Alabama Politics in
Doc’s Political Parlor
& Home of Lawn Mower Repair

The perennial battle to get our Legislature to face up to the need for constitutional reform is joined once more. And once again, the Alabama Farmers’ Federation and the Christian Coalition of Alabama have joined forces to fight them.

On the surface, these two groups don’t seem to have that much in common. You don’t see many folks from the CCA out there demanding that the state protect hog farms. Nor do you see representatives from ALFA lobbying against gay marriage.

When it comes to opposing a constitutional convention or anything else that might change the Constitution to make life better for most Alabamians, however, these two sing from the same song sheet.

ALFA has made it clear that it plans to “stop attempts to revise the Alabama Constitution by convention.”

If the Constitution is to be revised, ALFA wants it revised by the Legislature, where ALFA has the power to preserve the advantages the current Constitution gives agribusiness.

Protecting corporate farming, not family farming, is ALFA’s goal. When a plan was proposed that would preserve the breaks for farms of the size most Alabamians consider “family” but eliminate the advantages the large farming corporations enjoy, ALFA fought and defeated the package.

And the Christian Coalition of Alabama was right there to help it, even though keeping the constitutionally mandated tax structure that ALFA favors works to the disadvantage of people who are the CCA’s core constituency.

The Christian Coalition also parrots the ALFA party line in warning a convention would bring “uninhibited home rule” to Alabama. Now home rule is hard to count as a faith-based issue, but it easily fits into ALFA’s agenda.

And what is the CCA getting in return for this support?

Well, a few years ago, when the CCA fought efforts to set up a state lottery, ALFA jumped in to help them.

But some folks think the CCA is getting something else — money.

There has been a great deal of speculation about where the CCA gets its financial support — speculation heightened by revelations that Indian casino money helped fund the CCA’s anti-gambling efforts. And much of that speculation centers on the ALFA-CCA connection.

Could it be that ALFA is underwriting the CCA’s campaign against constitutional reform?

We don’t know.

Last year, efforts to require public advocacy groups like the Christian Coalition to reveal the sources of its funding failed because of a filibuster carried out by Republicans, many of whom had strong ties to ALFA.

Of course, there is an easy way to prove all this speculation wrong. The CCA could open its books and let the public see.

So why don’t they?

Good question.

Alabama Attorney General Troy King says the state’s inadequate care for the mentally retarded is our problem, not the federal government’s. In a recent constituents’ letter, he wrote that the state Legislature and Gov. Bob Riley bear the responsibility for ensuring enough money goes to this vulnerable segment of our population.

Well said, Mr. Attorney General. If over the past six decades or longer, such strong-willed words had been matched by resolved action, Alabama would not be viewed nationally in the crudest of stereotypes.

Let’s hope the attorney general can indeed cut short the lawsuit filed on behalf of mentally retarded Alabamians who claim a poorly funded state Department of Mental health has exiled them to a frustratingly long waiting list. Let’s hope the statehouse will hear King and respond with enough green to make sure services are provided quickly and sufficiently.

The attorney’s general’s spokesman told the Florence Times Daily that King is “in a terrible position, [seen] as a person insensitive to the needs of these individuals when he actually wants the same thing — services for them.” Let’s hope lawmakers feel the same and are appropriately moved.

History has proven hope, sadly, to be a shaky proposition when it comes to state government doing the right thing. As much as Attorney General King might not like federal intervention, it is the very taskmaster that has applied the whip to countless Alabama government agencies that for whatever reason would not do the right thing. Often, if we do meet federal regulations, it is at a bare minimum.

It’s too bad for King that he must live with that legacy. Unfortunately, minds and attitudes don’t change so easily. Trust must be earned.

A good start down that course would be for King to use his powers of persuasion with the Legislature so that it does what he desires — deliver robust serves to the mentally retarded in Alabama.

With that notch on the attorney general’s belt, the entire statehouse can launch a serious-minded attempt at providing quality government services, even surpassing what the feds demand.

With that, Alabama will become a fairer and more prosperous state. And someday, thanks to the work of Troy King and a host of others currently in leadership, a future attorney general can tell the federal government to butt out. We have proven we know how to properly take care of our own, that future attorney general could proudly boast.

Much has been made of the way our state income tax penalizes the poor and benefits the rich. And there is a lot of back-patting going around now that the governor has finally, partially, addressed the issue.

However, the income tax is only part of the burden borne by the poor. As far as folks in lower income brackets are concerned, Alabama’s sales tax system may hurt them even more. As a recent article in The Star revealed, Anniston families making around $25,000 a year pay just under 10 percent of their income in sales taxes while a family making $108,000 pays about half that.

Which, of course, is not fair.

But unlike the income tax, which is pretty cut and dried, sales taxes in this state are complicated by varying percentages, extensive exemptions and a host of exceptions that will make any reform effort difficult to explain, much less pass.

In addition, the sales tax system as it currently exists is supported by two powerful groups which, for very different reasons, will not be friendly to reform.

Most of the money from state sales taxes goes to education. Reducing the tax burden on the poor would mean reducing the already insufficient amount available for our schools, which would make it all the more difficult for the poor, through education, to rise from poverty. We call that giving with one hand while taking with the other.

But fear not, the Alabama Education Association will oppose any reduction in money going to the Education Trust Fund unless it is offset by money from other sources — such as an increase in property taxes, which in Alabama are among the lowest in the nation, or the removal of most of the sales tax exemptions.

As you would expect, the Alabama Farmers Federation will fight any change in the property tax structure. But ALFA will also oppose any change in the exemptions because so many of them favor agriculture.

So with AEA and ALFA less than enthusiastic, if not outright opposing, sales tax reforms that will help the poor, the chances of change are small indeed.

Being poor is bad enough.

Being poor in Alabama is even worse.

This past week the Alabama Poverty Project, a nonprofit organization committed to ending poverty in Alabama, released its long-awaited study of the poor in Alabama. The report, titled “The Picture of Poverty,” reveals a grim and frustrating view of people in need. And while it is clear that poverty in Alabama is not as bad as it could be, it is nonetheless far from being acceptable.

The study was prepared by the Auburn University Montgomery Center for Demographic and Cultural Research under the direction of Don Bogie. The study gleaned Census data from the years 1990 and 2000, along with a plethora of other sources. The picture of poverty offered by the report makes it tragically obvious that poverty will be a significant part of Alabama’s future.

Overall, the number of Alabama residents living in poverty fell during the economic growth of the 1990s. But even with these gains, many rural counties continue to have poverty rates over 30 percent.

For example, the state’s poorest county, Wilcox, has nearly 40 percent of residents living below the poverty level. This includes 47 percent of the children in the county. Compare Wilcox to Shelby County, which has the lowest poverty rate, 6.3 percent. Statewide, the poverty rate is 16.1 percent.

The picture of poverty has many different angles. For instance, the poverty rate statewide among children 17 and under is nearly 22 percent. For families with a female head of household, the rate is nearly 45 percent. The percentage of Alabamians eligible for Medicaid is right at 16 percent.

Wayne Flynt, an Auburn University history professor and president of the board of the Alabama Poverty Project, notes that the greatest poverty in Alabama is among our children. “In a state where evangelical Christianity is by far the dominant religion,” Flynt said in a press briefing, “these numbers are hard to accept.”

Dr. Flynt’s reference, of course, is to Jesus’ admonition that his followers show particular care for “the least of these in your midst.” Children and the elderly are in fact singled out in the Scriptures for special attention — the so called “widows and orphans.”

In the foreword to the report, Dr. Flynt writes, “What does it say about the moral values of a society when its poorest, least powerful, most neglected people are its children and its senior citizens?”

A copy of the study was hand delivered to every state legislator and to Gov. Riley.In a statement on the steps of the statehouse last Friday, Dr. Flynt said, “Never again will the leaders of our state be able to say, ‘I didn’t know that!’ concerning poverty because they did know that, because we’re going to give them a copy of this.”

Of course, changing the picture of poverty in Alabama will require a concerted effort by all its citizens. It will require a substantial enactment of Jesus’ admonition that we “love our neighbor as we love ourselves.” And it will take some awareness of the scope of poverty, which means taking stock of just how many folks qualify as “the least of these in our midst.”

To that end, the Alabama Poverty Project will make the “The Picture of Poverty” available to anyone who would like a copy. There is a free download of the study available at the group’s Web site, alabamapoverty.org. To obtain a hard copy of the study, call toll-free 877-782-5867 and ask for “The Picture of Poverty.” The price of the hard copy is $20.

James L. Evans is pastor of Auburn First Baptist Church and is on the board of directors of the Alabama Poverty Project. He can be reached at faithmatters@mindspring.com.

Twenty years ago, Mike Rogers, a 28-year-old attorney from Saks, became the youngest member and first Republican member of the Calhoun County Commission.

Over the ensuing two decades, he’s asked voters to invest their trust in him. His most recent success was the 2002 election to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Thursday, he asked voters to do it again. Rogers announced his campaign for reelection to the 3rd Congressional District at the monthly Anniston Kiwanis Club meeting. He told members that his staff delivered qualifying papers to Birmingham Wednesday night.

“Hopefully, we’ll have good success,” he said.

According to the latest campaign-finance reports filed Sept. 30, 2005, Rogers had received $639,487 in contributions and still had $597,369 cash on hand. Much of Rogers’ contributions come from the health care, banking and insurance industries, as well as contributions from other political action committees.

Among the largest contributors for 2005 were Alabama Power Company Employees’ Federal Political Action Committee, $10,000; American Dental Political Action Committee, $10,000; Americans for a Republican Majority PAC, $10,000; BAE Systems United Defense Employees PAC, $10,000; ELECT – The PAC of the Alabama Farmers’ Federation, $10,000; Keep Our Majority PAC $10,000; National Association of Realtors’ PAC $10,000; Together For Our Majority PAC, $10,000.

An independent candidate, Mark Layfield of Auburn, is compiling a petition for ballot access. He needs 5,000 verified signatures by the April 7 qualifying deadline, and as of Thursday had about 4,400, according to the Secretary of State’s election division.

The Alabama Democratic Party said Thursday that no Democratic candidate had filed yet to run against Rogers.

In his Kiwanis speech Thursday, Rogers laid out the Republican agenda for the coming year. He said the agenda includes reforming the ethics policy for lobbyists, making tax cuts permanent, and immigration reforms.

Rogers said immigration reforms undoubtedly will stir the most debate among the parties.

“It’s become a real problem from a national security standpoint,” he said.

He spoke of a trip to Arizona, New Mexico and Texas where he learned just how easy it was for Hispanic immigrants to get across the border. It could be just as easy for terrorists, he said.

“We know there are people out there who want to come into our country and do us harm,” Rogers said.

He advocates construction of a high security fence along the border.

“We know the fence won’t keep them out, but it will slow them down,” he said.

He said he wants immigrants to register legally. He understands the poor conditions they live in and the need for jobs, he said.

“They need to work, and frankly, we need the labor,” Rogers said.

Rogers said after the meeting he was pleased with many of the projects he’s been able to work on during his first term. He cited $22 million earmarked for the Eastern Bypass and a successful trip through BRAC hearings.

Rogers said that in the future, he would like to work with the Center for Domestic Preparedness to offer mobile training sessions. He feels the training could benefit volunteer fire departments and EMS personnel who can’t leave their full-time jobs for two weeks to train at the McClellan center.

He also wants to expand the use of dogs for security and drug-detection purposes. He said many of the dogs are bred and trained In Europe rather than the United States.

