal year 2017 is $5.3 billion. Griffin says making government 10 percent more efficient, which is really doable, would free up $530 million – enough for a substantial income tax cut along with increased spending in other areas, such as highways.

Griffin is talking about not just cutting waste, fraud and abuse, but instead undertaking systemic reforms of state agencies, many of which he says were designed before the remote control was invented. He says if a boat is designed to require six rowers, it does no good to try to propel it with four. Instead, change the boat so it only needs four.

“Make smart government your focus. … If you just cut, you still have the same inefficient systems in place that require the inefficient resources,” he said.

Last year, Griffin undertook a review of the state’s massive Department of Human Services, which takes care of a lot of the state’s neediest residents and is a mess. Its new director, Cindy Gillespie, now is reorganizing it. Griffin wants to see the same effort undertaken across state government. He started by cutting one position from his three-person office.

Griffin says state government has a moral obligation to spend taxpayer dollars efficiently. He says Arkansas must be competitive with other states. And, it must prepare for the day when the debt-ridden federal government starts sending less money to Arkansas.

And that brings us to Washington, D.C., where Republicans adhere to two entrenched beliefs that are very different from what Griffin, a former Republican congressman, is describing. One, “starve the beast,” says government can be shrunk by depriving it of money through tax cuts. The other belief is that tax cuts generate so much economic growth that spending cuts aren’t really necessary. Donald Trump’s plan reflects that belief – tax cuts without spending cuts – which is why the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says it could add $11.5 trillion to the national debt.

Republicans in Washington over the past few decades have pledged allegiance to those two beliefs, enthusiastically cutting taxes without insisting on cutting government. Democrats shook hands on that bargain because they like to spend without taxing, too. The result has been the national debt ballooning from $1 trillion in 1981 to $19.4 trillion today. Unfortunately, money did not grow on trees, and the beast wasn’t starved because it could reach across the table into the future and steal food from the plates of our children and grandchildren.

All of this should make perfect sense to those of us who live on a budget. If you are struggling to make ends meet, you look for waste and inefficiency in your spending first, and certainly before you switch to a lower-paying job.

It makes sense in government, too, where being smart should be the focus, and where the state of Arkansas is a good place to start.

Related: If Trump or Clinton succeed? More debt.

Fiddling around, ignoring problems

Uncle Sam hangs on for webBy Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

You know the story about Nero fiddling while Rome burned? It didn’t actually happen, but it illustrates a point about leaders crazily ignoring a problem.

These days, no illustration is needed. The government’s largest programs, Social Security and Medicare, are not burning up, but their problems are being ignored.

On Wednesday, the Social Security trustees and Medicare trustees each released their annual reports.

Social Security’s trustees wrote that the trust fund that supposedly finances the program – but actually has been raided to pay for other programs and then filled with IOUs – will be empty by 2034. That’s when today’s 49-year-olds (I’m 47) reach the normal retirement age. When that happens, benefits for all recipients, including 85-year-olds, theoretically would be cut 21 percent.

But of course that probably wouldn’t happen. The American people wouldn’t stand for it, and too many seniors vote. If tomorrow’s elected officials play the fiddle as well as today’s do (and they will probably be some of the same people), they’ll transfer money from the rest of the budget to Social Security and add to the national debt. As of June 21, that debt is $19,265,744,770,778.65, or more than $59,000 for every American.

Medicare’s due date is approaching faster. The trustees say the trust fund that pays for hospitals will be depleted by 2028, which is two years sooner than was projected last year. When the assets are depleted, revenues would cover 87 percent of the costs. Today, the program covers 55.3 million people.

All of this is occurring in the context of huge budget challenges. The government will already spend $534 billion more this year than it will collect, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Social Security, Medicare and interest on the debt already comprise 45 percent of the federal budget. Social Security and Medicare are growing, and the CBO says interest costs will rise from 6 percent of the budget this year to 13 percent by 2026.

In other words, if you neither touch Social Security and Medicare nor raise taxes, everything else, including defense, has to be cut quite a bit.

The American democratic experiment has faced bigger challenges than this one: creating a Constitution, ending slavery, reconstructing the union, winning World War II. Social Security and Medicare previously have faced insolvency, but at various times policymakers have figured out ways to push the due dates into the future. Social Security doesn’t require some Einsteinian policy fix – just spend less and/or collect more tax revenues. Medicare is harder because it’s based on paying into a health care system that keeps getting more costly, but it can be done.

