Category Archives: U.S. Congress

GOP’s timing was good … this year

By Steve Brawner
© 2014 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Here’s what did not happen on Election Day: The American people did not simply rise up and repudiate President Obama and give Republicans a mandate.

Oh, they did repudiate Obama, but the Republican Party’s big win was more the result of timing and demographic factors that worked entirely in its favor this year and mostly will favor Democrats in 2016.

We’re talking nationally, not about Arkansas. What happened in Arkansas was permanent.

Let’s focus on three big advantages Republicans across the country had working for them.

Our two electorates. The United States is now made up of two distinct voting populations. The one that votes in presidential election years is bigger, younger, and more diverse, favoring Democrats. Many of those voters stay home during midterms, when the leader of the free world is not on the ballot. What’s left is an electorate that is older, whiter, and more affluent – in other words, more Republican.

Second-term midterms. So far, seven U.S. Senate seats have shifted from Democratic to Republican hands, and Sen. Mary Landrieu is probably going to be the eighth in Louisiana’s December runoff. Seven or eight seats sounds like a lot, but that kind of result is not unusual for a midterm election when a president is in his second term and voters are becoming cranky and annoyed. President George W. Bush’s Republicans lost six Senate seats in his second-term midterm, and President Reagan lost eight seats. President Eisenhower, World War II hero and budget balancer, saw his Republican Party lose 13 seats in his second-term midterm elections.

Democrats on the defensive. This year, Democrats were defending 21 of the 36 contested Senate seats, including seven states won by Mitt Romney in 2012. Senators serve six-year terms, so these Democrats were elected during the 2008 presidential election, when they had the advantage, and had to run for re-election this year in a midterm, when the electorate favors Republicans.

The reverse will be true in 2016. Republicans, elected in 2010 when they had an advantage in the midterms (and also after Obamacare was passed) will be defending 24 of the 33 seats up for re-election, and they’ll be doing it in a presidential election year that will be more favorable to Democrats. In seven of those 24 states, Obama won twice.

Republicans will have one historical reality in their favor, and it’s a big one: the fickle American voter. We have a habit of letting one party control the White House for eight years and then giving the other party a shot. In recent years, we’ve gone from eight years of Clinton to eight years of Bush to eight years of Obama. The last time voters let a president’s party stay in power after two terms was 1988, when they elected Reagan’s vice president, George H.W. Bush, for one term.

Of course, what happens between now and 2016 matters. How will Republicans govern now that they will control Congress, and what will President Obama do in his last two years in office? Does Hillary Clinton want the nomination, and if so, will Democrats just give it to her? Are Americans ready to elect her, or any “her”? Will the Republicans beat up each other so badly during the primary process that the nominee emerges too bloodied to win in November? Will one of the two candidates insert their foot so firmly in their mouth that Americans can’t hear anything else they say? Will a well-funded independent candidate like Ross Perot emerge to upset the apple cart?

Those questions remain to be answered. This we know: In 2016, Democrats will have the advantage because it will be a presidential election year, and Republicans will have the advantage because it will be their turn.

Womack: Yes to earmarks, no to pork

By Steve Brawner
© 2014 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

I’ll try to write this carefully because a member of Congress has presented a nuanced position that can’t be explained in three words or less, is out of step with the prevailing mood of his party, and easily could be misconstrued. That kind of activity usually gets congressmen in trouble these days, which is why they so rarely engage in it.

Here goes: Rep. Steve Womack, R-Ark., is proposing bringing back pork barrel spending.

Oh, wait. I did a terrible job of presenting that carefully. I’m apparently still decompressing from the 60,000 TV ads that ran in the U.S. Senate race in Arkansas this cycle, according to the Center for Public Integrity.

Let’s start over. What the state’s 3rd District congressman proposes is rethinking Congress’ self-imposed ban on earmarks, and maybe bringing them back with significant changes.

Earmarks are congressionally directed spending for specific projects. At their worst, they’re pork. They’re the “bridge to nowhere,” the $223 million Alaska bridge that would have served a tiny population until it was cancelled amidst controversy. In 2011, earmarks were banned by Congress in the name of good government, and they’ve been banned ever since.

Womack, who voted for the ban, says it was a mistake. Speaking to engineers in Springdale last month, he said the money is still being spent – but now by the executive branch. The Constitution says spending is Congress’ job, he said. He said that while some earmarks are wasteful, some can be quite useful. For example, no one knows his district’s highway needs better than he does.

