Here are excerpts from recent editorials in Arkansas newspapers:
Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Dec. 28, 2016.
It’s called a “slippery slope” argument, an over-used form of reasoning that suggests one course of action will lead to others undesirable or perhaps calamitous. When an idea presented isn’t necessarily easy to argue against, it’s sometimes too tempting to imagine all sorts of unacceptable trajectories that will be irretrievably launched by the decision at hand.
People use the slippery slope all too often. We don’t recommend it, because once it’s employed, it leads to all sorts of negative consequences for … wait a minute … doh!
Yes, yes, it’s easy to slip down that slope, but sometimes for good reason.
U.S. Sen. John Boozman got a legislative victory the other day when the Department of Veterans Affairs bill cleared Capitol Hill. Boozman, Arkansas’ senior senator, proposed a legal change to broaden the definition of the term “veteran.”
Who knew, at least among us civilian types, that someone could serve in the National Guard or reserve components of the military for years, even decades, but emerge from the experience unable to legally refer to himself as a veteran?
Until passage of Boozman’s measure, only those who served at least 180 consecutive days on active duty were considered veterans by the U.S. government. Some members of the National Guard or reserves have been called into active duty and have served enough consecutive days to qualify, but there are plenty who cannot be considered veterans because they were never activated for that long.
Boozman’s legislation will extend honorary veteran status to reserve component and Guard members who served more than 20 years but who don’t meet the active-duty requirement.
The measure doesn’t change anyone’s eligibility for Veterans Affairs benefits. The term “veteran” is all those who qualify get to use. Nothing more.
“It’s just words, but it sure means a heck of a lot to some folks,” said retired Col. Pat Teague, who served 29 years in the Arkansas National Guard.
Boozman pushed for the change because it didn’t seem right these men and women didn’t even qualify to call themselves veterans.
“They were serving in the National Guard. They were prepared to do whatever their country asked them to do,” Boozman said. “They drilled monthly, went to summer camp, did all the things that were asked of them but sometimes, just by the way things fall, they don’t meet all of the criteria of the veterans designation. But everybody agrees that those individuals certainly were ready and able to risk their lives if necessary and deserve the status of being a veteran.”
Who can argue against such a feel-good outcome? Well, for six years the bill languished out of concern it would open the door to more “veterans” claiming veterans benefits, the ones our country often struggles to get right for those who already qualify. Welcome back to the downhill slip-and-slide.
But that would never happen, right?
Listen to the response of Sgt. 1st Class James Howard, president of the Enlisted Association of the Arkansas National Guard, discussing the prospect of future benefits expansions: “I think that would be a great conversation to have in the future. Maybe (Boozman’s change) will open people’s eyes and be worth looking at in the future.”
Yes, one can argue a simple word or definition change doesn’t matter because it’s “just words.” But just watch: A few years down the line, these new “veterans” will be clamoring for their benefits just like all those other veterans get.
Is that bad? Perhaps not, but it’s a debate that shouldn’t get its start with some innocent-sounding definition change pushed by a U.S. senator.
The next time someone suggests words and their meanings matter, it’s probably worth listening. And usually, when someone says a change in government definitions is in “name only,” it’s likely the long-term effects will be farther reaching than anyone expects.
Happy sliding.
___
The Southwest Times Record. Jan. 1, 2017.
The Fort Smith School board in late December decided to table a motion that would have rejected the terms of an Arkansas Freedom of Information Act violation lawsuit and risk a court trial that could set them back an estimated $70,000. A decision was tabled because several board members had only recently been made aware of the settlement offer.
We believe it’s in the best interest of the school board to find a way to settle the issue and keep it out of court.
Board members expressed concern over a new superintendent coming into the district with a lawsuit hanging over the administration. There’s the cost of a trial to consider, estimated up to $100,000, which board member Wade Gilkey said, logically, would be better spent on the schools. And there’s great risk that a trial may not end in the board’s favor.
At issue is an email exchange that took place between board members in October regarding officer positions on the board. Board members acknowledge that emails were sent, and those emails have been made public.
School Board President Deanie Mehl said recently that the email exchanges were necessary because of a “time crunch” and the exchange to have amounted to a “five-minute meeting.”
Fort Smith attorney Joey McCutchen filed a Freedom of Information Act request on all emails between board members after suspecting official business had been done by email without public knowledge. He said his suspicions arose after being surprised that Mehl was elected to a second term as president despite a tradition for officers to rotate positions. The vote was made without discussion among board members during the meeting.
