The Tolbert Report

By Brett Hooton

Last week Representative Jonathan Dismang (R-Beebe) had a bill, HB 1178, before the Agriculture, Forestry, and Economic Development Committee, which would protect the property rights of Arkansans.  I’ve previously written about this bill.  Unfortunately the majority of the members of this committee do not feel the same about your property rights as Representative Dismang.  Instead they seem to worry more about their $2,000 campaign check from Chesapeake.  Representatives King, Rice, Dale, Betts, Nickels, and Sample voted for the bill.

So why did this bill which protects your rights fail?  Representatives Everette, Reep, Davenport , Wills, Lowery, Reynolds, Cash, House, and Patterson.  Three Representatives were not in attendance.

The vast majority of Democrats on this committee voted against this bill.  Was this party politics or simply paying back the gas companies for their campaign contributions?  If there were another reason to vote for gas companies and against Arkansans I’d love to hear it.

One of the more surprising votes was Speaker Wills’ no vote.  He is from the Fayetteville Shale region.  Does he really think voting against the property rights of Arkansans is what people in his district need or want?  Maybe it is simply that Dismang didn’t submit to the will of the Speaker and vote for the cigarette tax.  I wonder if Dismang had voted for the cigarette tax if it would have earned him the vote of Rep. Wills and Reep (who sponsored the tax increase).  Rep. Reynolds also lives in the Fayetteville shale reason.  I wonder what the Representative’s constituents think about that.

I have two more interesting observations.  As you might expect Chesapeake had their lobbyist on hand for the committee meeting.  What is surprising is that they would frequently mouth questions to Representative Lowery (as noticed by several observers) who would then ask their questions.  I would have preferred it if as a representative of the people in District 6 you would ask questions for them and not the simply regurgitate Chesapeake ’s talking points.  The last point is that it has been rumored that Representative Davenport is considering running for Land Commissioner.  I wonder if his campaign slogan will have anything to do property rights.

by Brett Hooton

HB1380 – Would make prosecuting attorney nonpartisan.

Have you ever wondered why certain elected positions are partisan? What does it matter if the prosecuting attorney is a Republican or a Democrat? How can a prosecutor be a Democrat prosecutor or a Republican prosecutor? Representative Andrea Lea (R-Russellville) has introduced a bill that might make more sense than any other bill I’ve seen so far this session. HB1380 stipulates that the position of Prosecuting Attorney is nonpartisan.

A prosecuting attorney does not create policy but simply enforces the provisions of the law. It seems irresponsible to me to have a position, with the authority and responsibility of the prosecuting attorney, to be partisan. Our prosecuting attorneys should worry about enforcing the law and not worrying about if they’re being republican or democrat enough to win their next primary election. They should focus on doing what is in the best interest of the community as a whole, not just a particular ideological sect.

To be fair, I think our prosecuting attorneys are doing a stand-up job and are usually unbiased. But why do we need to add the additional pressure and potential for conflict of interest when it isn’t necessary. This was the same rationale used when the legislature made the judicial positions nonpartisan. The only argument against this bill is for those who are resistant to any kind of change. I can’t think of one good reason for the position to be partisan. If we don’t want our judges to be partisan why would we want other court officers to be? I hope that the legislature doesn’t turn this into a partisan issue. It would be sad to see petty bickering over making one of the more important jobs in our society nonpartisan.

Bill by Representative Woods

I don’t know if this bill has been filed yet. I’ll provide the bill number when I get it. Representative Jon Woods (R-Springdale) is filing a bill which would make overtime pay and bonuses (up to a limit) exempt from state income tax. This just makes sense to me. In a recession we should be encouraging people to work. The more people work, the more money they make, and the more money they spend. People who are working overtime are people who usually need the money. Let’s help these tax payers out and reward their hard work, not tax it. Jon Woods describes the bill below while also listing some upcoming priorities for the legislature.

By Brett Hooton

The most blogged about story on this blog over the past few days has been the Cigarette Tax which passed the House last week. Since we devoted so much of our time and Jason’s blog space on this issue, I thought it was important that we take a quick look back on how this tax was able to pass in the House.

One of the resources that I used, and I’m sure Jason as well, was Speaker Robbie Wills’ blog. I was disappointed to see him so frequently call other members out in the name of partisanship. Apparently anyone who disagrees with you on an issue must be doing so because they’re partisan? To the Speaker’s credit, since before the session started he frequently stated the importance of statesmanship. However I’ve heard of several examples that represent anything but statesmanship. I decided to poke around and find out if there was more to the story of how the Speaker and the Governor were able to achieve this major legislative accomplishment (accomplishment for government, not for taxpayers). I quickly realized there is more to this story than what you may read on Speaker Wills’ blog. Below is a collection of the accounts I received from legislators, some of them somewhat bitter about the way the votes were attained (and these concerns came from both sides of the isle). Please note that any of the legislators mentioned did not comment directly to me in regards to this subject. I imagine they didn’t want to jeopardize any of the bills they’ve introduced.

