Two governors: Hutchinson and Beebe

Govs. Asa Hutchinson and Mike Beebe

Govs. Asa Hutchinson and Mike Beebe

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

No two individuals are alike. This past week was a reminder of how that’s the case with Gov. Asa Hutchinson and his predecessor, Gov. Mike Beebe.

Hutchinson called legislators to Little Rock to raise $50 million to make the state eligible for $200 million in federal highway funds each of the next five years. His bill did that by relying largely on surplus funds and interest income, which some legislators thought was the wrong way and/or not enough. It was over in three days, and while it was probably inevitable that the governor’s bill would pass, it wasn’t always easy.

This was the second special session this spring. This first was to pass Arkansas Works, the program that uses federal Medicaid dollars to purchase private health insurance for adults with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level.

Hutchinson has been in office about 16 months and has called three special sessions. In eight years, Beebe called only three special sessions, though two were in his last 15 months in office.

That’s one big difference. Another is this past session included 15 items. That’s not particularly large by historical standards; then-Gov. Bill Clinton once called a special session with 285. However, Beebe’s three sessions combined had only 17 items.

The other big difference is in Hutchinson’s and Beebe’s approach. Beebe, who became governor after a long legislative career, didn’t call lawmakers to Little Rock until the bills were written and the votes counted. Everything was largely done behind closed doors, and then legislators voted and went home.

In contrast, during this past highway session, the actual bill wasn’t filed until legislators were arriving in Little Rock, leading Sen. Bryan King, R-Green Forest, to tell the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, “There have been as many Bigfoot sightings in the past 20 years as there have been of the final draft of the governor’s highway bill over the last week.” The bill failed to pass the Senate Transportation Committee, which meant the sponsor, Sen. Bart Hester, R-Cave Springs, had to move it to another, friendlier one.

Eventually it passed, and Hutchinson signed it into law on the session’s third day, which is as quickly as he’s allowed under the Arkansas Constitution.

Is one governor’s approach better than the other? Let’s just say they’re different. It’s probably true that the highway session was messier under Hutchinson than it would have been under Beebe – in public. Under Beebe, the messiness would have happened earlier, in private.

You could make the case that Beebe’s way is more efficient and that Hutchinson’s is more transparent. Under Beebe, legislators came to Little Rock for very specific purposes and then left, which is good in that it meant they weren’t debating a bunch of bills that were better left for a regular session. With Hutchinson, the process was more open and visible – the debate occurring on the Senate floor and in committee hearings in addition to back rooms.

Meanwhile, the two governors have operated under different circumstances. Beebe led a Legislature that was full of not particularly committed Democrats when he entered office who were replaced by Republicans by the time he left. Hutchinson leads a fractious Republican caucus with a Democratic minority that’s trying to figure out how to assert itself. For a variety of reasons, maybe Beebe had to work things out beforehand, and maybe Hutchinson can’t.

There was some grumbling among legislators about this session’s disorganization. When I asked Hutchinson why, unlike Beebe, he didn’t have all his ducks in a row, he said lawmakers needed the pressure of a session.

“What’s the objective in life?” he asked. “Is it to accomplish significant legislative action, or is to to get things done in a cookie-cutter fashion where the outcome is known before you start? While you like to do all your homework in advance, the fact is, if I would have insisted upon, ‘Everybody sign on to the highway plan before we start,’ we’d never got it done.”

I took that as a defense of his own approach, not a criticism of Beebe’s. They govern in different circumstances, and no two individuals are alike.

Libertarians, Greens better choice than death

Hand with ballot and boxBy Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

The first line of an actual recent obituary reads, “Faced with the prospect of voting for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, Mary Anne Noland of Richmond (Virginia) chose, instead, to pass into the eternal love of God on Sunday, May 15, 2016, at the age of 68.”

If only she had known she had other choices.

Those would include the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, and assorted others.

Let’s focus this column on the Libertarians, Arkansas’ most active third party. If you’re not familiar, it’s the one that says it’s for less government and actually, really, really means it. The Libertarians would cut social programs, including the popular ones, and they support gun rights. But cutting government also means shrinking the military, and they also would remove government from people’s personal decisions, which means they’d legalize marijuana and end the drug war. The party’s chairman in Arkansas, economist Dr. Michael Pakko, describes the party as a combination of small government constitutionalists, anarchists who want virtually no government, and “minanarchists” who fall somewhere in between.