Auburn University’s Canine Detection Training Center is at McClellan.

Rogers is a member of the House Armed Services, Agriculture, and Homeland Security committees. He is chairman of a committee investing the funding of Sept. 11 projects.

Rogers’ first elected office was as county commissioner at age 28.

In 1994, he was elected to the Alabama House of Representatives. He was reelected and became the House Minority Leader in 1998.

Rogers previously worked as an attorney in Anniston.

He graduated from Saks High School and earned his bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Jacksonville State University.

He graduated from the Birmingham School of Law in 1991.

Rogers lives in Saks with his wife, Beth, and their three children.

Star Capitol Correspondent Brian Lyman contributed to this report.

MONTGOMERY — You have to take up the tacks before you take up the carpet.

And before you take up the state constitution, you have to take up the tax.

State Sen. Roger Bedford, D-Russellville, introduced bills Thursday that would eliminate the federal income tax deduction and the sales tax on groceries, raise personal and dependent exemptions and increase the minimum income tax threshold from $4,600 to $12,000.

Bedford said attempts to reform Alabama’s Constitution of 1901 have generally run into opposition because of questions over what a new governing document would do to taxes.

“I’ve come to the conclusion we better tackle the hardest part first, and that’s taxes,” he said.

Bedford’s tax proposal is the third to be considered by the legislature this year.

Gov. Bob Riley has proposed raising the minimum income tax threshold from $4,600 to $15,000 over a five-year period, as well as increasing the standard deduction and personal and dependent exemptions.

Rep. John Knight, D-Montgomery, has introduced legislation to repeal the state’s federal income tax deduction, increase standard deductions and personal exemption to their federal equivalents, and raise the minimum tax threshold to $22,800.

Alabama Arise, an advocacy group that has endorsed Knight’s plan, estimates that Riley’s plan would save families approximately $350 per year when fully implemented. It estimates Knight’s plan would save families approximately $700 per year. Bedford said his proposal would save families between $300 and $400 a year.

The federal income tax deduction is written into the state constitution through Amendment 225, passed in 1965. Bedford’s proposal hinges on voters approving another constitutional amendment to repeal Amendment 225.

Bedford says repealing the deduction, which generally favors the wealthy, would bring an additional $270 million to state coffers, which he said would cover the cost of repealing the 4 percent sales tax on groceries. The Legislative Fiscal Office estimates that cost at $275 million. The money would come out of the Education Trust Fund.

Riley’s tax-cut plan would cost approximately $233 million in state revenues. Bedford’s and Knight’s plans are “revenue neutral” – they would not cost the state anything.

The $12,000 threshold would be below the federal poverty level, but Bedford said the difference could be made up by the repeal of the sales tax.

If the repeal of the deduction passes, however, nothing in Bedford’s plan would require the state to repeal the sales tax.

“My preference is there would be a link, but I heard from House members and senators (to) let the voters speak first,” he said.

Sen. Del Marsh, R-Anniston, has introduced legislation to repeal the sales tax on nonprescription drugs and medical equipment, from eyeglasses to wheelchairs.

“I’d like to see it first,” he said. “If the numbers work, I’d be supportive. But I’d have to see it first.”

MONTGOMERY — A new Wal-Mart Super Center in Demopolis opened Tuesday. That same day, Demopolis Mayor Cecil Williamson said, a Wal-Mart closed in nearby Livingston.

That one-step-forward, one-step-back mentality has dogged rural communities for years, and economic development was one of the chief reasons Williamson, rural officials, professors and legislators were at a press conference Tuesday to support a proposed Center for Rural Alabama.

“Any time we can partner with an agency that has the time and the access to corporate sponsors and funding, we really relish that partnership,” Williamson said.

State Rep. Frank McDaniel, D-Albertville, and Senate President Pro Tem Lowell Barron, D-Fyffe, have introduced bills in their respective houses that would establish a center to coordinate federal and state rural programs, create strategies to assist rural development and keep information on the topic.

“We’ve got pockets in this state, as all of you know, that are doing very well,” Barron said at the press conference. “They’re mostly in urban areas. And we’ve got 1.4 million people living in rural Alabama that aren’t doing so well.”

Barron pushed a similar bill last year, but it did not become law. He estimated the cost of setting up the center at $200,000. That money would come out of the Education Trust Fund budget. Additional money, he said, would be secured through private sources.

Supporters of the center said it not only would help bring business into rural Alabama, but it also would help rural communities survive economic shocks.

While the state has been successful in attracting automobile manufacturers, Tallapoosa County commissioner Thomas Coley said, rural Alabama has faced textile job losses. A center, he said, might help rural communities absorb such blows.

“If that’s our future, what better way for Alabama to be prepared for the next economic hiccup than by having a Center for Rural Alabama?” he said.

Joe Sumners, director of the Economic Development Institute at Auburn University, said “great” programs to help the state’s rural areas already are in place.

“What we lack is a crossroads to give us the biggest bang for our buck,” he said.

The proposal is modeled on centers in North Carolina, Texas, Louisiana and Virginia. Barron cited the North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center, which he said has helped to secure loans for more than 1,000 businesses in rural communities, as the model for Alabama to follow.

The president pro tem expects the Senate bill to come to a vote within three weeks. A House hearing on McDaniel’s bill is expected next week.

Several rural communities already have formed a Black Belt Mayors’ Association, which attempts to coordinate strategy for that area, Williamson said.

Her rural communities do not want to become cities like Tuscaloosa, she said.

“We just want to be rural, but we want to be better,” she said.

Alabama Citizens for Constitutional Reform has called for a rally in Montgomery today to support a constitutional convention.

A public hearing on House Bill 109, which calls for a convention, runs from 8 to 11 this morning in the Capitol Auditorium.

ACCR will rally on the Capitol steps at 11:15 a.m. to present more than 60,000 signatures on a petition to the Legislature for a rewrite of the 1901 constitution. For more information about the group, go to www.constitutionalreform.or

Statehouse lawmakers continue to debate a real no-brainer — whether to remove segregationist language from the state Constitution. Meanwhile, we expect tourism bureaus in Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, and — say it ain’t so —Mississippi to continue to gleefully smile.

In 2004, the last go-round at deleting the racist provisions from the Constitution went by the extremely pedestrian name of Amendment 2. After it lost by 1,846 votes, a better handle would have been The Tennessee-Florida-Georgia-Mississippi Tourism Improvement Act.

Perhaps whether a national organization books a convention in Alabama does not hinge on the state’s inability to remove the hate speech from its Constitution, but it most certainly cannot help.

Yet, what we’re hearing from Montgomery is the same tired arguments that confused the debate last time. Removing a 1956 amendment, opponents say, would allow a judge to unilaterally raise taxes to better fund Alabama schools.

Do we really want to go here again?

The 1956 amendment, records and media accounts from the time show, was written as a reaction to the 1954 Supreme Court order to integrate public schools. Alabamians riled by the Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education decision approved an amendment telling any public school that the Legislature reserved the right to pull government funding if it got the notion to obey the high court’s order.

Ugly stuff.

The current debate is whether that section of the Constitution should go away. Foes say doing so will enshrine a right to public education. And what’s the problem?

It seems that timid lawmakers not willing to support editing out all racist language are in a bit of a bind.

They surely can’t publicly support the authors of the 1956 amendment, who were fighting to keep blacks and whites from attending the same public schools.

Who on Goat Hill is ready to stand up and forcefully declare to Alabamians that they have no right to a public education? Which lawmaker will be the first to look hard-working Alabama families in the eye and say that their children aren’t entitled to a public school education?

That leaves the phantom tax Amendment 2 opponents scared folks with in 2004. As Gov. Bob Riley has correctly pointed out, Alabama law prohibits state judges from unilaterally raising taxes for schooling.

It’s way past time for the state to remove this foul-smelling dead letter from its governing document. Both the Democrats who don’t want to talk about it this session and the Republicans who want to only partially edit racist language owe Alabamians an explanation. Either put forth the amendment as offered in 2004 or explain why you won’t.

MONTGOMERY — Opponents of Gov. Bob Riley’s school spending proposal say it’s politically motivated. Riley insists it’s not.

Whatever the reasons for the governor’s $500 million capital improvement plan, some observers believe it will be an asset for him in the November election, and perhaps in the June primary against former state Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore.

Riley’s proposal will first run the legislative gauntlet, and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate already have criticized the size of the plan and its timing in an election year.

Still, the proposal has supporters on both sides of the aisle. Sen. Gerald Dial, D-Lineville, said his constituents strongly supported Riley’s plan at a recent public meeting.

"They want see conditions changed," said Dial, who supports Riley’s proposal. "The governor’s offered a positive plan to people who understand it, so if the legislature fails to act on it, for whatever reason, then it’s the legislature’s fault we haven’t fixed the schools."

Riley has proposed taking $500 million from the state’s Education Trust Fund to spend on repairs, expansions and upgrades of school facilities around the state.

About $250 million would go to K-12 schools; the remainder would go to colleges, universities and other educational institutions. Each school district would get a minimum of $200,000 for capital improvements, with additional money awarded based on enrollment.

"I just think we need to be more conservative," Sen. Lowell Barron, D-Fyffe, the Senate president pro tem, said on Monday. "I think we should not play politics at this time.

"It certainly smells of election year politics, and I don’t think we should play politics with our children and their future."

Democrats have zeroed in on the governor’s proposal to abolish one of the state’s two rainy-day funds and spend the money on education. Barron proposes to spend $250 million on capital improvements this year, place the remainder in the state’s statutory rainy-day account, and issue a $1 billion bond issue next year to fix state schools.

Savings have become a mantra for many Democrats on Goat Hill. Sen. Hank Sanders, D-Selma, chairman of the Senate Education Finance and Taxation committee, and Rep. Richard Lindsey, D-Centre, chairman of the House’s Education Finance and Appropriations committee, expressed reservations Monday about Riley’s plan.

"I’m sure the governor hopes he’ll get benefits from spending all the money, but that’s not fiscally conservative," Sanders said. "I’m not sure how that’s going to weigh with the public.

"I do think this is about politics through and through."

Sanders supports a larger salary increase for teachers and says Riley’s plan to give money to every district takes money from districts that have greater needs than others. Lindsey said Riley’s plan was "good," but that he had concerns about its use of projected revenues for funding.

"If we have a downturn in the economy, we may not have these dollars to spend," Lindsey said.

Like Sanders and Barron, he favors saving the extra money. "I think it’s much more prudent, much more conservative, to have any even bigger capital program to address true needs of the school systems," Lindsey said.

Riley’s staff and his legislative supporters deny that his proposal is aimed at the governor’s re-election, and argue that the Democrats want to spend the money on teacher raises favored by Alabama Education Association Executive Secretary Paul Hubbert, vice-chairman of the state Democratic Party.

"This $500 million for school renovations is one-time money," said Jeff Emerson, a spokesman for Riley. "What the AEA, what Paul Hubbert, wants to do is spend it on recurring expenses.

"You can’t spend one-time money on that."

Emerson also noted that Democrats last year opposed a Riley proposal to float a $1 billion bond for school improvements.

"So now they’re back to wanting a bond issue all of sudden," he said. "It doesn’t make much sense."

Riley’s budget removes the $234 million statutory rainy-day fund — essentially a state savings account — but funds the constitutional rainy-day fund, a line of credit that must be repaid, to its maximum of $248 million. Dial said that’s enough money to cover future shortfalls.

