Favorite

Cluttering up our Constitution — as usual 

Proposed Amendment 2 comes down to a basic choice. Will you opt in the interest of desperately needed economic development to vote to put another horribly written article into our state Constitution? Or will you vote “no” to insist we wait two years for the legislature to do a rewrite? At times I lean to waiting, since two years is hardly forever and it seems the responsible course. But at other times I find myself unable to become terribly alarmed about putting gibberish in our state Constitution. That’s largely what our state Constitution is already. Our Constitution says that all public education must be equal. But it says in another place that school districts have the latitude to do more locally than others. Our Constitution contains Amendment 59, once called “Godzilla” by a Supreme Court justice, which was thrown together to minimize the effects of long-overdue property reappraisals and embed favored treatment for farm, timber and utility property. Our Constitution says statewide taxes can be raised only by a prohibitive three-fourths vote of the legislature, except for the most unfair tax, the sales tax, which can be raised by a simple majority and has been increased on a seemingly annual basis. Three times since 1970 we’ve tried to rewrite this Constitution, and the people have been duped into fear of change each time by the business interests benefiting from the arcane, archaic nonsense. All Amendment 2 would do is affix to our Constitution a provision by which the legislature could skip a public vote and issue bonds repayable by the taxpayers to raise uncertain millions for corporations that could use those uncertain millions or uncertain purposes. The bonds could total up to 5 percent of the state general fund and the proceeds could provide unconstrained inducements and subsidies to an employer planning to locate to the state and invest more than $500 million and hire more than 500 people. Other states have won big automobile manufacturing plants by offering fatter bribes. Incentives, I mean. I am persuaded that we could well use what Amendment 2 attempts to provide. But I am equally certain we could well do without the unanswerable questions Amendment 2 raises. The judge getting this lawsuit, and rest assured there’ll be one, will have his own options: Throw up his hands and say he has no idea, or flat make something up. The proposal got lost in the shuffle until late in the regular session of 2003. It was referred hastily, even before the expert bond lawyers knew about it. Now everyone agrees it is written horribly. There are two ways to go with a constitutional amendment. You can make it a general statement of principles, leaving the application to legislation. Or, you can specifically and carefully prescribe and proscribe. This proposal prescribes haphazardly and proscribes not at all. I’ve raised a few questions. Others have raised more. The amendment requires only “plans” by industrial prospects, not demonstrated commitments. It does not restrict the use of the bond proceeds. It says the half-billion investment must be made for the “project” to qualify, not specifying whether that means only the private investment or includes the state subsidies. It puts no time limit on the hiring of 500 people, and, by referring only to a project, might be interpreted to include even start-up construction jobs. It does not say whether the 5 percent of the general fund on which bond limits are based means gross or net revenue. It does not specify whether bonds could be issued up to 5 percent of general revenues every year, or whether only the aggregate of outstanding bonds at any given time could amount to 5 percent of current general revenues. Desperate economic developers point to the ever-worsening human tragedy of the Delta and plead with us to approve this thing despite these acknowledged flaws. They ask us to trust that the legislature would tighten things up in the enabling legislation, never minding that it was the legislature that referred this inanity. l
Favorite

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

More by John Brummett

  • Obstruction is the preferred conservatism

    Is there greater conservative virtue in opposing federal health reform, period, or in saying it ought to be implemented locally instead of from Washington in the event we are unavoidably laden with it?
    • Oct 5, 2011
  • A fate not quite as bad as prison for Lu Hardin

    There is no crime in being overly and transparently solicitous for the purposes of aggrandizement and personal political advancement. That's simply acute neediness, a common and benign human frailty.
    • Sep 28, 2011
  • Can we talk? Can we get anywhere?

    Dialogue is good. It would be even better if someone would venture off script every once in a while.
    • Sep 21, 2011
  • More »

Most Shared

  • "Nasty Woman" at HSU: 32 artists celebrate Women's History Month

    A photograph of a woman doing a headstand so you can see her red underpants. A sculpture by Robyn Horn titled "Approaching Collapse." Those and other works that assistant professor of photography Margo Duvall says "celebrates the female voice in art" for Women's History Month go on exhibit March 1 in the gallery in the Russell Fine Arts Building.
  • Home again

    The plan, formulated months ago, was this: Ellen and I were going to go to Washington for inauguration festivities, then fly out the morning after the balls for Panama City and a long planned cruise to begin with a Panama Canal passage.
  • Who needs courts?

    Not since the John Birch Society's "Impeach Earl Warren" billboards littered Southern roadsides after the Supreme Court's school-integration decision in 1954 has the American judicial system been under such siege, but who would have thought the trifling Arkansas legislature would lead the charge?
  • Bungling

    If the late, great Donald Westlake had written spy thrillers instead of crime capers, they'd read a lot like the opening weeks of the Trump administration.
  • UPDATE: Campus carry bill amended by Senate to require training

    The Senate this morning added an amendment to Rep. Charlie Collins campus carry bill that incorporates the effort denied in committee yesterday to require a 16-hour additional training period before university staff members with concealed carry permits may take the weapons on campus.

Latest in John Brummett

  • Gone to the DoG

    We're now longer carrying John Brummett's column in this space.
    • Oct 12, 2011
  • Obstruction is the preferred conservatism

    Is there greater conservative virtue in opposing federal health reform, period, or in saying it ought to be implemented locally instead of from Washington in the event we are unavoidably laden with it?
    • Oct 5, 2011
  • A fate not quite as bad as prison for Lu Hardin

    There is no crime in being overly and transparently solicitous for the purposes of aggrandizement and personal political advancement. That's simply acute neediness, a common and benign human frailty.
    • Sep 28, 2011
  • More »

Visit Arkansas

New Crystal Bridges exhibit explores Mexican-American border

New Crystal Bridges exhibit explores Mexican-American border

Border Cantos is a timely, new and free exhibit now on view at Crystal Bridges.

Event Calendar

« »

February

S M T W T F S
  1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28  

Most Recent Comments

  • Re: Future is female

    • Good article. I think you are right about running a new type of candidate, with…

    • on February 17, 2017
  • Re: Bungling

    • When did liberals and so called progressives start hating on old Russia? In the the…

    • on February 17, 2017
  • Re: Bungling

    • Press conference? Is that what that was? I thought I'd had the misfortune of stumbling…

    • on February 17, 2017
 

© 2017 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation