Newsletter funded by the generous contributions of Arise members and friends.

 

Vol. 16, No. 2

October 17, 2002

 

Vote FOR Amendment One, AGAINST Amendment Two

 

Arise recommends a Yes vote on Amendment One and a No vote on Amendment Two, the proposed constitutional amendments on the November ballot.

 

Amendment One would require that any new proposed state constitution be submitted to voters for ratification before it could replace the 1901 Constitution. The current constitution does not specify a process for ratifying a new constitution. Alabama put in place several previous constitutions without a vote of her people. It is in keeping with democratic principles that citizens approve or disapprove any new framework for the state’s government.

 

Amendment Two, which creates a rainy day fund for the General Fund from oil and gas royalty payments in the Alabama Trust Fund, is a badly flawed proposal, similar to the education rainy day fund approved by voters in the June primary. In 2003, should proration threaten, this amendment would permit up to about $70 million (6% of the budget) to be withdrawn from the oil and gas trust fund. To prevent General Fund proration in subsequent years, the amount that could be withdrawn would be the average shortfall certified by the Finance Director and the Legislative Fiscal Office. The money must be repaid within five years, but where it might come from is not specified.

 

One of the major problems, beyond the repayment issue, is that a major source of income to the General Fund is interest from the same Trust that the rainy day money would come from. If this amendment passes and if revenues fall short – requiring us to tap both rainy day funds – 15% of the Alabama Trust Fund could be spent in one year. Passing this amend.ment would not encourage prudent budgeting by the Legislature.

 

Alabama is pursuing a short-term budget fix by trying to spend payments from non-renewable resources that may be entirely gone by 2020. The $2.1 billion Alabama Trust Fund was intended to benefit our grandchildren as well as to provide interest to fund the state’s current expenditures. It may not last long.

 

(For more information, see “Rainy Day Fund: At What Cost?” with your May ACPP Report and at www.arisecitizens.org .)

 

On the ballot there will be one more amendment that applies to the state at large: one permitting Alabama’s sheep and goat industries to assess themselves for purposes of promoting those two industries. One could not find a better example of our need to write a new constitution.

                                                                                                     – by Mary Weidler

 

Gubernatorial hopefuls respond –

Candidate positions on our issues

Alabama Arise does not endorse candidates, but we do make an effort to raise poverty issues in the election campaign. For this newsletter we asked incumbent Gov. Don Siegelman and his challenger, Rep. Bob Riley, to answer six questions.

 

Do you support tax relief for low- & middle-income families?

Will you support the Knight Plan to make Alabama’s income tax fairer?

 

Riley: I believe we should in engage in a comprehensive overhaul of our state’s tax system, and I have repeatedly said that beginning the tax reform process will be a first-year goal of my administration. I want to bring together representatives from every group affected by tax reform and work with them in putting together a system that is fair and equitable to all. I believe it is absolutely immoral that we charge an income tax on someone who makes $4,600 a year. No one can defend that shameful practice. A planned outcome of the comprehensive tax reform plan I want to pass is raising this immoral practice. I will not commit to the Knight Plan because I want to put my own comprehensive tax reform package together.

 

Siegelman: Alabama’s tax structure is terribly unfair. There are inequities up and down the system that need to be addressed. Alabama’s constitution enshrines a system where those who make the least pay the most and the giant corporations that make the most, pay nothing at all. That’s wrong, and I want to change it.

 

Right now, we have hundreds of giant, out-of-state corporations making millions in Alabama but paying absolutely no corporate income taxes – zero, zilch. It doesn’t get any more unfair than that. I think that’s the most glaring inequity in our entire tax structure, and I plan to make it right, starting to the day I’m reelected. In fact, I’m planning to call a special session before the first planned regular session of 2003 to address this issue. These big corporations have been cheating our school kids long enough.

My opponent, of course, disagrees. He thinks corporations shouldn’t have to pay anything at all to support our schools. In fact, he voted in Congress to allow corporations to pay no taxes at the federal level.

And there’s more. Bob Riley actually believes that we should eliminate all income taxes for corporations and replace that lost revenue with a 17 percent sales tax. I have a different view. I think a constitutional convention is necessary to address many of these other tax fairness issues, but I am not going to raise taxes one penny on the working families of this state.

