Category Archives: U.S. Congress

Should states decide on immigration?

By Steve Brawner

Should immigration be more of a state issue than it is now? Ken Hamilton, Libertarian candidate for Congress in the 4th District, says it should be. The federal government sure can’t seem to solve it on its own.

Here’s how immigration would work if Hamilton, 58, an El Dorado accountant with Murphy USA, got his way. The federal government would continue to enforce border security and decide who gets to come into the country, but it would do so based on requests from the states. Some states would want a lot of immigrants, others not so many.

So say California decides it needs 10,000 farm workers. The federal government would grant that many visas to work in California only.

Then California would take it from there. Immigrants could work wherever they want within that state’s borders – unlike today’s employer-based visas, which force them to serve a particular boss who is regulated by the federal government. Immigrants could travel to other states, but they couldn’t work in them legally. However, certain immigrants such as migrant farm workers could receive visas allowing them to travel between states based on growing seasons. California could offer permanent state residency to those immigrant workers who follow the rules. It also could allot visas to members of its current illegal immigrant population. Eventually, immigrants could earn U.S. citizenship. In the meantime, states could determine what benefits they receive.

“The states can tailor the program to what they need,” he said. “If they need high-tech, they can do it. If they need farm workers, they can do it. I think that’s the best way to do it rather than a top-down, one-size-fits-all program out of the federal government.”

Hamilton says a state-based approach would break the logjam in Congress. Democrats typically favor a path to citizenship. Republicans, meanwhile, are split between two factions. Establishment Republicans want a more open policy because employers need the workers and because the party needs to better appeal to Hispanics, a fast-growing minority that is siding with Democrats in elections. On the other side, a large faction of Republicans say a path to citizenship amounts to awarding amnesty to lawbreakers. Secure the border, they say.

The result has been a sometimes ugly debate that hasn’t solved anything. We all know the current system inadequately controls the border. We all know it’s resulted in millions of illegal immigrants living here as part of a shadowy underclass without a real stake in society or an opportunity to achieve the American dream. We all know this situation provides a lot of cheap labor but also hurts certain American workers. But, election to election, little changes.

Hamilton, of course, almost certainly won’t be elected. The United States remains staunchly a two-party system despite voters’ unhappiness with what’s happening in Washington.

But picking winners and losers is not the only reason we have elections. It’s also a chance to have a national debate about the issues. The two major parties, whether they are promoting a path to citizenship or favor just closing the border, haven’t gotten us anywhere.

They can’t even figure out what to do with illegal immigrants who were brought here as children by their parents and have much-needed technical skills. American taxpayers pay for an undocumented child immigrant to go to public school, sometimes from kindergarten through the 12th grade, but then it’s difficult for them to go to college and nearly impossible for them to fulfill their potential in the workforce. We won’t even give them a chance to earn their citizenship by serving in the military.

So now someone else is offering another option: If Washington can’t solve the problem, let the states take charge.

Got a better idea?

Hate my Congress, keep my congressman

By Steve Brawner

In April, just 11 percent of Americans said they approved of Congress’ performance, and 80 percent said they disapproved, according to an Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor Poll. A Gallup poll in May found only 22 percent of Americans say most members of Congress deserve re-election, while 72 percent say they do not. And yet guess how many midterm primary elections congressional incumbents have lost this cycle?

One.

As PBS Newshour pointed out, incumbents had won 139 of 139 contested races prior to this week. They won 45 of 45 last week. On Tuesday, Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Tex., became the first incumbent defeated. One of Congress’ last two World War II veterans, he is 91 years old and is in his 17th term.

We’ve all heard the Ben Franklin quote that nothing is certain except death and taxes. Almost as certain is being re-elected to Congress. In 2012, 90 percent of House incumbents running for re-election were victorious, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Going back to 1964, it’s never been lower than 85 percent, and five times it’s been 98 percent. Re-elections for Senate incumbents have not been quite as automatic through the years, but 91 percent were re-elected in 2012.