"We’re either going to have $250 million in a rainy-day account or $500 million," he said. "If you take half of that, you’d have to have a terrific downturn in the economy and a pretty liberal spending legislature to spend that money into proration."

While Riley insists no political motives fuel his proposal, some see benefits from it.

"All voters want to save for a rainy day, but all voters want to reap the benefits of a good economic climate," said David Lanoue, chairman of the University of Alabama’s political science department. "In a sense, Riley’s selling the syrup, and the Democrats are selling the medicine.

"It seems, in a political sense, that gives Riley an advantage."

Riley also has stressed the benefits his plan would give to rural schools.

Natalie Davis, a political science professor at Birmingham-Southern College, notes that Moore is expected to do well in the rural counties of Alabama, where his message of fundamentalist Christianity and low taxes should play well, and where Riley’s negatives "are more pronounced."

"And in fairness, those (rural districts) are probably the ones that need the most help," she said. "In rural districts, they can do more with base amount than they could do in affluent school districts."

Moore has called for the extra $500 million in the Education Trust Fund to be returned to taxpayers. J. Holland, Moore’s communications director, called Riley’s education spending plan a ploy.

"We feel like it’s another political election year way to get attention and lure voters," he said.

Emerson said Riley has been interested in rural areas, particularly the Black Belt, throughout his term.

"The election has nothing to do with this," he said. "Governor Riley has been addressing needs of rural Alabama since he became governor."

Those inside and outside the Legislature doubt Riley will get $500 million. Randy Wood, R-Saks, strongly supports the governor’s proposal, but expects it to change significantly as it goes through the process.

"I’m sure it’s going to change 180 degrees once it comes out of the education committee," he said.

Lea Fite, D-Jacksonville, agreed.

"That package will probably change 10,000 times before we vote on it," he said. "All you see is a very basic roadmap about where we will possibly end up.

"There’s gong to be a lot of heated discussion. I’ll bet the governor won’t recognize the end result."

That’s expected, Emerson said. "It’s not a my-way-or-the-highway situation," he said. "Governor Riley wants to work with the Legislature."

On Wednesday morning, an Alabama Citizens for Constitutional Reform rally in Montgomery will present a petition to legislative leaders calling for the House and Senate to let the people vote on whether the state should call a convention to rewrite Alabama’s antiquated Constitution.

But even before the rally at the Capitol steps, ACCR members will be hard at work. Earlier that morning, the House Constitution and Election Committee will discuss the proposal. Without the committee’s endorsement, the measure will not move forward.

Here, for ourselves and for our children, is democracy at work.

We are guaranteed by our federal Constitution the right to publicly assemble and to petition our government for a redress of grievances. Those rallying Wednesday feel that few of our grievances are greater than the burdens placed on Alabama’s people by their state Constitution.

There are, of course, those who do not want the Constitution changed. They have prospered under the current system, so they will not be at the rally. Instead, they will be lobbying legislators to keep the people from voting — working against democracy.

ACCR and its supporters will be lobbying legislators as well and we urge senators and representatives to listen — especially Rep. Steve Hurst from Mumford who sits on the Constitution and Election Committee. The position of those calling for a vote is simple and clear. If the people can be trusted to put legislators in office, those same people can be trusted to vote for or against a constitutional convention.

Under the bill being proposed, the people will get three chances to vote on the issue. First, they will vote on calling a convention. If they vote yes, then they will vote for delegates to that convention. And lastly, they will vote on the document that the convention writes.

In essence, this is a rally for democracy. We urge our legislators to stand up for democracy and let the people vote.

MONTGOMERY — Two families buy the same food at a grocery in Anniston. The same box of cereal. The same cuts of meat. The same brand of milk.

They travel to a clothing store and buy the same shirts. The same pants. The same dresses.

They pay the same 8 percent sales tax on those items – just a part of the total taxes they’ll send to Montgomery in a year.

However, by the end of that year, one of those families – making $25,000 annually – has handed 9.6 percent of its income over to state. The other family – making more than $108,000 a year – has paid a little more than 5 percent.

And when the year-end tally of the family tax burden comes, the poor will have paid the bigger percentage of their tax dollars on the goods and services they buy.

How high are Alabama’s sales taxes? Consider this: Anniston’s 8 percent sales tax – 4 percent state, 4 percent city – is only slightly lower than New York City’s 8.38 percent. And Gotham removes its city sales tax from clothing purchases under $110 and removes sales tax completely from groceries. Alabama does neither.

The state’s taxes tend to fall hardest on those making the least amount of money, and nowhere is that more evident than in the state’s complicated sales tax system. Officials and tax-reform advocates say taxes on necessities like food and clothing help drive disparities in tax collection around the state.

But with the state’s Constitution of 1901 severely restricting property tax levies, Alabama’s educational system derives most of its income from sales taxes. And tampering with the rate – or even creating exemptions for items like groceries – could be costly, according to revenue analysts.

That’s why some groups prefer to address disparities through the state’s income tax. Gov. Bob Riley has proposed raising the minimum income tax threshold from $4,600 to $15,000 over the next five years, at a total cost of about $200 million. While some groups would like to see that number go higher, most say it’s the most realistic way to create a more equitable tax system – even though the sales tax creates most of the disparities.

Equitable taxes

Sales tax rates vary from county to county, and even from commodity to commodity, with separate rates for rental properties and automobiles.

The state imposes a 4 percent sales tax on general items. Counties and cities can impose their own tax rates on other items. Calhoun County, for example, lays a 2 percent sales tax charge on general items, while the city of Anniston charges 4 percent.

The charge goes across the board, and can create deep pain, especially for the lowest level of income earners. Susan Pace Hamill, a law professor at the University of Alabama, suggests looking at a family that makes $15,000 a year. That family might spend about $8,000 on food and clothing, and could pay, on average, $727 in sales taxes on those necessities.

“The point is, we’re approaching $750 of sales tax just to scrape by, and feed and clothe a family,” she said. “You add to that $500 of income tax … We’re taking from them in the neighborhood of $1,200 in the sales and income taxes, (money) that they desperately need to survive. That’s disgraceful.”

A family making less than $13,000 a year could pay up to 10.6 percent of its income in taxes, said Kimble Forrister, state coordinator of Alabama Arise, an advocacy group for the poor.

“The sales taxes are what really push that up for the lowest income earners,” he said. “Sales taxes make up 7.3 percent of that (10 percent).”

Ideally, said Jim Williams, executive director of the Public Research Affairs Council of Alabama, a high sales tax would be offset by larger exemptions in a state’s income tax, but Alabama starts income tax rates at $4,600.

“What you should do is design them both where they will fit together well,” he said. “Georgia, which has a really low sales tax, can get away with $15,000. Mississippi, with higher sales taxes, goes to $19,600 to make a break-even proposition.”

Riley’s proposal to raise the minimum income tax threshold is considered a step in the right direction by advocates of tax reform. Forrister said it would not fix all the disparities in the system, but it was the most realistic option at this point.

“Since it’s an election year, when it comes to what Riley and a lot of us consider an immoral income tax threshold, the only achievable, winnable options are revenue neutral or a tax cut,” he said. “You can’t go for an overall tax increase.”

Built in

But cutting the sales tax without using anything to make up the shortfall would create its own problems. The state sales tax alone brought $1.8 billion into state coffers in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30.

Sales taxes on everything except auto sales go into the state’s Education Trust Fund; the state currently puts 60 percent of auto sales taxes into the General Fund, and 40 percent into the Education Trust Fund. Not surprisingly, the Education Trust Fund depends on the sales tax, and even minor tweaks could lead to huge costs. The Legislative Fiscal Office, which gathers revenue data and information for legislators, has estimated that removing the state sales tax on groceries would cost the state roughly $275 million.

Tax reformers have focused mainly on the state’s income tax. The governor has proposed a bill that would create a sales tax holiday for the first full weekend in August of each year, but that would focus mainly on retail rather than tax relief.

“He’s just not made any proposals about sales tax except the sales tax holiday,” said David Ford, a spokesman for the governor. “He’s more focused on the income end.”

The state does exempt prescription drugs from the sales tax. State Sen. Del Marsh, R-Anniston, has introduced a bill that would exempt nonprescription drugs from the sales tax, as well as medical items like eyeglasses, contact lenses, hearing aids, wheelchairs and other devices.

“Poor families should not have to pay a tax on medicine and food,” Marsh said. “Those are necessities of life. But it’s not just for those who may be at poverty level. I think all individuals should be spared taxes on the necessities of life.”

Marsh said the bill would cost the state $5.5 million. While he favors a repeal of the grocery sales tax, Marsh said he knows the lost revenue from that would have to come from some other place.

“I don’t know where it needs to be, but I’d be for looking at the formula, and making it more fair for the less fortunate,” he said.

The income end may be a better place to tackle the problem, Williams said. Adjusting income tax thresholds would better help poorer families than cutting sales taxes, which would immediately benefit everyone.

“It provides that benefit to everybody, even those at the upper income scale, and it costs a lot of money to do that,” he said. “It targets the tax relief better if you do it through the income tax.”

The best long-term solution, say advocates, would be constitutional reform that directly addresses the property tax structure created by the Constitution of 1901, which requires most property to be assessed at no more than 10 percent of its real value and limits the amount of property tax that can be collected.

“In order to make the sales tax more fair, you have to get property taxes to pick up some of the slack,” Hamill said. “And I hope (the property tax) is not on mobile homes and old cars, but large land holdings and those with expensive homes.”

It’s time! Indeed, it’s past time to let the people vote for a constitutional convention to rewrite Alabama’s archaic, unfair, unjust and immoral 1901 Constitution. This document enshrines an inefficient, unwieldy and costly system of governance, encourages racial division, perpetuates economic injustices, shackles education advancement, handicaps local governments and reflects a profound mistrust of the citizens of Alabama.

The state Legislature will hear this message from concerned citizens and a coalition of organizations gathering Wednesday at 11:15 a.m. on the state Capitol steps along Dexter Avenue in Montgomery.

At the Let the People Vote Rally, sponsored by Alabama Citizens for Constitutional Reform (ACCR), constitutional convention proponents will present lawmakers with more than 60,000 petition signatures, all urging the Legislature to begin the process of rewriting Alabama’s 1901 Constitution.

As proposed statehouse legislation declares, a new Constitution “should provide a fundamental law by the people, for the people and of the people of the great State of Alabama, with an enduring legacy of fundamental rights of liberty and justice for all, firmly developed by the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and the guidance of Almighty God.”

The first call for reforming the 1901 Constitution began early in the previous century, not long after it was ratified. A true people’s movement, however, began in earnest with the creation in 2000 of ACCR, a nonprofit, bipartisan, grassroots organization.

Last year, members of the Huntsville ACCR chapter decided it was time to stop talking and take action. Hence, the petition drive began and quickly spread through volunteer efforts at local voting polls, public events, churches and other organizations. Wednesday’s rally is the culmination of the people’s vision to let the people vote.

House Speaker Pro Tem Demetrius Newton, D-Birmingham, and Sen. Ted Little, D- Auburn, answered the people’s call by sponsoring the bills. If passed, the proposed legislation will place the convention question before Alabama voters this November.

If that ballot initiative passes, then citizens will vote in April 2007 in nonpartisan elections for convention delegates — one male and one female — from each Alabama House district. A constitutional convention would convene in July 2007 and continue through April 2008.

In November 2008, Alabamians would then have a final opportunity to accept or reject the proposed Constitution. The 1901 Constitution would remain in effect until a new one is approved. If ratified, a new Constitution would become effective in January 2009.

