The Tolbert Report

 by Brett Hooton

There has been a lot of talk about Republican challengers to Senator Lincoln.  Yesterday, David Kinkade posted about a “fellow” named Thomas Cotton.  Tom is someone I met about two years ago.  After meeting him, I became very impressed.  He is a genuine American Patriot.  After growing up on a small farm and graduating high school in Yell County, Tom attended Harvard and then Harvard Law School.  Not too shabby.  September 11^th happened during his third year of law school.  As with many Americans, the tragedy of that day had a great impact on Tom.  He decided that after law school and after he had worked enough to pay off his debt from school that he would join the Army.

In January of 2005, after Tom fulfilled a prior commitment to a federal judge to clerk for him, and having worked enough to pay off his school debt, Tom joined the Army.  He trained to be an infantry officer and an Airborne Ranger.  Tom was then sent to Iraq where he was frequently patrolling the streets of Baghdad as a platoon leader in the 101 Airborne.  After his tour in Iraq, he was assigned to The Old Guard at Arlington National Cemetery which is the unit that is responsible for Army funerals and guarding the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.  Tom was ready to transition to the reserves and move back to Arkansas to practice law when he heard the Army was looking for Captains to deploy to Afghanistan for the provincial reconstruction teams.  He withdrew his resignation and volunteered for a tour in Afghanistan to be the operations officer for a provincial reconstruction team.  Tom is currently in Afghanistan in this capacity.  He is scheduled to be back in the States later this year.

There have been several people mentioned as potential candidates to challenge Lincoln; however, the race is wide open.  I’ve heard rumors for a while now from several different Republican sources that Cotton is interested in running.  If he does run he’ll have a strong team of supporters, and I believe he has the ability to raise large amounts of money.  I tried to contact Tom, but since he is currently on active duty in Afghanistan he is understandably not available for comment.  I’m sure once he is back in the States we’ll start hearing more about his intentions.  You can read more about Tom here and here, oh and here.

by Brett Hooton

CNN is reporting that the National Republican Congressional Committee is running a radio ad attacking, among others, Congressman Vic Snyder.  The ads focus on Snyder’s vote to block an investigation into when Speaker Pelosi learned about waterboarding by the CIA.  The Speaker claims the CIA misled her and lied to Congress.  Since it is a crime to lie to Congress some Members pushed for an investigation into Pelosi’s claims.  This was blocked with Snyder being one of the votes against the measure.  Republicans were hoping to investigate whether Pelosi can substantiate her claim or is simply blaming the CIA to deflect criticism.

It is interesting that the NRCC has targeted Snyder this early without there even being an announced Republican candidate.  It was previously reported that the NRCC was running ads against Congressman Berry but this is the first time they’ve targeted Snyder this year.  It may be the earliest in an election cycle they’ve ever run an ad against him.  Will we be hearing from a potential Republican candidate for the 2nd District soon?

(Tolbert Note – The ad above is from the NRCC for Rep. Frank Kravotil of Maryland but the ad targeting Rep. Synder is almost identical. My sources tell me that there will soon be an announcement regarding a potential Snyder opponent).

Well it looks like my long hiatus from blogging is over.  Several months ago Jason asked me to contribute some posts to his blog since his schedule was heating up due to tax season and the birth of his youngest child.  Well things have slowed down for him and my blogging slowed to a trickle and then to a stop.  However the other day Jason asked me if I wanted to write something up about the Dustin McDaniel travel situation.

Over the weekend the Arkansas Democrat Gazette broke a story about the use of a Department of Corrections plane that has been used frequently by Attorney General Dustin McDaniel.  It wasn’t just that the Attorney General used the plane but that he also didn’t pay for it taxpayers didn’t pay for it until the Democrat Gazette started looking into it.  The Department of Corrections has taken responsibility saying they neglected to the McDaniel’s office a bill.