 

Will you let voters decide to have a constitutional convention?

 

Riley: I support reforming our 1901 Alabama Constitution, but I plan to do it with a revision commission rather than a convention. One obvious flaw in the 1901 Constitution is the lack of limited home rule. This constitutional anachronism prevents county governments from having the authority needed to provide adequate services to the citizens they serve. The Alabama Citizens’ Constitution Commission will study the best methods by which to provide limited home rule to county governments that wish to have it and then recommend constitutional revisions to achieve that end.

When our 1901 Constitution was written over 100 years ago, the specter of Reconstruction was still fresh in the minds of convention delegates who made a concerted effort to centralize power in Montgomery and away from county governments. In doing so, they made the process of providing basic services and making local decisions at the county level almost impossible. And with a few limited exceptions, the process remains unchanged today.

As it stands presently, county governments must go to Montgomery and get a local bill passed through the legislature in order to provide even the most routine services. If a county wants to set up a water and sewer authority, they have to go to Montgomery and get a bill passed. If a county wants to create a fire district, they must go to Montgomery and, you guessed it, get a bill passed. It’s almost laughable. We should give counties the option to either obtain limited home rule through a referendum election or, for those counties that choose, continue to use the legislative process as it exists today. The important point is that each individual county should have the choice.

Providing limited home rule will ensure that county government is more effective and responsive to the rapidly changing needs of its citizens, and it will allow county officials to address such matters as zoning, economic development, fire and police protection, etc. These basic services are better handled on the local level by local officials. Forcing the Legislature to debate issues of strictly local interest to a particular county is a poor use of the Legislature’s time – time that could be better spent addressing the general welfare of this state. Today, the legislature spends an inordinate amount of its time dealing with purely local issues. Similarly, approximately seventy percent of the Constitution’s 700 plus amendments pertain to individual cities or counties.

In extending limited home rule, however, we must ensure that counties cannot raise any taxes without a direct vote of the people. On all matters relating to taxation at the local, county, and state levels, the taxpayers should have the last word. This right is fundamental to a fair government.

Thomas Jefferson said it best when he said the government closest to the people governs best. Unfortunately in Alabama, the government closest to the people cannot govern effectively at present because of a lack of limited home rule. But change is coming, and under the Riley Administration, the power will return to the people from whom it is derived.

 

Siegelman: Yes. I have been in favor of a constitutional convention since 1977, and I pushed the Legislature to let the people call a convention to rewrite our out-dated constitution. I will push the Legislature again in my second term, and I believe we’ll get it done.

Our constitution is too long, and it’s outdated, but the real problem is that it enshrines an unfair tax structure that keeps school funding too low. We have to change that. That’s why we need a constitutional convention that puts the people in charge.

 

Do you support a landlord-tenant bill that defines the rights and responsibilities of both landlords and tenants?

 

Riley: We need to bridge the gap between these two groups and address the inadequacies for both sides. There should be standards of habitability in rental property to ensure safe and sanitary living conditions for tenants throughout Alabama. Accordingly, we should make realistic standards with which landlords can comply rather than subject them to the constant threat of litigation. I will work as governor to bring these two sides together and look out for the rights of all parties involved, particularly those whose voices are generally not heard.

 

Siegelman: Yes. I support consumer oriented legislation that would ensure that the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants are clearly defined. I have supported previous efforts to pass such legislation and will continue to do so in the future. While most landlords are honest, hardworking people who seek to provide safe, quality housing, we must do all that we can to protect consumers from the few unscrupulous individuals who take advantage of renters and literally place their lives in jeopardy.

 

How will you address the impending funding crises for CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program) and Medicaid?

 

Riley: Having been a party to the numerous discussions between our state and federal government on this issue, I can tell you there are no easy fixes. Currently, about one-tenth of our state’s Medicaid budget is being funded by the state. Yet, that amount makes up about 20 percent of the state’s budget. Even if we could double the state portion of our Medicaid budget, we still would not come close to funding the budget, and it would mean a significant increase in our state’s general fund, which as we all know, is not growing.

