What box do YOU fit in?
May 5th, 2011 § Leave a Comment
Today @ArkDems linked to an interesting quiz from the Pew Research Center. It asks you 20 questions and lets you choose between two possible answers to each question. Then it grinds up the answers and spits out your political typology. Your typology can range from:
- Staunch Conservatives
- Main Street Republicans
- Libertarians
- Disaffecteds
- Post-Moderns
- New Coalition Democrats
- Hard-Pressed Democrats
- Solid Liberals
- Bystanders
Obviously, answering 20 A-or-B questions is hardly enough to put you into a political box, but it’s still interesting to see which group you are most closely aligned with.
The quiz tells me that I am a Libertarian (along with 9% of the public, it says). Here’s how it defines “Libertarian”:
What They Believe
- Economically very conservative but moderate to liberal on social issues
- Highly critical of government
- Strongly pro-business
- Accepting of homosexuality
- Less religious than the average American
- Moderate views about immigrants compared to other GOP-oriented groups
Who They Are
- Strong Republican-orientation, though a majority identify as independents
- Affluent: 39% have incomes of $75,000 or more
- Two-thirds are male
- 85% are non-Hispanic whites
- About seven-in-ten (71%) have attended college
- About half as likely as the two strongest GOP groups to attend church weekly
- 56% use social networking sites
- 36% trade stocks
Close enough, I suppose, though it’s probably more accurate to say I’m a mixture of Libertarian and Disaffected.
I’ll also note, based purely on the descriptions provided for each category, that it would appear the Arkansas Republican Party is made up mostly of “Staunch Conservatives,” while the Arkansas Democratic Party is a combination of “Main Street Republicans” and “New Coalition Democrats.”
But don’t take my word for it. You can take the quiz here and then play around with the different typologies after you find out which box you fit in.
You’ve been hoodwinked, baby
April 7th, 2011 § 1 Comment
Is it OK for me to reference G-rated animated films?
The state Supreme Court issued a ruling today that upheld a previous circuit court ruling that Act 1 (which bans cohabitating couples from foster parenting) is unconstitutional.
The ruling certainly wasn’t a surprise; while watching the oral arguments online a few weeks ago, I was struck by how weak the state’s case was in arguing for upholding the law. A Family Council attorney, joining in the defense, even admitted that some cohabitating couples would make great foster parents.
I was only moderately surprised that the ruling was unanimous. That probably comes as a shock to some folks, considering that the two newest members of the Court, Karen Baker and Courtney Henry, both spent a lot of time courting social conservatives in their campaigns. They snookered everyone from Family Council to the liberal Arkansas Times, which endorsed Baker’s opponent, Tim Fox, apparently solely because of Baker’s pandering to the right.
But pandering is all it was. A few weeks before the judicial runoff, a Democrat and key Baker supporter (who apparently thought the name “Progressive Arkansas” refers to the ideology rather than the broader concept, and thus mistook me for a liberal) assured me that Baker was “completely progressive,” her campaigning notwithstanding.
Henry, meanwhile, promptly divorced her husband upon her election to the Court, and later revealed that she had been having an affair with Texarkana lawyer John Goodson. Goodson made headlines this week for being appointed to the University of Arkansas Board of Trustees; his Democratic credentials are scarcely in doubt.
Judicial elections are an inherently flawed process in Arkansas. Candidates are free to court whatever base they want, knowing they are free from any questioning about their actual positions on things because of the rule against prejudicing themselves. Thus, a Courtney Henry can run radio ads promoting her “family values,” then reveal minutes after being elected that she was two-timing her husband, in addition to the voters.
Of course, any politician can two-time the voters to some extent. But when the public has no real idea what your work involves, and you’re not obligated to tell them how you stand on anything, and you’re insulated by an eight-year term once elected, it’s much, much easier.