Did the email exchange violate the FOIA? There’s not a consensus among attorneys who were asked for an opinion.
Even if the emails don’t violate the FOIA, there’s still a feeling that the public’s business was conducted in private, which goes against all that the FOIA stands for. Any private conversation about school board business, whether it’s via email, phone, text, Facebook message or something else, violates the spirit of open government, even if it doesn’t violate a specific FOIA law.
Education on FOIA must be a priority for all boards and panels. The more you know, the better. A better sense of “openness” would help board members to pause before sending an email or text or making a phone call outside of a public meeting when discussing anything related to the school board. And what’s wrong with that? Why risk violating the FOIA?
“Sunshine laws” provide for open records of government documents and open meetings of public officials. In other words, they let the light; where there’s sunshine, everyone can see. In Arkansas, the state Freedom of Information law was enacted in 1967 after a push by a group of citizens and journalists to require more openness about public business.
A Jan. 18 meeting tentatively was planned to vote on whether to reject the lawsuit’s demands and go to court or sign a consent judgment declaring the emails violated the act and they won’t do it again.
Mehl said last month that the board has “worked very hard to follow the FOIA regulations,” and we believe that is true. But more effort and diligence is needed now and in the future.
We urge the board to find a compromise soon and take part in more FOIA training, which can only be a benefit to the board members. Educating our children must be the real priority of Fort Smith Schools.
___
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Jan. 1, 2017.
Gov. Asa Hutchinson’s proposed income tax relief for low-income Arkansans is laudable. Indeed, the income tax burden on low-income Arkansans has been onerous for many years. State government leaders must have condoned it by thinking the state could spend money on low-income Arkansans better than they could spend their own money.
The governor’s proposal seems bulletproof, as it would be hard for Democrats to oppose an income tax cut for lower-income state residents.
We expect that most lower-income Arkansans will spend all of their income tax savings, and most of it in Arkansas, and the state, county, and cities will turn around and collect sales tax on those purchases, probably at a rate of 8 percent to 10 percent. Then the businesses will pay more income taxes on the increased sales. So it is simple: if the government doesn’t get its money on your income, it gets it when you spend it, so it gets some either way. It looks like a win/win for everyone. And it should have a more favorable financial impact on the state than just calculating the lost income tax revenues.
But what Arkansas really needs to do with its income tax rates is promote economic growth. We have tough competition with border states like Texas and Tennessee with no state income taxes. Reducing the Arkansas income tax for everyone by a marginal amount is going to have only marginal results. Arkansas needs something bolder, something unique, something that really spurs economic growth.
One idea is to get competitive with our neighbors like Texas and Tennessee. But Arkansas can’t afford to eliminate the state income tax unless the idea is phased in over many years. It simply is too great a source of the state’s tax revenues. So how can Arkansas get competitive?
One idea is to grant a moratorium on any income taxes for five years to any new state resident. In other words, those moving to Arkansas would not pay any state income taxes until after their fifth year in the state. This would put Arkansas on a very competitive basis with border states like Tennessee and Texas for new residents. Its mild climate and four seasons should be highly attractive to retirees. Most people who come to Arkansas and live here for five years will love it, and it’s highly doubtful they’ll move again just because they’ll eventually have to pay income taxes.
Since these people are not living or paying taxes here now, granting this exemption shouldn’t cost Arkansas anything. (It could be argued that people would move to Arkansas anyway, and they would pay taxes the first years they lived here. That’s true, but that should be offset by all the additional people who would move here and pay sales taxes and property taxes, benefiting both the state and local communities.) In addition, most retirees would move here with their savings accounts, and open new deposits in local banks that could then loan money to stimulate even more economic growth.
A key to more economic growth in Arkansas is more population growth. The Census Bureau recently reported that Arkansas’ population growth last year was just 3/10 of 1 percent, and less than half the national average. Arkansas’ population increased 10,395 last year, but 7,355 of that, or 70 percent, was from more births. The net in migration, subtracting those who left the state from those moving here, was only 195 people. We are not adding to the state’s tax base with that type of growth.
Are there any other states that offer a temporary moratorium on income taxes? If so, we’re not aware of them. Arkansas would have a unique program to try to boost economic development for the entire state, benefiting low income, middle income and, in fact, all Arkansans.
We believe Asa Hutchinson is a solid, thoughtful and capable governor. What we need more of is bold action to help move Arkansas forward. A good start would be an income tax moratorium for new residents for five years.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.