Hence, Alabamians could vote three times before a new Constitution becomes effective. What on earth could be controversial in our great democracy about letting the people vote?

Alabama has had six Constitutions. Thus, there’s nothing unique about a people’s constitutional convention, and certainly nothing to fear about letting the people vote. Alabamians have done it before. They are wise enough to do it again. Just as citizens are asked to trust legislators when voting for them, the citizens are asking the legislators to trust them to vote.

Demagoguery and lies, familiar Alabama political fear tactics by status-quo special interests, will no longer hoodwink the electorate.

The proposed legislation, developed by the people and the sponsors together, is rooted in truth and trust with safeguards against special-interest control, including:

• Prohibiting lobbyists from giving anything of value to any convention delegate.

• Prohibiting any delegate from receiving any political contribution from any one source in an amount in excess of $100 in cash or in-kind.

• Prohibiting any post-delegate election contributions.

• Applying all Fair Campaign Practices Act and Alabama ethics law requirements to the delegate elections and Convention process.

• And requiring all lobbyists to register and file reports during the convention to ensure that it’s the people’s voices, and not special interest money, controlling the convention.

Wednesday’s historic rally will begin and end with Alabama students reading the 1901 Constitution and its nearly 800 amendments while standing on the Capitol steps. The reading starts at 9 a.m. and ends at 9 p.m.

Every legislator has been invited to attend, and the House and Senate leaders have been asked to welcome the people and to receive the petitions.

Courageous sponsors of the 2006 Let the People Vote legislation (HB109 and SB52), Rep. Newton and Sen. Little, are the rally’s featured speakers, along with co-sponsors Rep. Thomas Jackson, D-Thomasville, and Sen. Hap Myers, R-Mobile.

So, now this drive is in the hands of the Legislature. Will Montgomery trust the people of the State of Alabama and pass legislation to let the people vote? The sponsors and cosponsors of HB109 and SB52 have gone on record as trusting the people. Will your legislator trust you?

House Constitution and Election Committee Chairman Randy Hinshaw, D-Huntsville, has also heard the call and scheduled a public hearing on HB109 on Wednesday at 8 a.m. in the Capitol auditorium.

Sen. Wendell Mitchell, D-Montgomery, chairman of the Senate Constitution, Campaign Finance, Ethics and Elections Committee, has also responded by agreeing to schedule a public hearing on SB52 in February. Both chairmen have also been invited to address Wednesday’s rally.

The drive for a new Constitution has begun in the minds and hearts of Alabamians. Wednesday’s Let the People Vote Rally is the first step in creating an exceedingly great army of citizens and public servants, together as one and in unity of purpose, invoking the favor and the guidance of Almighty God, to birth a brand-new day for Alabama.

All citizens are urged to attend the rally. To sign a petition, available on ACCR’s Web site, visit www.constitutionalreform.org. And encourage your state legislator to attend the rally, and, ultimately, to trust Alabamians and let the people vote.

Birmingham resident Lenora Pate is co-chair of Alabama Citizens for Constitutional Reform.

Sometimes I think our legislators don’t take us very seriously.

Many of them think that if they give a nod to some of our hot-button issues and dole out some of our own money to projects we’re interested in, we’ll keep sending them back to Montgomery.

We are barely into the current legislative session, and there’s already evidence to support that notion.

The Legislature is working on new legislation to get around a state Supreme Court decision that stopped them from handing out millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money for “special projects” of their choosing in their districts.

The court ruled last fall that the Legislature can appropriate money to various agencies, but legislators can’t then bypass the executive branch and direct the money to pet projects.

Legislators call the money “community service grants,” although a more familiar name would be pork. According to news reports, the new measure would enable each house member to request at least $51,200 in grants; senators could request at least $153,600.

To get around the court ruling, the bill would create an executive branch commission, made up of the lieutenant governor, agriculture commissioner and state schools superintendent, which would have to approve or reject each grant proposed by lawmakers. It’s difficult to believe that any of those officers would buck legislators who have ample means of retaliating.

Being able to hand out checks for projects that they deem worthy lets legislators get their pictures in the newspapers and gets them pats on the back from groups that thank the senator or representative for “giving” them money.

While that is going on, the legislative session is also beginning to look like a board of deacons meeting.

One bill that’s been proposed would give citizens the option of having the phrase “God Bless America” on their license tags.

Another proposal would let teachers and principals display “In God We Trust” in public schools.

A third bill would have public schools offer a class based on the book “The Bible and Its Influence.” It would be the only school class that I can think of whose specific textbook was prescribed by the Legislature.

There’s also a bill that would let voters decide on an amendment to the state constitution to authorize display of the Ten Commandments at the Capitol.

Yet another measure would protect from disciplinary action teachers who give “scientific critiques” of prevailing theories (think evolution).

Some of these measures are authored by Democrats, which has led some Republicans to claim that the Democrats are just trying to hijack their issues. I’m not sure Republicans should be so proud to claim ownership of such transparently self-serving efforts.

They can call them “faith-related issues,” but they are easy, showy measures more aimed at currying the favor of a segment of the voters than on having a real impact on either the quality of life in the state or its moral climate.

I don’t know who has a greater claim at being offended, those who think the “faith-related” bills are just plain bad or those who like the ideas but who see the measures as shameless election-year pandering.

Pundits cite history and tell us to expect those kinds of things. Little of substance actually gets done in the last year of a legislature’s term. That raises the question of why we pay legislators the same amount for an election-year session as we do for the other three years.

I’ve seen a quotation attributed to H.L. Mencken that “nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” (Some sources use the word “taste” instead of “intelligence” in the quote.)

Perhaps our legislators think that nobody ever lost an election underestimating the intelligence of the Alabama voter.

Could they be right?

MONTGOMERY — Advocates for the poor hope a new report on poverty – not politics – will drive any legislative debate about tax reform in Alabama.

Despite an overall decline of poverty in the state, Calhoun County’s rate increased during the 1990s, according to a report issued Friday by the Alabama Poverty Project.

The report, released as the Legislature considers proposals to make the state’s taxation system more equitable, found that the percentage of people living in poverty in Calhoun County grew from 15.7 percent in 1990 to 16.1 percent in 2000. While poverty among whites and blacks changed slightly, the percentage for “other races” –chiefly Hispanic and Asian immigrants – grew from 6.8 percent in 1990 to 19.8 percent in 2000. The population there, however, also grew sharply, from 89 in 1990 to 560 in 2000.

Wayne Flynt, a professor of history at Auburn University and project chairman, said at a press conference Friday that he hopes the data collected will guide politicians’ choices as they address poverty in Alabama.

“We tried to make this non-partisan,” Flynt said. “Liberals, conservatives, Democrats or Republicans, we don’t care who uses it. But the data will drive the argument.”

While most of the data stops at the 2000 census, Flynt said the goal of the report was to show poverty trends in the state, rather than take a snapshot at the present time. And with poverty remaining stubbornly high in Alabama, he added, educational opportunities become limited. That may make it more and more difficult for Alabama to attract businesses like Hyundai, Honda and Mercedes-Benz in the future.

“We’ve got 740,000 kids in public schools,” he said. “Fifty-one percent of those kids are on free and reduced meals, and you say, ‘This is your labor force.’”

The state’s overall poverty rate dropped from 18.3 percent in 1990 to 16.1 percent in 2000, while the rate of blacks living in poverty fell from 37.7 percent to 31.3 percent and whites in poverty fell from 11.7 percent to 10.5 percent.

Alabama remains poorer than the rest of the country. The national poverty rate in 2000 was 11.3 percent, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, with black poverty rates at 22.1 percent and white poverty rates at 9.4 percent.

The Black Belt remained stubbornly poor; almost 40 percent of the population in Wilcox County lived below the poverty line, with the number increasing to 50 percent for the black population.

Two tax proposals, both aimed at reducing the tax burden on Alabama’s poor, will be taken up the Legislature in this session.

Gov. Bob Riley has proposed raising the state’s minimum tax threshold from $4,600 to $15,000 over a five-year period, which his office estimates would cost the state about $200 million.

The governor has not proposed any specific program to fight poverty. His spokesman, Jeff Emerson, said Riley’s proposed education budget – which would spend $1 billion on capital improvements, teacher salaries and other educational implements – was an anti-poverty initiative in itself.

“The best weapon to fight poverty is education,” he said. “Governor Riley’s got a record level of education funding in the budget. And he did the same last year, and that was an all-time record.”

The other proposal stems from the House of Representatives. Rep. John Knight, D-Montgomery, has introduced a constitutional amendment to repeal the federal income tax deduction for state taxpayers, a provision that benefits wealthier individuals, because they generally pay more in federal income taxes than lower-income earners.

Knight did not return a message seeking comment.

Don Bogie, director of the Center for Demographic Research and a member of Alabama Arise, said his group welcomed both plans, but he said Knight’s plan, combined with an increase in the minimum income tax to $22,800, would not cost the state government any money. Bogie said Riley’s plan would be easier to pass, and he hoped to see a compromise between the plans.

“With (the governor’s) plan, the legislators must decide,” Bogie said. “Ours would have to go to the people, because the deduction for federal income tax is in the constitution.”

Alabama has enjoyed economic growth since a recession in 2001, but Flynt said legislators need to look beyond poverty as a half-empty/half-full debate.

“What the debate needs to be about is why a state with so much human resources, and so much natural resources, why is that state half of what it could be?” he said.

As predicted, Democrats are opposing some of the things called for by Gov. Bob Riley in his State of the State address. Thus far, the most significant disagreement is over how to fund the governor’s proposed $500 million construction, equipment and capital spending plan for education.

The Education Trust Fund is heading toward a $1 billion “surplus.” The money is there in part because many of the improvements the governor asked for were delayed during the pre-surplus budget cuts. Now Riley wants to catch up.

But not all $500 million can come from the “surplus.” If things like pay raises, sales tax holidays and income tax reform are passed, there will be only around $266 million for construction. Where will we get the other $234 million?

From the Education Trust Fund Proration Prevention Account, one of two so-called rainy day funds set up to see schools through hard times. The governor wants the Legislature to close this account and shift the money over to capital improvements and equipment upgrades.

Democratic leaders, playing the role of fiscal conservatives for a change, have announced that they oppose the plan. With a solid majority in both houses, they have the votes to stop it.

Politics aside, which in Alabama it never is, the Democrats have a point. But not necessarily the point legislators want to talk about.

Times are good now. People are working. Working people receive pay checks so income tax revenue is up. Working people buy things, so sales tax revenue is up. Because of the way our tax system is constructed, education relies on these sources of revenue, which are two of the most undependable sources available. When the economy turns down, as one day it surely will, the money won’t come in as it is coming in now, and there will be a shortfall. When that day comes, we will need the Proration Prevention Account to bail us out.

If we funded our schools with more dependable taxes — property taxes, for example — shortfalls would be less likely and the governor could make a better case for emptying the account. But the special interests — agribusiness and commercial timber — that have profited from low property taxes will fight that to the bitter end. The GOP, given the choice of taking on ALFA or taking on the Democrats, will pick the Democrats every time.

Really, it doesn’t matter. Riley and his supporters will lose either way.

But until the Legislature finds the courage to craft a more balanced tax system to prevent proration, we better keep the account.

Still, our schools need the work the governor’s plan would pay for.

So what can we do?

Can anyone say “bond issue?”