How can Americans hate Congress but so rarely vote to change it? One reason: The way the system is designed, voters don’t have a chance to vote against the institution. They only vote for or against their own congressman, who seems all right and may have helped them with a problem. Partly because of the way House districts have been drawn, there’s a good chance their congressman agrees with them on a number of issues. Using modern data-mining techniques, he or she knows what those issues are and how to communicate them. Because we live in such a polarized environment, voters often blame the other side instead of their own members.

There isn’t space to list all of the other advantages incumbents have, but money is an obvious one. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the average incumbent House member raised $1.6 million in campaign contributions in 2012, compared to $268,000 raised by challengers. U.S. Senate incumbents raised an average of almost $12 million, compared to challengers’ $1.4 million. Those numbers skew against challengers because they include all candidates who filed campaign reports, including minor candidates who raised little money.

The system’s imperfections aren’t insurmountable, of course. Thanks to the internet, almost all voters have access to enough information to make informed, creative choices at the ballot box. That would require us to base our decisions on research rather than impressions gleaned from 30-second TV ads and superficial media coverage – which, unfortunately, we don’t often do.

While incumbent congressmen rarely lose elections, there is turnover thanks to retirements and other causes. Some members don’t run again because they know they would lose or face a tough fight. The Cook Political Report revealed in December 2012 that, from 2008 to 2012, nearly 40 percent of the Senate had turned over. USA Today quoted Cook in January 2013 saying that 39 percent of House members, including nearly half the Republicans, started this current term with less than three years of experience.

That kind of turnover is reflected in Arkansas. After November, at least two of Arkansas’ six congressional seats, the House 2nd and 4th Districts, will be occupied by a new representative. If Rep. Tom Cotton defeats Sen. Mark Pryor, half the delegation would turn over this year. In fact, Arkansas’ entire delegation would be different than it was before the election of 2010. The only elected official remaining from that time would be Sen. John Boozman, but he was serving in the House four years ago.

So the good news is that turnover does occur in Congress, giving the institution new blood and fresh ideas. The bad news? It doesn’t usually happen because of the voters, who are unhappy with Congress but, for many reasons, don’t seem able to do much about it.

Pryor vs. Ross

By Steve Brawner

He’s a Democrat running for a high-profile statewide office. He’s developed a reputation through the years as a centrist willing to work with both sides of the aisle. He excels at retail, face-to-face politics. He faces a Republican attorney who doesn’t.

I could be describing Sen. Mark Pryor or Mike Ross. They’re similar elected officials facing similar opponents, and yet in the Senate race Pryor is usually polling several points ahead of his opponent, Rep. Tom Cotton, while Ross is polling behind Asa Hutchinson in the campaign for governor.

Why the difference between Pryor and Ross so far? One theory: They’re competing with each other a little bit, and Pryor is winning. Perhaps the most intriguing matchup this year is not Pryor vs. Cotton, or Ross vs. Hutchinson. It’s Pryor vs. Ross.

Let’s start with more conventional explanations for those polls, and then I’ll explain that theory. Pryor is a statewide figure who has represented all of Arkansas in the Senate for 12 years. He still enjoys good will because of his father, former Sen. David Pryor. Ross represented only one-fourth of the state as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, and he’s been out of office for nearly a year-and-a-half.

As for their opponents, Hutchinson, the longtime Arkansas political figure, is a more polished candidate than Cotton. Hutchinson knows how to soften his stances and appeal to folks in the middle, while Cotton seems to know only one speed – full ahead. We like our politicians on a first-name basis here: Mike, Mark, Blanche, etc. We all know who “Asa” is, but Cotton, whom we just met a couple of years ago, is not yet “Tom.”