Still, solving these problems is difficult because of changing demographics – we’re getting older and living longer – and because Americans now expect expensive government services for which they’re unwilling to pay the full cost. They believe the money can be found elsewhere, and some can be found, but not enough.

So elected officials not only must put down their fiddles, but they must also come down into the city and convince a majority of people to help put out a fire that, for now, is hard to see. All the while, they must overcome the many special interests who want to feed the fire.

Somebody must lead. Unfortunately, that probably won’t happen this election year. Sen. Bernie Sanders has led the Democratic Party, including President Obama and Hillary Clinton, to calling for increasing Social Security benefits. Clinton says she’ll pay for her increases by raising taxes on the wealthy – but remember, she gets a lot of money from wealthy people. The Republican nominee, Donald Trump, says there will be no need for changing the programs because America will be so rich because of his better trade deals and Mexico-built wall.

If it were up to me, we’d raise Social Security’s retirement age, reduce or end benefits for the wealthy, increase payments to older and infirm recipients, and increase the payroll tax. I’m not sure what to do about Medicare. I’d also cut other things and slowly pay back the money we’ve already spent.

But for now, I’ve lost that debate in every direction. Americans don’t want to cut spending, and they don’t want to raise any taxes.

So at this point, I really don’t care which direction we go. Just stop increasing the debt we’re passing on to my kids. They’re going to have enough on their hands taking care of me someday.

Related: Red ink rising.

Health insurers want to raise prices. What now?

By Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

The big news in health care this week was that most of the state’s insurers are asking for rate increases for policies purchased individually or through the state’s Arkansas Works program.

The bigger issue – rising health care costs, and the political system’s inability to address them – is not new.

The two Blue Cross providers are asking for 14.7 percent increases, while QualChoice Life and Health and QCA Health Plan are asking for increases of just under 24 percent. The state’s fifth insurance company, Ambetter, is asking for less than 10 percent and is not required to publicly disclose or justify that amount. The sixth insurance company, UnitedHealthcare, unable to make a profit, is leaving the market.

The Arkansas Insurance Department still must approve the requests. Commissioner Allen Kerr sounded skeptical in a statement released by his office.

There are many reasons for the requested hikes. I’ll summarize those given by Arkansas Blue Cross spokesperson Max Greenwood. Patients are using more health care than expected. Costs are rising, particularly for prescription drugs and catastrophic claims of more than $50,000. The Affordable Care Act’s transitional reinsurance fee, which offset higher cost enrollees, is going away.

One other factor pertains to Arkansas Works, the program formerly known as the private option that uses federal funds to purchase private insurance for lower-income Arkansans. Remember last year when we learned many people living out of state, or not living at all, were being covered? When that was more or less fixed, Blue Cross lost a population of 25,000 members whose premiums were being paid but who didn’t use much health care, especially the dead ones. So now the insurer says it has to adjust.

Of course this all happens in the context of Obamacare. Sen. Tom Cotton, Rep. French Hill and Rep. Bruce Westerman released statements calling once again for the Affordable Care Act to be repealed and replaced with patient-centered reforms.

That’s easier to say than do. Since the Affordable Care Act was signed into law more than six years ago, congressional Republicans have voted dozens of times to repeal it. Replacing it? Not so much. True, Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., a physician, has been offering alternative bills since 2009, and Donald Trump’s website lists a framework of reforms. But the party has never coalesced behind a detailed, specific plan and then spent political capital selling it to the American people. Instead, it’s mostly just voted to repeal Obamacare knowing that, ultimately, President Obama would veto the repeal anyway.

Health care is by far the most difficult issue facing policymakers. There are many reasons, including that it’s a service Americans believe should be unlimited and cheap, which is a high standard. We need health care like we need groceries, but with food, most of us want steak but will buy canned tuna if that’s all we can afford. With health care, we all want nothing less than steak, but at canned tuna prices.

Like any other service, someone has to pay for a health care provider’s costs, and there are only three imperfect ways to do that. One is the free market approach where the consumer pays, which offers more freedom but less security and doesn’t have a clean answer when the consumer can’t afford the care. Another way is for the government to pay, which offers more security, at least initially, but less freedom. In that case, the government is deciding how life and death resources are allocated. Then there’s the third approach: Someone else pays, typically an insurance company. That method tries to strike a balance between freedom and security but gives a lot of power to a private corporation and in recent history has not effectively controlled costs.