A decade has passed since the late Bailey Thomson put together a series in the Mobile Register that explained how Alabama’s current Constitution was conceived in racism, born in corruption and matured into a system where the rich, unless they were incompetent or unlucky, would remain rich, while the poor, unless they were exceptionally talented or lucky, would remain poor. Meanwhile, folks in the middle would accept the crumbs tossed them because those at the top told them that they were better than those at the bottom — and the middle believed them.

Subsequent studies revealed that our Constitution, with authority centralized in Montgomery, made it possible for a handful of well-placed politicians to shape legislation in such a way that power remained in the hands of folks very much like those who wrote the original document.

These same studies revealed that the essential elements of the Constitution of 1901 — a system characterized by low taxes (especially on property), minimal government services (it is hard to serve the public without the funds to do so) and white supremacy (or at least upper-class supremacy) — remains fundamentally unchanged up to today.

More telling, however, were assessments suggesting that most of the state’s shortcomings in education, health, infrastructure, industrial development and the like could be traced to limitations placed on us by our system of government. What we have accomplished in this state has been despite the Constitution, not because of it.

In recent years, this realization has settled upon us and polls show that a growing majority of Alabamians want a new Constitution. The problem, of course, is how to go about it.

Getting the most attention right now is a bill pre-filed by Sen. Ted Little, D-Auburn, and House Speaker Pro Tem Demetrius Newton, D-Birmingham, that does what legislators so often fall back on when an issue is too difficult or controversial for them to handle: Let The People Decide.

Well, in this case that seems the best solution.

If the Legislature finds the gumption to stand up to those who oppose putting the question to a popular vote (those who fear they will lose the election and their special privileges in the process), the issue could be on the ballot in November. And if the people decide they do want a convention, they would return to the polls in April 2007 to elect 210 delegates, one man and one woman from each district.

Spearheading this effort and lobbying legislators to support the bill is the Alabama Citizens for Constitutional Reform, which will be holding a rally in Montgomery on Wednesday. Already some 60,000 Alabamians have signed a petition calling for reform.

Since the Constitution was created to deny democracy to the majority of our citizens, it seems only fair that our citizens be given the chance to say whether they want to keep what we have or call a convention to change it.

Let the people decide.

Has a nice ring to it.

MONTGOMERY – The Senate passed a bill Thursday that supporters hope will deter identity theft and give police and district attorneys more time to investigate and prosecute those crimes.

The bill, SB 68, would make identity theft of $500 or less a Class C felony in all cases. Currently, a first-time offender who steals $500 or less would be charged with a Class A misdemeanor. Changing the classification would increase the maximum punishment from a year and a day in jail to 10 years.

The bill also would extend the statute of limitations on the crime from five years to seven years – a necessity for victims of identity theft, said state Sen. Pat Lindsey, D-Butler.

“Frequently, people don’t realize their identities have been stolen until they apply for a loan, which might be two to three years (after the crime),” he said.

A similar bill was introduced in the legislative session last year, but did not become law. In the past, Rep. Steve Hurst, D-Munford, has pushed legislation in the House that would require the state to remove Social Security numbers from public documents.

Identity theft crimes are taking up more and more of police and district attorneys’ work days. Investigations often are slow, and can take up to six months to investigate fully.

“If they’ve got their credit card number and order things from other states, we have to subpoena records and information from other states,” said Calhoun County Sheriff Larry Amerson. “It may involve phone records. It’s not difficult in terms of the skill level needed, but you need a good working knowledge of the process, and it’s a slow, tedious case.”

The Alabama District Attorneys’ Association, which endorsed the bill, has set up computer forensics labs in Huntsville, Montgomery and Baldwin County to help with investigations. Russell Yawn, the association’s chief investigator, said most identity thieves get their information from misplaced receipts, or even go as far as stealing financial statements out of mailboxes.

“There’s a lot of concern over people being safe on Internet while online, but numbers we’re seeing says little is coming from the Internet itself,” he said.

Whatever the source, identity theft is a fast-growing crime, said Randall Hillman, executive director of the Alabama District Attorneys Association. Stiffening the penalties, he hopes, will help deter the crimes.

“It’s one of the most up-and-coming crimes we deal with,” he said. “That and methamphetamines.”

Identity theft was the No. 1 crime in Calhoun County for several years, and often the most damaging, Amerson said.

“In all identity thefts the victim truly suffers, because even though you prosecute the criminal, there’s a long, painful process of cleaning up credit records,” he said. “If somebody comes into your yard and steals your lawn mower, you buy a new one, and it’s an inconvenience and it costs money. But with identity theft, the ripple effect is really a powerful part of the mixture.”

We are coming onto a session of the Legislature where the two parties agree on many things. As for their differences, those tell us as much about the power of lobbyists and special interests as they do about Democrats and Republicans.

These differences, as they appear in legislation, will be significant and revealing.

But first, let’s review the similarities.

Expect this session, which started last week, to put new penalties on employers who hire illegal aliens and (after making it clear that legal abortions are not included) to pass laws to make it a crime to assault or kill an unborn child. Both parties want these and will get them.

A constitutional amendment to limit the state’s right of imminent domain is a sure thing. Expect that, after some debate, the law requiring annual tax reappraisals will be changed, though not necessarily back to every four years.

Although Democrats are less than enthusiastic about the governor’s plan to cut taxes and will argue that the Education Trust Fund “surplus” is hardly a “surplus” when the state ranks so low in teacher salaries and per-pupil spending, the governor has seized the initiative here. His plan will be hard to stop.

More likely, the Democrats will fight against Republican efforts to undercut the Alabama Education Association by offering Alabama teachers free liability insurance — something AEA offers with membership. Committee debates on this should be lively.

Other plans presented by the Republican governor and apparently supported by his party — teacher and state employee pay raises, money for school construction and improvements, full funding for reading, math, science and technology initiatives — are also favorites of many Democrats, so they should pass.

However, among the differences in the agendas, one issue looms large — open government.

In his State of the State address, Gov. Bob Riley promised to introduce legislation to require a full disclosure of all money lobbyists spend on legislators. This will not go down well with those spending the money (or receiving it), but with the governor behind the measure, it will be difficult for a legislator to defend the secrecy built into the current system.

But that was where the governor stopped and where the Democrats have picked up. State Democrats say they will bring out a bill that will also require advocacy groups to disclose the source of the money they used to influence the political process.

A similar bill passed the House last year, but a Republican filibuster in the Senate killed the measure and a lot of important legislation with it. This year, with the Washington lobbyist scandals fresh on the minds of most, it will be interesting to see if GOP legislators will again come to the aid of issue-oriented organizations that do not want citizens to know who pays their bills.

MONTGOMERY — Raises, especially for public employees, are rarely pure and never simple.

Gov. Bob Riley has proposed pay raises of up to 5 percent for teachers and at least 2 percent for other state employees. But groups representing those who would receive the raises have questioned the structure of the governor’s proposals, and Democrats — attempting to position themselves as financial watchdogs in this legislative session — have criticized the cost.

Both sides agree raises are needed to keep Alabama competitive for qualified employees. According to the National Education Association, Alabama teachers made an average of $38,863 in the 2004-05 school year, well below the Southeast’s average of $42,103 and far below Georgia’s average of $46,526 a year. Some districts have lost teachers to the Peach State because of the disparity, and Alabama has found it particularly hard to retain experienced teachers.

“(The governor) said in State of the State that he felt state teachers and state employees deserved a pay raise,” said David Ford, a spokesman for Gov. Riley. “Whenever you’re talking about raises, there are likely to be a number of reasons, but I think it would be safe to say the governor is certainly wanting to keep Alabama competitive.”

A study of state salaries shows Alabama’s entry-level pay is on par with the rest of the region. When employees start to build seniority, however, the grass is greener across state lines.

“Our starting salary is pretty good,” said state Sen. Gerald Dial, D-Lineville. “I think it’s with the regional average. But after five or six years, they fall behind.”

Riley has proposed adding five more school days, lengthening the school year from 175 days to 180. A 2.75 percent increase in teacher pay would be needed to cover the added days. Riley would add a graduated pay increase on top of that, the size of which would depend on the experience of the teacher. A teacher with three to six years’ experience would draw an additional .25 percent increase; a teacher with 12 to 15 years experience, an additional one percent; and a teacher with 21 or more years of experience, an additional 2.25 percent increase.

Alabama Education Association Executive Secretary Paul Hubbert, who also is vice-chairman of the Alabama Democratic Party, has sharply criticized Riley’s proposals. The AEA estimates that a teacher with three to six years’ experience would receive an increase of $7.18 a month. Hubbert also has criticized the proposal for not providing any money to retirees.

Ford, saying starting salaries in Alabama are already competitive and that state teachers make more on average than private-sector employees, argues that Riley’s proposal is aimed at retaining experienced teachers.

“Where we start losing ground is in those teachers who have been in the classroom longer,” he said. “What the governor’s proposal is trying to do is give those who have been in the classroom the longest the highest percentage.”

Hubbert could not be reached for comment, but he called the governor’s proposal “ridiculous” on the AEA’s Web site.

“Anyone who works for a living will tell you working more days is not a raise,” he said. “Getting paid more for the days you work is.”

The dispute turns on whether one considers the 2.75 percent salary increase to cover the additional instruction days a raise. Riley says it does and that the proposal would raise wages for teachers with 21 or more years of experience 5 percent. The AEA does not, and says the top raise would only equal about 2.25 percent.

That paycheck exegesis has also found its way to proposals to raise wages for state employees. While employees received a salary increase last year, Mac MacArthur, executive director of the Alabama State Employees Association, said those raises have not kept pace with inflation, and estimates salaries have dropped 7 percent in real terms since 1999.

Raises are also needed to turn back a graying of the state’s workforce, MacArthur said.

“Between 45 and 50 percent of workforce can retire in five to 10 years,” he said. “A quarter can retire today. There’s a gap between them and the newer employees. Newer employees are not staying because they don’t equate to private sector.”

State Sen. Roger Bedford, D-Russellville, has introduced bills that would provide 5 percent increases for state employees and retirees.

“We’re having a problem retaining our best and brightest state employees,” he said. “The private sector pays more, and generally doesn’t have as heavy a workload.”

Riley has proposed a 2 percent increase for state employees, with an additional three percent thrown in if money is available. “We want to make sure the money is in fact going to be there before spending it,” Ford said.

Mark Reynolds, deputy director of the Retirement Systems of Alabama, said he was concerned that additional adjustments for retirees could affect funding levels for the RSA. The RSA can currently pay 90 percent of its future obligations; a raise might drop that to 86 or 87 percent, he said.

“You’ve got to be careful,” he said.

Riley’s state employees’ proposal would cost about $10.6 million of General Fund money if state employees receive a 2 percent raise, and $26.5 million if they receive a 5 percent raise. Riley’s proposal to increase teachers’ salaries would cost approximately $100 million of education trust fund money, with about $76 million going to cover the cost of the additional teaching days for teachers. With the governor proposing $500 million on capital improvements for schools, and $200 million to raise the minimum income tax threshold to $15,000 over five years, some are wondering whether the projected $1 billion in surplus revenues will be able to cover the spending.

“We’ll see if we can afford them,” said state Rep. Steve Hurst, D-Munford. “If we can afford them, I’m all for it.”

House Speaker Seth Hammett, D-Andalusia, sounded a cautious note about Riley’s proposals.

“It appears to us the growth in the general fund is going to be 1.5 percent, and to accomplish all the things he mentioned, including the pay raise for state employees, one-and-a-half-percent growth appears to be pretty aggressive,” he said.