The Libertarians this year are running 23 candidates in Arkansas, including likable party veteran Frank Gilbert for U.S. Senate and candidates in all four congressional races: Mark West in the 1st District; Chris Hayes in the 2nd; Steve Isaacson in the 3rd; and Kerry Hicks in the 4th.(Democrats could muster a candidate only in the 2nd District.) Eleven Libertarians are running for the state Legislature. And the party is doing this despite the fact that, under a law passed by Republicans and Democrats, it had to select its candidates a year before the election.

For Libertarians, this year represents the party’s best hope to ever make a splash. Their two-time presidential candidate, former Republican New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, won only 1.5 percent of the vote in Arkansas in 2012, but a recent Fox News poll showed him with 10 percent support in a hypothetical matchup with Trump and Clinton, and his running mate, former Republican Massachusetts Gov. William Weld, is an effective fundraiser.

The Libertarians won’t get 10 percent. Republicans and Democrats are highly skilled at painting each other as so terrible that many voters will decide they must pick one to save the country from the other. So don’t look for the United States to produce its third President Johnson.

But if Johnson can win 3 percent of the vote in Arkansas, it would be a big win for the state party. That’s the threshold it needs to qualify for the ballot in 2018 without having to collect 10,000 voter signatures, a task that Pakko said cost $34,000 this year as well as a lot of legwork.

How doable is 3 percent? The Libertarians’ top vote-getter in 2014, Hayes, won 6.36 percent in the treasurer’s race. Some conservative Republicans won’t vote for Trump, and they’re certainly not going to vote for Clinton, so they’re looking for an alternative. Gilbert said some Republicans won’t forgive Gov. Asa Hutchinson and legislative Republicans for Arkansas Works, which is the state program that uses Obamacare dollars to purchase private health insurance for Arkansans with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level. Meanwhile, maybe the Libertarian nominee could pull votes from disaffected Bernie Sanders supporters who see Clinton as part of the problem. Some Sanders voters will vote for the Green Party candidate, presumably Jill Stein, who won .9 percent of the Arkansas vote in 2012.

If the Libertarians do win 3 percent, the next question is, so what? Probably the party takes more votes from the Republicans than the Democrats, but that won’t matter in most races in a state as red as this one is becoming. Libertarians are a long way from actually winning races for important offices. The party wants a much smaller government than most Arkansans would support. To win, Libertarians would have to moderate, but if they do that, would they become what they’re fighting against?

For now, Libertarians, Greens, and other parties offer this – a choice, one that Mary Anne Noland’s son, who wrote her obituary in honor of her sense of humor, didn’t take into account.

Related: Trump played checkers and they played chess – in a checkers year

Back to Little Rock again

Editor’s note: A previous version of this column was headlined “Not paid by the hour” and referenced the fact that legislators aren’t paid that way. But they do receive per diem expenses – in other words, payment by the day. So this changes the reference in the beginning and the end.

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

State legislators are heading back to Little Rock – for the third time this year.

This time, it will be for (hopefully) a three-day session whose primary purpose will be to find about $50 million a year in state funds to qualify for $200 million in federal funds over the next five years. Gov. Asa Hutchinson’s highway bill raises that $50 million mostly through surplus and “rainy day” funds, along with funds generated by the state treasurer’s office.

Typically, governors call special sessions for very specific purposes, and only when they are comfortable they will get what they want. Much of the real action occurs before the session as the details are wrangled over in the Capitol. When the governor issues his “call,” it can be so specific that only his favored bills likely will be considered.

That means that, eventually, Hutchinson’s highway bill probably will pass. However, there’s a hiccup: The bill is expected to be assigned to the Senate Transportation, Technology & Legislative Affairs Committee, where four Republican legislators – half the committee – proposed a more substantive eight-cent motor fuels tax increase for highways, perhaps coupled with cuts in other spending elsewhere. It’s a worthy idea, but no legislator is too excited about voting to raise gas taxes, and Hutchinson is firmly opposed. But those four are not that excited about Hutchinson’s plan, either, and bills need a majority to get out of committee.

Even Hutchinson admits his bill represents a short-term fix for a longer term problem. Motor fuels taxes haven’t changed at the federal level since 1993 or at the state level since 2001, despite highways becoming much more expensive to build. Meanwhile, cars have become more fuel-efficient, which means drivers are buying fewer gallons to drive the same number of miles, and therefore paying less in taxes. In effect, we’re all getting a tax cut every year, though few taxpayers understandably will see it that way

Prior to the session call, House Speaker Jeremy Gillam, R-Judsonia, was saying the governor’s call would contain between five and 15 items.