Four Steps to Raising a Tax

Step 1) Abuse your power

Several first-hand observers who were in the Capitol Tuesday afternoon had the unfortunate opportunity to observe Representative Dawn Creekmore notably distressed. Rep. Creekmore, who has championed several bills regarding women’s rights, was herself a victim of abuse as a result of her position on the tobacco tax. According to several legislators, Rep. Creekmore was told under no uncertain terms, a “no” vote against the Speaker and his agenda would result in her “not passing another bill all session”.

Current bills sponsored by Rep. Creekmore (in other words, the ones that would have been refused passage by the Speaker) include a bill banning partial-birth abortion and another stiffening the laws regarding sexual assaults and rape.

Is this Statesmanship?

Step 2) Forget those closest to you

Rep. Pam Adcock recently achieved a great legislative accomplishment. She was the lead House sponsor on the Animal Cruelty legislation that was just signed by the Governor last week. Her compelling (and tearful) testimony swayed many of the votes the bill needed to pass.

That was last week. This week, Rep. Adcock could be seen in tears because of the way she was being treated by the members of her own party. She stuck by her convictions and voted “no”, but the toll it took on her relationships with other members of the Chamber is not hard to see.

Is this Statesmanship?

Step 3) Teach a man to lie (and pay him well to do it)

Rep. Garry Smith was as solid of a “no” as you could find, at least on Tuesday. By Thursday, his convictions had changed. He voted “yes”, despite a promise to his constituents during the campaign to vote against any tax increases. So, what happened? Rep. Smith had a lot of time to think about his position the night before the big vote. He took a road trip with other legislators (who were supporting the tax increase) to go Fayetteville and watch the Arkansas Razorbacks take on Tennessee. By his own admission, Rep. Smith changed his mind “as they pulled into Fayetteville”.

The only questions that remain are a) how much pressure does it take to get a man to go back on his word, and b) where did this group of esteemed legislators sit while at the game? Could it have been one of the lavish boxes often furnished to legislators by the lobbyist (an ethical violation)?

I hope for Rep. Smith it takes more than a trip with his “buddies” and a free ticket to a Razorback game to make him forget about the people who elected him, on the promise of no new taxes.

Is this Statesmanship?

Step 4) Learn to spell “plausible deniability”

Finally, if face to face threatening just won’t do, there’s always the cell phone. Several legislators have a collection of voicemails from a variety of people, including folks at home. These voicemails relay threats others received then passed on to their legislator. Voicemails relaying threats from staffers for the Governor and the Speaker have been replayed across the Chamber since the vote was taken.

Is this Statesmanship?

…..

Tolbert Report Note – I asked Rep. Creekmore, whom I have grown to respect, if she had a comment to add and she sent me the following…

“Speaker Robbie Wills NEVER told me that a “no” vote would result in not passing another Bill. Speaker Wills has always been very supportive of me and my legislation and has ALWAYS acted in a professional manner, and is a friend of mine.

“What was distressing to me was that I had a special order of business on Wednesday in the Senate Judiciary committee to run my domestic violence Bills, after presenting the first Bill, getting no questions and no-one speaking against the bill, Senator Luker voted against it. Everyone else on the committee voted for it, but it failed because of very few members present in committee. After this, I decided not to introduce the remainder of the Bills until I had a chance to speak to Sen. Luker.

“This caught me very caught off guard and it only took one no vote to fail the first Bill, and basically the rest of the package. I do plan on running these Bills again; I will just have to work hard to ensure that other committee members are present.”

…..

UPDATE – I also received the following comments from another one of my favorite Democrats, Rep. Pam Adcock…

“I must correct your statement – “could be seen in tears because of the way she was being treated by the members of her own party.” That information is false. I was under a lot of pressure and stress but never to the point of tears. I was unhappy, disappointed with some, but never to the point of tears.