There’s another argument for bringing back earmarks – they might help Congress actually get something done. In the past, earmarks were an important vote-trading tool that helped lawmakers coalesce into a majority. Yes, billions were wasted, but Congress actually functioned as a legislative body instead of the train wreck it’s become. Train wrecks such as the government shutdown cost far more than bridges.

When I mentioned that argument to Womack, he didn’t affirm it – either because he didn’t agree with it, or because he didn’t want to be associated with it. Just talking about earmarks is a big enough leap.

There are, of course, good reasons to continue the earmark ban. According to a recent Gallup Poll, only 14 percent of Americans approve of Congress, while 82 percent disapprove. That’s not exactly a popular mandate for more congressional power. Earmarks might make Congress no less a train wreck – just a more wasteful one. In the past, too many congressmen were judged not by how well they served the country but by how much bacon they brought home. Incumbents already have so much power that, this year, 96 percent of House members and 95 percent of senators who ran for re-election won, according to Politifact. Giving them more pork barrel power only increases the odds they’ll keep their jobs.

Womack is aware of the criticisms. He said earmarks should be reinstated only as part of a much more transparent process, including a cost-benefit analysis for each project. He said earmarks should not be inserted into major, must-pass legislation.

This isn’t the only battle that Womack, a 30-year National Guard veteran, has picked. For years he’s been arguing that Congress should let states and localities enforce their own sales tax regulations for online purchases. Legally, online consumers are supposed to calculate the sales tax for each purchase and then pay what’s required on their own initiative, but few do so.

Womack, a former mayor of Rogers, says the national ban places Main Street businesses at a disadvantage competing with tax-free online retailers. He also says his “Marketplace Fairness Act” isn’t a new tax – it just lets states and localities enforce their current ones.

But that’s another nuanced position, right? It’s so much easier to oppose anything that looks like a tax (while supporting spending increases). This week, House Speaker John Boehner announced Womack’s proposal was off the table for the rest of the year.

Credit to Womack for broaching a couple of difficult subjects. Whether or not they’re good policies, they’re risky politics. It takes a full column to explain Womack’s positions, right or wrong. Right or wrong, it only takes two words to summarize the arguments opponents can use against them: “tax” and “pork.” Which side do you think fits better into a 30-second ad?

After a long campaign, here are reasons to vote FOR Cotton or Pryor

By Steve Brawner
© 2014 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

While sitting in a crowded waiting room the other day, my wife overheard a woman say she didn’t know what to do about the Senate race. Mark Pryor votes with Obama, the woman said, and Tom Cotton gets all his money from billionaires.

She no doubt reflects a lot of voters. After a year-and-a-half of campaigning and more than 50,000 television ads according to The Center for Public Integrity, the election for U.S. Senate is largely about these caricatures the opposing campaigns have painted about each other.

Who’s to blame? The campaigns, of course, for selling it, and voters for buying it. Members of the media are guilty, too, of course. We mostly just repackage the products the campaigns provide.

So I’m done. We all know why not to vote for these candidates. Here’s why you should vote for them.

You should vote for Tom Cotton because he’s disciplined, and strong, and brave. As a younger man, he took a break from his promising legal career to volunteer for tours of combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As a congressman, he’s shown he will not back down from a fight and will not compromise his convictions. He’s taken unpopular stances he knew would be used against him: for raising the retirement age, because the system needs reform; against Hurricane Sandy relief, because politicians had used that tragedy to pack the bill with nonemergency projects; against the farm bill, because most of the money is spent on food stamps, a program that he believes has grown too big in recent years.

You also should vote for him because, if Republicans take over the Senate while keeping the House, then Congress might again function at least somewhat like a legislative body that serves as a check and balance on the executive branch, instead of remaining the divided and dysfunctional mess it’s become.

On the other hand, you should vote for Mark Pryor because he’s compassionate, and determined, and willing to consider others’ points of view. He’s shown he can play the hand dealt him – a good one as the son of a popular former governor and senator, and a bad one fighting cancer or running under the same party label as an unpopular president.

As a senator, he’s been willing to meet with others in the middle when so much of that body has camped out on the wings. When the government shut down, he was part of a group of 14 practical-minded senators who bridged the gap and helped it reopen. He does not forget that the big-picture legislation he passes affects average Arkansans. He also does some of the little things, like helping create a database that keeps track of truck drivers who test positive for drugs and alcohol.

You also should vote for him because, after a half-century of one-party rule under the Democrats, Arkansas should not become a one-party state under the Republicans.

There are reasons to vote for the other two candidates, too. Both Libertarian Nathan LaFrance and Green Party nominee Mark Swaney have put their names on the ballot knowing they represent parties that have no money, no infrastructure, and no chance of winning. They’ve done this because those parties most closely represent their deeply held convictions. They’ve campaigned at their own personal expense and on their own time. When given the chance, they’ve proven able to eloquently explain and defend their positions.

