http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1151659723252790.xml&coll=2 -  Siegelman, Scrushy guilty on multiple charges.

http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/1151659712252830.xml&coll=1 – Pundits see conviction as end of long Siegelman career.

http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/1151659712252830.xml&coll=1 – Legal experts say reversal of Siegelman conviction unlikely.

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060630/OPINION01/606300315/1012/OPINION - Editorial states that Siegelman conviction shows need for ethics reform.

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060629/APN/606290892 - Federal Court panel denies appeal of death row inmate who represented himself.

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060630/NEWS/606300314/1012/editorial1 - Editorial urges Tuscaloosa County to move quickly to take advantage of limited local control.

FROM TODAY’S ANNISTON STAR:

Editorials

A sad end to it all

In our opinion

06-30-2006

Thursday afternoon, the word came over the wire: “Alabama governor and ex-HealthSouth CEO convicted of corruption.”

Former Gov. Don Siegelman and Richard Scrushy, the man who built HealthSouth into one of the most impressive companies in the state, were both convicted in federal court of bribery, conspiracy and mail fraud. Siegelman was also convicted of obstruction of justice.

During the six-week trial, prosecutors brought in testimony to show what was described as a series of “pay to play” transactions in which Siegelman, both as governor and lieutenant governor, asked for and accepted money and gifts in exchange for a variety of favors, including a $40,000 “donation” that allowed the developer of a toll bridge to pick the transportation director.

Among those who were accused of taking part in such schemes was Scrushy, who was charged with having paid $500,000 in campaign contributions to obtain a seat on a state hospital regulatory board.

The trial has been a sad parade of the many ways money can and (according to the jury) did change hands to corrupt the political process. Both business and government took a beating, and neither came out well in the end.

But worse still, this verdict likely marks the end of what were once two of the most promising and productive careers in the state.

Don Siegelman came to the governor’s office with better credentials and more experience than any public official in recent memory. Unfortunately, that experience also tied him to politics as usual in Montgomery. As a result, his term in office fell short of what his supporters hoped it would be, and the outcome of this trial leaves a stain that will never be blotted out.

Richard Scrushy was also successful, impressive and promising. Self-made in so many ways, his career was one in which the people of Alabama took pride, and the company he built made us feel good about ourselves.

Which is what saddens us most about it all.

Here are two men who did so much and could have done so much more. Though there will be appeals and though the final verdict may be different, their promise, their potential, is a thing of the past. Now they will never do what they might have done for this state.

Medicaid mess

In our opinion

06-30-2006

We have seen it so often. A red-hot political issue is addressed by lawmakers more concerned about getting votes than about writing good legislation, and as soon as the bill is signed by a similarly concerned president, the “law of unintended consequences” kicks in.

Can anyone up in Washington say “oops?”

Back at the beginning of the year, Congress passed and President Bush signed the Deficit Reduction Act, which was suppose to help our spendthrift executive and legislative branches reduce the amount of money we have been coming up short every year.

And, in typical fashion, the spenders avoided the real problems - war and pork and such - and go after supposed welfare cheats. To sweeten the political pot, the politicians promised to save a bundle (roughly the cost of keeping troops in Iraq for a day or so) by reducing the number of illegal immigrants who are getting help through Medicaid.

Now, we will not criticize the goal here. Illegal immigrants should not be eligible for such services. But how are you going to tell those who are legal from those who aren’t?

Well, Congress, in its wisdom, came up with the answer. Just show proof of citizenship - a passport or birth certificate will do just fine.

Only problem is that there are a lot of folks who have neither. How many of you have a passport? OK, let’s write that one off.

And what about a birth certificate? Ah, you have that. Unless you are elderly, poor, from a rural area where doctors were few and hospitals fewer, so you were born at home.

There are a lot of folks like that in states like Alabama.

One survey has estimated that nationwide there could be over 4 million U.S.-born citizens who will have trouble getting Medicaid services because they lack the proper documentation. And they could be the ones who need it most.

So, what can be done?

Well, State Medicaid Commissioner Carol Herrmann-Steckel, seeing the consequence Congress did not anticipate, said that if an individual did not have a passport or birth certificate, they could still get Medicaid if they swore they were citizens.

That’s all?

Do folks in charge think that someone who broke the law to get here won’t break the law again to get aid if they need it?

So why pass the law anyway?

We wonder.

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1151487409265530.xml&coll=2 – Siegelman jury deadlocked, judge to give more instructions today and urge jury to reach verdict.

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1151487432265530.xml&coll=2 – several laws passed during regular session take effect July 1.

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1151487379265530.xml&coll=2 – Remarks by ADEM director anger environmentalists working for environmental justice.

http://www.al.com/opinion/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1151486859265530.xml&coll=2 – Editorial praises efforts of Birmingham and Jefferson County  leaders to explore creation of a viable regional transit system.

http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/1151486296265540.xml&coll=1 – New report warns that state’s public schools are facing a “rising tide of low income students.”

http://www.al.com/opinion/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1151486252265540.xml&coll=1 – Editorial thanks sponsors, participants in recent forum on immigration issues.

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060628/NEWS02/606280368/1009 -  U.S. Senate Indian Affairs Commission releases report that says Mississippi Indian casino leaders invested $13 million in Riley’s 2002 campaign for governor.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AL_VOTING_RIGHTS_ALA_ALOL-?SITE=ALMON&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT – Alabama congressional delegation split in whether to extend Voting Rights Act.

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060627/APN/606270779 - Fewer teen deaths, dropouts according to new Kids Count report.

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060628/NEWS/606280333/1012/editorial1 - Editorial praises state’s Kids Count improvement, cautions that much left to do.

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/115140011179950.xml&coll=2 – Annual Kids Count report reflect improvement in children’s well-being.

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/115140009979950.xml&coll=2 – Assistant AG testifies before Congressional committee, urges that Voting Rights Act requirements be “relaxed.”

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/115139979879950.xml&coll=2 – Jury completes eighth day of deliberations in Siegelman trial.

http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/115139985479940.xml&coll=3 – South Alabama counties take first steps toward limited home rule.

http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/115139987179930.xml&coll=1 – Huntsville Human Rights Commission hosts community forum on immigration issues.

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060627/OPINION01/606270302/1012/OPINION - Editorial comments on Alabama’s standing in new Kids Count report.

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060627/NEWS/606270309/1012/editorial1 - Editorial calls for strong enforcement of new child restraint law.

FROM TODAY’S ANNISTON STAR:

Editorials

Mending judicial fences

In our opinion

06-27-2006

Fuller Kimbrell, one of the last survivors of the “Big Jim” Folsom era, has been known to observe that “Alabama politics is a dirty business, if it’s done right.”

Well, in the recent Republican primary contests for seats on the Alabama Supreme Court, it was done right. Associate Justice Tom Parker and his handpicked slate challenged all the GOP incumbents, including Chief Justice Drayton Nabers, whom Parker took on himself.

And now, after being beaten badly, Parker has to return to the bench and patch things up with his colleagues.

He has made a good start, announcing that he will support the Republican candidates in November. He also reportedly called them all to let them know that there were no hard feelings.

Well, maybe not on Parker’s side. Word is that he has a way of separating political attacks from personal ones; however, calling Nabers an abortion-supporting liberal is not going to endear him to the chief justice with whom he must now work.

Besides Nabers, Associate Justice Tom Woodall is said to still be upset that Parker ran one of Parker’s employees against him, and we still recall how Associate Justice Mike Bolin became so outraged with Parker’s politics that he held a news conference to denounce him.

