Thursday 12/15/2005 DAILY NEWS DIGEST
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/113464200674110.xml&coll=2&thispage=1 – Monitor’s report questions DHR’s ability to sustain RC reforms.
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/113464185874110.xml&coll=2 – State Personnel Department names Deputy Director.
http://www.dailyhome.com/opinion/2005/dh-editorials-1215-0-5l14v0955.htm - Editorial urges governor, AEA to make sure that educational needs of state are met before talking of raises and rebates.
FROM TODAY’S ANNISTON STAR:
EDITORIALS
Much ado about so little
In our opinion
12-15-2005
Sounds good. Things like that always do. Speaking to the Montgomery County Republican Club, Gov. Bob Riley made a bold offer. “If there is any money left after we build this budget,” he said, referring to the one he is working on currently, “we are going to give it back to the hardworking families of Alabama.”
Now since we have already asked former chief justice Roy Moore and former governor Don Siegelman for more details about their plans for the state, it is only fair that we do the same with Gov. Riley.
So, governor, how you gonna do it?
Anticipating this question, Riley told reporters that he was looking into ways to give the money back, so we should cut him a little slack while he is figuring it out. But if he brings it up again, we will want details.
Like how do you separate the “hardworking families” from the others? Or are all Alabama families “hardworking” in the governor’s mind?
And how are you going to divide it up? Equally? More to the ones who pay more — like the Bush tax cut, more for those at the top? Or more to the ones who pay the largest percentage of their small income to the state — which would help the poor, but not reward the well-to-do? Could the governor sell the Legislature on that? Would he try?
This could get complicated.
So let’s simplify it. Suppose there is a surplus like this year’s — $299 million. The Census reports that there are 1,103,835 families in the state. Assume they are all hardworking. That comes out to $27.09 per family.
Why not send out a notice to these families and tell them that they can take the money, less postage and handling. Or they can tell the state to keep it and (1.) put it in a rainy day fund or (2.) put it in either the Education or General Fund budget — whichever needs it the most.
It would be telling to see where citizens really want the money to go.
Hunting for an issue
In our opinion
12-15-2005
It is interesting and disheartening to watch candidates raise meaningless issues when there is so much to be talked about.
But that is what Don Siegelman has done.
On Dec. 2, Siegelman’s campaign sent out a fundraising letter that, among other things, accused Gov. Bob Riley of “being supported by liberal anti-gun extremists” because of the limits that were put on deer hunting with dogs during Riley’s term in office.
Now linking restrictions on deer hunting with dogs to a bunch of “liberal anti-gun extremists” is a pretty big jump. The decline of deer hunting with dogs has more to do with hunters’ preference for deer-stands than it does with limits imposed by the government.
Still, during Riley’s first years the number of counties with restrictions did rise slightly. Those counties were added to the list of the ones that were restricted during the Siegelman administration, leaving one to wonder what Siegelman did to lift those restrictions while he was governor.
The point of the fundraising letter, of course, was to get hunters upset enough to send in money and join “Sportsmen for Siegelman,” for which they will get a membership card, a bumper sticker and a “certificate suitable for framing.”
What they won’t get is a real issue to sink their teeth into.
Wouldn’t it be better if all the candidates would send out a letter inviting folks to join them in discussing things that will make a difference in the lives of our citizens?
And include in the letter bumper stickers like these:
“Moore for moderation”
“No bull with Baxley”
“Reason and Riley”
“Siegelman for sanity”
Nah, won’t happen. Not in Alabama.
House OKs Patriot Act expansion and votes to cut social spending
By David Espo
Associated Press
12-15-2005
WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a surgeon who once sewed up heart patients, likens his current challenge to threading a needle.
It was legislation to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling he was referring to when he made the observation. But it’s also an apt description for the congressional end game as Republican leaders try to squeeze several bills through the House and Senate before lawmakers adjourn for the holidays.
The House approved a pair of year-end conservative priorities Wednesday, voting to extend the anti-terrorism Patriot Act and to cut spending across a wide swath of social programs.
Both bills have White House support, but they also face Democratic-led opposition in the Senate. Their fates are uncertain in the final, contentious days of the congressional year.
“We need to stay tough on terrorism. This bill ensures that our law enforcement keep the tools they already have in place to root out and prosecute terrorists,” House Speaker Dennis Hastert said as lawmakers voted 251-174 to renew expiring provisions of the Patriot Act. The law initially was passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Despite criticism that the bill shortchanged civil liberties, the vote was relatively bipartisan. The 44 Democratic supporters included two members of the leadership.
The vote on the spending bill was far closer and more partisan, 215-213. Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer, the second-ranking Democrat, scathingly criticized the Republican-crafted funding measure. “Last week, the House majority passed more than $94 billion in additional tax cuts, the benefits of which mostly go to the wealthiest taxpayers,” he said.
“And this week, with this bill, we are slashing discretionary spending for education, health care programs, worker training and assistance to the most vulnerable by $1.6 billion.”
As both bills advanced, Hastert, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and their leadership teams worked with the White House to salvage other priorities as well.
Legislation to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling took on outsized significance, with officials saying its passage could accomplish one and possibly two long-sought Republican goals.
The legislation itself would hand the president a major victory on energy policy.
At the same time, in the year-end congressional calculus readily understood only to lawmakers and their aides, approval of the oil provision could quickly lead to passage of a bill to attack deficits by slowing the growth of federal benefit programs for the first time in a decade.
