Voters might support highway taxes, but they want to choose

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

This may be true: Arkansans believe the state’s highways need work, and many are willing to pay to improve them, but not at the pump. And this definitely is true: They want to make that choice, not have it made for them.

That’s based on a recent poll of 800 Arkansans by the Arkansas Good Roads Foundation. Ninety percent said the state’s highways “are in need of repair,” but 62 percent said they opposed increasing fuel taxes, which are the primary source of road funding. Support increased when told those taxes haven’t been raised in 15 years, but even then only 48 percent supported increasing them just 1-3 cents per gallon. The numbers dropped dramatically for higher amounts so that only 5 percent supported an increase of 5-8 cents. We can’t fix the roads on 1-3 cents.

There’s just something about paying higher fuel taxes that a lot of people can’t abide. Fuel is seen as a necessity and the taxes are visible, which ought to be a selling point, but I guess we like to pretend we’re not paying them.

Fuel taxes actually are among the easiest and fairest ways to raise money for highways. Collection costs are low, and the taxes are paid by road users. The person receiving the government service actually pays for the service, so if you don’t want to pay higher taxes, you can drive less or drive more efficiently. The other plus is that some of the taxes are paid by travelers and truckers passing through our smack-dab-in-the-middle-of-the-country state, rather than by Arkansans.

Fuel taxes have their own problems however, in that they are destined to be a declining revenue source each time cars become more fuel efficient, which is often. (Because of that, and because of inflation, drivers basically receive a fuel tax cut every year.) Moreover, they aren’t completely fair, either. The laborer who gets to work in a duct-taped 1987 Oldsmobile that gets 12 miles per gallon pays more than someone who can afford a newer, more fuel-efficient vehicle. If you can pay the $33,220 starting price to buy a Chevy Volt electric car, then you can enjoy the government-funded highways almost for free.

But while poll respondents don’t want to pay higher fuel taxes, a surprising majority, 62 percent, were willing to continue an existing tax that was set to expire in a few years. That would be the 10-year half-cent sales tax passed by voters in 2012 that is funding the Connecting Arkansas Program. That tax specifically exempts fuel and food, meaning it’s not a user fee at all. The grandmother on a fixed income who never drives far is paying for highways every time she shops at the corner store. When asked the same question about extending the half-cent sales tax a second time at the end of the survey, support rose to 69 percent, suggesting some might be open to having their minds changed.

I guess it’s easier to keep paying the tax you’re already paying, and not let it expire, then it is to pay a new one.

Keep in mind that this was a poll, and polls, you may recall from recent history, don’t always get things exactly right. The order of the questions matters, too. If you tell a pollster that the roads are bad, you’re probably primed to later say you’d pay more to fix them. But based on the survey, Arkansans certainly might be willing to increase taxes for highways.

But they want to be in charge of making that choice. Eighty-one percent would be more likely to support a legislator who referred a highway tax increase to them for a vote, while 12 percent would be less likely. Meanwhile, 45 percent would be less likely to support a legislator who voted for a straight up tax increase, while only 38 percent would be more supportive.

That’s not news to legislators, who aren’t exactly lining up to introduce bills to raise taxes for highways. They knew how their constituents felt about it long before this survey.

The poll’s results might persuade some of them to refer the matter to voters, but that doesn’t mean it will happen. Yes, 81 percent might tell a pollster they would be more supportive of a legislator who referred a tax increase to them. But legislators know the 12 percent who say they wouldn’t be – they really mean it.

Could Monday be Arkansas’ last King-Lee holiday?

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

On Monday, Arkansans will join Mississippians and Alabamians in honoring Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and General Robert E. Lee on the same day.

It might be the last time for Arkansas.

The three states are the only ones that combine the holidays – and that includes Lee’s home state of Virginia, which separated them in 2000.

The dual holiday here stems from the fact that Arkansas was already celebrating Lee’s birthday each Jan. 19 when the King holiday was created in 1983 and set for the third Monday of each January. Because the holidays were right on top of each other, legislators combined them in 1985. Then-Gov. Bill Clinton signed the legislation.