Defining the terms of this session
April 5th, 2011 § 1 Comment
In honor of the near-end of this year’s Arkansas legislative session (they’re still hung up over redistricting, but everything else is done), I decided to write up a little glossary of a few of the key terms from this session. In case it’s unclear, my tongue is planted firmly within my cheek throughout, and I have tried to be bipartisan in my denotations. Hope you enjoy.
Glossary
Arkansas Challenge Scholarship – An unnecessary drain on the revenue generated by the Arkansas Scholarship Lottery.
Clincher – A motion designed to make sure that the bill passes for real, instead for fake. (See, Clinchpoop)
Conservative – A supporter of lower taxes and lower government spending, except in the case of legislative reimbursements.
D.C. agenda (also known as Washington agenda, Washington politics, or the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy) – An unspeakable evil; specifically, the plans of wicked liberals to bring the entire economy under government control, and then snatch away our assault rifles so we can’t do anything about it. There are conservatives living in D.C., too, but they don’t have agendas, they have contracts with America.
Democrat – Never mind, we’re not sure what the heck a Democrat is.
Ethics reform – See, Schmethics reform.
Expert – One who has achieved, in a certain subject, a higher level of competence than a Yale degree.
Governor’s balanced budget – The bible of the Department of Finance and Administration.
HB1053 – The litmus test of true conservatism.
House Public Health Committee – See, Pro-life Death Star.
Knitting – The patron hobby of inattentive female Democratic legislators whose last names rhyme with “Stratison.”
Lawsuit – A horrible occurrence, the mere threat of which should stop a committee from recommending any bill whatsoever.
“Letting the people decide” – Voting for taxes without technically voting for taxes.
Livestreaming – An unwarranted intrusion into the privacy of legislators by Little Brother.
Medium rare – According to Sen. Percy Malone, a threat to our society that must be eradicated.
Motion at the proper time – Legislators’ preferred method of testing their microphones.
OBeebe - Our alleged governor, who was probably born in Louisiana and is probably a Tibetan Buddhist.
Partisanship – Voting against what either the Republicans or the governor want, depending on who you ask.
Quorum – A majority of the total body of the committee or house; or, in the case of the Senate Transportation Committee, a majority of the Democrats.
Redistricting – The process whereby Fayetteville gets two congressmen and south Arkansas gets less than one.
Reimbursements – Legislators’ euphemism for “legally fleecing the taxpayers by making up crap that they then have to pay us for.”
Roll call – A way of actually holding committee members accountable for their votes. Often mistaken by Republicans as a motion to run and pick up pastries for the entire committee.
Severance tax – Ha! That’s funny, but no.
Shell bill – A bill that hasn’t yet been ruined by the insertion of actual language.
…
Will those conservatives never learn?
March 4th, 2011 § 1 Comment
Quick programming note: I haven’t posted in several weeks because of some family stuff, which culminated in the birth of my second son, Kieron, late Monday night. God has blessed me greatly with my wife and two little boys.
Finally back to work, but I’m progressing slowly. I’m working on a post on the tax cut fracas between Senate and House Republicans, which I hoped to have up today but will probably have to wait till Monday.
In the meantime, while perusing some of the newspaper articles I missed during my paternity leave, I saw a quote that just demanded a quick blog post.
…
To give some context first, a group of House Republicans is currently voting down almost any appropriations bill that raises spending at all. The group includes most of the GOP freshmen, along with Minority Leader John Burris and a few other veterans. You see, they campaigned on cutting spending and cutting taxes, and they’re serious about doing both. Even though the spending increases they voted down on Wednesday amounted to a paltry $79,000. Whatever. Principle is principle.
The political establishment is predictably upset. They’re not used to this level of fiscal scrutiny and are warning that if the House GOP keeps it up, the legislature might have to stay in session till December*.
- Sen. Percy Malone
And so I give you the quote of the week, from Sen. Percy Malone, a member of both the Joint Budget Committee and the establishment:
This is not campaign time. This is time to govern.
Silly House Republicans. They seem to think you can have both — that you can keep campaign promises and govern at the same time. They don’t seem to realize that there comes a time where you forget what you told your constituents back home while you were trying to get elected, and get down to the real business of governing.