I’m not going to gripe about the late payment.  People make mistakes and I believe the staff of the Department of Corrections.  What I have a problem with is with McDaniel’s quote when asked about this.  McDaniel, as quoted in the Sunday edition of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, stated “People like to see their mayor and their congressman and their governor and their attorney general and they don’t think that should be confined to just those folks who live within 20 miles of the Capitol.  They want to see you all over the state and I’ve tried to make myself available.”  I realize that the Governor and to an extent the Lt. Governor have responsibilities that require their travel, and as a representative of the people it is good for them to mingle with us common folk.  Now I don’t know about you, but I would rather have my Attorney General working from his office in Little Rock, protecting the citizens of Arkansas, rather than puddle jumping around the state shaking hands.  That is what candidates do when they’re campaigning.  I think we would all feel the same way if the State Auditor, Treasurer, Secretary of State or Land Commissioner started flying all of the state for speaking engagements and sending the bill to the taxpayer.

While I disagree with the Attorney General traveling so much on the taxpayer dime, I do appreciate him using the less expensive plane to try and save money.  It is expected that from time to time it may be necessary for the Attorney General to travel, and it is fair that the state pay for it.  However I wish these trips would be limited to official business and not simply speaking at every convention or get-together to which he’s invited.

Last night I was watching TV, though I don’t remember what, and I saw an interesting commercial.  The ad was about North Little Rock Public Schools.  I believe the point of the ad was to convince people to look at NLRPS as a “World Class School”.  Does anyone else have a problem with a Public School spending (some, including me, would say wasting) money on television ads instead of spending this money in the classroom?  Unless this was a privately funded ad, and from what I noticed the ad didn’t state who paid for it, tax payer dollars were used to try and convince us, most of whom don’t live in the North Little Rock School District, that it is a “World Class School”.

There is no doubt that we could do more to improve education in Arkansas.  However running TV ads which do nothing but build a perception is not advancing education.  This is troubling to me.  I would much rather see this money spent in the classrooms or providing the teachers an insurance plan comparable to other state employees.  If we want our students taught by the best, we should provide appropriate benefits and not treat them as third class employees.  That is another issue but it seems to me there are a lot more appropriate things to spend money on than TV ads.

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.

According to the commander of the American Legion and the leaders of other veterans organizations, President Obama plans to force Veterans and their private insurance companies to pay for their healthcare. It is dispicable that the Commander-in-Chief would order our troops into harm’s way and then refuse to pay to care for any injuries they may receive in fulfilling his orders.

I’m actually at a loss of words. I have an e-mail in to Senator Pryor’s office who sits on the Veterans Affairs Subcommittee for appropriations. Surely the Senator respects the members of our military and will not support this position.

It is possible that this is a political move to stir up funding. If it is, shame on you Mr. President for playing politics with our wounded warriors.

Representative Ann Clemmer (R-Bryant) filed HR1973 Friday which stipulates how legislators are reimbursed for travel expenses.  In a recession where families and companies are cutting back on travel, it seems only fair that our legislators work on being better stewards of our tax dollars by billing the state for only the minimum amount necessary of their travel.  As you may recall state reimbursement of travel expenses has been taken advantage of in recent years.  This bill has no less than 32 House cosponsors garnering it broad bipartisan support.  While the General Assembly is not normally known for its ability to increase transparency and rein in excessive spending, this bill provides a great opportunity for the legislature to show Arkansans that they’re looking out for our tax dollars.

…

Update – Rep. Clemmer speaks for the bill in the video above but the Rules Committee rejects that bill on a voice vote. An inside source tells me that an amendment may be introduced and the bill might get a second chance.

by: Brett Hooton

I was planning on posting a Top 10 List of Nanny State laws that our legislature should pass since we seem to already be on that track.  However the economist in me just simply will not let me write on much of anything other than the economy.  The focus of this blog is not usually on economic issues and almost exclusively on Arkansas issues; however Jason made the mistake of allowing me the privilege to make my own posts.  I plan to start a weekly blog posting on the Tolbert Report titled Economics 101.  Arkansas’ economy and Arkansans will be the focus but this doesn’t mean we won’t talk about national issues, because we will.  We all pay federal taxes and what our federal government does with that money should be important to us.  The way the government spends that money can have a great impact locally.  Arkansas has lagged behind the rest of the country in feeling the effects of the recession, but it is coming.  I like to call it the slinky effect.  As you pull on one end of a slinky that is stretched out, it takes a while for the back end to catch up.  But the back end does in fact catch up eventually. 

We’re starting to see what this recession means to Arkansans as company after company announces layoffs, cutbacks or closings.  Arkansans are reacting in the way that they should.  Families across our state and across the nation as well, are cutting their budgets, paying off debt and where they can, increasing the percentage of money they save each month.  We’re all realizing that we can’t continue to depend on future earnings, real estate, or company pensions to get us to retirement.  In the US the personal savings rate is actually increasing to levels we haven’t seen in a long time.  Yet our state government is increasing its spending and increasing taxes.  We’re fortunate in Arkansas that we’re required constitutionally to balance our state budget which has helped insulate Arkansas from the challenges that many other states are forced to managing.  This means that when new spending is identified there must also be a revenue source for it.  I would propose that if we identify new spending we look and see what old spending is no longer a priority and divert funding to the new higher priority project or program.  In your family, if there is a new priority what do you do?  If an elderly parent moves in with you or if you have a baby what do you do?  Most of us aren’t able to just simply increase our revenue so we cut back on the things that are not as important.  Maybe we don’t get the biggest cable package or we sell the boat.  Is it too much to ask for Government to do the same?

I know Jason and I have already harped about the cigarette tax, but since it just went into effect I feel it is ok for me to mention it again.  Does it seem fair to you, that in a time of financial hardship for so many Arkansans, that your Government has seen fit to take more of your money instead of simply prioritizing their spending?  In a time when families are struggling and mothers and fathers are losing their jobs, that our Government has said we’re now going to charge you more for something to which you’re addicted.  This doesn’t just hurt the families of those who are paying the tax, but it hurts small businesses and communities where these families spend their money.  They now have less money to spend at the restaurants, the video stores, and the department stores.

What is done is done and the cigarette tax is here.  No amount of talking or complaining will make it go away.  Hopefully we can learn from it.  In a time of economic recession government should never take money out of the hands of its citizens.  Let Arkansans pay off their bills, prioritize their spending, and if possible put a little in savings.  It wouldn’t be a bad idea for Government to do the same.

Earlier this week the Arkansas House passed HB1339, a bill to end Arkansas’ participation in the Electoral College.  If passed by Arkansas and by a majority of the states based on ironically electoral votes, Arkansas would agree to cast their electoral votes for whoever won the national popular vote. 

Tolbert Report contributor Brett Hooton wrote an excellent post a couple weeks ago on how this would dramatically weaken Arkansas’ Presidential votes.  In addition, I am not sure if this measure could withstand a constitutional challenge as this is attempt to modify a system established by the Federal Constitution through contract between the states.  However, these issues were ignored by 56 House Democrats who seek to reverse a trend in Arkansas of casting our Electoral Votes for the Republican candidate, as we have done in five of the last seven Presidential elections; the only exception being for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996.

The bill is likely to be taken up by the Senate State Agencies and Government Affairs Committee next week, which could determine the fate of the bill where it needs five votes out of the eight member committee.  I spoke with committee member Sen. Gilbert Baker this morning regarding this bill.  Baker told me that he is not sure exactly when the bill will be brought up but he plans to oppose it when it is.  “I strongly support the current Electoral College system because it has served us well for over two centuries and helps small states like Arkansas remain viable in Presidential elections,” Baker said.

