I had my assistant snap this picture of me putting the finishing touches on my final stack of tax returns. Needless to say, it is almost April so it crunch time for the tax man. In addition, my wife is due next week so a little added pressure to finish up quickly. Unless something breaks that I just can’t help but comment about, the next post you see will probably be sometime next week whenever I can get some pictures of our new arrival uploaded (yes, it is a boy and his name will be John.)
The above video is highlights from an interview with Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family Action by Steve Deace of WHO Radio Iowa. You can hear the whole interview here. This is a debate that is occurring, although usually behind the scenes, within the social conservative movement. Should social conservatives stand on our principles without any room for compromise or should we be willing to accept some degree of compromise in order to win? In the highlight, they have a heated debate over whether social conservative leaders should have spoken out against Mitt Romney and his weakness on pro-life and pro-family issues.
The story is developing and will post more when it is available but according to Capsearch, who was twittering the committee hearing, Rep. King’s bill to ban domestic partnership registrations, HB2176, failed in committee this morning. The bill was filed in response to a city ordinance passed since the legislature last met that allows couples of the same sex to register with the city as domestic partners.
The House City, County & Local Affairs Committee heard from the mayor of Eureka Springs who argued that the city ordinance has lead to a tourism boom, citing statistics that the tourism has increased 8.59%. I am not sure how the domestic registry correlated to this but I would think that the increase in drive to vacation due to the economy would have more to do with it. Jerry Cox from Family Council spoke in favor of the bill saying that the people of Arkansas were clear that they oppose this when they overwhelmingly approved the Defense of Marriage Amendment in 2006.
In the end, the bill failed on a close vote however the drama began when several committee members tried to call for a roll call. Committee member Rep. John Burris tells the Tolbert Report, “Members tried to roll call the vote, but the chair adjourned the meeting and failed to recognize the roll call motion.” According to Capsearch, members quickly left the room before they were forced to go on the record.
UPDATE - I just received this report on the committee meeting from Jerry Cox…
“Committee Chairman Rep. Tommy Baker demonstrated his bias against the bill by allowing an ACLU representative to testify against the bill even after Rep. King, the sponsor of the bill, had made his final closing remarks for the bill. House rules allow the sponsor of the bill to have the final word on his or her bill before a vote is taken. Once the member “closes” for his bill there should be no further testimony by someone outside the committee. This was clearly a violation of House rules. Rep. John Burris attempted to raise this issue with the Chairman, but Burris’ complaint was overruled.
“A voice vote was taken (all in favor say “aye”, all opposed say “no”) with what sounded like an equal number of the 20 representatives voting on each side. Most did not vote. Chairman Baker immediately ruled that the bill had failed to pass. Almost simultaneously, Rep. Kathy Webb, the only openly gay member of the legislature, bolted for the door, followed by Rep. Barbara Nix, Rep. Steve Breedlove, Rep. Ray Kidd, and others. As those members were bolting for the door, two or three members of the committee immediately asked for a roll-call vote—one in which each member’s name would be called and their vote recorded. Ignoring their motion for a roll call vote, Chairman Baker abruptly adjourned the meeting. The House rules require that a roll-call vote be taken if two of the committee members request it. When asked about his refusal to allow a roll-call vote in which the members specific votes would be recorded, the Chairman replied that there wasn’t time.
“Why were the rules ignored? It appeared that the Chairman and members of the committee had planned this in advance as a way of defeating the bill without having their votes recorded and letting their constituents know how they voted. They succeeded. One member of the committee told me that the Democratic Party in Little Rock was pressuring members to vote against the bill, but that the members knew their constituents back home would want them to support the bill.
“In 20 years of lobbying at the legislature I have never seen this kind of disregard for House Rules and decorum. Testimony from the ACLU is not allowed after a member closes for a bill; a proper request for a roll-call vote is always recognized by the chair; and members don’t bolt out of their seats as they vote “nay” against a bill. It was very clear to everyone in the room that the committee did not want the public to know their vote on this bill. A House member who chairs another committee was present in today’s meeting, and indicated that a roll-call vote should have been taken.