Nowhere in the Bible’s passages that instruct God’s people to care for strangers does it say to check their citizenship papers first.

Members of Congress who voted for some decidedly uncharitable provisions in an immigration bill should review their childhood Sunday school lessons before they vote on the final version:

In Deuteronomy 10:18-19, Moses wrote about God: “He executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and shows His love for the alien by giving him food and clothing. So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.”

And in the Gospel of Luke (Chapter 10), Jesus offers the parable of the good Samaritan. This hated foreigner, who helped a beaten man after he was ignored by a priest and a Levite, was the example Christ used for how we are to achieve eternal life: Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself by showing mercy.

As Jesus said to the questioning scholar, “Go and do the same.”

The immigration bill passed in the House, does not do the same — not when it threatens with criminal penalties Americans who extend compassion to people in need. Think church workers who hand out clothing and food, teachers who help with English classes, social workers, even health-care providers.

Legislation supporters argue that the language specifically addresses those who “traffick in illegal aliens,” which is how the communications director for U.S. Rep. Michael Burgess put it in an e-mail that took issue with a Dec. 31 Fort Worth Star-Telegram editorial on the subject.

It’s so much easier to think of these people as something other than human when they are called aliens, isn’t it?

“This section was developed by border U.S. Attorneys to go after SMUGGLING, and activities that facilitate smuggling. By no means is it the legislative intent to apply to provision of health-care services,” wrote Michelle Stein.

Smugglers who prey on those who want to enter this country by extracting large amounts of money are committing a crime, and any immigration bill should have tough provisions for punishing those caught doing it. Going after employers who hire illegal immigrants is another way to stem the tide.

To threaten those who voluntarily provide the basic human needs of food, clothing and medical care is a step too far.

I don’t think that Burgess — a bill co-sponsor who is a doctor and one of the good guys representing North Texas in Washington — intended for any provision to apply to health-care workers. But he should know that intent and reality are often very different issues when it comes to federal legislation. As I wrote Stein in a reply e-mail, the lawmakers who drafted the organized crime statutes never intended them to be used to go after abortion protesters, but such has been the case.

The provision that concerns immigrant advocates describes those individuals who could face criminal penalties as “whoever assists, encourages, directs or induces a person to reside in or remain in the United States, or to attempt to reside in or remain in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien who lacks lawful authority to reside in or remain in the United States.”

Bill supporters should parse that and then say with utmost confidence that it can only be constructed to apply to individuals trying to illegally smuggle someone across the border: “assists … a person to reside in or remain in the United States, or to attempt to … remain in the United States.” Providing health-care does that, as well as educational opportunities and English classes and the other activities that organizations from Catholic Charities to La Raza are concerned about.

Stein has more confidence in the U.S. attorneys from border states than I do. Given that border states carry the biggest share of financial outlays for health care and education for illegals, I’m not comforted by the role of the U.S. attorneys.

If federal lawmakers want to deny health care or access to public schools or federal benefits of any kind to immigrants who are in this country illegally, they have the power to enact such legislation. But to threaten Americans who “go and do the same” is an act most disheartening.

It’s also disingenuous. The provision has little chance of passing in a final immigration and border security bill, but voting for it can be used in campaign propaganda that will appeal to those constituents back home who want to build that wall between Mexico and the United States.

It doesn’t take much to imagine some of the very same federal lawmakers who voted for this troubling provision in the House version of the bill coming home to their ultraconservative districts to cite God and family values, decry the liberal government for throwing God out of public schools — and then get applause for threatening to jail those who walk the walk by offering aid, comfort and support to someone here illegally.

Shame.

Jill “J.R.” Labbe — jrlabbe@star-telegram.com — is deputy editorial page editor of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

EDITORIALS

Quo Vadis, GOP?

In our opinion
01-18-2006

MONTGOMERY — Constitutional reform advocates want a vote on a constitutional convention, and they figure an election year is the best time for it.

House and Senate legislators have introduced bills that would allow voters to decide whether to call a convention to replace Alabama’s 1901 constitution, widely criticized for being antiquated and out of date.

Alabama Citizens for Constitutional Reform, which advocates a new constitution, has called a rally in Montgomery in support of the bills on Jan. 25 and says it has collected 60,000 signatures supporting a rewrite of the constitution.

Sen. Ted Little, D-Auburn, introduced a similar bill last year which made it out of committee but did not come up for a vote.

“No one’s trying to be overly optimistic,” said Little, who co-sponsored the current Senate bill with Hap Myers, R-Mobile. “We want it to pass, but we realize it’s an election year, and we know a lot of groups that will throw arrows at us.”

But Little and Rep. Demetrius Newton, D-Birmingham, who introduced the House version with Rep. Thomas Jackson, D-Thomasville, said they believe the bill will force candidates to take positions on constitutional reform throughout the spring, which they hope will improve the bill’s chances to pass.

“My gut feeling is from what I’ve heard across the state, the people are ready for a constitutional convention,” Newton said. “I chose not to wait for when it’s politically correct after an election year.

“As far I’m concerned, the right time to do this was yesterday.”

Messages left with Alabama Citizens for Constitutional Reform were not returned.

The bills, if passed, would place a question on the ballot in November on whether a constitutional convention should be called. If the measure was approved, a special election would take place in April 2007, when voters would choose a man and a woman from each state House district to meet at the convention the following July.

A constitution emerging from that convention would be sent to the voters for approval in November 2008.

Senate Pro Tem Lowell Barron, D-Fyffe, sounded skeptical earlier this month about the chances for constitutional reform in the current legislative session. Gov. Bob Riley has advocated incremental change to the document.

Little and Newton said they hope the public mood will force the legislature to put a convention to a vote. Newton compared the state’s constitution to the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1787.

“We’ve been living with that for 27 amendments up to 2006,” he said. “The Alabama Constitution was adopted in 1901, and we’ve lived with it with 727 amendments. There’s something wrong with that.”

Alabama Citizens for Constitutional Reform says the constitution has been amended 743 times.

Early in the previous century, reformist Gov. Bibb Graves identified Alabama’s business interests as the “Big Mules” who lived off the labor of “little mules” who did the heavy lifting.

The name stuck.

Today, the descendants of Graves’ Big Mules are represented by the Business Council of Alabama (BCA), but like so many children, they have strayed (and sometimes strayed far) from their parents.

In the distant past, the Big Mules’ agenda could be summed up simply – low taxes, a minimum of government interference in how they did business and white supremacy.

Translated into legislation, it meant that the Mules wanted funded only those things that helped them (roads and bridges – yes; schools and health care - no); wanted labor put in its place (at the back door with its hat in its hand) and wanted the racial status quo preserved.

Today, looking at the BCA’s legislative agenda, you can witness how the Big Mules in Alabama have changed — and generally for the better. Although business remains committed to keeping Alabama a “right-to-work” state and preserving management’s advantage in labor negotiations, much of its attention to labor-management relations concerns how to pay for and deliver health insurance – which is a problem almost everywhere.

As for taxes, the emphasis is more on fairness (a loaded word) and accountability (a word also up for interpretation), while focusing on code changes and exemptions that businessmen feel will stimulate the economy. In that regard, the BCA opposes legislation that restricts business activity and will continue pushing for “tort reform,” which includes lobbying for caps on non-economic damages (like mental anguish) and limits on product liability awards.

Among the most significant differences between the old and new Mules is the 2006 version’s attitude toward education. Once, they believed, as one of their number put it, that educating a child beyond the primary grades was a bad idea because with education they would “never work another day in the sun.” Today, much of the BCA’s agenda is focused on building a quality educational system (including job-training programs). Although the Business Council has serious differences with groups like AEA over how the money should be spent, the point is that today, business is willing to raise it and spend it.

The BCA position on environmental legislation is pretty much what one would expect — a willingness to work with the Department of Environmental Management and opposition to anything that would have “a detrimental effect on existing industries” or “have a negative effect on economic development.” Since so many legislators are, in one way or another, businessmen, you can expect legislation of this sort to be watched carefully.

As for white supremacy, we should always keep this in mind. Though federal courts struck down institutionalized racism, Big Mules throughout the South took the lead in making the court decisions work. Concluding that racism was bad for business, corporate leaders quietly and effectively did away with segregationist practices. Alabama’s Big Mules may have been slower at this than the Mules in other states, but they got on board. Improved race relations in Alabama today owe much to their enlightened business practices and for that we should give credit where credit is due.

You have got to admire the tenacity and creativity of Alabama’s legislators, at least when it comes to getting the perks for themselves.

For years, legislators have handed out what they called “community services grants.” These financial awards have been doled out by each legislator to whatever special project in his or her district that he or she thought was “worthy” — with “worthy” pretty much self-defined.

In most cases, the money went where it was needed — even critics admitted that. What disturbed some observers, though, was that the grants were also used to remind citizens just what a great person their legislator was. Pictures of the senator or representative handing out the check to the deserving were circulated far and wide, giving incumbents yet another significant advantage when election time rolled around.

Finally, someone got the Alabama Supreme Court to rule on this pork-passing and, sure enough, the court ruled it illegal. Put simply, lawmakers cannot both appropriate money and then say exactly how it will be spent — which was what they were doing. Under the state Constitution, the Legislature must allocate money to various agencies, but it is up to the agencies to say where the money goes.

So what does our Legislature do?

It goes out and creates an agency to do what it was doing, agency-less, before the court told them it couldn’t.

Or at least, it started moving in that direction.

Last week, our the House of Representatives unanimously passed a proposal to create the State Executive Commission on Community Services Grants, an agency authorized to accept or reject grant proposals from legislators. Sitting on the commission would be the lieutenant governor, the agriculture commissioner and the state schools superintendent — but not the governor, an omission that has caused Gov. Bob Riley to question the whole thing.

We question it, as well.

And not just for that.

From the outset, “community services grants” have smelled of politics, and, like putting perfume on a pig, changing how it is done does not make it smell any better.

If legislators really want special grants to go to communities throughout the state, they need to come up with a plan that will take politics out of the picture.

We know they can do it if they want to.

Just look how creative they have been already.

When it comes to lobbying power, few special interests can match the Alabama Education Association and its leader, Dr. Paul Hubbert.

With a number of legislators (or their families) employed in some phase of public education, AEA has a built-in voting bloc that can be counted on when its issues come to the floor. In addition, AEA, like other deep-pocketed interest groups, lavishes campaign contributions on legislators from both parties, an investment that generally pays off.

In any given session, AEA’s agenda includes the maximum raises for teachers that the economy will allow, more money for instruction and a minimum of legislative interference with how other education funds are spent. AEA also serves as a guardian of the Education Trust Fund, and it will oppose any effort to change the way the state budget is divided.

Although Alabama teachers still earn below the regional average and our students are still far down the list in per-pupil support from the state, we would be a lot lower in both categories if it were not for the lobbying of AEA.

But because AEA is so powerful and because so much of AEA’s agenda focuses on making sure that education money is spent where AEA wants it spent, legislators who represent groups that want the money spent elsewhere (and oppose raising taxes to finance projects they favor) are frequently at odds with Hubbert and his organization.

The current debate over how to spend the Education Trust Fund “surplus” is a case in point.

Increasingly, Hubbert has had to fight against those who want to chip away at the AEA’s advantages. That’s why you can expect a fight over the Republican proposal to provide liability insurance to public school teachers, which would be funded with $6 million from the education budget.

Financially speaking, this is not a big deal. However, Hubbert sees sinister motives behind the plan. You see, AEA offers similar insurance and many teachers join the association to get that coverage. To Hubbert, this is just another way of telling teachers that “you don’t have to join AEA.”

