http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1153646701107060.xml&coll=2 – “The Political Notebook” from The Birimingham News.
http://www.al.com/opinion/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1153646513107060.xml&coll=2 – Commentary on the impact of rising health insurance.
http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/1153646189107050.xml&coll=3 – Article explores the problems in law enforcement in South Alabama by the presence of few law officers who speak Spanish.
http://www.al.com/opinion/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1153646583107020.xml&coll=1 – Editorial praises Congressional action to extend Voting Rights Act.
http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/060723/race.shtml - AP story offers analysis of upcoming race between Strange and Folsom for lt. governor’s chair.
http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/opinion/editorials/060723b.shtml - Editorial questions whether giving political appointments to contributors constitutes criminal activity.
http://www.gadsdentimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060723/NEWS/607230317/1137/NEWS - Both Strange and Folsom pledge that fall campaign will focus on issues.
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060723/NEWS/607230383/1007 - Many legislative elections settled before November vote.
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060723/NEWS/607230349/1013/EDITORIAL2 - “Alabama Exposure” a weekly political column by Dana Beyerle for the NYTimes regional papers.
FROM TODAY’S ANNISTON STAR:
Life, luck and the economy determined who succeeded in the first decade of welfare - and who stayed behind
By Josh Keller
Star Staff Writer
07-23-2006
The poor went from porch to porch, knowing a farmer’s wife often would leave a plate of food on the back stoop, if any leftovers remained. Jobs were difficult to find. Finding work — and keeping it — meant seizing any opportunity.
In 1935, as cities and farms collapsed, President Franklin D. Roosevelt established a temporary federal relief program now known as welfare. Demand was high. The rolls grew.
The poor learned to lean on welfare.
Thirty years later, President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society sought to eliminate poverty. Welfare rolls expanded to include a larger chunk of the population; the percentage of people on welfare was nine times that of the Great Depression.
Welfare got bigger.
The numbers suggested — and studies backed it up — that Roosevelt’s short-term assistance became a way of life. That temporary relief eventually would support 14 million recipients, with numbers projected to increase indefinitely unless something changed.
Ten years ago, that change came: A law, signed by President Clinton in 1996, promised to force people to trade work for welfare.
No more money would be coming their way, unless they were in the pipeline to get a job.
At the time, politicians, advocates and more than a few welfare recipients were skeptical. It didn’t seem like the best bet.
“Will the system be fixed in my lifetime? It’s doubtful,” Congressman Mike Rogers said in late 1995. Social workers and policy analysts who’d made careers studying numbers and trying to manage a ballooning system echoed Rogers’ pessimism in varying degrees.
Then everything changed.
In Alabama and nationwide, reform triggered an exodus from the welfare rolls. Calhoun County had 1,118 families on welfare in 1996; by 1998, that number had dropped by half, to 559. One of out of every 80 adult women in Calhoun County left welfare in two years.
How did it work so fast? And did those 550 women go to work? In the end — echoing a question advocates had in 1996 — would they be better off?
The answers can be found in the stories of three former welfare recipients: Yvonne Kemp, Elaine Ingram and Rhonda Vermillion.
In 1995 The Anniston Star interviewed the women, as part of a report on the upcoming welfare reform. Today, almost exactly 10 years after the act took effect, they speak of the years after welfare with a calm distance, at first pausing and rubbing their foreheads in an effort to remember.
They have moved away to elsewhere in Calhoun County, trading the public housing of Constantine Homes for private space; their children are grown; their stories diverge more often than they align. But the women agree: Welfare reform made sense.
A check every week
For many, leaving welfare was not a choice. The reform, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President Clinton, put a five-year lifetime limit on welfare assistance. It imposed sanctions for anyone not following job training and child support programs.
Ingram, Kemp and Vermillion could not have stayed on welfare for 10 years even if they had tried. But the fact welfare cases declined not in five years but right away reflects a trait more abstract than the changes in policy.
Equally important was a shift in how recipients viewed welfare — what Ron Haskins, who as a congressional aide was a key players in getting the legislation passed — called “the imponderables.”
“Welfare caseworkers themselves and politicians and local officials, everybody began to communicate the same message: ‘You’ve got to work,’” he said.
The message — work — resonated with recipients. It was intuitive, they said. Whether they ended up with a steady job or not, all three said the program was fair because they agreed with the basic values emphasized in the reform: self-sufficiency, independence and the American work ethic.
In fact, former welfare recipients, who advocates feared would be welfare reform’s victims, are some of its biggest supporters.
Kemp, an Anniston mother of three who has moved in to a house on South Leighton Avenue, said she did not wait for her welfare to run out. Before the legislation was signed, she said, she got a job at Burger King and ended the welfare checks herself.
“I just got out and found me a job,” Kemp said from her porch. “I couldn’t do nothing but that.”
She works at Sentinel in Anniston, where she seals plastic bags of cotton balls and Q-Tips. She said she thought the program was a good idea because it forced people to become independent.
“I couldn’t get that car,” she said, pointing to a green sedan in her driveway. “I couldn’t get new furniture, stuff for the house …
“I get a check every week instead of waiting for a welfare check every month.”
John Bradford, Alabama’s welfare director for 15 years, said cases today rarely reach the five-year limit. In Calhoun County, the vast majority of current recipients have been on the rolls for less than two years.
“If you think about how societies change, probably some of the message of welfare and it not being like it used to be permeates a community,” Bradford said. “If a young girl is inclined to think of welfare, she will know that it’s not going to be a free ride.”
Kemp’s approval perhaps is not surprising, given the reform pushed her to work. But even for Ingram and Vermillion, who did not get jobs and were helped little by reform, the program nonetheless was a good idea.
Ingram’s life got worse. She had hoped the new requirements would inspire her — to get an equivalency degree and find work, maybe as a babysitter — but losing welfare provoked no such period of financial independence.
She struggled. She did not get a general equivalency diploma or find consistent work, and without a $137 monthly welfare check, she had trouble paying for gas and electricity. At times, she had to move in with friends.
Yet Ingram still said she supported the values of welfare reform.
“It’s good they did this because it does a lot to teach people the responsibility somebody got to have to raise children,” said Ingram, a mother of two. “I guess the reason I say it is because my children are grown up.”
Ingram, now revived and financially stable, spoke from the center of her West Anniston house as several young children ran around her chair, fighting over a pack of candy. She is a baby-sitter now, as she had hoped, though her recovery mostly had to do with qualifying for disability.
She has a voice strong enough to command four unruly children from two rooms over. But as she discussed not having the GED she had promised herself, her tone got soft and hopeful.
“Give me your number,” she said. “I’ll call you when I get it.”
A program’s limits
The shrinking rolls, however, did not save the federal government money. Many of the billions of dollars went to the states, which either beefed up welfare programs or used the money for something else.
Alabama was able to hire 83 new case workers, Bradford said, mostly in cities.
The fact local mothers left welfare is indisputable, but experts say the question of where they went is hazier. The stories of Ingram and Vermillion serve as reminders that the success of welfare reform has its limits and always will.
Estimates of how many women who left welfare and are working are relatively good. Nationally, studies have concluded that about two-thirds of former welfare recipients have jobs, and Curley Davis, Calhoun County’s welfare director, said he estimates his program results in a similar percentage.
But helping someone find work does not mean getting him or her out of poverty, said Laresa Johnson, a public assistant at the Calhoun County Department of Human Resources.
“The primary goal of the program is jobs,” Johnson said. “It does not matter where they are employed. It could be at Hardee’s.”
Going off welfare does not mean an end to government support, either. All three aforementioned women receive monthly food stamps, and Ingram recovered financially only after she qualified for more than $500 a month in disability.
Welfare experts increasingly focus on a group they call the “disconnected” — those who could apply for welfare but don’t.
The group grows despite welfare reform’s success, they said. The disconnected often are the poorest of the poor and either avoid or do not complete the work programs welfare reform requires.
“The story is both about the people who left; it’s also about the people who never went,” said Olivia Golden, the assistant secretary for Children and Families in the Clinton administration.
Those who fail to take advantage of welfare often share several risk factors in common, said Haskins, who recently finished a book on the welfare reform bill. Researchers at the University of Michigan have identified 18 of them, including problems with addiction or transportation, having three or more kids or having a child with a disability.
“Almost all the mothers can overcome one factor,” Haskins said, “but when you get two or three, the percentages get much lower.”
Vermillion quit a long time ago. She is the mother of two who was on welfare for four years, and her situation is a case study in welfare’s possible frustrations. She is disconnected, and like many women who cannot escape poverty, she shoulders several risk factors at once.
Her mother died when she was 17, and she had to take care of her younger brothers. After the father of her oldest daughter lost a court case that would have required him to pay $500 a month in child support, he disappeared. Ten years after welfare, both of her children have ended up in foster care.
Like the others, Vermillion said she supported the ideals of welfare reform. She has worked all over: McDonald’s, a PVC plant, construction sites. But she got frustrated with welfare and years ago stopped trying to make it work.