All of this means that there is trouble in the Judicial Building.

So what can Parker do? From our perspective, he can address one of the most telling criticisms leveled against him during the campaign — that he is lazy, that he doesn’t pull his own weight.

With a heavy caseload before the court and another election in the future for some of the justices —including Chief Justice Nabers — Parker needs to step up and do his job.

That, more than anything else, will make his colleagues and the public feel better about him.

Op-Ed Columns

Should we sever link between health insurance and work?

By Ronald Brownstein

06-27-2006

When organized labor’s most inventive union president and the Republican lawmaker in line to chair the powerful House Ways and Means Committee both tout the same revolutionary idea, it might be time to bend an ear.

Andrew Stern, the liberal president of the Service Employees International Union, and conservative Rep. Jim McCrery, R-La., favored to succeed Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Calif., as head of Ways and Means if Republicans keep control of the House, don’t agree on much.

But both believe it’s time to replace the central arch of the American health care system: the link between health insurance and work. Their arguments might represent the opening notes of the first significant domestic debate of the 2008 presidential campaign.

After President Franklin D. Roosevelt imposed wage and price controls, companies could not compete for workers by offering bigger paychecks. Instead, they provided richer benefits, including health insurance. The big unions bargained for health coverage in their contracts with major employers.

Congress cemented the connection between work and health coverage in 1954 by creating a generous tax subsidy for employer-provided coverage. Employers who provide health insurance for their workers can deduct the cost of the premiums as a business expense. But although workers pay taxes on the wages they receive, Congress decided they would not be taxed on the value of the insurance their employers purchased for them.

That subsidy encouraged employers to shift more of a worker’s total compensation from wages to health benefits. Linking health coverage to work also created insurance pools that shared risk between workers who were young and old, healthy and sick.

With all these advantages, the employer-based system grew enormously over the last half-century. Today, more than 174 million workers and their families receive health insurance on the job.

But as the cost of insurance rises, fewer small employers are offering it. And more large employers claim that the rising cost hurts their ability to compete against companies from other countries that spread the cost more broadly through government-provided health care.

With these pressures, the share of Americans who receive coverage at work has fallen in each of the last five years. Most experts project continued declines. Stern sees in these trends the writing on the wall.

“We have to recognize that employer-based health care is ending; it is dying before our very eyes,” he said at a recent forum sponsored by the Brookings Institution think tank.

Stern he flagged the obvious two options: a government-run, single-payer health care regime versus a system that would require individuals to purchase insurance with subsidies from government and, perhaps, mandated contributions from employers. McCrery, not surprisingly, prefers the latter option, minus the employer mandate.

In an essay published this month in the new journal Democracy, Jason Furman, a visiting scholar at New York University and former economic policy aide to President Clinton, said that tax policy would be the key to any shift away from the employer-based health care system.

The existing tax subsidy for insurance, Furman said, perversely benefits upper-income workers more than lower-income ones. The reason is that under the progressive income tax, the affluent pay higher tax rates on their income. So it would cost them more than low-income workers if government taxed the value of employer-provided insurance.

Furman says that if government eliminated the current tax subsidy for employer-provided coverage (which costs Washington, D.C., about $200 billion a year), the savings could fund a tax credit that helped all Americans purchase basic health insurance. That structure, he said, would provide the biggest subsidy to the least affluent.

A first step, he said, might be to limit the amount of insurance employers could provide tax free and to use the savings to fund coverage for some of the nearly 46 million uninsured.

Any system that affects as many people as employer-based health coverage won’t be changed quickly, nor should it be. “We have to work incrementally toward getting to a point where we can slowly shift insurance from the workplace,” McCrery said.

Likewise, most big business executives aren’t clamoring to jettison their role.

“We’re not giving up on this system and saying it needs to be thrown out,” said John J. Castellani, president of the Business Roundtable, which represents the nation’s largest companies. “We think it can be improved from both a cost and quality standpoint, and that’s what we are focusing on.”

The critics haven’t assembled an irrefutable case against the employer-based system; refurbishing it might well make more sense than dismantling it. Any replacement system would need to guarantee affordability and preserve the sharing of risk.

But the tough, thoughtful questions from voices such as Stern, McCrery and Furman are an encouraging sign that the nation finally might be ready to re-examine a health care system that costs too much and covers too few.

Ronald Brownstein is a national political correspondent for The Los Angeles Times.

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/115131365867570.xml&coll=2 – Alabama ranks second in southeastern U. S. in automobile miles driven per capita.

http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/115131342067560.xml&coll=3 – “The Political Skinny,” The Mobile Press-Register’s weekly roundup from Mobile, Montgomery and Washington.

http://www.al.com/opinion/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/opinion/115131334467690.xml&coll=1 – Editorial calls for House of Representatives to extend U.S. Voting Rights Act.

FROM TODAY’S ANNISTON STAR:

Editorials

Red State revenge

In our opinion

06-26-2006

It seemed such a simple matter. Renew the Voting Rights Act, that landmark piece of Civil Rights Era legislation that a bipartisan coalition passed in 1965 despite objections from Southern members of Congress who maintained that black voters down here weren’t really discriminated against, they just weren’t qualified to vote or weren’t interested enough to pay their poll tax or … you get the idea.

The House leadership of both parties was for renewal of the act. The Judiciary Committee voted 33-1 to send it to the floor. The Senate leadership was also for it and was waiting for the House to act so they could pass it along to the president.

It was an election-year slam-dunk. Everyone would look good.

Then something happened.

The Republicans, the majority party, met in closed caucus and after what has been described as an “intense” discussion, House GOP leaders announced that the vote on renewal had been postponed — indefinitely.

Why? Because, as Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., explained it: “The speaker’s had a standing rule that nothing would be voted on unless there’s a majority of the majority. It was pretty clear at the meeting that the majority of the majority wasn’t there.”

What had happened was that a group of representatives from the South protested that, under the renewal, their states would still be required to have voting rule changes “pre-cleared” by the Justice Department despite the improvements made since the act was originally passed.

They were joined by other Republicans who wanted to remove from the act the provision that requires ballots to be printed in languages other than English in states and counties where there are large numbers of non-English speakers.

Whatever the merits of the arguments for changes in the act, the bottom line is that a group of Red State Republicans, representing the heartland the GOP has captured and hopes to hold, have undermined their party’s hope to attract black and Hispanic voters in the upcoming election.

In recent years, Republican regulars have gone out of their way to give these hard-core Red Staters what they wanted.

And this is the thanks they get.

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1151227462107380.xml&coll=2 – Amari receives endorsement from former opponent in PSC runoff race.

http://www.al.com/opinion/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1151227532107380.xml&coll=2 – Commentary reviews history of US utilizing cheap immigrant labor to build strong economy, urges leaders to create a path to citizenship for those who have labored to build country.

http://www.al.com/opinion/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1151227013107380.xml&coll=2 – Rep. Artur Davis defends efforts to extend Voting Rights Act.

http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/opinion/editorials/060625a.shtml - Editorial calls for debate on why Alabama’s growth lags that of the nation in mid-decade census data.

http://www.gadsdentimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060625/NEWS/606250325/1137/NEWS - Article profiles former Auburn professor Wayne Flynt.

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060625/NEWS/606250323/1001 - Legal observers speculate on outcome of Siegelman trial.

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060625/NEWS02/606250312/1009 - Federal judge refuses to dismiss case over community based services for disabled.

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060625/NEWS/606250356/1012/editorial1 - Editorial once again calls for ban on PAC-to-PAC transfers in light of recent congressional reports outlining transfer of casino contributions to fight lottery in Alabama.

