A race for no reason 

Sen. Gilbert Baker v. Joe White in Conway

This showcased state Senate race in Conway is odd. These candidates, state Sen. Gilbert Baker and businessman Joe White, will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for, well, it's hard to say.

Baker thinks it's important that we have a two-party system and that he's the last line of defense against our not having one. He keeps telling me that if the Democrats take his seat, then he just doesn't know what would become of the Republicans. He's actually contended that Democrats are out to get him because he's taken Republicanism all the way to the Pulaski County line. It's like this is “Gilbert's Last Stand,” an epic Western movie filmed on location at the Morgan exit.

Maybe he's right, because I can't figure otherwise what the deal is with White's Democratic challenge. Joe is a good ol' Conway boy who's been in the car business and other enterprises. But he's a ponderous communicator and he doesn't seem to have any issue that inspires him. My guess is that he has some Democratic friends and he let them talk him into providing the warm body for going against Baker because these friends simply would prefer that Baker not be the senator from Conway, his being a Republican and all. Maybe they fear that Baker will aim higher after getting term-limited in four years, maybe Congress, though I doubt he has that hankering or that Vic Snyder is losing sleep.

So I wrote recently that there wasn't any issue or policy at stake in this over-hyped contest. Baker, ever the Pollyanna, tried to tell me that there was. He says he's committed to taking all the remaining 3 cents off the grocery tax. He says Gov. Mike Beebe, who supports White, is fretting about the economy and talking about a second incremental reduction of only a penny or a fraction. So there's your issue. (Later, Baker said during a debate that he opposed the state lottery for college scholarships, while White said he supported it.)

Baker wants to go back to the Senate in January to cut the budget more than the governor may want at the very time we may be entering a deep recession that would erode state revenues while increasing human needs, such as for Medicaid. You'd think Republicans would have learned from recent national and international financial events that taking in less while spending more and trying to live on fiscal vapor creates eventual mathematical complication.

What Beebe and legislators ought to do is hold on to the $250 million or so in surplus now amassing, meaning income in excess of approved spending levels. The governor and legislators should lock that money in a rainy day fund in case things get as bad as they might. Just this once, because global finance has collapsed, they ought to resist the urge to spend every taxpayer penny they can get their hands on. You see, when the economy goes bad, state government gets hit from both sides. It loses revenue stream while its essential responsibilities increase. And state government can't run up a deficit like the federal government. Without real cash for state government, sick poor people don't get medical help because federal Medicaid matches aren't met. Prisoners don't stay in prison very long. College tuition gets hiked up. The public schools must get theirs off the top, because that's in the state Constitution and case law and we sure don't want another lawsuit.

Anyway, curious as to what possible substance or significance I might discern, I drove to Conway the other afternoon for a debate between Baker and White put on by political science students at UCA. I found none. On the issue of whether Conway ought to be wet or dry or, as it is now, “damp,” meaning dry except for private club permits as approved by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, both Baker and White came out forcefully for supporting and trusting the will of the people at the ballot box, either way.

Baker did tell me afterward that, if given the chance, he'd personally vote dry, even to end the dampness, but only prospectively, not retroactively. He wouldn't want to put any constituent out of business. He's against booze in his dry county, you see, except for the amount they're already pouring, which, as it happens, he finds to be just right. He'd grandfather in booze monopolies. And I thought Republicans were for markets and competition. The whole thing is just weird.



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 »

Latest in Top Stories

  • Good for the soul

    The return of Say McIntosh, restaurateur
    • Jun 1, 2010
  • Robocalls are illegal

    Robocalls -- recorded messages sent to thousands of phone numbers -- are a fact of life in political campaigns. The public doesn't like them much, judging by the gripes about them, but campaign managers and politicians still believe in their utility.
    • May 31, 2010
  • Riverfest winds down

    With Cedric Burnside and Lightnin' Malcolm, Steve Miller Band, Robert Cray, Ludacris and more performing.
    • May 30, 2010
  • More »

Most Recent Comments

  • Re: 'Farther on up the road'

    • At the u of a 61-65. Loved the Rockwood, the Shamrock, Tolleson, Hawkins and dont…

    • on December 9, 2018

© 2018 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation