State mental health organizations rally to fight agency cuts
Mental-health service workers and recipients rallied across Alabama on Monday, asking lawmakers to not cut millions in funding for the Alabama Department of Mental Health. The department is at risk of losing $35.2 million in state funds and another $64 million in matching federal funds, which some say would be a severe setback for the thousands who depend on funding. Chris Stewart, president of The Arc of Jefferson County, a nonprofit organization working with the intellectually and developmentally disabled, told hundreds in Birmingham that Alabama ranks last in funding for the disabled. “How do you cut a percentage of a person’s health care? How do you cut a percentage of a person’s residential services? How do you cut a percentage of a person’s food? People are not something that can be dealt with in percentages,” Stewart said. The Legislature is considering a number of measures for how to fill a $290 million deficit in the state’s general fund budget. Gov. Robert Bentley has proposed a $541 million tax package to address both short-term and long-term budget issues, but lawmakers have been slower to consider raising new revenue. This past week, House Republicans unveiled their plan for new taxes that would raise less than a third of the revenue the governor has requested. In an April memo to legislators, Bentley said more than 24,000 people with mental illness would lose or experience reductions in services, and 1,080 community mental-health employees would lose their jobs. Speaking in Mobile at one of several rallies statewide, Bentley said outpatient mental-health services provide better and more financially efficient results than inpatient hospitals. However, many of those services would be reduced if budget cuts are enacted, he said. “People with intellectual disabilities should not be in institutions,” Bentley said. Cindy Smith, whose son Julian was diagnosed with schizophrenia at 19 during his first year at Brown University, said her son, now 43, depends on mental-health services from the state. He depends on funding from Medicare and Medicaid to pay for medication, which she said costs $5,000 a month. In an interview after the Birmingham rally, Smith said she worries what will happen to her son if he loses outpatient services: He would lose his place to live. He would lose his psychiatrist. He would be on his own, she said. “Hopefully he will come home and live with me, but what he does is, he goes in the front door and out the back door and I have no idea where he is,” she said. “And then he doesn’t take his medicine, and he would either be dead, in jail, in prison. It wouldn’t be good.” Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Promises have been made; will they be broken?
Campaign slogans are a promise to voters. How many will be broken this session? We’re coming to a critical juncture of the Session. This is the time where if we were living out a movie the tempo of the music would pick up and we’d see fast action shots of the heroes and the villains readying for battle. Will the members of the House GOP go along with the Caucus bill, which will raise taxes or will they hold out? It looks like we won’t have to wait long to find out. Prior to session starting, speaker Mike Hubbard said, “Our goal is to resolve the state’s fiscal crisis while remaining true to the conservative beliefs and principles that the majority of Alabamians share.” I don’t think you have to be a rocket scientist to know how the majority of Alabamians would feel about title fees on automobiles going up. Although you may get a mixed reactions from the general public on increased rental car fees or cigarette taxes, the vast majority of conservatives (myself included) will tell you that taxes and fees are not the best solution when other solutions are still possible and in this case they are. In a legislative body that largely ran against tax increases, what will the members do about those being floated by the House GOP? I guess we will see. The Alabama House GOP website highlights the state motto “We dare defend our rights,” with a section noting “as taxpayers.” Will the members of the House cave and increase taxes we shall soon see, or will they dare defend our rights?
Mo Brooks joins GOP-backed challenge to Obama’s immigration policy
Alabama U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks joined an amicus brief to the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals filed by the American Center for Law and Justice on behalf of 26 states. The brief is appended to a federal lawsuit that asks the court for an injunction to stop the implementation of an executive order signed by President Barack Obama to halt the deportation of several categories of American residents who entered the country illegally. “By joining the amicus brief, we ask the courts to uphold the separation of powers, checks and balances, and the rule of law. I support the 26 plaintiff states, including the state of Alabama, that have taken the initiative to rein in Obama’s illegal and unconstitutional executive overreach,” Brooks said Monday in a prepared statement. In addition to the weight he lends the ACLJ suit, Brooks has introduced House Resolution 757 in the 113th Congress and House Resolution 11 in the 114th, which seek judgment action in federal court to determine whether Obama’s executive order violates the Constitution and federal immigration law. If the court agrees, then it requests injunctive relief and a writ of mandamus to force the president and the executive branch to obey immigration laws as passed by Congress “While the underlying reason for this fight is the financial well-being of American families, the lawsuit itself is, as the complaint states, ‘about the rule of law, presidential power, and the structural limits of the U.S. Constitution,’” Brooks said. Preempting criticism of his move as a mere ideological gesture, Brooks couched his signing on to the suit as an issue of good government and constitutional principle. “This is not a partisan issue,” Brooks said. “When one branch of the government unconstitutionally usurps the powers of another, it affects all Americans, because it threatens the very core of our system of checks and balances that has served our government, and America, so well for so long. If the president can unilaterally ‘change the law’ as he says he can, why, then, did America’s founders create Congress?”
Court opens door to BP settlement appeals
A federal appeals court has opened the door for BP to appeal some claims related to a settlement reached after the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ordered a lower court judge to change a procedure that effectively blocked appeals. And the appeals court told the judge to reconsider a rule barring BP from appeals regarding the calculation of a business’ losses. However, the court upheld the lower court’s ruling that barred appeals dealing with payments to nonprofit groups. And, it said the court could continue to prevent appeals arising from BP’s contention that something other than the oil spill caused some businesses’ losses — an issue the oil giant has fought unsuccessfully for years. The opinion released late Friday is the latest dealing with a 2012 settlement of oil spill economic loss litigation. The settlement agreement was hailed by all involved when it was signed but soon became the subject of contention over the way it was interpreted by the district court in New Orleans and the court-appointed claims administrator. BP eventually won a change in the way losses are calculated after arguing that administrator Patrick Juneau wasn’t correctly matching businesses’ revenue and expenses. The appeals court, noting that the methodology has changed and has been the subject of numerous developments that “muddy the waters,” told the district court, where U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier, is overseeing spill cases, to take another look at the issue, and to provide reasons if the bar is continued. In 2012, BP estimated it would pay about $7.8 billion to resolve claims under the settlement. A fourth-quarter earnings statement put the estimate at closer to $10 billion, while noting that there were various factors that could change that number. BP and lawyers pursuing claims both found something to like in Friday’s ruling. “We are pleased that the 5th Circuit upheld our right to appeal individual claims determinations,” company spokesman Geoff Morrell said in an emailed statement. The company did not estimate how the decision might affect the cost of claims. “With regard to ‘alternative causation,’ we’re pleased the 5th Circuit saw through BP’s latest attempt to re-fight an issue that it has lost on every level,” plaintiffs’ attorneys Steve Herman and Jim Roy said in an email. “We’re further pleased the court shut the door on BP’s effort to deny the claims of nonprofit organizations.” Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Senate panel to hear debate over proposal to revamp state budget structure
A proposal to cover General Fund expenses using surplus education funds will get a public hearing this week. The Senate finance and taxation committee will hear reasoning on both sides of the debate over whether pooling the state’s two major funds, the Education Trust Fund and the General Fund, could guard against future budget shortages. Senate Bill 12, sponsored by Sen. Paul Sanford, would establish a new fund to capture money allocated for both the Education Trust Fund and the General Fund. Every month, the Department of Revenue would cover the state’s expenses by dividing the balance of the new Alabama Recurring Expense Fund as needed. In a presentation to lawmakers last March, the Legislative Fiscal Office projected a $287 million surplus in the Education Trust Fund and a $290 million shortfall in the General Fund. Some have questioned whether the practice of earmarking tax revenues for the Education Trust Fund – then creating a barrier between the education and General Fund – is the root cause of the state’s current budget shortfall. In a speech to lawmakers last year, Gov. Robert Bentley said that the General Fund was stretched thin because the fund covers the cost of prisons, courts, and Medicaid. However, state revenue from income, sales, and utility taxes are earmarked for the Education Trust Fund. The governor has argued for $581 million in tax increases as a way to drive revenue to the General Fund. The public hearing will be held 10:30 a.m. Wednesday.
Super PACs rise in influence in 2016 campaign
When Hillary Rodham Clinton takes the stage at fundraisers thrown by a group that wants to elect her president, she’s not presented as a White House candidate. She’s a “special guest.” When Jeb Bush raises money for a group preparing to run major parts of his all-but-certain presidential campaign, he doesn’t ask for the cash himself. And the hundreds of millions these groups will raise? They have to spend it without talking strategy with the candidates and campaigns they support. The groups are called super PACs, and their influence in selecting the next president will be without precedent. Born out of two Supreme Court decisions in 2010, they are governed by rules some see as a game of winks and nods, enforced by an agency bedeviled by partisan gridlock. As with most things in Washington, there’s not even agreement on whether they are a problem to solve, or are a solution to celebrate. “What’s really going on largely is a breakdown of the enforcement system of the campaign finance laws,” said Craig Holman of the left-leaning consumer group Public Citizen. “The Federal Election Commission is just broken.” Countered David Keating of the right-leaning Center for Competitive Politics, “I think this is overblown. The line has been drawn: It’s the First Amendment. So if people want to speak, let them.” The primary benefit for campaigns of the super PACs is that they can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for and against candidates, with only a few rules holding them back. Among the rules is a ban on campaigns and super PACs working together. They cannot discuss political strategy or share key information such as internal polling. While candidates can attend super PAC events, they cannot technically ask for the unlimited donations that make the groups such a powerful force. “Most of these super PACs that are going to be spending millions of dollars, I think they have a good understanding of what the law is,” Keating said. But even should they break the rules, there are questions about what price they might pay. The six commissioners of the Federal Election Commission are split evenly between Republicans and Democrats, and they have only once cited someone for breaking the rules. In February, the campaign manager for a failed Virginia Republican congressional candidate pleaded guilty to funneling money illegally from a super PAC to bolster his campaign. Clinton has decried the existence of “unaccounted money” in politics and has suggested a constitutional amendment to overturn the case that helped usher in the new system. Yet during a California fundraising trip last week, she took her first steps to embrace Priorities USA Action, a Democratic super PAC that helped support President Barack Obama in 2012. Like other candidates, Clinton cannot legally ask donors to give more than $5,000 to the group. But she can appear as a “special guest.” Her husband, former President Bill Clinton, has headlined Priorities events in the past. On the Republican side, Bush is taking it even further. The former Florida governor is preparing to delegate many of the operations of his expected campaign to his allied Right to Rise super PAC, using the group to produce campaign ads, conduct voter data analysis and run get-out-the-vote efforts. Mike Murphy, one of Bush’s closest political advisers, is expected to lead the super PAC and is intimately involved in Bush’s current operation, where he guides staffing decisions, courts donors and shapes political strategy. Bush takes care to say he’s not yet a candidate, allowing him to work with Murphy and the super PAC in a way that won’t be allowed once he’s in the race. A dozen White House prospects are already benefiting from allied super PACs, frequently led by former political advisers and business partners. For example, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul will benefit from a super PAC run by his former campaign manager, who is also married to Paul’s niece. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz‘s college roommate is working prominently in a network of four allied super PACs, while a longtime friend and financial backer, Dathan Voelter, is the treasurer. Voelter said the pro-Cruz groups have already raised more than $31 million. During his run for re-election in 2012, Obama never really warmed up to the super PAC world and the group supporting him, Priorities USA Action. He declined to appear at fundraising events even though his opponent, Republican Mitt Romney, frequently attended gatherings held by Restore Our Future, a pro-Romney super PAC. Seeking to succeed Obama in the White House, Clinton and her allies have taken steps recently to strengthen Priorities USA Action. Among them: She will appear at the group’s events and reach out to potential donors, something Obama declined to do. The group is also bringing aboard Guy Cecil, a former staff member of Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign who remains close to Bill Clinton and previously worked for a firm stocked with longtime Clinton advisers. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Alabama challenges federal water rules