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060625/NEWS/606250361/1013/EDITORIAL2 - Commentary by AG Troy King criticizes recent ABA report calling for death penalty moratorium.

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060625/NEWS/606250358/1013/EDITORIAL2 - “Alabama Exposure” Dana Beyerle’s weekly political roundup for the NYTimes regional papers.

FROM TODAY’S ANNISTON STAR:

State & Region News

Primary revealed power of PAC

By Brian Lyman
Star Capitol Correspondent

06-25-2006

MONTGOMERY – Neither political race appeared competitive at first.

The incumbents were powerful members of the state Senate, sitting on well-stocked re-election accounts.

The opponents in their respective primaries had filed at the last minute. Neither had done any fund raising. One was a convicted felon.

But by the morning of June 7, Randolph County Circuit Court Clerk Kim Benefield had defeated six-term incumbent Gerald Dial 53 to 46 percent in the Senate District 13 Democratic primary. In Senate District 11, Sen. Jim Preuitt had to spend $376,000 to defeat former Talladega mayor Larry Barton, who was convicted of embezzlement in 1994.

Both challengers were aided by two political action committees (or PACs) that received the lion’s share of their funding from four powerful Democratic state senators whom Dial and Preuitt clashed with in the spring legislative session. The PACs gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to Benefield and Barton in “in-kind” contributions, dwarfing their fund raising by margins of more than 20-1.

The process the senators used to move the money is called a PAC-to-PAC transfer, and critics say it conceals political donors from public scrutiny, thereby making a mockery of transparency requirements in campaign-finance laws.

“A politician can receive money indirectly from an unpopular organization and not have to answer for it to the voters,” said David Lanoue, chairman of the political science department at the University of Alabama. “A Republican could indirectly get money from the AEA (Alabama Education Association), or a Democrat could indirectly get money from a business interest, without alienating his or her core constituency.”

The PACs helped pay for fliers and radio and television advertisements that attacked the incumbents throughout the month of May. The races were nasty from the word go, with both sides accusing the other of being held captive by special interests.

“I don’t think I’ve ever seen a primary campaign season in which the ads were as dirty and there were so many dirty tricks played,” said Gary Palmer, president of the Alabama Policy Institute.

Preuitt could run photos of Barton being led away in chains on television to gain an edge in the race. But Dial, who accused Benefield of accepting money from trial lawyers, could not prove his charges — or trace the source of her campaign’s funding.

“All it does is, it hides money for those who want to maintain control of it,” he said.

While Benefield raised about $18,000 for her campaign, Senate Majority PAC made more than $270,000 in contributions for her campaign. Real Democrat PAC, itself funded heavily by Senate Majority PAC, spent $206,000 on behalf of Barton’s campaign.

Records at the Alabama Secretary of State’s office and campaign-finance filings by the PACs show they were funded by Senate President Pro Tem Lowell Barron, D-Fyffe; Senate Finance and Taxation Education committee chairman Hank Sanders, D-Selma; Senate Majority Leader Zeb Little, D-Cullman, and Senate Finance and Taxation General Fund chairman Roger Bedford, D-Russellville.

Who contributed to their campaigns — and, indirectly, to Benefield and Barton’s — is anyone’s guess. By moving money between different political action committees, Alabama politicians don’t have to disclose the source of contributions, making it difficult for ordinary citizens to determine who bankrolls a particular campaign.

Barron, Bedford, Little and Sanders moved a total $585,000 into Senate Majority PAC in April and May. The PAC made in-kind contributions — purchases on behalf of a candidate’s campaign — for Benefield and Democratic Senate candidate Joe Sawyer, a challenger to State Senator Jimmy Holley, D-Elba, who also had clashed with the Senate’s Democratic leadership.

Senate Majority PAC also transferred $233,000 to Real Democrat PAC, which provided Barton with his in-kind contributions.

Little’s campaign contributed $180,000 to Senate Majority PAC, but Little says he did not keep track of how the money would be spent.

“My primary goal is on getting re-elected,” he said. “And I do believe that the Democratic senators ought to organize together.”

Little faces electronics executive Harold Sachs in the November general election, but did not face a primary opponent this spring.

Barron and Sanders did not return messages seeking comment, nor did Steve Raby, the treasurer of Senate Majority PAC. Bedford could not be reached. Dial accused Barron of funding Benefield during the primary campaign, and while Barron denied ties to Benefield’s campaign, he did not hide his hope that Dial would lose.

Benefield on Friday offered a brief, written statement, saying “PAC to PAC transfers is a legislative issue. I will study that issue when I am serving the people of the 13th district as Senator and I will vote in the way that is best for them.”

Before she faxed her statement, Benefield referred questions to consultant Del Averett, who said he could not discuss Senate Majority PAC because Benefield had not authorized him.

While the four senators contributed much of Senate Majority PAC’s money, the source of their money, at least after Jan. 31, is unknown. None of the four faced primary opposition, and Ed Packard of the Elections Division in the Secretary of State’s office says the Attorney General’s office has ruled that candidates who do not face primary opposition do not have to file campaign-finance reports for the primary season.

The question of whether they have to report campaign spending is still open, he said. “Other activity, I think that’s part of the question,” he said.

Messages left at the Attorney General’s office were not returned.

Barron, Bedford, Little and Sanders have not filed any campaign finance reports since Jan. 31. Records from Senate Majority PAC show that in April and May, Sanders contributed $230,000 to Senate Majority PAC; Little $180,000; Bedford $100,000, and Barron $75,000.

Dial and Preuitt weren’t David fighting Goliath. Both campaigns were flush with cash – Dial reported $193,000 on hand in January, Preuitt $301,000 – and both raised and spent heroic sums of money defending their seats. In May alone, Dial spent $445,000, while Preuitt spent close to $376,000.

In addition, both men had engaged in PAC-to-PAC transfers in previous years, according to their campaign filings.

While Dial’s willingness to support Gov. Bob Riley might have made him more popular in a district that went overwhelmingly to the governor in 2002, it did not endear him to leading Democrats in the Senate or among Democratic primary voters.

In addition, Little blames Preuitt for blocking legislation in 2005 that would have banned PAC-to-PAC transfers. Preuitt, currently chairman of the Senate’s Rules Committee — which decides what legislation will come to a vote on the floor — said he would revisit the issue, if re-elected.

“I would think I would look at more favorably than I have in the past,” he said. “It’s something that certainly needs strong consideration.”

Legislation that would have banned PAC-to-PAC transfers was endorsed by Riley and made it through the House this year, but did not go anywhere in the Senate.

“These bills will go as far as public outcry carries them,” Lanoue said. “I don’t sense there’s that widespread anger over that widespread practice. I would suspect most Alabamians aren’t familiar with it.”

While most politicians say they would support a ban, the Alabama Policy Institute’s Palmer says it’s easy for them to say that because bans rarely get anywhere in the state’s upper chamber.

“It’s hard to say who’s really sincere about it, because everyone who knows anything about what goes on in Montgomery knows it’s dead in the Senate,” he said. “So it’s a free ticket for whatever you want, because there’s very little chance that they’re going to have to back up their words.”

Despite his use of PAC-to-PAC transfers this year, Little says he supports a ban.

“When money is washed from PAC to PAC to PAC, you can’t tell who is supporting a candidate,” he said. “That’s why it needs to be changed. People need to know who is supporting a particular candidate.”

PAC-to-PAC transfers allow politicians and special-interest groups to funnel money between political action committees (PACs), which usually do most of the fund raising in political campaigns. Here’s how transfers worked in the Democratic primaries in Senate Districts 11 (Larry Barton vs. Jim Preuitt) and 13 (Kim Benefield vs. Gerald Dial).

1. Sens. Lowell Barron, D-Fyffe; Roger Bedford, D-Russellville; Zeb Little, D-Cullman, and Hank Sanders, D-Selma move $585,000 from their own campaigns to an organization called Senate Majority PAC in April and May. Those contributions are the bulk of the PAC’s $790,000 raised in that time.

2. Senate Majority PAC makes $270,000 in “in-kind” contributions to Benefield’s campaign between April 25 and May 23. In-kind contributions are purchases made on behalf of a candidate by an outside organization, like a PAC. These can include anything from advertising to office supplies. On her own, Benefield raises $10,000 that month, and spends $13,283.21 (using $7,500 raised in mid-April).

3. While making purchases on behalf of Benefield, Senate Majority PAC transfers $233,855 to Real Democrat PAC between April 25 and May 30. Those transfers make up the majority of Real Democrat’s $305,885 in funds.

4. Real Democrat PAC makes $206,911 in “in-kind” contributions to Barton, who on his own raises $15,100 over that time, and spends $12,322.11.

5. Benefield wins the June 6 primary over Dial; Preuitt defeats Barton.

6. While most of Senate Majority PAC’s money comes from the Barron, Bedford, Little and Sanders campaigns, none of the four were required to file campaign finance reports because they did not face primary opposition. None of the campaigns have filed campaign-finance reports since January, and the extent of their funding — and the identity of their donors — is unknown.

Source: Secretary of State’s office

Op-Ed Columns

The sky didn’t fall in Alabama after all

By Dick Armey

06-25-2006

Special to The Star

Turns out the sky didn’t fall after all. Remember the 2003 debate over Amendment 1, the state constitutional referendum that would have created the largest tax increase in Alabama’s history? The talking heads and professional alarmists had a field day, earnestly and ominously predicting that prisoners would be let loose and high school football would lose its funding.

But Alabama’s taxpayers knew better than to buy the scare tactics, defeating Gov. Bob Riley’s $1.2 billion tax hike by a 2-to-1 margin.

And, the predictions that the sky would fall if Amendment 1 failed were not even close. Three years after voters rejected higher taxes, the state is rolling in a $700 million budget surplus. Prisoners are not roaming the streets, high schools still play football on Friday night, and no one kicked grandma out of the nursing home. Turns out the taxpayers called the liberal bluff that massive tax hikes were needed to avoid budget shortages.

So what happened? After years of legislative mismanagement and spiraling spending, Alabama faced a $675 million budget deficit in 2003. But when the voters refused to let Riley pass the buck onto Alabama taxpayers, the governor had no choice but to buckle down, prioritize and reduce nonessential spending.

Working closely with the Legislature, he cut out a half-billion dollars in line-item spending and $40 million of pork from the budget. They also shrunk the size of the state bureaucracy by reducing the number of state employees and vehicles. It wasn’t easy, as there was tremendous political pressure from big government interest groups, but they got the job done.

But that’s not the entire story. Though the tax rates remained the same, tax revenues actually increased over the last three years. As the economy grew, over 1,200 industries, 50,000 jobs and 100,000 new residents moved into the state. With more people and businesses paying taxes, overall revenues increased. Keeping taxes low makes Alabama more attractive for business and investment.

Alabama is just one of several states that balanced their budgets through economic growth and fiscal restraint instead of suffocating tax hikes. Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney recently closed a $3 billion budget deficit without raising any taxes. In Mississippi, Gov. Haley Barbour eliminated a $700 million shortfall without raising taxes, despite being hit by multiple hurricanes. State governments became relatively leaner while taxpayers avoided the short end of the stick.

More important, holding the line against higher taxes in the lean years after 9/11 resulted in quicker and stronger recovery today. It’s a win-win approach.

Riley finally seems to understand today what the voters already knew in 2003. Better late than never. His latest $60 million tax relief package, unanimously approved by the House and Senate, was a step in the right direction. But that’s not enough. It is not even one-tenth of the surplus economic growth has brought the government coffers.

Pro-growth tax relief will help continue Alabama’s virtuous cycle of lower taxes, more economic growth and a more efficient government. Research consistently shows that when it comes to taxes, businesses and residents vote with their feet; and if given the incentives, they will most certainly vote for Alabama, bringing jobs for the people and revenue for the state.

But this lesson is lost on many pundits who insist on frittering away the surplus on more government programs. It’s easy to spend when the money is there; but when times are tough, will the Alabama politicians have the courage to cut spending once again?

Increasing funding for bureaucratic programs would put Alabama back on the vicious tax-and-spend cycle that it took so long to break. That’s exactly what’s happening in New Jersey. Although it has some of the highest state taxes in America, it sits in $4.5 billion of red ink due to the endless tax-and-spend cycle: Every revenue increase is met with more spending, while every budget deficit results in another tax hike.

Thankfully, in 2003, Alabama voters saved the state from a New Jersey-like spiral by putting the brakes on crushing taxes. In 2006, it was only fitting that Riley and the Legislature thanked hard-working Alabama citizens by returning some of their surplus tax dollars.

Dick Armey is former majority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives and current chairman of FreedomWorks.

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/115114076556210.xml&coll=2 – Alabama’s  per pupil expenditure hits record level while number of children in poverty increases to 51.6%.

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/115114063956210.xml&coll=2 – Siegelman jury breaks for weekend, deliberations to resume on Monday.

http://www.al.com/business/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/business/115114078656210.xml&coll=2 – Court rules state’s business privilege tax is unconstitutional.

http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/115114066156230.xml&coll=3 – New child safety law goes into effect July 1.

http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/115114065856240.xml&coll=1 – Abramoff says Mississippi casino money went to Riley’s campaign for governor in addition to Christian Coalition.

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060623/APN/606230737 - Cheney reportedly coming to state next month to raise funds for Riley campaign.

http://www.timesdaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060624/NEWS/606240326/1011 - Lynn Greer may attempt to regain House seat.

FROM TODAY’S ANNISTON STAR:

Editorials

Reed spreads loot, not Gospel

In our opinion

06-24-2006

The New Testament book of Hebrews warns followers of Jesus Christ against “forsaking the assembling of ourselves together.” Biblical scholarship as well as a common-sense reading of the passage make clear the intent: Christians ought to meet regularly in order to encourage each other.

In modern times, Christians do this in churches, some grandly designed and others more humble.

Apparently, though, for one leader of the Christian right, Ralph Reed, who’s caught up in a massive lobbying scandal, these places of exhortation aren’t just for spreading the gospel.

They are, instead, places where someone like Reed can trumpet his access to these believers. By connecting these churchgoers to the causes of Indian casinos, Reed earned $5.3 million, according to a new report from a Senate committee investigating the actions of Jack Abramoff, who earlier this year pleaded guilty to crimes associated with his influence peddling.

The new report does not charge Reed with criminal activity or even of having knowledge of Abramoff’s wrongdoing. However, the details of Reed’s work and his use of the religious as pawns are mighty damning.

This is the short of it:

• Choctaw Indian casinos near Philadelphia, Miss., did not want Alabama to have a lottery or even expanded gambling because it might cut into business.

• Abramoff helped the tribe by enlisting Reed to help keep Alabamians from approving a lottery or expanding video poker.

• Reed and his lobbying agency arranged for front groups to launder casino money and then funnel it to the Alabama Christian Coalition and another anti-lottery group. Those funds were used in a campaign to ultimately defeat a state lottery.

In stepping up to the job, Reed, according to the Senate report, “claimed that no firm had better relationships than his with the grassroots conservatives in Alabama.”

He listed contacts at several conservative advocacy groups in Alabama and singled out knowledge of “leading evangelical pastors such as Frank Barker of Briarwood Presbyterian Church in Birmingham.”

The report then outlines Reed’s bragging about his company in an e-mail to Abramoff.

“Century Strategies has on file 3,000 pastors and 90,000 religious conservative households in Alabama that can be accessed in this effort,” Reed wrote.

The whole story is quite distasteful. Abramoff was involved with several congressmen and Bush administration officials who either have or may soon face federal charges.

Reed’s part is just one facet, but here in Alabama it takes on greater import. Taking the sincere faith of Alabama Christians and exploiting it for the cynical purpose of protecting gamblers is disgusting.

The list of those who ought to be ashamed is long.

Editorials

Helping out the rich

In our opinion

06-24-2006

Here’s what you have to remember to be a good Republican these days: Eliminating the estate tax helps the little guy, but raising the minimum wage hurts him.

House Republicans yesterday pushed through a bill to roll back the estate tax. They have argued that the levy hurts small businesses and family farmers but have presented little, if any, evidence to back up that claim.

The legislation would enable tens of thousands of people who inherit millions to avoid the estate tax and reward those inheriting the biggest fortunes with substantially lower rates of taxation. The Senate will vote on the proposal next week.

People who want to kill the tax altogether believe that this bill, should it become law, will make abolition of the tax easier because it reduces the eventual cost of repeal.

But the reason the eventual cost of repeal would seem relatively small is that the cost of the tax break the House just passed is so big. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that the tax cut and interest payments on a higher federal debt would cost $762 billion during the first 10 years that the law is in place. It’s no secret who will have to make up the brunt of that shortfall, either in the form of new taxes or budget cuts: poor and working-class Americans.

While House Republicans were busy gift-wrapping their latest present for the rich, Senate Republicans made sure they deep-sixed a bill to raise the minimum wage. The argument against increasing the minimum wage is that it would put such a large burden on employers — especially small businesses — that it would force them to lay off workers or not make new hires.

But the Economic Policy Institute found that no significant job losses were caused by the most recent federal minimum wage increase, which, by the way, was way back in 1997. And a 2004 study by the Fiscal Policy Institute on state minimum wage increases (over a dozen states have raised the wage floor above the federal level) found no negative impact on employment among small businesses.

The federal minimum wage has lagged far behind inflation the past several decades. If it had kept pace with inflation since 1968, it would now be $8.80 an hour. Instead, it’s stuck at an unconscionable $5.15.

The GOP’s legislative actions this week provide Democrats with the makings of a good story to tell voters in the fall about Republican priorities. Here’s hoping that the Democrats have the spunk to offer a full-throated telling of it.

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1151054639126190.xml&coll=2 – State Board of Education agrees to adopt policy to require that they and they and two-year college system staff members disclose relatives working in the system.

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1151054633126190.xml&coll=2 – Siegelman jury reports that they are deadlocked, judge asks that they continue their efforts.

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1151054526126190.xml&coll=2 – Ethics complaint file against Alabama House Minority Leader.

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1151054345126190.xml&coll=2 – Alabama’s 25-year-old higher ed desegregation case headed back to court – trial set for early fall.

http://www.al.com/opinion/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1151054220126220.xml&coll=1 – Editorial questions motives of Republican leadership in Congress’ continued efforts at ending estate tax.

http://www.dailyhome.com/opinion/2006/dh-editorials-0623-editorials-6f22v2446.htm - Editorial criticizes this week’s Senate action to refuse to raise minimum wage.

http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/060623/donation.shtml - Siegelman says that contributions to his efforts to bring a lottery to Alabama are similar to contributions that supported Riley’s ill-fated Amendment One effort.

http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/opinion/editorials/060623b.shtml - Editorial calls for elimination of estate tax AND increasing of minimum wage.

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060623/NEWS/606230306/1012/editorial1 - Editorial uses the state’s failure to remove racist language from constitution as evidence that Voting Rights Act should remain in effect.

FROM TODAY’S ANNISTON STAR:

Op-Ed Columns

Christ haunts our culture

By James L. Evans

06-23-2006

Southern literary icon Flannery O’Connor once said, “By and large, people in the South still conceive of humanity in theological terms. While the South is hardly Christ-centered, it is most certainly Christ-haunted.”

That’s a startling image to associate with Christ. A haunting is a disembodied appearance of a formerly embodied existence. Did O’Connor believe that Christ was disembodied in our culture?

It’s strange to even pose the question. The heart of the Christian faith is the incarnation — the belief that God became fully human in Jesus of Nazareth. Being fully human, he lived and died, after which he was raised bodily from the grave. Christians believe that with the risen Christ in their midst, they constitute the body of Christ in the world.

But embodiment is more than just theological name dropping. We can paste a “Christian” label on almost anything. But just because the outside of the box says Christian does not mean Jesus is on the inside.

For instance, there’s a coalition of Christians in Montgomery who, in the name of Jesus, religiously oppose any sort of tax increase — for any purpose. They believe it is a cardinal virtue to pay just as little tax as possible. These believers fear taxes as if they were a satanic ritual. Now, obviously this coalition is free to pursue whatever tax free state they want, but in the name of Jesus?

Nowhere in the Holy Bible will we find anything about the particular sacredness of not paying taxes. In fact, Jesus made it abundantly clear that if taxes are due, we should pay them.

Furthermore, this same coalition of Christians, along with some other faithful folk, is busy fighting to keep Alabama’s outdated state Constitution from being rewritten. They are afraid a new one will leave God out.

If ever there was anything Christ-haunted, it is this state Constitution. It certainly invokes God’s name in the opening pages. And supposedly it was written by godly men seeking God’s will. The end product, however, is one of the most ungodly social and economic systems ever devised.

The effect of a disembodied Christ shows up in other ways even more troubling than mere economics and politics. There is always just under the surface of our genteel hospitality a simmering anger. This anger shows itself frequently in a style of Christian preaching that seems to offer God’s love with one hand, while swinging the clenched fist of God’s wrath with the other.

In our Christ-haunted culture we forget that God said vengeance is not ours.

Truth is, we forget a good many things in a Christ-haunted world. We forget about loving our enemy, or even just our neighbor. We forget about forgiveness seven times seventy. We forget about the second mile, the other cheek and peace on earth. We forget about judge not and do unto others.

We also forget about the least of these. We forget about them a lot. This is the most telling clue of all that ours is a Christ-haunted culture. When we forget about the least of these our brothers and sisters, Christ is not embodied in our lives. At least that’s what Jesus said.

The only way to end this haunting is through a proper incarnation — a fleshing out of our theology, both private and public. It requires not only bearing Jesus’ name, but also his words and his way. Only to the extent that we are willing to do this will Christ be embodied in our world.

James L. Evans is pastor of Auburn First Baptist Church. He can be reached at faithmatters@mindspring.com.

Editorials

Maybe ‘super nice’ isn’t all that great

In our opinion

06-23-2006

Larry Powell, pollster and communications professor of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, looked at the upcoming gubernatorial contest between Democratic nominee Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley and the Republican pick, Gov. Bob Riley, and predicted that there would be little, if any, mud slinging. “We may,” he said, “come up with a super nice campaign.”

Well, that would be fine, if a super nice campaign were also one that confronted Alabama’s problems and proposed realistic solutions — which, at this point, seems unlikely.