It contains the latter, many of which are technical and uncontroversial but some of which are kind of important, including a bill by Sen. Greg Standridge, R-Russellville, that would close a worker’s compensation trust fund for deaths and permanent disabilities that’s $130 million in the hole. If the bill passes, the state will spend the next three decades paying off existing claims – and taxing businesses as it does now – but new claims will be paid through employers’ insurance companies. The State Chamber of Commerce thinks more time is needed to help businesses withstand the blow, but Standridge says he has enough votes, and he’s charging forward. There’s also a bill to declare a one-year moratorium on placing schools in academic distress, just to let everyone catch their breath after all the changes of the past few years.

Sen. Jake Files, R-Fort Smith, says this all could have waited until January, when legislators will gather in Little Rock for the big every-other-year regular session. In an interview, he questioned the “potpourri of ideas and conglomerations” and asked, “At what point does a special session cease to be special?”

Files’ frustration is borne of the fact that this will be the third time legislators have traipsed to Little Rock this year. On April 6, Hutchinson called legislators to gather for a very difficult special session dedicated to his Arkansas Works, which is his continuation of a state program that uses federal dollars through Obamacare to buy private insurance for lower-income Arkansans. That session was a doozy. Then legislators gathered for a fiscal session to pay for everything in the budget, including Arkansas Works. It was another doozy.

Aside from all that, legislators’ party primaries were March 1, and many still have general election foes in November.

So we’re halfway through May, and legislators have spent a good chunk of the year meeting in session, preparing for one, and campaigning. This should be the last special session of the year, which will be a good thing. The Capitol’s a beautiful building – sometimes, particularly when it’s quiet.

Related: Voters – better roads, same taxes

Looking on the bright side in 2016

Hand with ballot and boxBy Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

This presidential election is producing two major party nominees with extremely high unfavorable ratings. You’re probably either a big fan of either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, or you dislike them both a lot. If you’re part of that large latter group, you might think this presidential election is a disaster.

What if it’s not? Is it possible to lament this year’s results and still see the good in this year’s process? Yes.

The American political system in recent decades has grown stale, with both parties offering cliched, uncreative arguments designed more to appeal to special interest groups than to solve problems. Important issues – such as how the global economy is affecting America’s lower middle class – haven’t really fit into the script. No wonder so many voters have dropped out or never dropped in.

Say what you will about Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, but they don’t read off a script. And thanks to them, the campaign is largely about often-ignored issues such as income inequality, crony capitalism, campaign finance reform, and the fact that the global economy produces both winners and losers. Trump has shown that a candidate can speak like an actual person by refusing to bow to political correctness. Sanders has offered big government prescriptions without pretending that he’s not – which means that at least he’s honest about it – and he’s showing that strong convictions, sincerely expressed, can inspire a lot of voters and small donors.

Importantly, Trump and Sanders have shown that elections can be decided by actual voters, not big money or the party establishment, each of which dislikes them both. They’ve done this in part by attracting millions of new voters to the process: Trump, disaffected blue collar workers; and Sanders, young people. While Jeb Bush, the anointed one, and his allies spent $130 million to no effect, Trump won his party’s nomination through his use of the media and social media, both of which cost candidates very little. Sanders is competing well with Clinton through small donations given by average people.

Moreover, the next few months could inspire Americans to seriously consider their political alternatives. It’s possible – though unlikely – that conservatives will rally behind a third party or independent candidate. The small-government Libertarian Party likely again will nominate former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, a legitimate candidate. Americans who want 40 choices in the cereal aisle may finally be open to more than two at the ballot box.

Finally, this election – and the past two – have reflected American diversity like none before. After eight years of having our first African-American president, Americans may next give that job to a female – 96 years after women finally attained the right to vote. Two of the four leading Republican vote-getters, Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Marco Rubio, are the sons of Latino immigrants. Sanders is Jewish. Dr. Ben Carson advanced farther than any African-American has ever advanced in a Republican primary.

Let’s not discount that this election has produced much divisiveness and two major party nominees many of us don’t support. At times, it’s been extremely discouraging for voters like me. I voted for Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

But let’s also not ignore the rest of the truth. This campaign has upset a status quo that needs to be upset, inspired millions of people who previously didn’t vote, shown that voters aren’t complete hostages to big money and the party establishments, and celebrated America’s diversity by producing diverse candidates.

Same-old, same-old will not solve America’s problems. Maybe in 2020, a plain-speaking, budget-balancing problem-solver can apply lessons learned from Trump and Sanders.

Of course, in my opinion, we had that in Kasich. But he lost. So God bless America. This is the system we have, and the people are speaking – loudly. It’s imperfect but seldom disastrous. In world history, most people would trade theirs for ours.

Feel better?

Related: Trump played checkers and they played chess in a checkers year.

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.