“The hearing lasted 45 minutes, and it is difficult to keep up with every member of the committee, but here is our best assessment regarding what each member did. The bill required 11 affirmative votes to pass.”
1. John Burris (R) – Voted for the bill
2. Les Carnine (R) – Voted for the bill
3. Beverly Pyle (R) – Voted for the bill
4. Garry Smith (D) – Was not present
5. James McLean (D) – Was not present
6. George Overbey (D) – Was not present
7. Randy Stewart (D) – Was absent for legitimate reasons
8. Steve Cole (D) – Was present, but left before the vote was taken
9. Mark Perry (D) – Was present for the entire hearing
10. Steve Breedlove (D) – Hurried out the door before a roll-call vote could be taken (Video shows he stayed.)
11. Ray Kidd (D) – Hurried out the door before a roll-call vote could be taken
12. Barbara Nix (D) – Hurried out the door before a roll-call vote could be taken (Confirmed to the Tolbert Report that she voted no.)
13. Toni Bradford (D) – Was present for the entire hearing
14. James Word (D) – Unknown
15. Darrin Williams (D) – Unknown
16. John Edwards (D) – Was present for the entire hearing
17. Tommy Baker (D) – Committee chairman, was present for the entire hearing
18. Nancy Blount (D) – Was present for the hearing (and hurried out the door before a roll-call could be taken.)
19. Otis Davis (D) – Voted against the bill (and hurried out the door before a roll-call could be taken.)
20. Kathy Webb (D) – Voted against the bill and hurried out the door before a roll-call vote could be taken.
UPDATE - I could not make the hearing but someone was able to post video of the hearing on YouTube. They have the video is in five parts but the last part is above. Notice the most interesting part around five minutes in where Rep. Breedlove, Rep. Blout, Rep. Davis, Rep. Kidd, Rep. Nix, and Rep. Webb who appear to have voted against the bill get up and run out of the room before they are forced to go on the record with a roll call.
There has been the point raised in the comments and on the Speaker of House Robbie Wills’ blog that Jerry Cox’s statements are inaccurate. Wills argues in great detail that the rules were following correctly and that Mr. Cox is wrong to be upset. He also points out that the chair was correct according to the rules to not allow a roll call because a quorum was not present to vote.
Robbie sure does love his rules! Nothing against Speaker Wills personally; he has made great effort to make me and my flip cam feel welcome in the state house chamber and I certainly appreciate that. But the application of the rules in several cases, certainly in this one, has been done to facilitate the will of the majority party in power not to protect the rights of the minority party. You can see in the video that the rules were applied to kill the bill without members having to go on the record.
Sen. Gilbert Baker answers the question about whether he running for the U.S. Senate. He says that he is focusing on the legislative session and working to represent his constituents but will be making a decision following the session.
Baker spoke to a crowd of around 40 at the Central Arkansas Republican Club in Little Rock. He talked about the three things Republicans need to do to complete: return to the basics of family values, speak up for small businesses, and restrain government spending. He was very careful in what he said and was clear that he had not made a decision but he hinted the decision could be coming soon after the legislative session ends in a few weeks.
When asked if he thought there would be a Republican Primary race for U.S. Senate he said, “I think a Republican Primary would be great.” He pointed out that the primary process strengthened him in his previous races and made him a better candidate. He also said that whoever does run will have to be able to raise a good deal of money in order to be able to compete with Sen. Lincoln. He said, “If I do get in the race, I will raise enough money to compete.”
I had an opportunity to visit briefly with Baker after he finished speaking. Sitting next to me while quickly eating his desert before he had to rush back down to the capital, he reiterate that he honestly had not made a decision. I pressed him as to when he might decide. “It will be soon,” he told me.
Your guess is as good as mine, but if I had to call it, I would say he is in.
