State GOP Chair Mike Hubbard Visits the Parlor

I had a very enjoyable visit in recent weeks with Rep. Mike Hubbard. Rep. Hubbard is the Chairman of the State Republican Party and also the House Minority Leader. It was a pleasure to have Rep. Hubbard stop by the Parlor, and I very much appreciate the generous amount of time he gave to our conversation.

This is the first of three posts on our conversation.

At the time we talked, a called special session of the legislature looked like more of a possibility that it does now, but his comments below about that are still quite interesting.

One of the big questions that folks are asking, are we looking at a special session?

It has been frustrating for us for the Democrats during the campaign to come out with their Covenant with Alabama, and basically plagiarize the issues that we had been pushing for some time.

Well I do not know for sure, I have talked to the Governor about it and the leadership of our caucus and the Senate caucuses talked to the Governor about it. And I would say that we were encouraging the Governor to call a special session dealing with ethics. And it has been frustrating for us for the Democrats during the campaign to come out with their Covenant with Alabama, and basically plagiarize the issues that we had been pushing for some time. And say, “We are going to be for this and we are going to push this,” and then it comes up and some of them do not get introduced and they do not make it out of committee and they control the process.

In my opinion and the opinion of I think everybody in our caucus, they are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the Alabama voter. The only way to segregate this and to flush it out in the open, and to make sure that if the Democrats are going to continue to suppress or to kill these issues is make them do it out in front of God and everybody, is in a special session.

And so —

If it fails, then it is just going to be clear that they did not want to pass it.

Is there any issue about who gets credit? For example, on the PAC-to-PAC transfer issue, I know the House has passed this overwhelmingly. But is there a reluctance to share the credit that contributes to the problem of getting it passed? Would each side like to paint the picture that it was able to pull this off and be a little reluctant to share the credit?

Obviously, each side wants to take credit for things. That is the nature of politics. But I think you can look to see on the vast majority of these issues that we are the ones that have been pushing them and they’ve been a part of our agenda. And the Democrats are the ones that have killed them. All we are asking is that they not be hypocrites. Do not claim that you are for it and run in the campaign saying “we are for this, and we are going to pass this if you send us back to Montgomery” and then kill it and just think that nobody is going to notice it. That is the main thing that I think we are saying.

I am curious. Is there any sense that a lot of people on both sides of the aisle do not want a PAC-to-PAC transfer ban passed? If it were true that maybe a majority of folks on both sides of the aisle did not want it passed, then there is some safety in “Let us let the Democrats kill it, and we do not have to show our hands that we are reluctant.” For example I know that a Democrat Jeff McLaughlin is one of several Democrats that are very much in favor of it. And again, I know the House —

Well, Mike Rogers was the guy who started this whole thing. He was the original guy. It was not Jeff McLaughlin. Mike Rogers who was the minority leader at that time.

I do not think that is the case. I believe we want to pass it. We live by the same rules as everybody else. It is not a situation where if it is not passed, we are saying out of protest that we are not going to engage in PAC-to-PAC transfers. We would be at a competitive disadvantage.

We just need to make sure everybody lives by the same rules. But on Jeff’s bill, I tried to amend it to say let us also include principal campaign accounts where you can not just give money to a candidate and then the candidate turn around and give money to another candidate. All that is doing is creating another way to do PAC-to-PAC transfers, and the Democrats do it with Seth Hammett. The business community gives money to Seth Hammett, and then he turns around and gives it to people who will never vote with business. It is a PAC-to-PAC transfer that is used another way. If we are going to do away with it and we want to have full disclosure and total transparency, then let’s ban all of it.

So if you have taken money from somebody then you know exactly who is it from. That is the point I am trying to make.

Well, I think your amendment is good and would make it a stronger bill and —

Well, you know, they tabled my amendment.

I understand that. But I heard McLaughlin’s argument about that to be, “Let us get a bill passed. Let’s not make the bill less likely to be passed.” I don’t think anybody that I know disagreed that your amendment would make the bill stronger. I think that everybody was in agreement with that, but there is a sense that “well, we have not gotten the bill through in all these years. Let’s don’t make the bill even less likely to be passed” but —

Well, as it turned out that bill did not pass either, so –

I think that was evidence that making it even stronger might even make it more unlikely to be passed.

I think that eventually we can just do away with all of it.

And I don’t think there ought to be any limits. I think you ought to be able to support a candidate as enthusiastically as you want, as long as there is full disclosure and everybody knows who is supporting you.

On the issue of full disclosure and transparency, is there any hope for a “cup of coffee” limit on the lobbyist’s contributions without disclosure? In other words, would the special session call for full disclosure on lobbyists’ contributions to legislators?

As far as the lobbyists, what they can do? Yes, I think you would probably see that. The Lobbyist’s Disclosure Act? Yes. I think people deserve to know what is being spent to influence a legislator or vote.

I am with you on that. I hope we get it. A special session or whenever we get it out.

I do too.