First, I believe we must preserve the integrity of the Medicaid program. We have a lot of Alabamians who depend on the program. Currently, about half of the mothers who deliver their babies in Alabama are covered by Medicaid. As recently as 10 years ago, our state’s infant mortality rate was extremely high, and our newborns were not healthy. Today, thanks to the prenatal care and safe deliveries funded by the Medicaid program, our babies are much healthier and stand a much better chance of a safe delivery.  Medicaid also provides nursing home care to more than two-thirds of the nursing home patients in the state. With an aging population, this number will certainly be increasing in the next decade.

This is an issue that requires leadership and a great deal of study. When I’m elected governor, it will be a top priority with my administration, and I will use the relationships I’ve developed in Washington to help us solve the problem. We will look at both the state funding, the rules of the federal government, our network of providers, as well as the benefits being provided. I believe that we must look at all sides of this issue and come to some permanent conclusion. Alabama’s program could be compared to a bad tire that has been patched over and over. I believe it may be time for a new tire.

 

Siegelman: I will do whatever is necessary to make sure that CHIP is fully funded in Alabama. When I was Lieutenant Governor, I made certain that Alabama was one of the first states in the country to participate in the CHIP program. I believed then, as I do today, that we must provide health care to our children, because a child who is sick, or suffers from poor health care or poor nutrition cannot succeed. When I became Governor, I created the Medicaid Trust Fund, to provide a reserve to ensure that services would not be cut for our seniors and poor children. Unfortunately, for several years now, bureaucrats in Washington have been trying to cut the funding that Alabama receives for Medicaid. Since I took office as Governor, I have fought this effort, and I will continue to do so. Before I allow one dollar of the money Alabama receives for our neediest citizens to be taken I will sue the federal government.

 

Do you support state funding of public transportation?

 

Riley: Alabama should also examine the use of mass transit as we move into the 21st century. Similar to federal highway programs, the federal government awards transit dollars on a matching basis, providing a majority of the funds (usually 80% for a program, if the state provides a corresponding match, typically 20%).

Mass transit, in the form of buses and light rail, can reduce air pollution, give more members of society access to transportation, and take traffic off the roads. Furthermore, mass transit can be a cost-efficient way to connect our citizens who travel to and from our major cities on a regular basis. The Federal Rail Administration (FRA) has proposed two high-speed corridors in Alabama: (1) the Gulf Coast Corridor from New Orleans to Mobile, and (2) the Southeast Corridor, from New Orleans through Tuscaloosa and Birmingham to Atlanta. These new forms of transportation could further improve our transportation options for the people of Alabama.

 

Siegelman: I’ve been working hard to use our limited transportation funds to build the best roads and best transportation system in America. I’ll do the same in my next term.

 

Do you believe that payday lenders should be governed by the 36% APR in the Small Loan Act?

 

Riley:I believe that payday lenders are subject to the Small Loan Act, as has been the position of Attorneys General and the State Banking Department for many years.

 

Siegelman: I absolutely believe that payday lenders are and should be governed by the 36% APR in the Small Loan Act, and I instructed my Banking Department to take that position in litigation over this issue. I further instructed the Department to appeal what I believe to be a wrong decision by the Montgomery County Circuit Court that the Small Loan Act rates did not apply. While I believe we will succeed in this case, if we do not, I will support legislation to limit the APR on these sorts of transactions to 36%, as well as other legislation that will protect consumers from all forms of predatory lending practices.

 

A few words from Kimble –

 

 

 

 

 

Alabama Arise gained support this year from two unexpected sources. One came in May from the Fund for Tax Fairness of the Funding Exchange, which gave us a $10,000 grant for tax fairness organizing work. We understand that this fund was created by wealthy individuals who disagreed with the Bush tax cuts they received, so they contributed their tax reductions to a fund to promote tax fairness.

 

We also got a Consumer Federation of America grant: $9,000 from the Ann K. Lower State and Local Grant Program. The grant supports organizing to build our membership base and to build activity on unfair lending practices such as payday loans. The funding is made possible by a grant to the Consumer Federation of America Foundation by the Colston E. Warne Fund of Consumers Union, as well as contributions from CFA and Center for Services.

 

The Presbyterian Hunger Program has supported Alabama Arise for years – including $10,000 this year – but otherwise grants have always gone to Arise Citizens’ Policy Project, which does not engage in lobbying.

 

With peace,

 

Kimble Forrister

 

Thanks to our contributors!