Burris, David Meeks, Ed Garner, and the rest should be pardoned for an honest mistake. They think that doing what they promised they would do is part of the real business of governing.
Will those conservatives never learn?
* Of course, there’s a simple solution for Malone and other Joint Budget members who are worried about spending the holidays in the Capitol: Quit approving the d*** spending increases.
Governor Beebe: Twisting arms is OK, vetoing not so much
February 17th, 2011 § Leave a Comment
I was floored to read the comments from Matt DeCample, Governor Beebe’s spokesman, in this post on the Arkansas Blog. DeCample was being asked about the governor’s response to HB1002, the capital gains tax cut, which passed the House yesterday by a 53-43-1 vote.
Would Beebe veto the legislation if it passes the Senate? DeCample said the governor was torn. He disagrees with the bill. But the governor believes people should be responsible for their decisions and not expect the governor to backstop bad ones with a veto. He’s said before that the tax cutters should be ready to designate spending to be cut to meet shortfalls.
…
Beebe also addressed the Republican whining that he’d worked against the legislation. “If he didn’t, he wouldn’t have been doing his job,” DeCample said. “Someone who is surprised the governor twists arms doesn’t understand the office of governor.”
So lemme get this straight: Mike Beebe considers legislative arm-twisting to be an essential part of being governor…and yet he balks at using a veto because it infringes too much on the legislature? Maybe DeCample should ask whether the governor understands the office of governor.
Why is the governor balking at blocking?
If HB1002 comes to Beebe’s desk, and if he is as opposed to HB1002 as his tactics yesterday indicated, he should make like Delvon Johnson and shot-block the thing. That is why the state constitution gives him veto power, so he can reject bad bills.
Here’s Beebe’s problem. To advance the basketball analogy, he can block the shot, but the shooter can then pick the ball up and make an uncontested layup. See, unlike in the federal government, where Congress needs a two-thirds majority to override a presidential veto, the Arkansas legislature can override a gubernatorial veto with a simple majority in both houses.
So maybe the reason Beebe doesn’t want to use his veto — if it comes to that — is because he knows this legislature would immediately bring the bill back up for a vote and pass it again. Which could be even more embarrassing to the governor than being foiled while trying to twist arms on a vote. And it might embolden conservative legislators to try to pass even more bills he doesn’t want.
That’s just a theory, and I’m not sure it’s a terribly convincing one. Seriously, I can’t figure out the governor’s thinking here. Arm-twisting…yeah, sure, I don’t know whether I think it’s justified or not, but I can accept it. But refusing to use a veto on a bill you fervently oppose…I just don’t get it.
Paging Mark Darr
February 4th, 2011 § 1 Comment
News came out yesterday that one of the latest lawsuits against the PPACA (what the right-wing yellers call “Obamacare”) has failed.
It was a strange suit, filed by the lieutenant governor of Mississippi, Phil Bryant, acting in his capacity as a civilian, along with several other individuals. And unlike the other challenges to the law, including the one by many state attorneys general, which allege that the law’s individual mandate exceeds Congress’ Commerce Clause powers, this lawsuit was brought on 10th Amendment grounds.
The judge concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, but offered them a chance to amend their petition within 30 days.
Our own lieutenant governor, Mark Darr, ran against “Obamacare” as one of his major campaign platforms. He has vowed to do just what Bryant did — sue against the law as a private citizen. If the Mississippi case is any indication, Darr’s suit may not last long. I’ll see if I can get some comment from him soon.
In the past I’ve expressed support for Darr’s intention to sue, not because I felt that his suit was likely to go anywhere, but because it would represent a real attempt to do something about a law that most Arkansans don’t like — and unlike in David Meeks’ HB1053, no tax money would be used.
But I’m sure Darr is watching the Mississippi situation very closely. Maybe Bryant will find some other grounds for suing that allows him to have standing, and Darr can emulate that. Or maybe Darr’s lawsuit will be, from the outset, doomed to never see more than a day in court.