Riley has announced that Alabama “is on the right track” and is promising more of the same. That track, says Baxley, is “warped,” and she promises to straighten it out.

But what does this mean?

It means that Riley is going to run as what you would expect a Republican nominee to run as — the champion of the Business Council of Alabama and, eventually, the rest of the GOP faithful. Forgiven by most for his attempt at tax reform, Riley can count on the Big Mules to pull him along and they, in turn, can count on him to act as their kind of Republican should act.

Meanwhile, Baxley has the support that a Democrat must have to win.

Recently, down in Mobile, the lieutenant governor (and lieutenant governor candidate Jim Folsom Jr.) were warmly greeted at the Alabama Education Association Leadership Conference, where AEA Executive Secretary Paul Hubbert told the assembly that “if Bob Riley had been the kind of governor that we wanted him to be, we wouldn’t have had to override the veto” of the AEA-backed teacher pay raise.

To underscore their support for the AEA agenda, Baxley and Folsom promised to protect the Education Trust Fund from those who wish to raid it.

And there it is.

Two of the biggest “special interests” in the state — education and business — choosing sides and squaring off against each other, while the candidates and the parties cheer them on.

That, unfortunately, is at the root of our problems today.

Rather than bring these interests together, our politicians thrive on the division. And Alabama loses as a result.

Democrats will denounce the governor as anti-education. Republicans will claim that if Baxley is elected, Alabama’s robust economy will collapse.

It is the same old song and dance. But at least this time, it looks like they will be “super nice” about it.

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/11509680358970.xml&coll=2 – Judge meets with jurors, offers more instructions in Siegelman case.

http://www.al.com/business/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/business/11509680768970.xml&coll=2 – Former SouthTrust CEO Wallace Malone establishes charitable foundation with $60 million endowment, says 90% of grants will go to Alabama programs.

http://www.al.com/opinion/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/opinion/11509678978970.xml&coll=2 – Editorial applauds decision of Supreme Court to refuse to reconsider prohibition against execution of juveniles in capital offense cases.

http://www.al.com/opinion/birminghamnews/elard.ssf?/base/opinion/1150881669302570.xml&coll=2 – Eddie Lard’s commentary on the impact of Birmingham area elections of legislative and local officials on transit issues.

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060622/NEWS/606220318/1001 - GOP stalls action to extend Voting Rights Act.

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060622/NEWS/606220315/1012/editorial1 - Editorial praises efforts of Corrections Commissioner to reduce county jail backlog.

FROM TODAY’S ANNISTON STAR:

Speak Out

Speaker’s Stand … Estate tax benefits most Alabamians

By Presdelane Harris
Special to The Star

06-22-2006

Alabama Sens. Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions recently voted again to abolish the estate tax, our nation’s only tax on great accumulations of inherited wealth. Their concern for the “not-so-least of these” concerns me — especially now that the Senate will vote soon on a huge reduction in the estate tax.

Why is abolishing a tax paid only by multimillionaires and billionaires a national priority right now? Our nation is at war, our federal debt is $8.5 trillion, and we are rebuilding the Gulf Coast.

At a time of war, when many Alabamians have made enormous sacrifices through their service in the military or state National Guard units, another tax break for the superrich is a stark inequality of sacrifice.

Voting for tax cuts is politically easy in Washington. Explaining how you’ll fill the gap is hard. How do our senators plan to replace the $1 trillion in revenue that will be lost in the decade after complete repeal? If they cut spending to pay for this tax cut for billionaires, what programs will be targeted? Most likely it will be the programs that benefit our children, our seniors and our low-income citizens.

Very few people pay the estate tax. According to newly released IRS data, only 278 Alabamians owed any estate tax in 2004 (out of the 46,716 state residents who died the previous year). That’s just 0.6 percent of all Alabama estates. In 2009, under existing law, only estates over $3.5 million for an individual and $7 million for a couple will be subject to the tax. By 2009, only a couple dozen of the wealthiest families in Alabama will pay.

Farming and running a business are hard, and many businesses fail, but not because of the estate tax. If the estate tax is a threat to family farmers or small business owners, as our senators claim, they should name such an entity in Alabama that has been put out of business because of the estate tax. Faceless anecdotes don’t count in this debate anymore. If you’re planning a $1 trillion vote, the people of Alabama deserve to see your evidence.

Sen. Sessions has been vocal in his support for abolishing the so-called “death tax,” cloaking his arguments like he is the protector of the common man. The phrase “death tax” itself is part of the deception. As an African-American, I am puzzled by his claims that abolishing the estate tax is beneficial to African-American entrepreneurs in Alabama. Robert Johnson, the wealthiest African-American man in America, would certainly benefit from repealing the tax. However, many thousands of Alabamians — black and white — would benefit from the services funded by keeping the estate tax.

Sen. Sessions talks about how the estate tax is a form of “double taxation,” but in truth, many of the assets of the estates subject to the tax have never been taxed.

The estate tax raises a lot of money from those people most able to pay. It provides an incentive for wealthy individuals to give to charity, including hospitals, colleges and foundations that serve our communities in Alabama. It causes the rich to care for the “least of these.” The estate tax exemplifies a larger tax fairness principle — those who have paid too much should pay less, and those who have paid too little should pay more.

Both Sens. Shelby and Sessions have repeatedly voted for estate tax repeal. This vote puts them out of step with the majority of citizens in our state.

Presdelane Harris is organizers’ team leader of Alabama Arise.

Op-Ed Columns

We still need Voting Rights Act

By Karen K. Narasaki
Progressive Media Project

06-22-2006

Congress should renew the Voting Rights Act. The provisions mandating language assistance for voting are particularly important.

A few members of Congress have challenged the language assistance provisions, which became part of the Voting Rights Act in 1975.

With a few exceptions, immigrants seeking citizenship are required to learn English. However, voting materials can often be confusing and complicated, even for those who speak English as their first language.

Even many native-born citizens have a difficult time navigating complex election materials because of language barriers.

Voters with limited-English skills are American citizens, and like all American citizens, they, too, have a stake in our democracy. They build businesses, work hard to provide for their families, pay taxes and serve in our military. Our country is better served when we ensure they have full access to voting, which is one of the most fundamental acts of citizenship.

Sadly, many American citizens for whom English is a second language continue to face obstacles when participating in the political process. In the last election, monitoring groups documented several instances around the country where hostility and abuse occurred.

In 2005 in Washington state, one man challenged the right to vote of more than 1,000 people with foreign-sounding names. He targeted voters with names that, he said, “have no basis in the English language” or “appear to be from outside the United States,” while omitting voters with names that sounded American-born, like Smith or Powell.

In Bayou La Batre, Ala., when a Vietnamese-American ran for local office, supporters of a white candidate were challenging the eligibility of only Asian-American voters.

And in Boston in 2004, poll workers at one site segregated white voters and minority voters into two separate lines, trying to speed up the voting process.

Federal language assistance provisions could help ensure that all citizens are safeguarded against such discriminatory treatment.

Protections provided under the Voting Rights Act have helped increased voter participation among Asian-Americans, Latinos, American Indians, and Alaskan natives. In San Diego County, Calif., for instance, voter registration among Latinos and Filipinos rose 20 percent within six months after the Department of Justice’s language protection enforcement action in 2004.

Elected officials can then be more responsive — and accountable — to communities’ needs. And officials can become more representative of their constituents. In 2002, Harris County, Texas, was required to offer language assistance to Vietnamese-speaking voters. Just two years later, a multilingualVietnamese-American candidate won a state legislative seat for the first time in Texas.