In early February I had a blog post about HB1281 which is a shell bill intended to drug test individuals who receive certain types of government assistance. This morning I read news out of Charleston, WVabout some other states who are pursuing the same thing. In a time of economic uncertainty state governments (some of the responsible ones anyway) are looking for ways to cut back on wasteful government spending. I think most reasonable people would agree that giving government assistance to druggies, which further enables them to continue wasting money on their habit, is a poor use of our tax dollars. In Arkansas the Governor announced that our fiscal projections were a little too rosy and the cigarette tax won’t bring in as much revenue as they had previously projected. This would be the same revenue projection that was used to convince members of our legislature to vote for the bill (which as you recall squeaked by without a vote to spare in the House). Now they have to find a way to fulfil all of those promises the Governor and Speaker made who prematurely promised funding from the tax that won’t be there. It is awfully convenient that this projection came out after the tax went into effect. If the state needs to look for ways to save money, and they do, HB1281 is a bill that will do just that.
Some of the states looking at similar proposals are West Virginia, Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Hawaii, Florida, and Minnesota. An attempt in Arizona just recently failed. There doesn’t appear to be a coordinated effort between the authors of their respective bills in these states, just a common recognition that it is time to start saving tax payer dollars and not wasting them. Government assistance should go to those who are working to better themselves and put themselves on more solid economic ground. I don’t mind my tax dollars going to help those who are truly in need and who really are working to improve their situation. What I don’t want is my money enabling drug addicts to continue their habit which is detrimental to their own well-being.
An attorney for the ACLU commented that “It’s an example of where you could cut costs at the expense of a segment of society that’s least able to defend themselves.” I thought that is an interesting comment. It is funny how the ACLU looks at druggies as the victims when they don’t receive government assistance yet an unborn child, who is completely defenseless, deserves no protection at all. I guess we should be more concerned about those who blatantly disregard the law.
Grover Norquist with American for Tax Reform sent the following letter to the Arkansas legislators urging them to oppose the milk tax, HB1451 which is likely to come up for debate tomorrow. This bill passed the House with 89 votes a couple weeks ago but was amended in the Senate so it has to make a second run in the House. However, I would not expect much increased opposition. I suppose we will see how much impact Norquist’s letter had tomorrow
Dear Arkansas Legislators,
I write in strong opposition to House Bill 1451 that will drastically raise taxes on milk and other dairy products. By levying a 30-cent per hundredweight tax on dairy products at the wholesale level, this bill will raise the price of milk and dairy products for consumers at a time when families are already struggling to make ends meet.
The tax hike in HB 1451 has been inaccurately labeled as a “fee.” Too often, policymakers disguise tax increases as “fees” and this is another example of such disingenuousness. An income tax is not a fee on your job. A sales tax is not a fee on the products you buy. The same holds true for a tax on dairy products, whether it is levied at the wholesale or retail level.
If the overall goal is to assist dairy farmers, enacting policies that increase the price of dairy products, thereby reducing demand, does absolutely nothing to achieve this end. In fact, it does the exact opposite. Policies to help farmers should not pit sectors of the dairy industry against one another, and ultimately make consumers and all stakeholders worse off.
Make no mistake, the burden from this tax increase will be born by Arkansas consumers, not the wholesalers that this bill impugns. The tax will most assuredly be passed on to customers in the form of higher prices. What is worse, it will be levied at a time when Arkansas families are struggling to cope with the current economic downturn.
Furthermore, it is irreconcilable that the legislature would approve a measure to cut the state’s grocery tax to provide relief to Arkansas families, while simultaneously considering a bill to specifically tax milk and other dairy products.
For the reasons stated above, I urge you to oppose House Bill 1451. On the heels of a tax cut on groceries, any attempt to impose a tax on specific food products is counterproductive. If you have any questions, please contact Kelly Cobb or Patrick Gleason, state affairs managers, at (202) 785-0266.
Arkansas Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter Speaks at the Arkansas Scholarship Lottery signing saying he is pleased with the final version of the bill, although he does leave open the door for improvements.