“I voted no because the overwhelming majority of people that contacted me said VOTE NO! The general consensus of those people stated it’s an unfair tax placed on the back of a group to support something for everyone. Many mentioned the tough economic times. I agree with those statements. “She stuck by her convictions and voted “no”,” isn’t exactly right. I voted NO for them… I was elect to represent the people, not myself.”

by Brett Hooton

by Brett Hooton

Representative Jonathan Dismang (R – Beebe) filed a bill last Friday to protect the rights of everyday Arkansans. HB1178 protects Arkansas landowners from bullying by the large natural gas companies (to be fair only one natural gas company is currently doing the bullying). It should be the responsibility of government to protect the property rights of Arkansans…Arkansans who worked hard for what they have and pay property taxes to support, among other things, local schools. If we can’t expect our government to protect our property from the unethical encroachment of others, then we should realize our government isn’t really looking out for us. It is time our legislators stand up for us, and stand with Representative Dismang, regardless of how much money the natural gas industry donated to their campaigns.

Arkansas law allows utility companies to use eminent domain for pipeline (also could be telephone or electrical lines) declared as “common carriers”. This means that the pipeline is used by more than one company to transport, in this case, natural gas.

The problem in the Fayetteville Shale region is that the natural gas company is using the power of eminent domain to gain right-of-way access for their gathering system to collect the natural gas they just pumped out of the ground. The company is able to bully the landowners into providing access, threatening legal action if they refuse. Most of these landowners are not able to afford hiring an attorney to fight the horde of attorneys the company would haul in.

The law currently does not clearly define common carrier and this bill clarifies when companies are not able to use the power of eminent domain. This may not seem like a big deal, unless you’re in a similar situation as the family involved in this current court case.

Texas is experiencing a similar problem. There is extensive natural gas drilling throughout part of the Fort Worth area. The natural gas company in that area is using eminent domain to dig up peoples’ driveways and yards to lay large pipe throughout their neighborhoods. We need to clarify Arkansas law before we find ourselves in a similar situation.

The natural gas industry and their high prices lobbyists will probably fight this bill. I hope our legislators will have the backbone necessary to stand up for us.

By Brett Hooton

As the economy goes down, the salaries of our elected officials goes up. At a time when many Arkansans are losing their jobs or taking pay cuts, the Arkansas legislature just voted our elected officials a raise. The increase was 3.85%. For the Governor, this means any extra $3,238. In past years the increase was closer to 2%. I have not yet heard a valid reason for this raise. I’d much rather see struggling Arkansans get a tax break instead of our elected officials getting a raise in a year when our economy is in a recession.

(Tolbert Report’s Additional Note) In fairness to Gov. Beebe, I called his spokeman Matt DeCample for a comment before running the story. DeCample tells me, “It’s a constitutional adjustment, not something that we request. The Governor is continually grateful to the citizens of Arkansas for giving him this job, and vows to continue using the office to put more Arkansans to work and back to work whenever possible.”

(UPDATE from Hooton) While the raise was Constitutional, the concern I have is with the amount. As you can see below, the Constitution specifies a maximum allowed increase not a minimum. I would have preferred to have seen a more reasonable increase given the tough economic times Arkansans are going through. To clarify, the Governor did not request this increase nor did he have a vote. His salary was simply used as an example to demonstrate the increase in real dollars.

Amendment 70 Section 3 of the AR Constitution states “The salaries…may be increased annually…by an amount not to exceed the average percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers…, as published by the US Department of Labor for the two years immediately preceding the year of the alary appropriation.”

Also, I noticed KTHV has a related story and Max Brantley weighs in as well.

…

UPDATE II – The governor may not have any say in the raises approved by the legislature but it was in the first group of bills that he signed this week.

From his office, the only bills signed in the first two weeks include:

Senate Bill 001 – Act 1 (Senators’ Expense Funding)
House Bill 1001 – Act 2 (Representatives’ Expense Funding)
House Concurrent Resolution 1 (Adopting this year’s Rules)
House & Senate Concurrent Resolution 2 (Giving the legislature a four day weekend for their first weekend on the job)
House Bill 1061 – Act 3 (Next year’s pay raises for Constitutional Officers).

So in summary, two weeks into the session and the only thing the legislature has gotten signed is approval for their own expenses, pay raises for the Constitutional Officers, and approval for a four day weekend.

…

UPDATE III - In response to the overwhelming pressure of the Tolbert Report (yeah right), the Governor’s office release the following statement:

“This afternoon, Governor Beebe informed the Department of Finance and Administration that he will not accept the pay raise approved for him as part of the government appropriations bill. As chief executive officer of the state, Beebe will forego any raise in pay while Arkansans continue to face the tough economic conditions of the national recession.”

…

UPDATE IV – In a bizarre twist of the universe, the Arkansas Project declares that “Mike Beebe is one million times smarter” than the Republican legislators and Brummett’s Blog calls the governor’s move “lame.”