Other explanations? Because the Senate seat is so important nationally, the race has attracted millions of dollars in campaign ads that have taken the shine off Cotton. Hutchinson and Ross really haven’t laid a glove on each other yet. Meanwhile, Hutchinson was involved in a primary contest against an active opponent, Curtis Coleman, so his campaign has been somewhat in the public eye. Ross faced an inactive primary opponent and has been mostly laying the groundwork for the general election.

Let’s get back to the theory that Pryor and Ross are competing against each other.

Resources are limited. There is only so much campaign money, and there are only so many volunteers with only so much time and energy. There is only so much space for yard signs and bumper stickers.

That’s the case with any campaign season, but this year’s races are occurring in the context of a Republican surge in Arkansas that may have peaked but hasn’t ended. When there’s a trend, there’s more room for one outlier than two.

Of course, hanging over all of this is the fact that President Obama is still in office, he’s still a Democrat, and, right or wrong, he’s still deeply disliked by many Arkansans.

Arkansans like to think of themselves as independent. We have a history of splitting our tickets. Until 2010, this was one of the more Democratic states in the country, and Democrats still hold a lot of power at the local and state levels.

Given all that, some diehard Obama-dislikers will be prepared to vote for a member of Obama’s party in either the U.S. Senate or the governor’s race. But they won’t vote for a member of his party in both of this year’s major races. Doing so would be too much of an endorsement of him and what they believe he represents. Pryor and Ross are competing for those voters.

Republicans still have the momentum in Arkansas. Pryor and Ross – both very good politicians – are trying to swim against that tide. It’s foreseeable that one can do it. It’s harder, though certainly not impossible, to see both winning. They’ve both got a lot to compete against, including, in some ways, each other.

Anyway, that’s one theory.

Graphic for blg 5

Good times renew bad habits in Congress

By Steve Brawner

When a person is trying to solve an old problem, one of the most dangerous times is when they’ve had some success – especially when they really haven’t changed their mindset or habits. They’ve lost some weight on a fad diet, so they head for the buffet. They’ve cut down on their alcohol for a few weeks, so they drop into the bar because they’ve “earned it.” They’ve been pretty good about spending money lately, so they splurge.

Soon they’re eating, drinking and spending more than ever. Old habits die hard.

Congress is composed of people just like the rest of us, and those people also are vulnerable to the hazards of success. We’re starting to see that on display regarding the federal budget deficit.

The good news is that annual deficits temporarily are falling. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is estimating that Congress will “only” overspend by $492 billion this fiscal year – much better than 2009’s $1.4 trillion deficit and the trillion-dollar deficits that followed.

Why the positive direction? The economy is improving, so the money is coming in. Also, those huge deficits were so alarming that even Congress and President Obama were inspired to raise taxes a little on the wealthy, let the payroll tax cut expire, and allow spending cuts to occur through the sequester.

Here’s the bad news. While this year’s annual deficit is smaller than it’s been, it’s still not a surplus, which means we’re still adding to the national debt – now $17.5 trillion, or more than $50,000 for every American. The deficits soon will start rising again, eventually hitting about $1 trillion again in 2022. Each year, the national debt will increase as a result.

Unfortunately, Congress and President Obama failed to use that string of trillion-dollar deficits as an opportunity to really address the country’s ingrained habits. There was a lot of talk but little action. They didn’t craft bipartisan solutions for Social Security’s and Medicare’s long-term problems. They didn’t significantly reduce military spending or question if the United States should remain the world’s policeman. They didn’t reform the convoluted, anti-growth tax code. They didn’t structurally reform how we govern ourselves.

Now that the sense of urgency is gone and we’re only overspending by $492 billion, what will happen next? We’re starting to get an idea.

The U.S. House of Representatives voted May 9 to make permanent what had been a “temporary” research and development tax credit that has been around since 1981 and extended many times. All of the members of Arkansas’ House delegation voted yes except Rep. Rick Crawford, who was attending to the death of his mother.