There is a lot in this short clip but perhaps the biggest highlight is that no single health program created by the tobacco tax will be cut rather it will be an across the board somewhat pro rated cut done through general revenue as the revenue comes in.
Also, of note, Gov. Beebe ain’t happy. And at the Arkansas state capital, when Gov. Beebe ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy. It will be interesting to see how this one shakes out.
Public Policy Polling recently conducted an opinion poll here in Arkansas asking a variety of questions. By a strange twist of fate, they called David Kinkade who was kind enough to list the questions and provide a run down of how the poll went. Yesterday, PPP released part of their results showing several things, included an approval rating for Gov. Mike Beebe of 68%, Sen. Mark Pryor of 54% and of radio host Rush Limbaugh of 32%.
“Now, you have to ask, though, why do this? Why poll a radio guy? Well, because they’ve set me up, they have positioned me as the leader of the opposition. Not so much the Republican Party, just the leader of the opposition. As Greenberg found out in his poll, after making me the leader, they then take a poll, and they found out Republicans have climbed tremendously in the generic ballot. Now, these clowns at Public Policy Polling have me at 31% in North Carolina, 32% in Arkansas. This is very simple. This is using polling as a guise for spreading Democrat Party talking points.”
“Now as you point out, we are liberals, and because we’re liberals we are of course compassionate people. We don’t want to hurt people’s feelings, Rush. Not even yours. So here’s our offer to you. We know you want us to poll a state, and find out that you’re more popular than Obama there and that a majority of the people in it like you. You might have thought Arkansas was that state, given that the President lost it by 20 points last fall, but I guess not. So just pick a state you want us to poll where you think you’ll get good numbers and we’ll poll it. Just let us know.”
PPP has said they will release their results of their polling for Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln later today. When you see these numbers remember the polling company’s own words, “we are liberals.”
UPDATE - As promised, the self proclaimed liberal group PPP released their numbers on Lincoln. Her approval rating is a dismissal 45%, 23 points behind Beebe’s numbers. Somewhat better news for Lincoln regarding the potential match-ups…
“In hypothetical contests with former US Attorney Tim Griffin and state senator Gilbert Baker, Lincoln leads 46-38 and 48-37 respectively. Griffin and Baker each function basically as the generic Republican candidate, since neither of them has very much statewide name recognition. 58% of voters have no opinion about Griffin and 55% say the same about Baker.”
A moderate Republican from heavily unionized Pennsylvania, Specter was considered a must have in order for the EFCA supporters to achieve the needed 60 votes to end debate and bring the bill up for a vote. Previously, Specter voted in favor of closure but his vote did not make a difference as there was no chance for the needed 60 votes.
With this announcement, I am sure Sen. Blanche Lincoln is breathing a huge sigh of relief. This takes the pressure off her to be the 60th vote in favor of closure. I would predict the rumors of her no vote to be soon confirmed.
I had my assistant snap this picture of me putting the finishing touches on my final stack of tax returns. Needless to say, it is almost April so it crunch time for the tax man. In addition, my wife is due next week so a little added pressure to finish up quickly. Unless something breaks that I just can’t help but comment about, the next post you see will probably be sometime next week whenever I can get some pictures of our new arrival uploaded (yes, it is a boy and his name will be John.)
“Committee Chairman Rep. Tommy Baker demonstrated his bias against the bill by allowing an ACLU representative to testify against the bill even after Rep. King, the sponsor of the bill, had made his final closing remarks for the bill. House rules allow the sponsor of the bill to have the final word on his or her bill before a vote is taken. Once the member “closes” for his bill there should be no further testimony by someone outside the committee. This was clearly a violation of House rules. Rep. John Burris attempted to raise this issue with the Chairman, but Burris’ complaint was overruled.
In early February I had a blog post about 
Dear Arkansas Legislators,
Public Policy Polling recently conducted an 
needed 60 votes to end debate and bring the bill up for a vote. Previously, Specter voted in favor of closure but his vote did not make a difference as there was no chance for the needed 60 votes.