Category: Andy Bar

Representative Barr sent me an e-mail with a short questionnaire on immigration reform. He didn’t just send it to me, he sent it to his entire constituent e-mail list. I don’t know how many voters in the Sixth District are on the list, but hopefully it is a large number, and a high percentage of the population. Democracy should be a two way street, and these e-mails (and questionnaires) are an important part of that. I assume most members of Congress have similar constituent e-mails, but Barr should certainly be commended for this effort.

This particular questionnaire dealt with immigration reform, and it is good to know that Barr is reaching out to his constituents to see what they think. I had one small quibble with the form: some of the questions don’t have a real range of possible answers, but seem to be skewed. Take the fourth question:

The U.S. Senate is debating a bill that would allow undocumented immigrants to stay in the country legally if they meet certain requirements. Which comes closer to your view about how to handle undocumented immigrants who are now living in the U.S.?

[] Undocumented immigrants should be deported and should not be allowed to stay in the country legally under any circumstances.
[] I would consider supporting a way for them to stay in the country legally without any special path to citizenship, if penalties are paid and certain border security, interior enforcement and other requirements are met.
[] Other

Why not a variation of the second answer that allows potential citizenship?

But again it is good to see that Representative Barr is communicating with his constituents.

A version of the Questionnaire can be found here: Barr Immigration Questionnaire.

In this week’s constituent e-mail Representative Barr announces the redesign of his official web site. It is available at www.barr.house.gov. It’s pretty slick, with lots of photos and videos, and easily available press releases regarding his recent votes and the bills he has introduced or co-sponsored.
Representative Barr filed legislation to amend the tax code to remove a tax on bourbon aged in barrels. Apparently other distilled spirits are not taxed as they age (to the extent that they are aged) and this legislation would remove this disparity. This sounds like a great idea to me.

Barr voted for the Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act, which, among other things, attempts to address the problem of sexual assault in the military and the backlog of care in the Veterans Administration.

Barr also is co-sponsoring an act finance a number of infrastructure programs with repatriated tax funds. H.R. 2084, the Partnership to Build America Act. This seems like a worthy goal, but is really a drop in the bucket in addressing our pressing infrastructure needs. For more information on America’s crumbling infrastructure, see the American Society of Civil Engineers Report Card on America’s Infrastructure. Deteriorating roads and bridges hamper the national economy. When politicians refuse to spend money on needed infrastructure they are being penny wise but pound foolish.

This week Representative Andy Barr filed a bill to alter the Internal Revenue Code to eliminate a disincentive to investing in horse. The Bill, HR 998 can be found here: HR 998

While I am generally critical of Rep. Barr, in fairness I should not when he is working on behalf of the citizens and businesses of his district, and this is clearly a case where he is.   Obviously the current IRS code is an ungodly mess, and should be reworked root and branch, but until that time there is nothing wrong with fixing a glaring problem like this.

Here is Representative Barr’s statement on the Bill: On Wednesday, I introduced H.R. 998, the Equine Tax Parity Act, a bill that would finally eliminate a 44-year-old tax provision that discourages investment in the equine industry.  This legislation would bring much-needed relief for an industry that distinguishes our Commonwealth worldwide. I believe this legislation can play a vital role in putting Kentuckians back to work.

The Bill is very simple, actually only two paragraphs long, as says:

 A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the holding period used to determine whether horses are section 1231 assets to 12 months.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REDUCTION OF HOLDING PERIOD TO 12 MONTHS FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING WHETHER HORSES ARE SECTION 1231 ASSETS.

(a) In General- Subparagraph (A) of section 1231(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking `and horses’.

(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012.

On February 26, Representative Andy Barr introduces a bill to start the process for a Constitutional amendment for term limits. His proposal would limit Senators to two terms and Representatives to six terms. The press release is found here.

I wrote an opinion piece for the Lexington Herald Leader a few weeks ago discussing the problems with term limits, and I am reprinting it here:

[Note: This was published in the Lexington Herald-Leader on January 26, 2013]

When he was running for Congress, Representative Andy Barr supported a Constitutional Amendment limits the number of terms for Senators and Congressmen. He endorsed limiting members of both houses to a total of twelve years of service: two terms for Senators and six for Representatives. Proponents of term limits say that far too many politicians become entrenched in Washington and more concerned about re-election and post service opportunities than about their constituents. Supporters also say that the current system is effectively undemocratic and note that in 2012, despite the widespread hostility toward Congress, 97% of the incumbents that ran for re-election won.

