By John Brummett
A few e-mails poured in late in the week to alert me that U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor had said offensive things in a mid-week address to the Rogers Rotary Club.
I hadn’t been there, but I knew there had to have been some misunderstanding.
Pryor does not say offensive things. He says only mild, moderate, temperate, safe and mushy things, some of them nigh unto meaningless.
Indeed, a check with the senator’s staff indicated that all this had been a misunderstanding. Pryor hadn’t actually said anything, or at least he hadn’t intended to say anything.
A liberal blogger — well, a partisan Democratic one, that being a somewhat different thing — was irritated by a quote from the senator’s speech that appeared in the Northwest Arkansas local papers. It had Pryor saying that 45 percent of Americans do not pay taxes and that we cannot long endure such a situation if we are to have a fair tax code that produces sufficient revenue for our needs and takes the tightening squeeze off the middle class.
To say that nearly half of Americans pay not a cent in taxes, period — well, that would be a world-class misstatement. Nearly half would have to buy nothing at retail and no gasoline. Nearly half would have to get payroll checks with no Social Security and Medicare deductions.
Actually, Pryor was talking only about people who do not pay federal income taxes. Or at least that’s what his trusted aide, MIchael Teague, says. As to whether the senator was proposing to start charging some federal income tax to our now-exempted lowest earners, he didn’t exactly mean that either, according to Teague.
What he in fact had gone out of his way to stress, Teague said, was that he wanted to preserve the concept of progressive federal income taxation by which tax-rate burdens rise as income levels rise. And he made clear that some of those paying virtually no federal income taxes, after assorted tax deductions, credits and advantages, are thousands of millionaires.
Here, then, is what the senator came out for: lower tax rates for all of you in the great middle class; more taxes from millionaires now finagling the tax laws to get their taxes erased; general reform of the tax code to plug loopholes and include some uncertain continuation of tax relief for the lowest earners, and increased revenue generation from all of that to get the deficit down.
Does Pryor favor letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the highest incomes? Well, Teague couldn’t say on that. It might depend.
Meantime, another e-mailer, a Democrat in Northwest Arkansas, was highly agitated that Pryor had sounded from press reports like a doctrinaire Republican in this Rotary address, advocating cuts to Social Security and Medicare while extolling a corporate giant like Wal-Mart as a generous federal taxpayer.
Yes, Pryor had told the Rogers Rotarians that we must cut spending and that Social Security and Medicare must sustain their fair share of reductions. But he thinks those can be made without much personal pain.
And he said that Republicans were wrong in saying spending cuts alone could repair our deficit, just as, yes, Democrats, he countered, were wrong in implying the sole panacea was higher taxes on rich people.
That’s not sounding like a Republican. It’s sounding like the demilitarized in-between.
The in-between is where our leaders need to be, as long as they are assertive and specific about it. Alas, Pryor is, as yet, neither assertive nor specific. He mostly cites and lauds conceptually the work of others — the president’s debt-reduction commission and the Senate’s bipartisan Gang of Six, mainly.
Pryor lionized Wal-Mart, the local corporate power looming over his luncheon site, only in this context: By comparison to Wal-Mart, which pays a tax rate exceeding 30 percent, General Electric should not be able to avoid federal income taxation altogether.
Here, then, is a rule on thumb on our state’s senior senator: He is for nice stuff and against naughty stuff, unequivocally, and you should not believe anyone who tries to tell you otherwise.
——-
John Brummett is a columnist for the Arkansas News Bureau in Little Rock. His e-mail address is jbrummett@arkansasnews.com; his telephone number is (501) 374-0699.









August 28th, 2011 at 10:50 am
This column just reaffirms my belief that Pryor will (should) be reelected.
He comes across as a common sense Democrat . . as opposed to the other nutjobs in his party, i.e. the loons who have latent sympathies for Satanic child killers. . . .
August 28th, 2011 at 11:35 am
Hey Brummett, I hope will you read this column http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/27/census-data-shows-people-are-moving-from-blue-to-red-states.html
For years in this column, you extolled the virtues of the heavily unionized, heavily regulated, high tax states . . . I hope at some point you will address in this column how these states are now losing population in droves, are economically depressed, and are financially bankrupt . . .
August 28th, 2011 at 6:34 pm
Brummett’s conclusion is that it is the same good ole boy in Pryor that we have always known. I wonder if that will be good enough for Arkansans since we know that the political climate has changed a lot the last few years here. Will the same political strategy of blaming the Republicans work this time around for Pryor. By the way, the article that Captainamerica recommended is great and I posted it on my blog.
August 28th, 2011 at 9:34 pm
That article should make every Progressive take a long hard look at their worldview. It won’t change many minds, but it should.
What I find interesting is that this trend is the same trend which occurred in the antebellum USA. Back then, the population, economic, and political power slowly gravitated toward the free states – - -which is why the Union was able to defeat the Confederacy militarily.
Prior to the Civil War, electoral votes continued to shift to the free states, so the Democrat party found it increasingly difficult to win elections – - –
The Democrats did win elections on the Presidential level, but only because their opposition was divided (i.e. Whigs/Free Soilers/ Republicans) etc. etc.
August 28th, 2011 at 10:29 pm
i think people want to go to where they can get fried food and a divorce and take their gun to church.
August 29th, 2011 at 8:22 am
John, you are very entertaining, but captainamerica’s point is unavoidable: Red States keep the taxes down and as a result there are more jobs and that is what people need.
This reminds me of a small town in Arkansas where a friend of mine graduated. He went back to his class reunion and EVERYBODY IN HIS 30 year reunion had moved to a bigger town like Tulsa, Dallas, Little Rock, Ft. Smith, etc. Why? They had to go where the jobs are.
August 29th, 2011 at 9:53 am
actually, i respond to this in slightly more detail in tomorrow’s column by blaming it all on the decline of modern american civilization. really. you don’t want to miss that one.
August 29th, 2011 at 8:38 pm
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15456.html
On the county level, George W Bush won 97 out of 100 of the nation’s fastest growing counties in 2004. In 2008, Obama won 15 of them. Democrats viewed that as progress at the time.