Part of the issue is, can the Senate play nice enough that it could be a productive special session?

I do not know the answer to that.

Is that part of the issue that would hold the Governor back on calling a special session?

That is for the Governor to decide, and I think a lot of it is that some of the people are saying, “If you do not pass anything it is going to look bad for you to have called us into session.” And my argument is, I think it makes the legislature look bad and exposes the Democrats if they are going to indeed kill the bills that they claimed that they were for, then it just flushes them out.

What kind of legislation are the Republicans looking at as priorities for the next legislative session?

I think a lot of it depends on if we have a special session, and what happens to the ethics bills. If we don’t have a special session that is obviously going to be a focus, and it will be the same ones that we have been pushing for some time.

Immigration continues to be a concern for us, and we have been unsuccessful in getting any of those bills addressed.

It depends on what happens if there is a special session and if there is, what happens with our bills will affect what our priorities are going to be on the next regular session.

With us and the Governor on the same team, I believe his legislative agenda more than likely is going to mirror what ours is and vice versa.

I think it is important that we be on the same team, I think we have been and we will continue to be.

Concerning to the next legislative session, do you share the sense that the General Fund is under tremendous pressure that has to be addressed? I hate to over use the word “crisis” but are we looking at a crisis in the General Fund? Is that going to be a manageable situation, or is there any prospect for growth in the General Fund?

I think you have got a serious problem with the General Fund, and we have known that for years. There is a tremendous strain on the General Fund. With the cost of Medicaid going up, the situation we have in our prison systems, and the demands on the General Fund, I think it is always going to be a challenge.

The way that earmarks work just makes it very difficult to manage a state.

And I do not know what the answer to that is. The Governor has made a point in the past about the earmarks, and the way that works just makes it very difficult to manage a state. I think he is absolutely right because you cannot spend money where you have needs.

But I do not believe that that is going to change anytime soon, so we are obviously going to have to live within our means and just find some way to make it work, and I do not necessarily have the answer for that right now.

I understand that as our per capita income has gone up, as it has, that the state match for federal-state partnerships, for example, Medicaid but others also, goes up. The state’s financial responsibility goes up,

Right.

But that we are not getting the revenue to fully offset the decrease in the federal dollars for these programs —

Yes, it is a tremendous problem. The General Fund every year is a challenge, to make it work. I do not necessarily know what the answer is but I think we are going to have to make some tough decisions and figure out what we are going to do sooner than later.

Would any of those tough decisions include new revenue streams as far you are concerned or –?

I do not see us doing any type of new taxes or anything that I would support in the near future. I think the people of Alabama made it clear that is not something that they are willing to do, and I do not see us supporting that anytime soon.

Boy, that is a tough bind to be in —

It is.

– straining at the seams and then the federal match goes down [on federal-state partnerships] and our responsibility goes up and no new revenue.

And then the education side [the Education Trust Fund] is continuing to grow.

Right, and that is that earmarking you were just talking about.

Yes, exactly. It is just like having a savings account for a vacation, and a fund that you have for any home repairs. You have a hole in your roof, but you can’t repair the hole in your roof because you don’t have money in that repair fund. But you have got a great vacation that you can take. It does not make a lot of sense but that is the system that has been built for us.

I am really trying to get a handle on what a good measure of adequacy is for these things. Our tax burden per capita is the lowest in the nation, and we are underfunded on critical services, like state troopers and prisons —

Right.

– and Medicaid. I am just trying to figure… Nobody is in favor of new taxes, but I am in favor of adequately funding our critical services.

Right. I understand.

I am trying to figure out how that is to be addressed and how we measure adequacy.

Related to that, is there any prospect for taking the state sales taxes off groceries? That would create a big hole in a budget that it is already being stressed as it is.

I think everybody would like to do that, but that is a five hundred million dollar problem that is created. And I do not see the head of the teachers’ union right now going along with doing that. Of course that is one of the things I think was so hypocritical with the Democrats. They come out and say they wanted to take the tax off of food knowing full well that was not going to happen. There is no way in the world that Paul Hubbert would ever allow a Democrat to vote for that.

What about the John Knight plan for taking taxes off groceries? [Removing the state sales tax on groceries and offsetting the lost revenue by removing the state income tax deduction for federal income tax paid.] I understand Paul Hubbert does support that.

Well yes, that is just shifting the responsibility from one set of people to another. It is just part of the Democrats’ mantra of redistribution of wealth. They think that anybody who does well and is successful is doing it at the expense of poor people, and that they need to have more money taken away from them. I do not subscribe to that either.

My understanding is that very few states, only two, three, four, allow for a full deduction on state income tax of federal income taxes paid, and that we are one of them. Removing that deduction would allow all Alabamians to benefit from removing the sales tax on groceries. But that is not something —

At this point, I do not support that plan.

Okay, all right.

---

Look for parts two and three next week.

Related Articles:

• Mike Hubbard in the Parlor, Part Three
• Mike Hubbard in the Parlor, Part Two