At this point at the end of a long campaign, many of us have determined that all our choices are all bad. Certainly there is much about Cotton and Pryor that I cannot support – especially the way they have torn down each other. Regardless, one of these two men will represent us, and our decision as voters should be based at least partly on choosing who would do it better instead of simply avoiding the one who would do it worse. They both have flaws, and they both have admirable qualities.

So let’s try to vote FOR something, even if all we are voting for is the democratic process itself. People died for this.

Libertarian LaFrance pledges to limit own term, donate part of salary

By Steve Brawner

Nathan LaFrance of Bella Vista, the Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate in Arkansas, today announced a “Leading by Example” pledge stating that he would serve no more than two terms if elected and would donate all after-tax income earned above his 2014 income to chaNathan LaFrance Candidate photorities serving Arkansans.

LaFrance, an employee of the Walmart corporate offices’s Energy Department, said in a press release that he is promising “to live the changes he will fight for in Washington, D.C.” He supports term limits in Congress, including two terms for senators, and he proposes “the phase out and elimination of all federal income redistribution programs, to be replaced by private charitable organizations.”

As part of the pledge, LaFrance also promises that his office “will be available to all Arkansans on a first come, first serve basis.  … A corporate CEO will wait their turn in line behind a dairy farmer; a millionaire will wait their turn in line behind a working parent struggling to put food on the table.”

LaFrance received 2.5 percent support in a poll released this week by Talk Business & Politics and Hendrix College.

The chasm-bridger vs. the true believer

By Steve Brawner
© 2014 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Which of these two paragraphs makes the most sense to you?

The problem with Congress is that nobody goes to Washington and fights for what’s right. America needs elected officials who will stand on principle. We got into this mess because too many politicians go along to get along.

The problem with Congress is that there aren’t enough members who’ll work with both parties. We can’t get out of this mess unless members of Congress will work with each other, compromise a little, and get something done for the American people

If you’re like me, you might think both paragraphs are true, even though it’s hard for one person to exhibit both qualities. Who do we want: Someone who’ll stand on principle, or someone who will work with others as part of a democratic government with diverse constituencies?

And that’s your Senate race.

Rep. Tom Cotton, the Republican, is paragraph 1. No one can question his willingness to stand on principle as a person or a policymaker. He voted against Hurricane Sandy relief because the package contained too much waste and not enough relief. The other members of Arkansas’ delegation decided they could live with the package’s flaws. He voted against the farm bill because he believes the government is spending too much on food stamps and because he believes food stamps and farm payments should be separate issues. But the reason they are paired is, to pass the bill, historically it’s been necessary to maintain a coalition of rural farm state congressmen and urban representatives with food stamp-receiving constituents. The rest of the state’s delegation voted yes.

Sen. Mark Pryor, the Democrat, is paragraph 2. He’s somewhat of a centrist in a party that has moved left while he represents a state that is voting to the right. He’s inclined to compromise, sometimes joining with other middle ground-seeking senators to try to bridge the chasm between the two sides. When the government shut down last year, he was one of 14 senators, Republican and Democrat, who produced a compromise that ended the impasse and reopened the government. But he’s not one who will lead the charge for a world-changing idea.

Seeing the glass as half empty in this race, either Arkansas’ next senator will stand for too much, or its next senator will not stand for enough. The glass-half-full side is, if there were no chasm-bridgers like Pryor in Congress, nothing would ever get done, and if there were no true believers like Cotton, nothing great would ever get done.

What works best in a democracy is “principled compromise” – the ability to stand on rock-solid principles and then work with others to enact polices that move the country in the best direction, often one small step at a time. Effective elected officials compromise not only because they must, but also because they see the value in another person’s perspective. For a senator to govern as if he cannot be wrong – that’s a dangerous quality to have. But we also know what happens when someone compromises too much. As country singer Aaron Tippin described it, “You’ve got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything.”

Let’s not forget the two other candidates in the race. Libertarian Nathan LaFrance wants less government than Pryor or even Cotton. Green Party nominee Mark Swaney is generally for more government on issues such as health care and the environment. They’re both paragraph 1 candidates campaigning on principle.

The candidate who wins the election hopefully will practice principled compromise in the Senate over the next six years – standing for what’s right while working with others, and compromising on policies without compromising his values. That’s a difficult tightrope for any of the 100 senators to walk, which is why, these past few years, we haven’t seen enough of them even try.