Some state legislators tried to separate the holidays in 2015, but they failed. Vocal opponents filled committee rooms and argued their case – which, I’m telling you, can be a surprisingly effective tactic, particularly if legislators have mixed emotions or are unsure which way the wind is blowing on an issue.

Gov. Asa Hutchinson began that legislative session without a strong opinion on the holiday and eventually supported separating the days, but he didn’t really fight for it. Since then, he has made it an emphasis. In July 2015, he wrote the state president of the NAACP that he would “do what is in my power” to give King his own day. Last January, he said lawmakers should separate the holidays and said he would attend events honoring King that day without mentioning anything about honoring Lee. In December, he presented a list of 19 priorities for the upcoming legislative session, most of them relatively noncontroversial, but the holiday was one of them. In a press availability Jan. 4, he said Lee was “on the wrong side of history,” a noteworthy comment in a state where some people still revere Lee. He said he wants to move Lee’s day to October but not make it a holiday for state employees.

Hutchinson is not the type of governor who relishes a big fight over a hot-button social issue. Those kinds of controversies are bad for business, which is why he’s been trying to persuade legislators not to introduce a transgender bathroom bill like the one in North Carolina.

But in this case, Arkansas’ current situation is already bad for business and bad for the state’s image. For a Southern state to pair the country’s greatest civil rights leader with a Confederate Civil War general just looks bad, and it doesn’t help persuade out-of-state and out-of-country business executives that Arkansas is a forward-looking place. Meanwhile the dual holiday makes a statement to the state’s own citizens that we really aren’t all-in on civil rights.

When the bill comes up in committee, it probably will attract the same opponents it attracted last time – those who will argue that Lee was a man of honor and an important figure in Arkansas and American history, and that the day commemorates Southern heritage, not slavery.

It will be interesting to see which legislators oppose the separation, and the reasons they give. It was only a few months ago that a few of them were threatening action against the University of Arkansas because some female basketball players knelt rather than stand during the national anthem. Yet the entire state honors alongside Dr. King a general who fought to give us a different anthem entirely. Had Lee succeeded in his efforts, you and I would be Confederates, not Americans, standing only for “Dixie.” For us, “The Star-Spangled Banner” would be just a historical reference to a country we used to be a part of, the equivalent of “God Save the Queen” now. The American flag would be just another country’s flag.

The fact that the still-powerful governor has prioritized giving King his own day makes it much more likely it will happen. But nothing is certain. Dr. Martin Luther King had a dream, but he couldn’t predict the future, and neither can I.

Related: Arkansas flag’s one star a reminder or a celebration?

Ethical, irresponsible behavior

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

If you’re one of 435 Americans who can get yourself elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, then by definition you’re probably politically astute – which makes what happened this past week all the more hard to figure.

After being handed the reins of power at just about every level of government everywhere, House Republicans made it their first order of business to replace the independent Office of Congressional Ethics with a weakened and muzzled office overseen by the House Ethics Committee – in other words, by the very Congress the office investigates. Moreover, this happened during a behind-closed-doors meeting.

Among Arkansas’ congressional delegation, Reps. French Hill and Steve Womack voted against the plan, while Rep. Rick Crawford was traveling but said later he opposed it. Rep. Bruce Westerman voted for it. All of them said reforms are needed – just not necessarily these reforms, or these reforms done this way.

The backlash against the move was immediate and included not only Democrats but also President-elect Donald Trump, who questioned the timing and priorities in a tweet that concluded with “#DTS” – in other words, “drain the swamp.” On Tuesday, hours before the full Congress was to vote on the new rules, House Republicans hastily met and voted by unanimous consent to remove the controversial provision.

Why stumble so badly so early? House Republicans had heard complaints from some of their fellow members who said they had been unfairly targeted by an office that too aggressively investigates anonymous and/or frivolous complaints. Congressmen were then forced to spend large sums of their personal money – we’re talking $100,000 – to defend themselves and try to clear their name.

As a journalist, I talk a lot to politicians, mostly at the state level but occasionally with members of Congress as well. I don’t believe most elected officials are crooks – and granted, I’m writing the first draft of this paragraph on the same day an Arkansas state legislator pleaded guilty to steering $175,000 to two organizations and receiving $38,000 in bribes in return.