The enormous benefits of higher voter turnout and participation outweigh the nominal costs to state and local jurisdictions for providing language assistance. According to a 2005 Arizona State University study, a majority of jurisdictions covered by the language provisions reported incurring no additional costs for providing language assistance.

Regardless, there ought not be a price tag on a more inclusive democracy.

The language-assistance provisions expire next year if Congress does not act soon. Congress must reauthorize them to ensure that advances for minority voters are not rolled back.

A healthy democracy depends on maximizing — not impeding — the ability of citizens to cast their ballots.

Karen Narasaki is president of the Washington-based Asian American Justice Center.

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1150881979302570.xml&coll=2 – Census figures reflect shift in state’s population during first half of decade.

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1150881962302570.xml&coll=2 – State ranks low in new study of students graduating from high school.

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1150881817302570.xml&coll=2 – Alabaster city officials consider proposal to not participate in sales tax holiday and instead, give sales tax collections from that weekend to city’s schools.

http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/1150881751302540.xml&coll=3 – Deliberations continue in Siegelman trial.

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060621/NEWS/606210309/1012/editorial1 - Editorial praises Supreme Court decision not to reconsider prohibition of capital punishment in cases involving juveniles.

http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/opinion/editorials/060621b.shtml - Editorial supports requirement that Medicaid recipients show proof of citizenship.

FROM TODAY’S ANNISTON STAR:

Editorials

Can George Jr. revive populists?

In our opinion

06-21-2006

With so much attention being paid to the struggle between the social conservative and business conservative wings of the state GOP, the party’s populist element, which has done so much to carry it so far, seemed relegated to the sidelines in the last election. Now George Wallace Jr. appears determined to revive Republican populism and with its support become the party’s nominee for lieutenant governor.

It’s not surprising that in recent years Alabama’s GOP leaders have tried to forget the folks to whom Wallace Jr. is appealing. For years his father kept these voters loyal to the Democrats. So successful was he that as long as the senior Wallace was running for governor, the Republican Party was a political afterthought.

When George Wallace Sr. left the scene his supporters drifted, some say bolted, into the GOP. With their support, Republicans elected not only governors, but a group of lesser lights, many of whom were, like Wallace Jr., once Democrats.

In the June 6 primary this group was strangely silent. Roy Moore and his slate might have appealed to them, but didn’t. They were cut loose. Some voted Democrat because they were more interested in local races. Some stayed home. And some voted for that old familiar name – George Wallace. Only Junior this time.

But not enough.

Luther Strange, the business candidate, got the most votes.

But not enough.

So we have a runoff.

And George Wallace Jr. is trying to rally the populist wing of his party and restore it to a position of power.

It will be difficult. The issues he pushes — reign in corruption with a stronger ethics commission, no lobbyist giving gifts to lawmakers — haven’t caught on. But lately we are beginning to hear a bit of daddy in the son. He is out there equating “big Luther” with “big Lobbyists” – attacking “big” is seldom a losing strategy in Alabama. And claiming Strange is the candidate of “a committee of 15 in Birmingham,” residents of “the tiny kingdom” of Mountain Brook, might also make points for Wallace.

And it might not.

But either way, by reviving, energizing the populist wing of the GOP, the ones so often derided as Wal-Mart Republicans, George Wallace Jr. will give Republican and Democratic strategists a lot to think about in November.

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1150795219293730.xml&coll=2 – State ready to implement requirement that Medicaid recipients provide proof of citizenship.

http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/1150794925293770.xml&coll=3 – Siegelman attorneys say the prosecutors file motion asking judge to modify his instructions to jury as deliberation continues.

http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/1150795003293760.xml&coll=1 – City panel formed to foster racial harmony schedules forum on immigration issues tonight in Huntsville.

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060620/NEWS/606200337/1001 - U. S. Supreme Court refuses to reconsider order prohibiting execution of Alabama inmate convicted of crime committed as a minor.

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060620/NEWS02/606200328/1009 - New poll shows Riley with huge lead over Baxley in governor’s race.

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060620/… - Editorial praises Corrections Department’s efforts at reducing number of prisoners in county jails.

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060620/NEWS/606200306/1012/editorial1 - Editorial attributes Riley’s strong showing in poll to strength of Alabama’s economy.

http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/115070884726580.xml&coll=3 – Jurors resume deliberations today in Siegelman corruption trial.

http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/115070853226580.xml&coll=3 – “The Political Skinny,” The Mobile Press-Register’s weekly roundup from Mobile, Montgomery and Washington.

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060619/APN/606190611 - New report reflects that US charitably giving reaches levels of that prior to end of the tech boom.

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060619/NEWS/606190302/1012/editorial1 - Editorial calls for Alabama officials to undertake study of application of death penalty in wake of  U.S. Supreme Court decision to consider whether lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment

FROM TODAY’S ANNISTON STAR:

Editorials

Immigration and conservatism

In our opinion

06-19-2006

Alabamians are not happy with the way President Bush is handing the “immigration problem.” According to a recent survey, 64 percent of those responding rated his performance on the issue poor to fair. Alabamians want the National Guard to patrol the border. Alabamians want a fence. And Alabamians want to make it a crime to employ illegal immigrants.

In short, Alabamians want the president to get tough. But who would he get tough with, here in Alabama?

Slightly less than 2 percent of our population are immigrants, and only about a quarter of those are thought to be illegal. That’s less than .5 percent of all of us. We are talking about some 24,000 people — men, women and children. That is not a lot of folks.

So why all the fuss?

Self-proclaimed “conservative” politicians say it’s about job competition. Illegal workers take the lowest-paying jobs, and in a state where so many people make their living as unskilled workers, illegals threaten livelihoods. But the greatest outcry over the undocumented doesn’t come from Alabama workers. It comes from these politicians on the right, who apparently see illegals as the new gays — someone to get voters stirred up over.

The same politicians say Alabamians are upset because illegals overburden our social system and pay no taxes. But they do pay taxes — particularly sales taxes, those regressive levies on which our social services depend.

Yet from all the protesting, promising and posturing, you would think Alabama was being overwhelmed by a foreign, illegal invasion.

But it isn’t. And illegal immigration is not a serious issue here. But it is used as a serious political ploy, because politicians — you know which ones — have made it so.

Which brings us to the irony revealed in the poll mentioned above.

Among the solutions stirred-up Ala-bamians favor is the issuing of a “national identification card,” which every legal resident would be required to carry. Around 71 percent of those polled said this was a good idea.

But wait a minute. One of the great concerns among traditional conservatives has always been an intrusive national government, one that keeps tabs on its citizens, collects information about them and stores that information where it can be retrieved and used in ways no true conservative would want it used. And for years, traditional conservatives have warned that a national identification system was a step in that direction.

Now the conservative outcry over illegal immigration has resulted in demands for what once was, and in some quarters still is, feared.

Sow the wind … So they say.

http://www.al.com/opinion/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/opinion/11506224387010.xml&coll=2 – James Tucker’s commentary on the need to “transform mental health” by delivering mental health services in community-based settings.

http://www.al.com/opinion/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/opinion/11506221977010.xml&coll=2 – Commentary sees recent Senate proposal to make English the “national language” as racist.

http://www.al.com/opinion/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/opinion/11506222057010.xml&coll=2 – Commentary by state NAMI leaders call for state to improve its mental health services.

http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/11506226037040.xml&coll=1 – Both Wallace and Strange seeking Mo Brooks’ voters.

http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/11506224827040.xml&coll=1 – Counties take first steps toward implementing limited home rule.