Maybe so, maybe not. But defeating this plan is up there with pay raises on the AEA agenda, and what comes of it will be yet another measure of the clout that the teacher’s organization has in the Legislature.

The barber leaned close so the white folks couldn’t hear.

How are you adjusting to the culture shock, he asked. Takes some getting used to, I replied.

We were two black men in a place — the Appalachian foothills where Ohio abuts West Virginia — that is home to very few people like us. But the culture shock he spoke of wasn’t about race so much as economics. It’s a strange thing he said, still leaning close, to see white people, poor.

It is strange, indeed.

Not that I didn’t know there are white poor. To the contrary, I knew that while poverty on a percentage basis is far greater among blacks than whites, there are, in terms of raw numbers, more poor whites than poor anybody. And this region, where I will be teaching journalism until June, is among the poorest and whitest in the country.

Still, it’s one thing to read statistics and quite another to see with your eyes. But my sojourn here makes seeing inevitable. And I find myself fascinated by how markers of poverty can be simultaneously so familiar and yet so unknown: the unmarried teenage dropout soon to be a mother, the service worker missing teeth, the uneducated woman dying of emphysema, sneaking a smoke in her hospital bed, the rough man who lives between scrapes with the law, the young guy buying a 40-ounce bottle of malt liquor before noon. All white.

We are so comfortable thinking of people like them as archetypes of black dysfunction. It’s jarring to be reminded that they are in fact archetypes of dysfunction, period, and that dysfunction, no matter its color, should trouble us all.

Martin Luther King understood this. Which is one of the things we understand least about him.

Today marks the 20th King Day. It brings with it the 20th round of interfaith prayer breakfasts, recitations of “I Have A Dream,” assessments of progress toward racial equity and the lack thereof. I suspect there won’t be much discussion of white poverty.

This is not a surprise. We like our heroes and their heroism simple, unencumbered by that which doesn’t fit neatly into a box. We like our commemorations simpler still, a self-congratulatory excuse for a three-day weekend or a used-car sale.

But the man who said, “I have a dream” also said, “All life is interrelated” and came to believe his mission as a moral leader encompassed more than race. Encompassed, among other things, class.

It is instructive to remember that in his last days, King was planning what he called the Poor People’s Campaign, a multiethnic march on Washington to demand action against poverty. “At Canan’s Edge,” the final chapter of Taylor Branch’s epic re-telling of the civil rights years, recounts a summit meeting a few weeks before King’s assassination. Chicano farmworkers, American Indians from the Plains and white coal miners from Appalachia, sat with King to explore the revolutionary idea that their peoples might have causes and grievances in common.

Then King went to Memphis. And the idea has not been meaningfully explored since.

Neglect has made it no less tantalizing.

Yes, race matters. Most of us know this. But the genius of Martin Luther King in his final days was to understand that there are paradigms beyond race and that they matter, too.

So today, as we are exhorted to seek paths of racial amity, one hopes we will also be exhorted to understand, as King did, that conscience has no color, that race is not destiny, that injustice anywhere threatens justice everywhere.

There are among us children who sleep in hunger, rise in cold, live in ignorance and they are of every color and every tribe. We ought not find their suffering easier to accept because they are not like us. Ought to realize that the dignity of all is the concern of all.

That, too, was Martin’s dream.

Leonard Pitts Jr. — lpitts@herald.com — is a columnist for the Miami Herald.

Of all the special interests lobbying the Legislature on behalf of a particular constituency, the one legislators may most hate to see coming down the hallway is Alabama Arise.

Senators and representatives won’t get many free lunches and dinners from Arise lobbyists. The group is not known for its lavish receptions. Nor can legislators count on executive director Kimble Forrister for campaign contributions and niceties like they get from other advocacy organizations.

No, what Alabama Arise and its Citizens’ Policy Project calls on senators and representatives to do is live up to the Christian creed that most legislators so proudly and loudly claim to follow and do what is right for the least among us.

For years, Alabama Arise has been lobbying the Legislature to do things for people in lower-income brackets — of which Alabama has more than its share. The group has worked for public transportation, renters’ rights, setting restrictions on high interest rates charged by payday lenders, health insurance for poor children and a host of other issues that remind legislators and the citizens who elect them that government is responsible for people as well as property.

This year, Arise is focusing its attention on what many agree is the greatest gap between what sort of state we say we are and the reality of our situation — a revenue system that benefits the rich at the expense of the poor.

Arise supporters in the Legislature will introduce a “Tax Fairness” plan — “revenue-neutral” legislation that would raise the state income tax threshold to around $20,000 a year and make up the lost revenue by increasing taxes on people in higher income brackets. According to Arise analysts, under the plan approximately 80 percent of Alabama taxpayers would see no change in their income tax bill.

The proposal promises to test the legislative strength of Arise against that of the Christian Coalition of Alabama, which has consistently opposed reducing taxes paid by the poor if it means raising taxes paid by anyone else — even those who can afford the increase.

And the proposal, if it passes the Legislature, will also test the commitment of Alabamians to the principle of fairness. In order for it to go into law, the plan must be approved by Alabama voters.

Uncluttered by other issues, the revenue-neutral proposal is like holding a mirror up to ourselves. Arise‘s Forrister said it plainly, “Putting the threshold on the table by itself will let Alabama voters see who’s on the side of fairness and who’s not.”

Yes, it will.

From the time he took office, Bob Riley has reminded Alabamians that the system we use to raise revenue is plainly and simply “immoral.” According to the religious teachings most Alabamians claim to follow, God does not want the strong to take advantage of the weak. Yet in Alabama, that is what the strong do.

Now, Gov. Riley is trying to do something about it.

Calling it “unconscionable” that Alabama requires people earning as little as $4,600 to pay income taxes, the governor proposes the threshold for taxing be raised to $15,000 over the next five years. At the same time, taxes would be reduced across the board by significantly raising personal and dependent exemptions, which would give the state’s middle class some much-needed relief.

We hesitate to criticize what the governor proposes because there is much good here. Raising the exemptions is a fair way to help families and pushing up the threshold is a move in the right direction. However, as well-meaning and high-minded as Riley’s plan might be, it does not address the whole problem or offer a full solution.

As far back as the 1920s, assessments of our situation have concluded that Alabamians have the resources to pay for superior state services, but those who control those resources do not want to use them for the general good. Instead, Alabama’s well-to-do have used their political clout to keep what they had for themselves.

Riley’s plan does little to change this.

And because it doesn’t, his proposal comes up short.

We applaud the governor for trying to lift some of the tax burden off the poor and middle class, but extending some of the same benefits to the rich leaves one wondering just how much more moral this makes us. Moreover, the fact that he apparently has to give the powerful a piece of the pie if the plan has any hope of passing shows us just how influential are the forces of wealth and privilege in our Legislature.

Today, Alabama is the only state that forces a family of four living below the federal poverty level to pay state income taxes. If the Riley plan passes, in five years Alabama will still force families of four living below the poverty level to pay income taxes — just not as many.

In 2004, the federal poverty level was $19,350. If we raise the income tax threshold to $15,000, Alabama will have risen to the federal poverty level set in 1994.

Under the Riley plan, the poor and middle class who have sacrificed so much will be called on to sacrifice a little less. And the rich who have sacrificed so little will get a tax break.

Surely, we can do better than that.

MONTGOMERY — It’s official: Superintendents like extra money for their school systems.

The School Superintendents of Alabama (SSA) on Wednesday endorsed Gov. Bob Riley’s proposal to spend $500 million of a projected education budget surplus on capital improvements for education facilities around the state.

But two other statewide education associations — one representing Alabama’s local school boards and the other representing the state’s teachers — are criticizing Riley’s $1 billion education spending plan and his plan to abolish one of the state’s two rainy-day funds.

Riley outlined his proposals Tuesday night during his State of the State message to the Legislature.

The Alabama Education Association (AEA) and the Alabama Association of School Boards (AASB) say surplus money in this year’s education budget should be set aside for use in case of an economic downturn.

SSA officials say improvements to facilities will increase the overall quality of education in Alabama.

Jacksonville Schools Superintendent Eric Mackey, an SSA officer, said the state’s schools went through “lean years” during the first part of the decade.

“We’ve done what we can to minimize the impact on our students,” he said. “Finally, in the seventh fiscal year, the good times are here again.”

Jacksonville would receive approximately $707,000 if Riley’s proposal were approved. Mackey said the money would be used for a new junior high school wing at Jacksonville High School.

Riley’s plan has been criticized by Democrats, who say surplus money should be put away as a buffer against economic downturns.

The state has two rainy-day funds – a statutory fund and a constitutional fund, the latter established by voters in a 2002 referendum. State government must restore any money drawn from the constitutional fund.

Riley’s proposed budget would abolish the statutory rainy-day fund. It would put the $216 million now held in that fund into his education program, while increasing the constitutional rainy-day fund up to $248 million. “We have two rainy-day funds for education,” said Riley spokesman Jeff Emerson. “We don’t need two. We only need one.”

The stipulation that the state must restore money drawn from the constitutional rainy-day fund is criticized by the Alabama Association of School Boards.

“We think it’s better to have a cash-based savings account than credit to use in the event of emergencies,” said Denise Berkhalter, an AASB spokeswoman. “If there’s an economic downturn, it’s better to protect ourselves using savings as opposed to credit.”

Alabama Education Association Executive Secretary Paul Hubbert, who also is vice-chairman of the state Democratic Party, called Riley’s proposal an election-year move.

“It seems he’s gone from ultraconservative last year to ultra-spend-everything this year,” Hubbert said.

He also was critical of the SSA endorsement, saying superintendents are quick to cut services during difficult economic times.

“The superintendents are the first to squeal when there’s proration,” Hubbert said. “They start laying off teachers, laying off personnel, they cut back on supplies and books, budgets are cut left and right, and they’re the first to squeal.”

Riley defended his plan at the SSA press conference Wednesday, saying he could not understand opposition to his proposal. “For someone to say we should delay improvement to schools that are dangerous makes no sense to me,” he said.

The Jacksonville school system currently gets $350,000 per year from the state for capital improvements, Mackey said, but $250,000 of that money is used to service debts for past improvements, leaving about $100,000 a year for maintenance and construction. The money goes toward things like air conditioning and roof repair.

“We don’t have the money to do real building,” Mackey said.

As State of the State addresses go, Tuesday night’s was pretty good. That’s because the state of the state is also pretty good. (Or at least, better than usual.)

Alabama Gov. Bob Riley took pride in a variety of accomplishments in economic growth, fiscal conservativism and government accountability. Though one could argue that some of his examples were forced on him, Riley’s record in Congress shows that it did not take too much pressure to move him in the direction he has taken.

Revenue collection for the Education Trust Fund is up and this, combined with the fact that during the last three years education suffered serious cuts, meant that the governor could talk about a surplus (some in Riley’s administration prefer the phrase “new money”) and propose ways to spend it.

Governors like to do that.

And, on Tuesday night, Bob Riley did.

All of which made it a sort of “something for everyone” night.

For those demanding tax cuts, the governor proposed across-the-board reductions.

For those wanting the state to stop the “unconscionable” taxation of people living below the poverty line, the governor talked of a five-year plan that would lift at least some of that burden.

For education and educators, whose flush Trust Fund would pay for this bounty, the governor offered capital improvements for schools, colleges and universities, plus a raise for teachers. Reading, math, science and technology initiatives would also be fully funded.