“The rules and organization they try to apply in to everyday life, it doesn’t always work,” she said, couched in a thick, cool shade of trees outside her aunt and uncle’s Delta house where she has lived on and off since she was young. “If you’re out living this day-to-day life, it’s different.”
Complications always crop up, she said. She could not make welfare meetings because she could not get time off work. The child-care forms took two weeks to process. The caseworkers sometimes are forgiving, sometimes too busy to help.
“One person can only do so much,” Vermillion said.
But as she rocked back and forth on the swinging bench outside the house, Vermillion said she has no plans to go back on welfare.
“I pretty much just quit,” she said. “It’s not that it’s more trouble than it’s worth. … It’s just the way things work out sometimes.”
Primary lessons learned
By Todd South
Star Staff Writer
07-23-2006
WEDOWEE — Kim Benefield said she has taken a breath and is ready for the next step.
The Senate District 13 Democratic candidate has recovered from a brutal primary and said she is focused on the general election. The issues with which she’s concerned haven’t changed, but she said she’s met a lot of people who’ll be helpful to her if she is elected to the Alabama Senate in November.
Benefield outlined her concerns Wednesday in a sit-down interview with The Star. As she leaned into the chair, holding her stainless steel coffee cup, she discussed the race in broad strokes, giving few details.
She wants to address education, rural development and recruiting industry to her district.
Her plans are not fully formed yet; they are outlines or ideas of what needs to be addressed.
Regarding education, she said the state needs to fund schools properly and that the money needs to be spent wisely. She noted dilapidated buildings in her district that are in sore need of renovation and teachers she knew who had to hold personal fund-raisers to pay for classroom supplies.
Benefield gave general descriptions of how to recruit industry. She pointed to the district’s proximity to Atlanta but agreed careful planning is needed to prevent the area from becoming another suburb of the metropolitan center.
Improving infrastructure, specifically secondary roads, is vital to bringing industry and tourism to the area’s lakes.
To meet the needs of these two areas, industry and education, Benefield said, the area needs more local technical training for the jobs it is attracting. She said businesses in the district have asked for local technical training.
Benefield stressed that, if elected, she wants to call upon the people with know-how in her district. Adding that she had met many such people during her primary campaign, she said those people would be an asset to her in the Senate.
As for navigating the Senate, she said she’ll rely on her toughness and competitiveness.
She was clear on one issue tossed around the state’s political corridors: constitutional reform. “I’m in favor of putting it to a referendum,” she said.
Benefield was adamant about a related point: If the people choose to reform the constitution, she doesn’t want the Senate working on it. She said she wants experts or a selected committee to look at the contentious document.
Benefield echoes at least one national issue her party has taken up in this year of elections: minimum wage.
She set herself as a staunch supporter of a state minimum wage. In a June interview she said she would like to see a state minimum wage of at least $6.15 an hour.
“When a family working at minimum wage is still at the poverty level, there’s something wrong,” she said.
Benefield faces Jim Ingram, a republican from Lanett, in November’s general election.
Nall looks to ride colorful campaign
By Brian Lyman
Star Capitol Correspondent
07-23-2006
MONTGOMERY — Loretta Nall speaks frankly. She is an atheist, a marijuana smoker and, recently, an escort for women attempting to get abortions.
She’s also a candidate for governor on the Libertarian Party ticket, and her positions don’t seem to jibe with mainstream Alabama thinking.
So when Nall says getting 250,000 votes — equivalent to about 18 percent of the vote in the 2002 gubernatorial election — would be a good result, it sounds ambitious.
“It is,” she said over lunch at Davis Café, a soul food restaurant in Montgomery. “I’m an ambitious girl.”
Nall’s platform addresses a wide range of issues; among other things, Nall supports gay marriage, tax credits for families with children in private schools and repealing annual property tax assessments.
She also accuses the major parties of ignoring Alabamians’ daily needs, arguing — as a recent radio spot put it — that the Democrats and Republicans sacrifice the good of the state in an attempt to “out-Jesus and out-anti-gay” each other.
The drug war, however, is her biggest issue. Nall supports the legalization of marijuana for those 21 and older. Nall would regulate and tax its sale — which she says will bring in additional revenue and help reduce the state’s 200 percent overcrowding in prison.
“I chose to run for governor because I need a statewide audience,” she said. “And with the present situation as it is in Alabama, I think a candidate needs the largest audience possible.”
Nall was convicted of misdemeanor marijuana possession in 2004, a conviction she is appealing. A mother of a 14-year-old and 9-year-old, Nall said she smokes marijuana but claimed she does not smoke in front of her children and discourages them from doing it.
According to a study by the New York-based Drug Policy Alliance in 2005, drug and alcohol offenses make up more than 38 percent of prison admissions in Alabama. In 2004, more Alabamians were jailed for possession of marijuana than for first- and second-degree assaults combined.
Many sheriffs, including Calhoun County’s Larry Amerson, have been pushing for greater rehabilitation services for prisoners in jail. But Amerson “strongly disagrees” with drug legalization and argues controlled substances, including alcohol, need to remain tightly controlled.
“The decline in many of society’s standards is very apparent,” he said. “So anything we can do to improve or reduce those items that lead to problems I think would be a good thing.”
Philosophically, Nall describes herself as a “classic liberal” who wants as little government interference in private life as possible. Nall said a lot of “great things” are in the Bible but insists on a strict separation between church and state.
“As far as religion influencing politicians, I think it’s an insult to both,” she said. “If you have the rule of God and the rule of man, one is eventually going to overtake the other.”
The candidate said she knows “zip” about politics but argues the Democratic and Republican parties have created a Montgomery power structure that has encouraged the erosion of personal liberties — one reason she supports initiative and referendum measures.
“The way we have it now, people are not involved in politics,” she said. “I think initiatives and referendums will get regular people interested in local government.”
Those who agree with Nall will have to take initiative and write her name on their November ballot. Nall’s name won’t appear on the ballot because the Libertarian Party failed to garner the 41,012 signatures needed in the state to place a candidate’s name there.
“The state of Alabama basically says before we can dedicate resources to outreach and educating voters, we have to jump over this hurdle,” said Dick Clark, chairman of the Libertarian Party of Alabama and a state House candidate. “It’s kind of like picking the biggest, strongest kids and giving them a 20-yard head start in a 100-yard race.”
Clark believes Nall can attract national attention to the party but said he doesn’t agree with all of her positions. A born-again Christian, Clark said he believes Nall’s abortion-rights stand will be “counterproductive” in her attempt to reach voters in Alabama. But he added most voters should realize her election would not affect the legal status of abortion.
“I don’t think that’s something weigh too much on people’s minds because it’s not something that’s going to change if she is elected or is not elected,” Clark said.
The Libertarian Party may have played a role in the outcome of the 2002 gubernatorial election: Candidate John Sophocleus, who appeared on state ballots, received 23,000 votes — more than seven times the 3,120 votes that separated Gov. Bob Riley and the former governor, Don Siegelman.
But with Riley leading Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley by 10 points in the latest polls — and Nall relying on write-in status — a repeat of that performance may not be possible. Still, Clark said he would like to see Nall “build on Sophocleus’ accomplishments.”
Nall’s campaign has been colorful. In May, she placed an advertisement called “Stripping for Dollars” on her Web site, which garnered national attention. Nall said she’s gotten requests to run for office in several states, including Alaska, New York and California. She said she’s not interested.
“I think they have people like me in California,” she said. “There’s tons of me out there.”
Dems attack Riley over campaign funding
By Brian Lyman
Star Capitol Correspondent
07-23-2006
MONTGOMERY - Democrats hope a footnote can make a difference in November.
The Democratic Party is attacking Gov. Bob Riley over an allegation made in a U.S. Senate report on convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff that the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, who run a casino in Choctaw, Miss., gave $13 million to Riley’s campaign during the 2002 gubernatorial race.
Riley denies the charges and says that $13 million almost would have equaled the entire amount the campaign spent.
The allegation comes from the footnote of the report, released last month by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. In the footnote, the report’s authors say that William Worfel, a former vice chairman of the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, told the committee that Abramoff claimed Choctaw chief Phillip Martin spent $13 million “to get the governor of Alabama elected to keep gaming out of Alabama so it wouldn’t hurt … his market in Mississippi.”
According to the report, Abramoff “dramatically overcharged” the tribes for his services while splitting the fees with Michael Scanlon, a former Riley congressional aide who was convicted of bribery last year.
The Coushattas ended up paying Abramoff $26.7 million for lobbying. The lobbyist used most of the money for “purely personal purposes,” the report says.
“It’s public record that (the Choctaws) gave millions of dollars to anti-gambling efforts,” said Zac McCrary, a spokesman for the Alabama Democratic Party. “The Riley folks have said it can’t have been $13 million. Was it $12 million? Was it $1.3 million?”
Jeff Bridges, a spokesman for Baxley’s campaign, who notes that companies associated with Michael Scanlon, a lobbyist convicted of bribery last year, gave the Republican Governors’ Association $500,000 at the end of 2002. According to published reports, the RGA made several transfers to the Republican National State Elections Committee, which gave Riley $725,000 in October 2002.