 

These generous members gave since our Alabama Arise newsletter in March. Gifts to Alabama Arise are not tax-deductible, since they support the lobbying effort – our legislative coordinator, our legislative reception, ...even a newsletter with a candidates’ questionnaire, which is hard for a 501(c)(3) organization to do.

 

AAUW of Alabama

AIDS Alabama

AIDS Service Organizations Network

Alabama Kidney Foundation

Alabama Rivers Alliance

Alabama-West Florida Conference, United Methodist Church

Aletheia House, Birmingham

All Saints Episcopal Church, Mobile

Baptist Church of the Covenant, Birmingham

Beloved Community Church, Birmingham

Birmingham Independent Living Center

Catholic Archdiocese of Mobile

Catholic Social Services, Montgomery

Christian Church in AL/NW Florida

Church of the Epiphany, Guntersville

Church Women United, Huntsville

Consolata Missionary Sisters, Birmingham

Cooperative Downtown Ministries, Birmingham

Episcopal Diocese of Alabama

Federation of Child Care Centers of AL (FOCAL)

First United Methodist Church, Prattville

Grace United Methodist Church, Auburn

Greater Birmingham Ministries

Gulf Coast Child Development Association, Mobile

Holy Spirit Catholic Church, Huntsville

Homeless Coalition of the Gulf Coast, Mobile

Immanuel Presbyterian Church, Montgomery

Interfaith Ministries, Inc., Calhoun County

Jefferson County Committee for Economic Opportunity (JCCEO)

Jubilee Community Center, Montgomery

Lutheran Ministries of Alabama, Inc.

Mary's House Catholic Worker, Birmingham

Metro Area Justice Interfaith Committee, Birmingham

Montgomery Transportation Coalition

National Association of Social Workers, Alabama Chapter

National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Alabama Chapter

Pilgrim Congregational United Church of Christ, Birmingham

Presbytery of Sheppards & Lapsley

Project Hope to Abolish the Death Penalty, Atmore

Resurrection Catholic Church, Montgomery

Revelation Baptist Community Involvement, Mobile

Sisters of Mercy of Alabama, Mobile

Society of St. Vincent de Paul Council, Mobile

St. Aloysius Catholic Church, Bessemer

St. Bartholomew's Episcopal Church, Florence

St. Dominic Parish, Theodore

St. Joseph's Catholic Church, Prattville

St. Peter's Catholic Church, Birmingham

St. Thomas the Apostle Catholic Church, Montevallo

The Centro Cultural Latino, Birmingham

The Quest for Social Justice, Mobile

The Unitarian Church of Birmingham

The Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Tuscaloosa

Unitarian-Universalist Church of Huntsville

Unitarian-Universalist Fellowship, Montgomery

United Methodist Inner City Mission, Mobile

University of Alabama Debate Team

University Presbyterian Church, Tuscaloosa

Upper Sand Mountain Parish, Sylvania

Urban Ministry, Inc., Birmingham

Valley Christian Church, Birmingham

Vestavia Hills United Methodist Church, Birmingham

 

Carol Binder, Birmingham

Peter Lusche and Catherine Boyer, Auburn

Eileen Knott and Joey Brackner, Montgomery

Nancy Chambless, Montgomery

Mr. and Mrs. James E. Cobb, Alcoa, TN

William Z. Cullen, Birmingham

Judy Cumbee, Lanett

Billy Dykes, Lillian

Richard Grooms, Birmingham

Jerry and Brandy Hinnen, Auburn

John Keith, Montgomery

Paul and Jarcia Kosinski, Huntsville

Elizabeth Lambertson, Birmingham

Ron Manning, Brierfield

Marjorie Masterson, Huntsville

Debra Moehle McCallum, Birmingham

Bob Parker, Birmingham

Paul M. Rilling, Anniston

Ted and Becky Romano, Alabaster

Barbara Seiler, Saluda, NC

Lucille Stand, Auburn

Mary Stanfill, Huntsville

Carolyn Tamblyn, Auburn

Debbie Elliott-Taylor and Stephen Taylor, Orange Beach

George H. Wade, Huntsville

Luverna M. Waid, Gadsden

Carol Walker, Birmingham

Martha Wolverton, Birmingham

Eldon Zimmerman, Birmingham