And for fiscal conservatives, the state’s chief executive offered to refill the rainy day account.

Yes, Gov. Riley spread the surplus far and wide.

Agencies supported by the General Fund did not enjoy such largess. That account floated by last year on one-time money. Though income is up this year, it is nothing like what is being enjoyed over in education. Still, the governor promised to put more money into prisons to reduce the overcrowding that is another of those “unconscionable” situations in Alabama.

Other initiatives — an eminent domain constitutional amendment, full disclosure for lobbyists, term limits for legislators, laws to protect the unborn, raises for state employees, restrictions on gambling and such —were also mentioned as the governor ranged far and wide in his remarks.

Yes, it was a speech with something for everyone, just the sort of reasoned, incremental approach to Alabama’s needs one would expect from Bob Riley. It was also campaign speech, for he clearly wanted voters to know that he was the one who could bring these things about.

In the weeks to come, alternatives will be proposed, details will be debated and motives will be measured to see just who benefits from the governor’s agenda and who comes up with less than they hoped to have.

So, watch the session closely. Although legislators talk about avoiding controversy, writing a budget and going home, that is not likely to happen. But no one really expected that it would.

MONTGOMERY

Gov. Bob Riley unveiled an ambitious legislative agenda in his State of the State address Tuesday night that would send $1 billion to state schools, $200 million to taxpayers, and pay raises to teachers and state employees.

The centerpiece of the governor’s proposal is education. Riley proposes to spend $500 million on capital improvements for schools, and another $500 million on general education increases that Riley said would fully fund educational programs across the board.

“This budget represents a historic advance in school funding,” Riley told a joint meeting of the Legislature. “It means record investments going directly into our classrooms, bringing new hope to our children, to their parents, the taxpayers and our teachers.”

It would also add five extra school days and put more money in educators’ paychecks. Under Riley’s proposal, teachers and service professionals across the board would get a 2.75 percent pay raise to cover the addition of five days to the school calendar. Teachers with three or more years of experience would receive larger raises, depending on the length of their service: Those with three to six years behind them would receive a 3 percent raise; those with 21 years or more would see a 5 percent raise.

“None of the progress we’ve made in education would be possible without our teachers,” Riley said. “But they deserve more than our gratitude and respect. They also deserve a pay raise.”

The governor’s office estimates the cost of the pay raises at $79 million to cover the 2.75 percent increase, with about $24 million more to cover the remaining raises.

Riley also proposed raising the minimum tax threshold from $4,600 for a family of four up to $15,000 by 2011. The budget also calls for a minimum 2 percent pay increase for state employees, with an additional 3 percent “if the money is available,” said Jim Main, the director of the state Department of Finance.

Riley called for full disclosure of lobbyist spending on legislators and the executive branch of government. He also called for “common sense” reforms to address Alabama’s prison overcrowding problem, though he did not talk about specifics. The governor’s office described his plans as a mix of educational and treatment facilities for those nearing the end of their prison sentences, and facilities for “technical violators” that would punish crimes such as probation violation without sending people to jail.

The proposals mark a sharp turnaround in the General Fund, which was projected to have a $240 million deficit last year but has benefited from increased tax revenues, higher interest rates and a $135 million credit in Federal Emergency Management Agency funds for Medicaid payments for victims of Hurricane Katrina.

The governor’s broad proposals, coming in the middle of an election year, seemed ambitious to many people. Democrats said Tuesday they had concerns about the spending plan and called for an expected $1 billion increase in revenues in fiscal years 2006 and 2007 to be set aside for the future.

“Instead of conservative spending, Governor Riley has come up with a plan for election-year spending that puts the future of schools and the Education Trust Fund in jeopardy,” House Majority Leader Ken Guin said in the Democatic response to the State of the State address.

State Sen. Hank Sanders, D-Selma, chairman of the Senate’s Finance and Taxation General Fund committee, said earlier on Tuesday that he had “grave reservations” about the proposal. He cited other needs in the budget, the “political” climate in the Senate this year, and the fact that most money is given out through bonding.

The Democrats were more supportive of the governor’s tax proposal, though they expressed concerns about the cost. Sanders, while saying it was “a crime” that taxes started on the first $4,600 of income, said he was worried at the estimated $233 million cost of the proposed threshold.

“I’m not sure it’s the right proposal,” he said.

Senate President Pro Tem Lowell Barron, D-Fyffe, said the Democrats’ main priority will be passage of a state budget without resorting to a special session.

“We all watched last year as petty politics prevented us from passing a bill in general session,” he said. “We want to learn from that.”

Two local legislators said Tuesday night that they were impressed by the speech. State Rep. Randy Wood, R-Saks, dismissed Democratic concerns about the spending in the bill.

“This is one-time money for capital improvements,” he said.

State Rep. Steve Hurst, D-Munford, repeated earlier concerns about the spending of the money, but said he was broadly supportive of the proposal.

Both men said they felt the election year might prove difficult for getting all of the governor’s proposals enacted.

“All my years being involved in city and state government, you set your goals high and you shoot for the moon,” he said. “And you get part of the way there.”

If some members of the Alabama Republican Party have their way, Alabamians whose taxes are unfairly (some say immorally) high will not see relief any time soon — if ever.

One of the state GOP’s legislative priorities is the passage of a constitutional amendment that would require a three-fifths vote of both houses of the state Legislature to raise taxes.

If there was ever a shameless effort to keep an unfair system in place, this is it.

Today, in Alabama, the poor and the middle class are burdened by income and sales taxes, while the well-to-do are not. That is the simple fact of the matter.

Today, in Alabama, the poor and middle class depend heavily on the services the state provides, while the well-to-do do not. That, too, is the way it is.

One cannot lift the burden off the poor and middle class and still provide the services a state should provide its people without raising taxes on those who, to this point, have benefited from a system weighted in their favor.

But if the GOP plan is passed, the well-to-do will continue to enjoy that advantage, while the poor and middle class will continue to be burdened by high taxes and insufficient services.

Republicans and their allies, including some who brag about their Christian connections, should be ashamed of the way they have deluded middle-class Alabamians into thinking that they have more in common with those in the upper-income brackets than with those in the lower.

Middle-class Alabamians should see through this plan and urge their representatives to vote against it.

Unless, of course, they like things the way they are. Because if this proposal passes, the way things are is the way things will stay.

Something odd happened in Alabama last year.

The Legislature budgeted $5.16 billion for education. But when the revenue came in, guess what? There was around $265 million left over.

Not unprecedented but pretty rare. Usually legislators face a session amid talk of proration and pink slips. This week they will gather in Montgomery and have money to spend. And it is an election year. What could be better?

Of course, different folks have different ideas where to spend it.

Gov. Bob Riley proposes that since there is a pretty good chance that this is “one-time” money it should be spent on “one-time” things like public school construction and other improvements. That sounds reasonable. Because of past budget cuts, primary and secondary schools, colleges and universities throughout the state have delayed construction and maintenance projects. Money spent for this would be money spent well.

Also, there is a great deal of talk about installing the technology infrastructure necessary to bring students online and our schools into the fully wired (and wireless, even) 21st century. Now that would be a worthwhile investment in the future.

Naturally, others have hopes for the “surplus.”

Paul Hubbert, executive secretary of the Alabama Education Association, is a critic of the governor’s plan as election year politics. He suggests that the money go for teacher raises, hiring more teachers and operating expenses for schools.

There is merit to Hubbert’s proposal, as well.

Alabama teachers still earn well less than the national average, and with expenses rising, teacher buying power is shrinking. In areas where student populations are growing, new teachers are needed. Budget cuts caused some systems to drop art, music and other “culture” courses. These should be restored. As for operating expenses, school are having to pay more for gas, utilities and other necessities — just like the rest of us.

What makes Riley’s proposal sounder than Hubbert’s is that the head of AEA is proposing spending one-time money on ongoing projects, while the governor is proposing to use the “surplus” for things that can be paid for with one allocation.

We urge Riley and Hubbert not to fight this out with legislative allies. They should work together and present a unified plan. Teacher raises, new hires and more money for operating expenses should be built into the next education budget. However, this “surplus” may never appear again, so we should use it wisely, use it well and use it now.

Constitutional reform can wait? Don’t tell that to state lawmakers Ted Little and Demetrius Newton. In its upcoming session, the Legislature will have a chance to break the back of the state’s unjust Constitution, the duo announced at a Wednesday news conference in Montgomery.

Hooray for this act of optimism that taunts conventional wisdom, which dictates that it’s a lost cause to propose fundamental state government fixes during an election year. Sen. Little, D-Auburn, and Rep. Newton, D-Birmingham, are doing right by Alabamians by putting constitutional reform on the table one week before the Legislature begins its 2006 session. If it passes, their measure gives the state’s voters a chance to throw out the 1901 Constitution and begin the process of writing a new one.

Doesn’t seem like a hard choice for lawmakers. Pass a bill to help make the state more democratic by putting more power in the hands of the people or stand by and do nothing, something that benefits the powerful few whom the Constitution was written on behalf of. Embrace positive change for Alabama or keep your head buried in the mud. The answer is obvious in any year, even one with a November election on the calendar.

Little and Newton have stepped up on behalf of a better state. We’ll be watching to see who else in Montgomery joins them.

The political war over illegal immigration is heating up. Before it boils over, a few reminders are in order. Not every Latino is an illegal immigrant. Census figures and other surveys report that approximately 40 million Hispanics live in the United States. Of that figure, less than one-fourth are here illegally. Odds are with presuming that those of us with brown skin are nothere illegally.

All of the above is obvious to the point of nearly being condescension. However, given the nastiness swirling about against illegal immigrants, please indulge us.

In Jefferson County, the sheriff announced late last year that he intends to create a database of illegal immigrants in the Birmingham area.

“The issue of undocumented illegal immigrants in the Birmingham area is exploding,” Sheriff Mike Hale told The Birmingham News. “Establishing a seamless link between the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department and other key police departments in the metro area is critically important to reducing crime and taking dangerous offenders off the streets.”

That quote leaves us with more questions than answers.

Is keeping a file of suspected illegal immigrants a good idea? Are all illegal immigrants “dangerous offenders”? Color us skeptical. It’s tough to believe an immigrant, even one who has crossed the border illegally, is an evildoer. More likely, said immigrant braved unbelievable hardships to come here. He puts in hard work for low wages and does his best to stay under the radar. None of this hardship takes away from the fact that this person has broken our immigration laws and should be dealt with. However, that is a role left to the feds.

Just how does a local law enforcer determine immigration status, an avenue of the law left almost exclusively to federal agents?

Even if it’s possible to create an illegal immigrant blacklist, what will be its purpose? It doesn’t take an active imagination to see potential for abuse to the point of vigilantism if the list were to be made public.

Contacting immigration authorities seems like a more constructive step for local law enforcers in Jefferson County and elsewhere who come in contact with suspected illegal aliens.

The news isn’t much better on the side responsible for writing immigration laws. A recent measure added to the U.S. House’s border-security bill is misplaced. The provision would criminalize assisting illegal immigrants. The amendment’s proponents don’t just mean punishing the smugglers who sneak folks across the border. They mean any group that provides basic social services (or even a meal or a ride to work) to immigrants who turn out to be in the country illegally would be subject to federal prosecution.

It’s hard to imagine social service volunteers who cater to immigrant communities barking, “papers, please,” to immigrants lining up for a warm meal or help in finding affordable housing.

Enforcing border security is too important for such poorly thought out posturing.