Now the House Ways and Means Committee is planning to vote on permanently extending and in some cases expanding more tax breaks. Those potential expansions would increase the national debt by about $80 billion over 10 years, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

The Senate was to vote on its own bill, perhaps this week after press time, that would extend the research and development tax credit two years and also renew about 50 temporary tax breaks that Congress also routinely extends, including breaks for racehorse owners and makers of Puerto Rican rum.

What’s wrong with all these tax breaks, besides the fact that they tend to reward only certain groups of the well-connected? In both the House and the Senate, Congress isn’t even trying to offset them with spending cuts.

That’s regrettable but not surprising. The immediate crisis has passed, we’re no longer running trillion-dollar deficits, so it’s time to reward ourselves with a trip to the buffet or bar.

Old habits die hard. We’ll worry about the debt when it feels like a crisis again – which it will, eventually.

Would you vote for Joe?

By Steve Brawner

Would the following campaign ads be effective with you? I’m really asking.

In all of them, the congressional candidate – call him “Joe” – faces the camera before an unadorned white background. There’s no stirring music, no slow-motion photography, no phony interactions with average Americans, and no rehearsed kitchen table scenes with the family. No narrator describes his opponents ominously.

In a calm voice, Joe describes a serious, ongoing national challenge. Let’s say it’s the national debt. He says the country is $17.5 trillion in the hole – equal to well over $50,000 for every American. He says we’re willfully passing on this debt to our children, and it’s time to be bigger than this.

Then he says you’ll have a different choice this time. He won’t promise what he can’t deliver. If you elect him, he will go to Washington and make hard choices. He’ll also tell you what those choices are beforehand.

That’s all Joe can squeeze into 30 seconds.

In another ad, he tells you he’ll treat the nation’s finances like he would treat his own if they weren’t adding up. Years ago when he was broke, he had to reduce spending on everything. If he’s elected to Congress, everything will be on the table, including popular programs like Social Security, Medicare and the military. Those three, plus interest on the debt, make up three-fifths of the budget, so they can’t just be ignored. “We’re past the point of just cutting waste,” he says.

Has he lost you yet, or will you still give him a chance?

In another ad, Joe says the government is awash in so much red ink, and it’s made so many promises it can’t get out of, that the budget can’t be balanced without more revenues. The American people have made it clear they’ll only cut so far, and it’s not enough to balance the budget. He won’t vote to raise tax rates, but he will support cleaning up the tax code. He’ll go after fat-cat loopholes first, but he also favors changing other deductions with widespread support. Those would include the mortgage interest deduction, which he says encourages homebuyers to go into too much debt the way it’s structured now. When the budget is balanced and the national debt is being paid down, he’ll start voting to cut taxes.

In both ads, he says he’ll listen to your concerns and be open to compromise. But you can trust that he will never pander to you, and he won’t vote to put our children in ever deeper debt. “Americans will pay our own way from now on,” he says.

Joe runs one more ad pledging not to run a single negative commercial, and if outside interest groups do so in his favor, he’ll denounce them. You’ll elect him for the right reasons, or he’ll just have to lose. His Bible taught him not to bear false witness against his neighbor, and his mama taught him that if you can’t say something nice about someone, don’t say anything at all.

Joe has offered specific proposals for addressing a compelling national problem. You probably won’t agree with all of them, and some may even offend you.

But would you prefer a candidate who tells you nothing, offers “solutions” that don’t solve anything, and explains every problem by blaming the other party? The political professionals who produce most of today’s ads are certain you would.

Ross Perot campaigned for president sort of like what I’ve described using 30-minute ads, not just 30-second ones. In 1992, he used charts to lay out the country’s financial situation. Back then, the debt was $4 trillion – less than a fourth what it is now. He won 19 percent of the vote as a third party candidate.

But he was a billionaire. If Joe’s not rich, I’m not certain he could even raise the money to get on the air.

If he could, could you vote for Joe?