UPDATE (5:44 pm): I asked Darr for his reaction via Twitter, and here’s his short-form response: “[D]on’t know full details on their petition. We are looking for solid standing along with getting legislation passed in AR.” I’ll still try to follow up next week, but I appreciate the lieutenant governor’s responsiveness.
Why I’m no longer a conservative
January 27th, 2011 § 2 Comments
Note: I planned to publish this post yesterday afternoon, and then all the craziness with Fred Smith and Bruce Holland happened, so I decided to hold it and hope that it would have a better chance of getting some attention today.
Yesterday On Tuesday, the House Public Health Committee rejected HB1053, Rep. David Meeks’ bill to keep Arkansans from being required to purchase health insurance. I watched the livestream of the meeting so I could write a ProgAR article about it (see the results here). If not high drama, it was certainly the most interesting legislative activity I’ve seen in this young session.
In the aftermath of the meeting, however, while I was writing my article, I had an unexpected epiphany: I’m not a conservative.
I never thought that could be true. After all, I strongly support limited government, individual liberty, and a strict reading of the Constitution. Most people would say those are conservative values.
But there’s another value that’s equally important, perhaps more important, than those things. That value is HB1053. To oppose that bill — as I do — is to deny conservatism.
I know it’s true because I read it on the Internet. Here’s what I read:
“Thank you to the two Dems who put the people of Arkansas above partisan politics. Unfortunately, 12 Dems sided with the DC agenda.” – David Meeks (referring to the 7-12 vote against the bill; all five Republicans and two Democrats voted for it, 12 Democrats voted against it, and the committee chair, Linda Tyler, did not vote)
“Today, Democrat state legislators on the House Committee on Public Health, Welfare and Labor stood with President Barack Obama and voted to prevent House Bill 1053, the Healthcare Freedom Act, from reaching the House floor for a full debate and vote.” – Republican Party of Arkansas
“Thank you to Reps. Lampkin and Wardlaw [the two Democrats who voted for HB1053] for choosing principle over party in Health Committee today.” – Rep. Nate Bell (R-Mena)
“After bragging about being a ‘conservative Democrat’ this morning, Rep. Garry Smith voted against Meeks’ [bill].” – Jason Tolbert
“If you vote to support the health care bill and to raise taxes, it is hard to embrace the ‘conservative Democrat’ label.” – Tolbert*
Let’s take stock of what I learned from those statements:
- To oppose HB1053 is to side with the D.C. agenda.
- To oppose HB1053 is to stand with President Barack Obama.
- To oppose HB1053 is to choose party over principle.
- To oppose HB1053 is to show that you’re not really a conservative.
- To oppose HB1053 is to support the federal health care overhaul.
You see, issues like these are black and white — there’s no room for complexity, for nuance. I oppose HB1053. Therefore I support the D.C. agenda** and am not truly a conservative. If I really were against Obamacare, if I really thought the individual mandate was unconstitutional, I would have supported HB1053.
Same goes for the 12 Democrats who voted against HB1053. Their votes signaled the end of the bipartisan spirit that we all hoped would pervade this legislative session. They have drawn the battle lines; they have let us know that their allegiance is to Obeyme.***
Some Democrats and deceitful bloggers will try to tell you that there are other reasons for opposing HB1053, besides supporting the D.C. agenda. They’ll say if HB1053 is passed, and the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down the federal health care law, HB1053 will accomplish nothing. They’ll say that if HB1053 is passed, and the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t strike down the federal health care law, HB1053 will still accomplish nothing. They’ll say that if the legislature really wants to symbolically show its opposition to the federal health care law, it should pass a resolution, the type of measure that is actually designed for symbolic statements and doesn’t leave the state open to litigation.
Don’t listen to them. You know the truth, and the truth is that there’s no gray area here. There are two types of people: those who support HB1053, and those who are liberals. The Rebels and the Empire.