The state of Alabama — under the auspices of Gov. Robert Bentley, who announced the move Thursday — is suing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, saying that its operating manual governing the Corps’ stewardship of the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River Basin is inadequate to meet the needs of Alabamians. In a 30-page complaint — available in full here — counsel for the governor’s office alleges the feds “failed to adequately address valid comments and objections made by Alabama and other stakeholder commenters in response to the draft versions” of the manual with regard to the Allatoona Project, a water project spanning much of eastern Alabama and managed by the Corps of Engineers. “The flow of water through the ACT Basin is vital to the economy and environment of Alabama,” Bentley said in a statement Friday. “This manual will decrease the quality of water in our State, which will hurt our citizens. It will also adversely impact the flow of water into our State. It prioritizes water recreation on lakes in Georgia at the expense of hydroelectric power generation in Alabama, which will hurt jobs and the economy. Therefore, on behalf of Alabama, I am requesting that the federal government adopt a lawful manual that respects Alabama’s interests.” The complaints calls for the federal government to “set aside” the manual — i.e. disregard it — as well as to revise other federal documents relating to the ecologically sensitive river basin, pay the state’s court filing and attorney’s fees, and to “award other relief as the Court may deem just and proper to protect Alabama’s interests.” The move is supported by several regional groups affiliated with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, including the influential Business Council of Alabama, which applauded the move on Friday. “The lawsuit alleges that the new manual allows the federal government to diminish the quality of water in Alabama to the detriment of all Alabama citizens and to allow the unlawful hold of water at a Georgia dam for the purposes of promoting recreation there rather than releasing the water so it can generate hydroelectric power in Alabama and serve other important purposes the law requires,” the BCA said. “In taking these drastic steps, the federal government has failed to issue an accurate environmental-impact statement that discloses the substantial harm its actions will cause to the Alabama environment, the lawsuit alleges.” The suit is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
New law reverses controversial “innovator liability” high court ruling
Manufacturers of brand-name products cannot be held liable for the effects of generic versions they don’t make or sell, according to a law signed by Gov. Robert Bentley last week. Senate Bill 80 reverses a controversial product liability ruling from the Alabama Supreme Court. In Weeks v. Wyeth, the court ruled brand-name drug makers could be held liable for copycat versions of their products. The plaintiffs in Weeks sustained injuries due to long-term use of a generic version of the drug Reglan. Though Wyeth Pharmaceuticals neither made nor sold the version of Reglan that the plaintiffs ingested, the Alabama Supreme Court said that the company was responsible for its effects. At the time of the ruling, The Wall Street Journal editorial board criticized the court’s “bad judgment,” warning that it “contradicts the overwhelming trend in federal and state courts on innovator liability.” AL.com covered the original ruling and quoted Justice Michael Bolin’s opinion that the court’s decision was limited to the pharmaceutical industry: “Nothing in this opinion suggests that a plaintiff can sue Black & Decker for injuries caused by a power tool manufactured by Skil based on labeling or otherwise,” Bolin wrote. However, in a national report on court imbalances, the American Tort Reform Foundation called the Alabama court’s decision “irresponsible” and claimed it would “effectively force innovating companies to act as insurers for their generic competitors’ products by diverting vast sums from research and development and spending them instead on litigation.” The House and Senate passed companion legislation by an overwhelming margin: by respective votes of 88-7 and 32-9. Sen. Cam Ward sponsored Senate Bill 80; in an interview with The Associated Press, he said it would benefit not only pharmaceutical companies but all manufacturers in the state. Rep. Jack Williams, chair of the House Commerce and Small Business Committee, sponsored House Bill 110 and said, “This State Supreme Court ruling threatens Alabama’s ability to compete with other states in recruiting manufacturers in the automobile industry, the aerospace industry, the pharmaceutical industry and just about any other you can imagine.” Williams saidd, “When a company invents a product, it should not be liable if a third party replicates the product and is later sued by a consumer as a result.” The new law will go into effect this year.
This week at the Alabama Statehouse: May 12-14
All eyes will be on the Republican leadership this week as competing solutions to the state’s budget shortfall make their way through the House and Senate: At 1 p.m. Tuesday the Senate Tourism & Marketing Committee holds a public hearing on Senate Bill 453, Sen. Del Marsh’s proposal to legalize casino-style gambling in Alabama. Marsh is expected to ask the committee to vote on the bill the same day. At 10:30 a.m. Wednesday, a House panel on boards and commissions will consider a handful of bills. Included on the agenda is House Bill 563. Rep. Patricia Todd and Rep. Howard Sanderford sponsored the legislation to ensure that only licensed veterinarians can make medical or surgical decisions on the treatment of animals. The bill also says spay and neuter clinics would be regulated as veterinary facilities. House Bill 14 by Rep. Randall Shedd will also be heard. It makes revisions to the state cosmetology and barbering board by removing the licensing for barbers and changing details related to who can be appointed and for how long to the renamed cosmetology board. At 3 p.m. Wednesday, the Senate committee on Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Development will hear Senate Bill 452 offered by Sen. Bill Holtzclaw, which would change the law for brewpubs to allow allow them to sell beer not just for on-premises but also off-premises consumption. A slate of proposals to boost tax revenue are expected on the House floor this week. House Republicans unveiled their budget plan last week, including $151 million in tax revenue and a recommendation to accept an offer from the Poarch Band of Creek Indians in exchange for exclusive gaming rights. The Times Daily is reporting that the tax measures are likely to fail in a Senate unconvinced of the need to boost revenue. A full committee meeting schedule can be found here. Keep checking ALToday.com for updates.