Also, Committee Chairman Sen. Steve Farris will be on Dave Elswick’s program on KARN this afternoon around 2:30.  Elswick’s tells the Tolbert Report that he plans to discuss this bill with Farris and hopes to shed some light on the bill’s chances in committee.  Tune in on 102.9 FM, 920 AM, or listen online.

The Tolbert Report has messages in all the members of the committee and will post their position on the bill as I hear back.

UPDATE – Sen. Farris said he plans to oppose the bill in committee and feels like he has at least five votes against the bill’s passage.

by Brett Hooton

Today the Legislature has a great opportunity to put past petty partisanship aside. The House is scheduled to vote on a bill I previously wrote about, HB 1380. This bill makes the position of Prosecuting Attorney a nonpartisan position. Judges were made to be nonpartisan by the legislature in a previous session. It is good to know that if I have to go before a judge I’m not going before a Republican judge or a Democrat judge, but just a judge whose duty it is to uphold the law and adjudicate accordingly. I hope that soon I can have the same confidences about prosecutors.

Unfortunately the Democratic Party of Arkansas has put out an e-mail urging their legislators to vote against this bill. It was even been rumored that the Democratic Caucus has urged its legislators to vote against this bill because it will remove a revenue source of tens of thousands of dollars from the Democratic Party. I hope it isn’t the job of the Arkansas Legislators to protect the funding of our political parties. Both the Democratic and Republican parties would be playing by the same rules, as they are now. It would be a shame for our government to focus on protecting partisan interests of our two major parties instead of the interests of Arkansans.

Below is a list of Democratic Representatives who might be willing to look out for the interests of Arkansans instead of the interest of their party leadership. Please contact them and ask them to vote for you, not party politics. Contact them quickly the vote is today! I’ll be sure to follow up after the vote and let you know who voted for you and who didn’t.

Representative Pam Adcock- Little Rock
Representative Butch Wilkins- Bono
Representative Monty Betts- Searcy
Representative Steve Cole- Locksburg
Representative Dawn Creekmore- Hensley
Representative Billy Gaskill- Oaragould
Representative Eddie Hawkins- Vilonia
Representative Allen Maxwell- Monticello
Representative Bobby Pierce- Sheridan
Representative Lance Reynolds- Quittman
Representative Johnny Hoyt- Morrilton
Representative J.R. Rogers- Walnut Ridge
Representative Barry Hyde- NLR
Representative Garry Smith- Camden
Representative Toni Bradford- Pine Bluff
Representative Robert Moore- Arkansas City

…

UPDATE - Brummett posts on his blog that he does not care but the Democrat Party of Arkansas President Todd Turner is opposed to the idea.  Of course, Turner says this is in no way due to the fact that this bill would cost the Party filing fees.  Right, it is never about the money is it?

…

UPDATE II -  Partisanship wins again. On a mostly party line vote (I applaud those Democrats who took a stand for the citizen instead of a stand for their party leadership) the House voted for partisanship. With the leadership constantly talking about statesmanship and crossing party lines you would think this would be a bill (HB 1380 making prosecutors nonpartisan) they would have supported. I guess when you start talking about funds for political parties; ethics, honestly and integrity are thrown aside. As promised, below is how the previously mentioned Representatives voted.

Yays (those who care more about integrity than political parties):
Pam Adcock
Dawn Creekmore
Bobby Pierce
JR Rogers
Barry Hyde
Robert Moore

Nays (those who care more about their political party than they do you):
Butch Wilkins
Monty Betts
Steve Cole
Billy Gaskill
Eddie Hawkins
Allen Maxwell
Johnny Hoyt
Gary Smith

Lance Reynolds and Toni Bradford didn’t vote.

A special mention goes to Rep. Jonathan Barnett (R-Siloam Springs) who seems to have opposed this bill in the name of “party building.” I guess if we go by that logic we should go back and make judges partisan…oh and lets go ahead and make the heads of commissions, deans of schools and other top state offices partisan. After all the purpose of our legislature is to make sure our political parties are strong and flush with cash.