I’ve joined the dark side. Now it’s up to you. Make your choice, pick your blaster, and start firing across the aisle.
It’s the only way to save America.****
"Sorry about the mess."
* This comment by Tolbert also refers to Rep. Garry Smith, just as the previous one did. In saying Smith voted “to raise taxes,” Tolbert is referring not to Smith’s vote on HB1053, but to his vote for the tobacco tax in 2009. At least, that’s what I assume.
** The D.C. agenda is an unspeakable evil. It refers to the plans of wicked liberals to bring the entire economy under government control, and then snatch away our assault rifles so we can’t do anything about it. There are conservatives living in D.C., too, but they don’t have agendas, they have contracts with America.
*** The real birth certificate of our alleged president shows that this is the correct way to spell his last name.
**** Before you get too mad at this post, make sure you know what genre it is.
How will Fred Smith’s resignation affect the legislature?
January 26th, 2011 § Leave a Comment
And then there were 98. In the latest episode of “The Incredible Shrinking Arkansas House of Representatives,” Rep. Fred Smith (D-Crawfordsville) has bid his colleagues farewell after he was convicted of a felony yesterday.
Smith’s departure leaves the House with a 54-44 split between Democrats and Republicans.
The two empty seats are:
District 24 (south-central Garland County) – This is the one that was vacated by the death of Rep.-elect Keith Crass (R-Hot Springs). The special election is set for March 8 between Bruce Cozart (R-Hot Springs) and Jerry Rephan (D-Hot Springs).
The results of the election won’t be certified until March 18. I’m not sure how the rules work on how soon the winner will be seated after that, but even if he is seated immediately, there will probably only be three to four weeks left in this legislative session.
However, if tax-cut bills are held until the end of the session, as several legislators have indicated, the District 24 winner will probably be seated in time to vote on some of them.
Rephan is drumming up liberal support (see here and here), but at this point I think Cozart will win the seat and become the 45th Republican in the state House. And sure, I’ll admit that I’m mostly basing that opinion on the fact that it was a Republican that originally won this seat.
…
District 54 (most of Crittenden County) – The special election for this race has not yet been announced and probably won’t happen until May at the earliest — and that’s only if the Republicans and Democrats both opt to hold nominating conventions rather than primary elections.
So the legislative session will be long over before Smith’s successor is even elected. That’s a bummer for the Democrats, because in that part of the state, it’s a foregone conclusion that the Democratic nominee will win.
…
So the Democrats have lost a vote for the remainder of this session, and the Republicans have a great chance to pick one up late in the session. That means we could potentially be looking at just a 54-45 Democratic edge when it’s time to vote on tax cuts.
Will that make a difference? Impossible to tell right now, but it has to make the tax-cutters feel just a little bit better.
…
As far as committees go, Smith’s departure probably won’t change things much. He served on the following committees:
- House Committee on Advanced Communications and Information Technology – Smith was only an alternate, so he doesn’t factor into the current partisan balance, which is 6-4 Democrats.
- House Committee on Aging, Children and Youth, Legislative & Military Affairs – The post-Smith partisan balance is 12-6 Republicans.
- House Committee on Judiciary – The post-Smith partisan balance is 11-8 Democrats.
- Joint Committee on Energy – Again, Smith was only an alternate, so he doesn’t factor into the current partisan balance, which is 8-7 Democrats on the House side and 5-5 split on the Senate side.
The only committee that could be affected by Smith’s departure is House Judiciary. When it had Smith, it had 20 members, meaning that 11 votes were required in order to pass a bill. Now that it only has 19, only 10 votes are required in order to pass a bill. That means that if there are any partisan bills in that committee, the Republicans will only need to pull two Democrats with them (instead of three) in order to pass something they favor.
Not sure how big of an issue that will be, either, as I’m not super familiar with the types of bills that come through Judiciary. But it’s worth remembering.