“Bob Riley has said he didn’t get $13 million,” Bridges said. “Bob Riley hasn’t denied getting money directly or indirectly.”
Riley said through a spokesman Friday that he had “absolutely not” accepted any Choctaw money. The campaign notes that $13 million would have almost equaled the $13.4 million spent by Riley’s 2002 campaign.
“Governor Riley is, has and will continue to be opposed to the spread of gambling in our state,” said Josh Blades, a Riley spokesman. “It’s unfortunate that instead of taking stands on issues that matter most to Alabama’s families, Lucy Baxley and the Democratic Party have chosen to begin this campaign with negative attacks and false charges.”
Messages left with the Mississippi Band of Choctaws in Choctaw, Miss., were not returned.
The tribe did pay Abramoff and his allied companies $16 million, in part to defeat gambling initiatives in Alabama but calls claims that they gave money to either of the 2002 gubernatorial campaigns “outlandish and patently false” on their website.
Former Christian Coalition president Ralph Reed, who had ties to Abramoff, was defeated this week in the Georgia Republican primary for lieutenant governor, in part because of his ties to Abramoff - a fact Alabama Democrats are eager to note. Unlike Riley, however, Reed’s involvement with Abramoff is documented in several e-mails, where the accusation against Riley is hearsay.
While in Congress, Riley signed an anti-gambling letter issued by the U.S. Family Network, which the Washington Post reported was a shell company for Abramoff; spokesmen for Riley have said he did not recall the circumstances behind the letter.
Riley led Baxley 51 to 40 percent in a Mobile Register/University of South Alabama poll released last month.
Natalie Davis, a political science professor at Birmingham Southern College, said she saw this as an attempt by Baxley to define herself and her opponent. The Democrats’ strategy had the potential to succeed, Davis said, but that they would have to make sure their case was airtight against a governor who has run a relatively clean office.
“Whether they can follow the money, I don’t know,” she said. “That makes for a press conference and some interesting arrows. Whether that’s convincing, I’m not so sure.”
Speak Out
Speaker’s stand … All children deserve health coverage
By Ron Pollack
Special to The Star
07-23-2006
It is incomprehensible that the United States, the wealthiest nation in the world, does not provide health insurance to all children. Currently, more than 9 million children lack health insurance in the United States, and millions more are underinsured. This includes over 90,000 uninsured children in Alabama, according to the latest available Census Bureau data.
A great deal of public attention has been given to the gains in children’s health insurance coverage made in recent years. Four million children in low-wage working families gained health coverage under the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).
But while public program expansions have driven significant increases in the number of children who are insured, more than 9 million still lack health insurance — one out of every eight children. These are children who are currently missing out on the benefits — both physical and developmental — that health insurance provides. From enabling access to basic health care services to preventing problems that can make a difference for a lifetime, health insurance matters for children.
It makes a huge difference because uninsured children are far less likely to get the immunizations they need to lead healthy lives. It means that uninsured children with asthma won’t secure the medications they need to avoid health emergencies. It means that uninsured children with eyesight or hearing problems — that could easily be corrected with appropriate health care — won’t succeed in our nation’s classrooms.
We have a great opportunity and a big challenge ahead of us. Next year, Congress will vote on the reauthorization of the SCHIP program for the first time since it was originally passed in 1997.
A diverse group of organizations that represent health care providers, educators, parents, advocates and others share a commitment to do something to remedy this problem. To this end, the Campaign for Children’s Health Care was officially launched earlier this month.
This campaign is dedicated to making high-quality, affordable health insurance coverage for all of America’s children a top national priority. The campaign will coordinate public education efforts across the country to demonstrate the importance of health insurance for children and families and to show why national action is needed to expand coverage for children.
The nonpartisan campaign, made up of dozens of organizations, will raise public awareness about the 9 million uninsured children in this country. The campaign will release new polling data, publicize key research findings regarding the impact of inadequate insurance for children and urge policymakers to address the issue vigorously.
The campaign will seek to inform the public about the urgency of expanding health coverage for uninsured children.
It will emphasize that these children are primarily in working families, that investing in expanded health coverage for children will result in improving youngsters’ educational and general development, and that an early investment in children’s health coverage is a sound investment.
Investing in children’s health returns innumerable benefits, including improved development and health outcomes for children, improved school performance and long-term savings in health care costs. We believe it is time for our leaders to take action.
To learn more about the campaign or if you would like to take immediate action, go the campaign’s Web site at www.childrenshealthcampaign.org and sign the petition today urging action on this fixable problem.
Ron Pollack is executive director of Families USA.
Share This
Found an answer to 