I think most elected officials are OK folks whose jobs force them to make professional and moral compromises to meet unattainable, sometimes contradictory public expectations. They’re expected to stand for their beliefs but represent their constituents’ will, and they’re expected to raise millions of dollars to fund their campaigns but not to be overly influenced by those donations, which of course come from people trying to influence them.

So when all four members of Arkansas’ congressional delegation say this Office of Congressional Ethics needs to be reined in a little, I buy that, as long as it’s reined in, not gutted, as part of an open, transparent, bipartisan process. Which this wasn’t.

What’s more concerning is what Congress is planning to do in the next few months. It’s poised to repeal Obamacare without any consensus on a replacement, which could throw the entire health care system into a state of confusion and uncertainty for years. It will do so through a budget reconciliation mechanism that, as Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, is pointing out, continues the grand old tradition of adding trillions to the national debt. And if it follows the president-elect’s lead and does as past Congresses have done, it soon will cut taxes without cutting spending, all while promising the difference will be bridged by future economic growth.

This behavior is perfectly legal. You might even say there’s nothing personally unethical about it. It’s just highly irresponsible. And it happens partly because of those same unattainable and contradictory expectations by voters, who tend to want easy answers without hard choices. If you’re a politician who wants to stay in office, just keep your hands out of the cookie jar, cut taxes but don’t cut spending, and find someone or something to blame so voters don’t blame you or themselves. The ones who really pay the price are members of future generations, and they don’t vote.

Members of Congress should pay a personal and financial price if they act illegally. If they act irresponsibly, they should pay a political one at the ballot box. Apparently, a handful are punished even when they haven’t acted illegally, and Congress should fix that. Few are punished when they act irresponsibly, and the voters should fix that.

Related: Please, Congress, if you cut taxes, cut spending too

When lawmakers gather, expect the unexpected

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

The elections have mercifully ended, so now is when the actual governing begins. On Monday, 135 legislators will descend on the State Capitol and become very busy very quickly.

How busy? In the space of three months in 2015, lawmakers considered 2,063 bills and passed 1,289 of them into law.

Considering that the makeup of the Legislature isn’t that different than it was in 2015, expect similar numbers this year. Many of those laws will be technical and/or targeted and won’t affect you or me much. But some will be important and far-reaching.

What else can be expected?

– Expect medical marijuana to take up a lot of time and energy. When 53 percent of the voters passed the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment in November, it was only the first step in making the drug legal. Now legislators must flesh out the amendment with additional laws, each of which requires a two-thirds majority because they would amend a constitutional amendment. Rep. Doug House, R-North Little Rock, said legislators are considering “about 135 issues, and that’s a real number” that must be clarified or modified through legislation.

– Expect that legislators will cut taxes, but with less enthusiasm than they did in 2015. Two years ago, Gov. Asa Hutchinson easily passed a $100 million middle class income tax cut after making it the signature issue of his 2014 campaign. This year, he’s promising a smaller tax cut – $50.5 million targeted toward lower-income Arkansans, plus a tax exemption for military retiree benefits. That second tax cut would cost the state treasury $13 million, but it would be offset by the ending of various exemptions, including for manufactured homes. Other legislators might propose their own tax cuts, but expect Hutchinson to mostly get what he wants.

Regardless, he’s being cautious about cutting taxes too much, and so are many legislators. Revenues have not been meeting forecasts this year. Meanwhile, the state must for the first time pay 5 percent of the cost of the Arkansas Works program that provides health insurance for more than 300,000 Arkansans. Policymakers have been looking for savings to offset that new expense. Lawmakers also must produce a budget surplus so the state has money available to match $200 million in federal highway funds. They can’t cut spending for education without risking a lawsuit, and they must increase funding for the foster care system, which is in a crisis. And unlike Washington, D.C., Arkansas has a mechanism, the Revenue Stabilization Act, that discourages deficit spending.