Also weighing in with Brummett is Attorney General Dustin McDaniel who gripes about being underpaid so he says he’s keeping his raise and Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter who says he intended to give his raise to charity but not tell anyone (which is totally like Halter, he never wants to make a big deal out of anything he does.)

by Brett Hooton, contributor

Another legislative session, another minority targeted for a tax increase. Last session the target in the tax crosshairs of Governor Beebe was the natural gas industry, including some Arkansas landowners who receive royalty payments. This group was simply too small to have any impact when they stood up for themselves, though I was happy to be standing with them. Now the administration is at it again. This time the target is cigarette smokers. Since cigarette smokers are a sufficient minority it should be easy to railroad them into swallowing a tax that the rest of our population doesn’t want to pay. I should point out at this point that I am not a smoker. I am assuming that a trauma system is needed and will in fact cost $30 million.

There are two problems that I have with the proposed cigarette tax.
1. Why are we paying for a trauma system with a cigarette tax?
2. Why are we imposing a $100 million tax, upon any group, during a recession? This simply takes $100 million of disposable income out of the economy.

The only proposed solution for funding the trauma system, mentioned by the media and top state officials, has been the cigarette tax. Why were cigarette smokers singled out to be taxed? While smoking does cause considerable health issues, it seems quite unlikely that it causes much trauma. The administration has targeted a minority, increasing their taxes to almost double the current rate. It is more reasonable to pay for a trauma system with funds from those who cause trauma, such as fees paid by drunk and reckless drivers, and those committing assault and other violent crimes.

Representative Ed Garner (R- Maumelle) has drafted a bill which will do just that. It is similar to a bill, introduced by a democrat, which passed the House 95 – 0 before being held up in the Senate. This bill has been adapted to satisfy the Senate’s previous objections. This is a common sense bill. If you commit a violent crime, as part of your penalty you pay a fine. That fine is increased and a part of that fine will go to help pay for the state trauma system. If you commit a serious driving violation, including drunk driving, you too will help pay for the trauma system. Some trauma is also caused simply by accident, so a portion of the funding is slated to come from the current tax on insurance premiums (the insurance tax revenue currently goes into the general revenue fund). If the trauma system is as high a priority as the administration states and with the expected $300 million surplus, it should not be difficult to allocate $11.4 million of that to the trauma system. Doesn’t it just make sense that those who are causing the most trauma in the state be the ones who pay for it? If I wanted to fill up Jason’s blog space I’d go on to discuss the problems with increasing our healthcare program with a flat revenue source (cigarette tax), but I don’t think he’ll give me that much space.

The administration continually talks about economic development, and to be fair I think they’ve done a fairly good job. However, now is definitely not the time to tax Arkansans to the tune of $100 million a year. This is probably the worst tax proposal in terms of economic impact. A tax on cigarettes has a direct impact on Arkansans’ disposable income. I don’t know of a smoker who decides they are going to cut back on cigarette smoking so they can rent a movie, go to a ball game, or buy other retail items. This $100 million would come out of money spent on other services and goods. Can we afford to cut consumer spending by about $100 million in our current economic environment? This tax needlessly overtaxes Arkansans by pulling $100 million out of our economy for a $30 million trauma system.

There are many arguments which I simply cannot fit within my word limit. I’m looking forward to continuing this debate in the future.

The Tolbert Report is pleased to announce a new contributor, Brett Hooton. With the legislature in session and tax season for me (I am a CPA), I appreciate the assistance and look forward to his viewpoints. Brett is no stranger to politics. He is a former candidate for state representative, has a degree in both Economics and Political Science, and currently works full-time in Power Transmission Planning.

The Arkansas Senate yesterday sent to the House a resolution to recess until Wednesday. The House plans to vote today to recess through Wednesday for Obama’s inauguration. With as much work as the House leaders have claimed they have (lottery, trauma center and health care, economy, etc.), with the session being limited in time, and with the uncertain economic times we’re currently in, it is important that the Arkansas House not take a vacation on their 2nd week of work. I applaud the legislature in 2000 and 2004 for continuing to work for Arkansans during both of Bush’s inaugurations. Arkansans need our government working for us, not taking a break the second week they’re on the job.

UPDATE – In a mostly party line vote, the House approved the Senate’s resoluation to recess 69 to 22. Although it appears from reading the bill, that this only applied to the Senate. No word yet if the House plans to recess as well.

UPDATE II - Rep. Greenberg, fellow blog contributor on the self proclaimed “Supreme Allied Commander, Arkansas Blogosphere” (or as we will now refer to him SACAB) David Kinkade’s the Arkansas Project, weighs in on how it all went down.