At any rate, here are the bills on the House Judiciary agenda for tomorrow’s meeting. At first glance, nothing on it strikes me as terribly partisan.
A Third-Party Coalition in Arkansas for 2012?
January 24th, 2011 § Leave a Comment
Third-party action in Arkansas is pretty limited. Last year John Gray (Green) and Trevor Drown (Independent) both made it onto the ballot for U.S. Senate. Drown found some grassroots support while Gray attracted the admiration of the state’s most prominent columnist, but they combined for only 5.2% of the total vote.
Meanwhile, Jim Lendall (Green) was the only third-party candidate to run for governor. He got 1.9% — well short of the 3% necessary for the Greens to automatically put their candidates on the 2012 ballot.
(Quick note on third parties, in case you’re unfamiliar with how it goes: In order to be recognized as an official political party in Arkansas, a party has to have gotten at least 3% of the vote in the most recent presidential or gubernatorial election (whichever was more recent, because they always happen in alternating election cycles). If the party gets that 3%, it then has the right to put candidates on the ballot in any race throughout the state, whether it’s for national, state, or local office.
If the party doesn’t get the 3%, it can still obtain ballot status, but it has to gather 10,000 signatures from registered Arkansas voters and submit those signatures to the secretary of state by a certain deadline.
Independent candidates running for statewide office must also get 10,000 signatures from registered Arkansas voters.)
The Greens have unsuccessfully lobbied in court to be given permanent ballot access. For the foreseeable future, they’re going to have to continue to gather signatures — not an easy (or cheap) task.
But here’s an idea worth considering for third parties and independent candidates: Why not join forces to get over the 3% plateau? A member of the Arkansas Libertarian Party explains:
I and several other Arkansas election experts have suggestion forming an Arkansas “Ballot Access Coalition” with the single purpose of placing one and only one candidate for Governor on the ballot every 4 years. The scheme would work like a cooperative. Every minor party or independent candidate desiring to participate would “contribute” petition money and/or equivalent volunteer signatures towards qualifying the ticket. An internal convention would then be apportioned according to the percentage each group contributes. Which ever “group” gets the nod for Governor would be eliminated for the Lieutenant Governors “race.” This elimination process would continue until all groups either nominate a statewide candidate or there are no nominees from a unrepresented group.
This scheme is far from perfect but it would allow most minor/independent groups to at least participate in the process. Having a Green candidate for lets say Governor, a Libertarian running for Lieutenant and maybe a Constitutionalist for Attorney General gives each group a candidate at the state wide level that can champion the party’s causes and positions while hopefully maintaining ballot access for the next cycle. Considering the fact that at the district and below levels a majority of races are unopposed with the Republican only now, after 35 years, gaining respectability in much of this Blue Dog state, some form of compromise among the minor players seems the only chance we have. Either that or a Constitutional Amendment taking ballot access control out of the hands of self serving Democrats and Republicans.
Interesting concept. I doubt it would ever happen, since the Greens and Libertarians probably wouldn’t be able to stomach an alliance with each other. But it might make both of those parties (and others that are so insignificant I haven’t even heard of them) a bit more visible — and visibility is the first step to viability.
The Syllabus Thinks Our Governor, Renowned for Fiscal Responsibility, May Be Meeting His Match – 1/20/11
January 20th, 2011 § Leave a Comment
Sen. Gilbert Baker (left), Rep. Kathy Webb, and some dude gaze menacingly at something during yesterday's Joint Budget Committee meeting. Baker and Webb are the Senate and House co-chairs, respectively, of the committee. Photo credit: Steve Keesee, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
Beebe announced in November that his proposed $4.59 billion general-revenue budget for fiscal 2012 includes the [2% raise for state employees] because state employees “deserve it.”
I don’t remember the governor saying that back in November. It’s not that I doubt the Dem-Gaz, but it sounds much more politically tone-deaf than I would think the governor is capable of being. Then again, it’s two words, taken out of context.
