Arkansas Senate District 9: Holland and Pennartz

The race for Arkansas Senate District 9 pits Sen. Bruce Holland, R-Greenwood, against Rep. Tracy Pennartz, D-Fort Smith, in a contest that for Holland, will be about "putting people back to work." While Pennartz also plans to focus on "good-paying jobs," she will prioritize "quality education, lower taxes (individuals and businesses), and healthcare access and availability," as well.

"I believe my values of hard work, integrity, and a sense of honor as well as service to our families and our communities are important to the citizens of Senate District 9," Pennartz said.

Holland, who serves what will become Senate District 9, believes he is the best candidate for the position, "because I am who I represent."

"I am a cattleman, a small businessman, a former factory worker of 14 years, a member of the Farmer’s Cooperative Board of Directors, a life-long resident, a volunteer and a friend to those I serve," Holland said.

These responses were part of a survey conducted by The City Wire in anticipation of the 15 contested state legislative races. Candidates were asked about the top issues in their district, legislative goals for the next term and why each believes they are the right candidate for the position. They were also asked to answer “Yes,” “No,” or “Don’t Know” to a range of issues likely to surface in the 2013-2014 General Assembly.

The candidates' full, unedited responses are below.

• Sen. Bruce Holland
What are the top issues in your district?
The top issue for Senate District 9 is putting people back to work.

What are your legislative goals for your next term if elected?
I will continue efforts to make Arkansas a more business-friendly location for attracting businesses and jobs, particularly in manufacturing. I will work to get the Arkansas River certified to a twelve foot draft. Providing low-cost shipping opportunities from our area to all points reached by navigable waterways could be the most important economic development for our future. I will continue to push for more efficient government. I support legislation requiring drug tests for anyone receiving state benefits. If you have to pass a drug screening to get a job, you should have to pass one to get a state check. I also want stiffer laws against illegal immigrants. Arkansas should not be an illegal immigrant-friendly state. Another important issue for me is to ensure schools can continue to provide school-based mental health services to their students. I believe these programs help dropout rates, improve test scores, reduce drug abuse and ultimately keep underperforming students from winding up in our state prison system.

Why do you think you are the best person to represent your district?
I am the best candidate in this race, because I am who I represent. I am a cattleman, a small businessman, a former factory worker of 14 years, a member of the Farmer’s Cooperative Board of Directors, a life-long resident, a volunteer and a friend to those I serve. I love God, my family and my country. I believe laws made to control access to guns by law-abiding citizens are unconstitutional. I believe in local control of our schools. I respect the Constitution. I am endorsed by Arkansas Right to Life, the NRA, and the National Federation of Independent Businesses, just to name a few. This month, I was honored by the Advance Arkansas Institute for having the Senate’s top fifth voting record for supporting lower taxes, personal liberties and limited government.

YES-NO-DON’T KNOW RESPONSE - Holland
Each candidate was asked to provide a yes, no or don’t know response to the following four questions. Anything other than one of the three responses was not accepted.

If budget conditions allow, would you vote for renewal of the Quick Action Closing Fund?
Yes

Are you for the Nov. 6 ballot item that would raise the Arkansas sales tax rate by a half-cent (0.5%) to fund more than $1.8 billion in Arkansas road improvements during the next 10 years?
No

Would you support tougher ethics laws for Arkansas Legislators?
Yes

Would you support expansion of Arkansas’s Medicaid program using federal dollars as part of the new federal healthcare law?
No

• Rep. Tracy Pennartz
What are the top issues in your district?
Good-Paying Jobs, Quality Education, Lower Taxes (individuals and businesses), and Healthcare Access and Availability.

What are your legislative goals for your next term if elected?
My primary focus will be job creation as well as economic and rural development.

As a legislator, I voted for the people's right to decide whether to tax themselves to improve our state and county highways as well as our city streets and bridges. If passed, the temporary tax would not be collected on gasoline, groceries or medicine. If the people choose to pass Proposed Amendment #1 there could be very positive effects upon economic and rural development such as the creation of approximately 40,000 jobs.

I believe firmly in putting our people first!  IF we are able to extend our current Medicaid program without additional cost to the State for three full years while providing the opportunity to access healthcare services for nearly 250,000 working Arkansans, then I would support such an initiative.

Why do you think you are the best person to represent your district?
Having served almost six years as a State Representative, I believe my proven record of legislative leadership, constituent service, and producing positive results for western Arkansas can continue to be an asset in the Senate. For example, since I took office in 2007, I have been part of cutting taxes in excess of $734,000,000 dollars. Lastly, I believe my values of hard work, integrity, and a sense of honor as well as service to our families and our communities are important to the citizens of Senate District 9.

YES-NO-DON’T KNOW RESPONSE - Pennartz
Each candidate was asked to provide a yes, no or don’t know response to the following four questions. Anything other than one of the three responses was not accepted.