The American health care system was a convoluted concoction of those three payment methods before Obamacare, and it still is. Prices were rising before Obamacare, and they still are. Undoubtedly, more Americans have insurance now than they did, and that’s a positive that shouldn’t be ignored. But many still are uninsured, and the big problem – cost – has not nearly been solved.

Republicans at the national level would do well to follow the example set by Republicans in Arkansas, who have done most of the creating, amending, defending and opposing of the aforementioned private option/Arkansas Works.

We can debate whether Arkansas Works is a good idea. But at least it’s a new one, with specific details that are clearly communicated and fought for.

Related: The real goal of the private option: Changing U.S. health care

Return of the Democrats?

Conner Eldridge is running as a Democrat for the U.S. Senate seat held by Republican Sen. John Boozman.

Conner Eldridge is running as a Democrat for the U.S. Senate seat held by Republican Sen. John Boozman.

By Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

The last eight years have been really bad for Arkansas Democrats. The last few months have been a little better.

Democrats controlled Arkansas politics for 140 years. As late as 2008, the party controlled five of the state’s six congressional offices, all seven statewide constitutional offices, 27 of the 35 state Senate seats, and 75 of the 100 state House seats.

But they have fallen far, fast. After President Obama’s election, Arkansas did what much of the rest of the South had already done and became a Republican state.

Now, Republicans occupy all the state’s congressional offices, all seven statewide constitutional offices, 64 state House seats and 24 state Senate seats. In the last two U.S. Senate races, Democratic incumbents won only 37 percent of the vote in 2010 and 39 percent in 2014. Almost twice as many Arkansans voted in the March 1 Republican presidential primary (410,920) as voted in the Democratic primary (221,010). Democrats could not field a candidate in three of the four congressional races and do not have enough candidates in state legislative races to win back a majority, even if they win every race they are contesting.

In 1960, New York transplant Winthrop Rockefeller hosted a “Party for Two Parties” at Winrock Farms in hopes of building the almost nonexistent Republican Party into a viable contender. At times these past eight years, I’ve wondered if we’re going to need another one of those parties.

But Arkansas Democrats have had at least three bright spots lately.

One, they’ve got a young, energetic U.S. Senate candidate, former U.S. Attorney Conner Eldridge. He’ll have a tough time unseating the Republican, Sen. John Boozman. But he’s running an aggressive campaign.

Second, the presidential race is shaping up about as well as Democrats could hope: former Arkansas first lady Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump. He’s brought new people to the Republicans but also split the party, which will not completely unite behind him. President Obama won 37 percent of the vote in Arkansas in 2012. That’s consistent with the percentages those incumbent senators won in 2010 and 2014, so it’s not certain Clinton will do better. But at least Trump gives Democrats a target.

Finally, Democrats at the state level, who sometimes have been behaving as if they hope things will just get back to “normal,” have been acting a little more like a vigorous minority lately.

I’ll try to make this brief. In the fiscal session that just ended at the State Capitol, the big issue was Arkansas Works, the program that uses federal Medicaid dollars to purchase private health insurance for a quarter of a million Arkansans. It had passed by large majorities in a recent special session, but it fell just short of the three-fourths needed in both the House and Senate for funding during the fiscal session. Under the Arkansas Constitution, nine senators can kill funding for any program, and this time, 10 Republicans were determined to stop Arkansas Works.

However, the Arkansas Constitution also contains a provision requiring that the first item that must be passed in a session is the general appropriations, which funds expenditures such as legislators’ reimbursements. Democrats in the House decided to hold that up until Arkansas Works was passed.

After much maneuvering by Gov. Asa Hutchinson, Arkansas Works was funded. Because he practically staked his governorship on it, it’s debatable how much of an effect the Democrats’ effort had. But at the very least, it was a reminder that 35 House Democrats can throw as much of a monkey wrench in the proceedings as 10 Republican senators can.

As a party, Democrats tend to support more government activity to help lower income people, so Arkansas Works would seem to be an appropriate issue for them to fight for, or at least stand with the big guy doing the fighting. Now they are coalescing behind another issue they think is a good fit, more funding for pre-K education.

That’s a better strategy than waiting for their majority to return, which isn’t going to happen any time soon. Two parties are better than one, and if you’re going to be a minority, you might as well be a vigorous one, Rockefeller would say.

Related: How Conner Eldridge thinks he can win.