– Expect the Democrats to act like a minority party and Republicans to behave like a party with an overwhelming majority. After the election and three post-election party-switchers, Republicans control 102 of the 135 seats in the Legislature – the same number controlled by Democrats in 2008. Democrats know they’ll be the minority for a long time, so with nothing much left to lose, they’ll more aggressively contrast themselves with the Republicans. Republicans, meanwhile, don’t even need Democrats in the House of Representatives, where they control 76 of the 100 seats, enough to pass anything with a three-fourths majority. The numbers are so lopsided that many of the meaningful conflicts will be not between Republicans and Democrats, but between Republicans and other Republicans.

– Expect some heat. It’s a safe bet that legislators will debate controversial social issues that grab a lot of attention and attract sign-carriers to the Capitol steps in a way that tax cuts never do. Bills already have been filed to restrict abortion, and Hutchinson says one of his 19 priorities is ending Arkansas’ practice of honoring civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King and Civil War General Robert E. Lee on the same day. Only two other states do that. Hutchinson would move Lee’s day from January to the fall. An effort to separate the commemorations failed in 2015.

– Finally, expect the unexpected. As Hutchinson said in a December press conference, “With my vast experience in legislative sessions – one – I can feel confident that there will be some surprises. There will be some unanticipated legislation. There will be some unanticipated controversies, and you just deal with those a step at a time.”

That’s a pretty safe expectation when 135 legislators and a governor gather in Little Rock to debate 2,000 bills and pass 1,300 laws in three months.

2016 wasn’t so bad

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

More than a few people are expressing their hopes for a happy new year by saying good riddance to the old – the basis being that they aren’t happy with the presidential election, along with the fact that a lot of famous people died in 2016, especially lately.

The truth is that famous people die every year, and it’s not the year’s fault. Also, whatever you think about the election, the good news is that we had one.

Consider that on March 1, almost 632,000 Arkansans went to the polls to help select the two major party candidates. Then in November, about 1.13 million Arkansans voted in the general election for one of those two candidates or for one of six others. In January, the current president will peacefully hand the Oval Office’s keys to his successor and become a private citizen, while the new president takes the reins of power only temporarily.

This process is fairly common around the world these days but rare throughout history, when power has often been transferred through war or intrigue or birthright. George Washington came along and just gave power up. As flawed as it was, the 2016 presidential election was a blessing, not a curse, when you consider many of the possible alternatives. As Winston Churchill once said, “Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

In fact, the 2016 campaign in some ways was remarkably open and democratic. The Republicans offered 17 candidates for president, each of whom had ample opportunities to make their case to the voters. Donald Trump won in part because he inspired first-time or infrequent voters to go to the polls. The Democrats offered the first female major party nominee, and her gender was not the defining issue. Third party candidates were treated, at least for a time, as candidates, not asterisks.

The campaign gave a shot of adrenaline to a political process that has grown predictable and stale. This time, the usual left-versus-right narrative simply didn’t apply. Both Trump and Bernie Sanders gave voice to legitimate concerns about global trade and the unevenness of the economic recovery. Moreover, they made their cases largely through oratory and direct communication rather than formulaic 30-second television advertising, which has been the norm. In November, the candidate who raised a lot less money and ran far fewer ads won by using tools that are at least theoretically available to others: a message that drew crowds and media attention, and social media.

Here’s where some of you say, “But Trump …”

I know, and I share many of your concerns. I voted for John Kasich in the Republican primary and the independent Evan McMullin in November – two candidates I believed offered positive, unifying visions. But, for one column, let’s look on the bright side, or at least all sides. It’s wrong to look at the world through rose-colored glasses, but it’s also a mistake to reach for the gray ones instead. In fact, it’s worse.

It wasn’t just in national politics where 2016 wasn’t so bad. In Arkansas, the Legislature met three times and along with Gov. Hutchinson produced tangible results in health care and highway funding. The unemployment rate in Arkansas is about 4 percent, which is far below the national average. Granted, that’s partly a result of the high number of former workers who have dropped out of the labor force, but clearly things are better than they were.

The Charles Dickens novel, “A Tale of Two Cities” begins with the words, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” Based on the way so many people talk these days – and have been for the past decade or two – you’d think these are just the worst of times. Let’s be realists, not cynics. By many measurements, Americans live better than 99 percent of all people who have ever lived.

So may we each have a happy new year while keeping the right perspective on the old one. Maybe it wasn’t the best of times, but the times certainly weren’t the worst.