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/… - Lawyers on both sides of Siegelman corruption case accuse other of playing to the media and personal attacks.

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060618/OPINION0101/606160373/1012/OPINION - Commentary by president of Montgomery chapter of NOW sees proposed measure to outlaw abortions “pushes women into second class citizenship.”

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060618/OPINION01/606160382/1012/OPINION - Editorial praises success of Alabama Reading Initiative.

From today’s’ Anniston Star:

Op-Ed Columns

GOP hopes to reap dividends on immigration issue

By George Will

06-18-2006

Geographically, Pennsylvania is a long way from Laredo. But politically, every state may be a border state this year. As evidence, consider a radio ad being run by Rick Santorum, a Republican seeking a third U.S. Senate term in a state that has voted Democratic in the last four presidential elections. Titled “He Needs Glasses,” the target is Santorum’s opponent, Bob Casey:

“Bobby Casey announced his support of a Senate bill that grants amnesty to illegal immigrants, shocking hardworking taxpayers all across Pennsylvania. Now Casey’s trying to wiggle out of it by saying the bill doesn’t offer amnesty and requires illegal immigrants to pay their back taxes.

“Either Casey didn’t read the bill, or he’s trying to deceive you. The Washington Times reports the legislation gives amnesty to 11 million who are here illegally, and paves the way for 66 million more immigrants to enter the country. The bill also forgives two of the last five years of back taxes for illegals, something the IRS would never do for you.

“This Casey-supported bill even gives illegal aliens Social Security benefits for the time they were here illegally. Fortunately, Rick Santorum voted against the bill and Rick’s leading the fight to make sure it never becomes law.

“Now you know the advantage of having in our corner a fighter like Rick Santorum.”

Whether or not the word “amnesty” is apposite concerning what the Senate bill does is a matter of opinion. And you can judge for yourself the plausibility of 66 million new immigrants by reading the report, by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation (www.heritage.org), that helped strengthen the House’s insistence on an “enforcement first” policy. The claims about taxes and Social Security are true enough.

Leaving aside the merits of the Senate bill, and considering the ad simply as political ammunition, it packs more punch than what one hears from Democrats this year. (House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi: “We have two oilmen in the White House. The logical follow-up from that is $3-a-gallon gasoline. There is no accident. It is a cause and effect.’’) The “He Needs Glasses” ad features the third-ranking member of the Republicans’ Senate leadership attacking legislation that passed the Senate even though a majority of Republican senators — 32 of 55 — voted against it. Supported by 39 of 44 Democratic senators, this “Casey-supported” legislation has two key features — a guest worker program and a path to citizenship for most of the 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants — that are supported by George W. Bush and that are the two main reasons why Republicans oppose the bill.

Many Republicans, looking for a silver lining on an abundance of dark clouds, think the immigration issue may be a silver bullet that will slay their vulnerability. The issue is, as politicos say, a “two-fer.” Opposition to the Senate bill, and support for the House bill, puts Republican candidates where much of the country and most of their party’s base currently is — approximately, “fix the border, then maybe we can talk about other things.” And opposition to the Senate bill distances them from a president who, although rebounding recently, has approval ratings below 40 percent in 29 states.

Republicans very much want to pass an immigration bill as proof their party can govern. For that reason, there is no reason to expect Senate Democrats to compromise by passing something like the House bill. Nothing very different from it has any chance of being accepted by the House. So, assuming, as it seems safe to do, that the House-Senate conference fails to produce a compromise acceptable to both houses, when Congress returns to Washington after the Labor Day recess the House may again pass essentially what it passed in December, just to enable Republicans to campaign on the basis of a clear and recent stance against exactly what Santorum’s ad stands against.

The cost of this, paid in the coin of lost support among Latinos, the nation’s largest and fastest-growing minority, may be reckoned later, for years. Remember this: Out West, feelings of all sorts about immigration policy are particularly intense, and if John Kerry had won a total of 127,014 more votes in New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado, states with burgeoning Latino populations, he would have carried those states and won the election. But for now, the minds of Republican candidates are concentrated on a shorter time horizon — the next four and a half months.

George Will’s e-mail address is georgewill@washpost.com.

Op-Ed Columns

Democrats must reclaim a true center

By David Sirota
Special to The Washington Post

06-18-2006

If Democrats ever want to regain their status as a majority party, they must move to the center. But that means moving to the real center — one very different from Washington’s definition of the term.

Inside the Beltway, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., is called a “centrist” because he still supports President Bush’s misguided policies in Iraq; Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., D-Del., proved his centrist credentials when he helped gut consumer bankruptcy protections; Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., is a centrist because he votes for corporate-written, wage-destroying trade deals. And former senator John Breaux, D-La., now a corporate lobbyist, was labeled the ultimate centrist after working to stop Congress from cracking down on the drug and health industry profiteers who backed his campaigns.

These are just a few examples of how many high-profile Democrats promote the Beltway’s idea of centrism — focused on perpetuating the status quo and abetting the influence of corporate interests that finance political campaigns. But with a centrism like this, so far outside the real center of public opinion, no wonder the Democratic Party keeps losing congressional elections.

On the Iraq war, for instance, polls show a majority of Americans want a timetable for drawing down troops. On economic policy, most Americans support stronger government regulations to protect citizens. On trade, polls show the public is widely suspicious of free-trade deals that have destabilized the middle class. And on health care, surveys show that about two-thirds of those asked want a government-guaranteed universal health-insurance system — even if it means tax increases.

The Republican-controlled Congress seems too out of touch and too corrupt to care about, much less resolve, any of these issues. Democrats, therefore, could make serious gains, but only if they reject Washington operatives who preach split-the-difference strategies that have led to repeated election defeats.

Anger at the Bush administration’s misguided policies on Iraq is bipartisan, meaning that Democratic candidates who take a strong position in favor of an exit strategy will be able to attract Democratic and traditionally Republican voters. Similarly, on economic policy, the Republicans’ conservative base is increasingly ready to bolt if a bold, establishment-challenging alternative is offered. (A 2005 public opinion survey by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, for example, showed that about half the GOP’s core voters support the “government guaranteeing health insurance for all citizens, even if it means raising taxes” and an astounding three-quarters support an increase in the minimum wage.)

These are votes ripe for the Democrats’ taking. But, sadly, they are being neglected. Democratic congressional leaders still publicly say there will be no official party position on Iraq. Meanwhile, a faction of Democratic lawmakers continues to vote for corrupt GOP economic policies, such as a bankruptcy bill written by the credit-card industry, an energy bill written by the oil industry, a Central American Free Trade Agreement that further depresses American wages and Bush tax cuts for the wealthy that drain resources from health-care programs.

These Democrats seem all too comfortable in the minority, and all too complicit in Washington’s pay-to-play culture — and they are undermining the party’s ability to hone an authentic message.

Thankfully, a movement is building outside the Beltway that will help the Democrats in spite of themselves. Thousands of online activists are pressuring Democratic incumbents to get more aggressive on Iraq and to stop supporting Big Money interests on economic issues. In some districts, they are fueling serious primary contests, such as the recent effort against Lieberman.

Meanwhile, Democratic governors and state legislators are pushing major ethics reform packages and bills to force corporate America to pay its fair share of taxes and worker benefits. These positions are helping state-level Democrats win in some formerly Republican strongholds. By pursuing similar policies at the national level, and rejecting Washington’s faux centrism, Democrats will be able to reclaim a congressional majority.

David Sirota, a Democratic strategist, is author of “Hostile Takeover: How Big Money and Corruption Conquered Our Government — And How We Take it Back” (Crown).