Advertisement:

If budget conditions allow, would you vote for renewal of the Quick Action Closing Fund?
Yes

Are you for the Nov. 6 ballot item that would raise the Arkansas sales tax rate by a half-cent (0.5%) to fund more than $1.8 billion in Arkansas road improvements during the next 10 years? (Pennartz was unwilling to provide a "Yes," "No," "Don't Know" answer to this question.)

Would you support tougher ethics laws for Arkansas Legislators?
Yes

Would you support expansion of Arkansas’s Medicaid program using federal dollars as part of the new federal healthcare law? (Pennartz was unwilling to provide a "Yes," "No," "Don't Know" answer to this question.)

Five Star Votes: 
Average: 5 (1 vote)

Like This Article? Share It!

Comments

'Termed out' Tracy..

You're for providing all these health benefits but you won't admit you'd take federal money in order to. Please tell us how you would do this otherwise. I would think the term limit law has something to do with tougher ethics because if skirted as you are doing, this means simply a walk down the other hallway for visitors to see a legislator they already know.

Political Soundbyte

Holland says, "I support legislation requiring drug tests for anyone receiving state benefits. If you have to pass a drug screening to get a job, you should have to pass one to get a state check." Be careful of the political soundbyte. On the surface, such a quick notion, has financial consequences that never pay for themselves, leaving taxpayers to pay for the mess. Kits costs $25-$45 per person, but when you add in the administrative costs, they can easily reach about $170 per person. Multiply that by 30,000 and you're spending a minimum of three-quarters of million per testing month. Three million if you test each quarter. And then add in the follow up counseling that any due diligence program should offer. And for what? Welfare recipients test 98% clean. A Google search will bear this out. Why? Because drugs are expensive AND THEY DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY. Would you consider that a good trade for your tax dollars? $3M plus the bureaucracy to come with it to catch about 500 offenders - about 6-8 lowlifes per county? Anyone who says they are for less government, and almost all say that they are, should clear of any candidate making careless statements as Holland did in this response.
Holland says, "I support legislation requiring drug tests for anyone receiving state benefits. If you have to pass a drug screening to get a job, you should have to pass one to get a state check." Be careful of the political soundbyte. On the surface, such a quick notion, has financial consequences that never pay for themselves, leaving taxpayers to pay for the mess. Kits costs $25-$45 per person, but when you add in the administrative costs, they can easily reach about $170 per person. Multiply that by 30,000 and you're spending a minimum of three-quarters of million per testing month. Three million if you test each quarter. And then add in the follow up ...>> Read the entire comment.

Slow down...

Assuming only 8% (this was not a scientific study, and even common sense tells us that in certain populations the ratio would be much higher), that's 8% knocked off assistance. So magically we have 8% of funding back which would offset any costs and then some. Additional benefits include prevention of future use by current recipients. Additionally, reducing number of people on assistance, and dependent on government = less government. I'm digging Holland's stance on this.

Not so fast

You are going to be spending far more putting them into a drug treatment plan than you would on any other benefits. However even if you decide not to treat drug use as the health/social issue it is, what do you do with their children? Let them starve on the streets for no fault of their own? Take them away and over tax the already stretched thin DHS and foster care system? Drugs are bad, mmmkay. But this isn't a Dickens novel we have rightfully moved past that.

Passing the buck

So are you proposing we ignore the issue and pass the buck like so many have in the past? It occurs to many that this thinking is exactly why we are so deep in the problem right now. When do we take a responsible stand on these things. And please, "the children" thing is really a worn out excuse for doing nothing.

political ploy

It just doesn't make economic sense to try to whittle out the 2%. The children ARE a big factor here. What happens when you pull them out from family and give them a life full of various foster homes? You get the next generation of people needing assistance and/or people using drugs. I'm all for "welfare to work" programs, but a drug test program is a wasteful venture. Sadly, it has become a political ploy used by desperate candidates. We don't need to go down a path traveled by other states who gambled and lost on it, big time.

No excuses

No the children is not an excuse, it is a GIANT hindrance to whatever drug free utopia you dream of. Statistically speaking there is an almost 95% chance that the people you kick off of assistance have children. So what do you do with them? That HAS to be addressed. It doesn't ignore the fact that as a society we don't want children to be in a house in which drugs are used, or the fact that drugs are a problem. But cutting assistance off that will ultimately harm the children isn't a solution. You probably think the "War on Drugs" is working, don't you.

WHAT?!?

Um, do you really think that drug users are *responsible* and spending their assistance money on children??? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh, to live in your world, must be pure bliss!

sidetracked

off track of the point that welfare beneficiaries test below the rest of the population in drug use. Drug testing is a waste of money. Do the right thing. Ask ABF and USA Truck how many drug using drivers they are catching compared to how much they are spending. Besides, politicians making big talk before an election that didn't demonstrate an inkling of effort towards what they are now proposing are nothing short of desperate.