There’s a great deal of truth to these concerns, but there are also problems with term limits. Political influence comes with seniority, and this power can benefit the politician’s home state. Many small states exert outsized influence through a long serving elected official. Kentucky certainly benefits by having Mitch McConnell, the current minority leader, as our senior Senator.

This is not the only benefit of long service. With seniority comes knowledge, experience, and expertise. New congressmen lack knowledge not only of congressional procedures, but also the substance of government policy. Few are elected to Congress with expertise in the arcana of foreign policy or the defense budget, the details of agricultural subsidies or the complexity of Medicare. Because of this inexperience, new Congressmen must rely on the expertise of others. Their staff can help in matters of procedure, and there some policy experts on committee staff, but in many cases it is unelected government bureaucrats who provide advice. Specialists within the Department of Agriculture, for example, provide assistance on agricultural policy. In many other situations, however, it’s lobbyists who teach Representatives about the lobbyist’s industry and the laws that govern them.

Term limits will limit a politician’s expertise, and they will be forced to rely on unelected experts for policy advice. This, I would argue, is precisely the opposite of what the supporters of term limits want, which is to shift political power from Washington back to the citizens.
Is there a way to get the benefits without the drawbacks? I think there is, and use history as a guide.

Under the Articles of Confederation—which governed the nation after independence and before the Constitution was adopted—delegates to the Congress of the Confederation were limited to serve for three out of any six years. There was no limit on the total number of years a delegate could serve. This ensured that a delegate would spend half of his time in his home state, and wouldn’t lose touch with the concerns of home, and wouldn’t become beholden to the national government. This was also a proposed amendment in the First Congress, which was debated but rejected.

I think this is the kernel of a good idea. I think there should be no limit on the total terms a Senator or Congressman could serve, but there should be a limit on consecutive terms. My proposed amendment would say: “While there is no limit on the total number of terms served, a member of the House of Representatives is limited to five consecutive terms, and a member of the Senate is limited to two consecutive terms.”

This means that a Senator could serve for twelve years and a Representative for ten years, but could not then run for re-election. They could, if desired, run again after sitting out for a term.

This would break the incumbent lock on re-election, which would increase democracy, but wouldn’t deny the people of a state the seniority or expertise of an elected official. Under this system, when a politician’s consecutive terms were up, he or she might chose to run for another office. A congressman might run for a state legislative office, or a judicial post; a senator might return home and run for governor. This would keep qualified and experienced people in government. States would benefit from the national experience of returning politicians, and the national government would benefit by having politicians intimately familiar with state concerns.

This proposal, I believe, would achieve the goals sought by the supporters of term limits, but without the unintended consequences feared by opponents.

Representative Andy Barr wrote an editorial in Monday’s Herald Leader explaining his decision to vote against disaster relief aid for the victims of Hurricane Sandy. Rep. Barr said that his highest priority was “addressing our national debt crisis and getting our financial house in order, so we can get our economy back on track and Americans back to work.”

Herald Leader Link

I have a couple of comments regarding that statement. First, if the deficit is the single highest priority, than it must be reduced by any means, including across the board cuts, and revenue (read tax) increases. Rep. Barr has not yet had the opportunity to vote on tax increases, but I suspect that he, like most conservatives, will vote against them, claiming that they will hurt the economy. That’s fine, but that means that not raising taxes is a higher priority than deficit reduction. I also suspect that Rep. Barr will oppose any cuts to the military, and will, like most conservatives, claim that cutting the military would harm national defense. Again that is fine, but it means that national defense is a higher priority than deficit reduction.

My second comment concerns the implication that the deficit is somehow the cause of the nation’s economic woes. There is no doubt that large deficits can draw money into the government that would otherwise go to other areas of the economy. But the recent increase in the deficit is as much, or more, a product of the economic slowdown as the cause. As the economy slowed, due initially to the collapse of the housing market, tax revenues decreased, which meant that the deficit increased. The deficit ballooned because the economy slowed and shrank. Reducing the deficit is certainly important, but because it did not cause the economic slow-down, its reduction won’t impact the economic problems that did cause the economic slowdown.

My final comment involves specific government spending cuts. Andy Barr ran for Congress in 2010 and 2102. During both races he talked a lot about cutting government spending, but it was always in the abstract. He never really addressed specific cuts. He never said he wanted to cut this program or end that program. It was always very vague. Now that he is in Congress he has the opportunity, if not the obligation, to specifically describe those programs he wants to trim or eliminate. I look forward to that.