Still, in this political climate, it ain’t smart to use a word like “deserve” when talking about state employees. Right now most Arkansans don’t feel like anyone in their state government deserves much of anything, thank you very much.
It’s not the first time that Beebe has shown a tone-deafness to a politically explosive topic. Last summer, when the Dem-Gaz broke the Autogate mega-story, the governor at first said he didn’t think the huge number of state vehicles was a problem. Several days later, he realized he had made a mistake and reversed himself, ordering the DFA to investigate why the state has so many darned cars, anyway.
This legislature might just out-responsible our legendarily responsible governor. If nothing else, our lawmakers are already showing they have more imagination than Beebe does in figuring out areas to make spending cuts — they’ve eliminated pay raises for judges and prosecutors, all of whom make at least six figures.
Because it’s not like we don’t already have non-political shenanigans going on
Senator Jeremy Hutchinson (R-Little Rock) has filed a constitutional amendment that would remove the independence of the Highway Commission, the Game and Fish Commission, state colleges/universities, and the Lottery Commission. Rep. Barry Hyde (D-North Little Rock) says the lottery should remain independent of the legislature:
“To put it under the direct month-to-month control of the Legislature would open the door to all kinds of political shenanigans,” Hyde said.
Let’s see…thus far we’ve had exorbitant administrative salaries, an audit that discovered 13 deficiencies, a CFO who was discovered to have lied about his qualifications (and has faced no consequences), and a proposal to cut scholarship amounts by 10%. (To be fair, that proposal came from the legislature; Hyde made it.)
I’m not saying Hyde’s wrong; maybe letting the legislature have direct control of the lottery would only make things worse. One way or another, something has to change. The lottery itself and the scholarships it funds may be popular in the state, but the Lottery Commission is extremely unpopular, and for good reason. Arkansans want fiscal conservatism more than they ever have, and giving a pay raise to a director most people thought should have been fired, as the lottery did last week to Ernie Passailaigue, just makes people more angry.
The Republicalypse is upon us
The Arkansas Times declares Arkansas Republicans as its 2010 People of the Year. An appropriate pick, which, unfortunately, isn’t matched with an appropriate article — the Times takes every chance to slam the GOP and explain how the 2010 elections mark the beginning of the end of sensible politics in Arkansas. Guess I shouldn’t expect anything else from the Times.
The Baxter Bulletin has the early scoop on Sen. Johnny Key (R-Mountain Home)
He’s introduced Senate Bill 27, which would require health care providers to notify law enforcement of any burns they treat that “reasonably could be connected to criminal activity.” SB27 has had two readings and been referred to the Senate Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee.
Key’s also the sponsor of SB41, which would extend the termination period required for retirement for individuals who receive at least two-for-one service credit. It would apply to the Arkansas Public Employees’ Retirement System. The measure also has had two readings and been referred to the Joint Committee on Public Retirement and Social Security Programs.
Additionally, Key is co-sponsoring the bill by Rep. David Sanders (R-Little Rock) to put a stiffer penalty on sports agents who give incentives to student-athletes.
Who ya gonna support: Local businesses or your own checkbook?
KARK reports briefly on the effort to charge sales tax on Internet purchases, headed by Rep. Uvalde Lindsey (D-Fayetteville). Internet retailers certainly harm local businesses, but they’re great for local individuals. It’ll be interesting to follow the discussion on this one.
City of Bauxite and the Highway Dept. argue over who’s going to fill a hole
The Benton Courier has the story. The city received a state grant to repave the parking lot at the fire department, but when the construction crew dug up the old asphalt, they discovered a busted drainage pipe leaking water. The pipe begins at State Hwy. 183, meaning it’s the responsibility of the Highway & Transportation Dept. The AHTD, though, wants the city to pay for the fix.
Rise of the Teapot Party
That’s the informal name of a Mountain Home group that wants to legalize medical marijuana. They face an uphill battle: the main legislative proponent of the idea, Sen. Randy Laverty (D-Jasper), says he probably won’t push a bill on it during this session. Interesting read.