Bernie Sanders has had consistent message for 4 decades
Once a democratic socialist, always a democratic socialist. Once a scold of big money in politics, still a scold. No one can accuse Bernie Sanders of flip-flopping during his four decades in public life. Rock steady, he’s inhabited the same ideological corner from where he now challenges Hillary Rodham Clinton in an improbable quest for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. Here he is in 1974, as the 32-year-old candidate for U.S. Senate of a fledgling leftist party in Vermont called Liberty Union: “A handful of banks and billionaires control the economic and political life of America. … America is becoming less and less of a democracy and more and more of an oligarchy.” And now, in an Associated Press interview: “This is a rigged economy, which works for the rich and the powerful, and is not working for ordinary Americans. … You know this country just does not belong to a handful of billionaires.” Some see him as a broken record, others as a person who has been telling the truth all along and just waiting for enough people to listen. “The fascinating thing about Bernie right now is that the agenda has caught up with Bernie,” said Garrison Nelson, a University of Vermont political science professor and longtime Sanders watcher. During Sanders’ near decade as mayor of Burlington in the 1980s, during his eight terms holding Vermont’s lone House seat and during his near decade in the Senate, the message has stayed the same: The rich are absconding with an immorally large part of the country’s wealth, and ordinary people have been getting the short end of the stick. Clinton has gone from opposing same-sex marriage rights to supporting them. Howard Dean, the last Vermont presidential candidate, was a centrist governor who became a liberal representing the “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party,” when he saw the left flank open in the 2004 primary campaign. Sanders, now 73, favored gay marriage rights before it became fashionable in Democratic circles. He voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in the mid-1990s signed by Clinton’s husband, President Bill Clinton. Early in her primary campaign, Clinton has spoken about the gap between the rich and the middle class, in an appeal to the party’s liberal wing. The Republican contenders, too, are taking up the problem of income inequality, although with much different solutions in mind than the Democrats. Steady-as-he-goes Sanders has been at it for decades. He’s admired Canada’s single-payer health care system since way back, talking up “nationalized health care” during his unsuccessful run for Congress in 1988. When Republicans charge that Democrats would bring European-style socialism to the U.S., Sanders says bring it on. “I can hear the Republican attack ad right now: ‘He wants America to look more like Scandinavia,’” George Stephanopoulos said while interviewing Sanders on ABC’s This Week. Sanders replied, “That’s right. That’s right. And what’s wrong with that? What’s wrong when you have more income and wealth equality? What’s wrong when they have a stronger middle class in many ways than we do, a higher minimum wage than we do, and they’re stronger on the environment?” If he’s undergone any transformation, it’s in his political affiliations. He long ago dropped the Liberty Union banner and has run as an Independent in his successful elections in Vermont. He says he remains one “in my heart,” but has caucused with Democrats in Congress. He chose to go for the Democratic nomination and, if he loses the party primaries, says he won’t run for president as an Independent. In an unsuccessful 1986 race for governor as an Independent, Sanders said, “It is time to stop the tweedledee, tweedledum politics of the Republican and Democratic parties.” This time, he’s trying to shake one of the tweedles up from the inside. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Auditor Jim Zeigler releases 8 new agency reviews
State auditor Jim Zeigler announced Monday the results of a new batch of audits of taxpayer property and funds, which reportedly reveal virtually no loss of public money or resources. All $25 million-plus — including computers, vehicles and electronic property across eight state agencies — was accounted for, his office told Alabama Today. “We are putting in new safeguards against loss. The word is spreading that there is a new auditor in town and that we are serious about being better stewards of the taxpayers’ property,” Zeigler said in the statement released to AT. Zeigler said that’s in contrast to results of past audits, in which big ticket items were routinely discovered as lost, at taxpayer expense. “In the past, the state had missing cars, missing weapons, and missing laptops. We must do a better job and be better stewards of the taxpayers’ property.” The Office of Finance Telecommunications was especially resource intensive, accounting for about $21 million in public property at their disposal. Among Zeigler’s reforms aimed at enhancing loss-prevention include a new UPC-style inventory tracking system. “The auditor’s office now affixes a unique bar code to each item so they can be scanned for inventory,” a news release from Zeigler’s office explained. The office of the state auditor is responsible for keeping tabs on every item of state-owned property valued at more than $500. Zeigler says the auspicious beginning to his tenure suggested in the new report — he took office Jan 19 — is a signal of future momentum . Central to that effort is a “a plan to turn the state auditor’s office into a strong monitor of how tax dollars are used in Montgomery” of which Monday’s news heralds an early first chapter. The full list of Alabama agencies audited so far by Zeigler, along with state assets held, is: Dept. of Postsecondary Education with 444 items worth $937,343.36 Board of Nursing with 433 items worth $990,051.33 Dept. of Banking with 482 items worth $898,049.72 Dept. of Finance Telecommunications with 919 items worth $20,551,789.47 Judicial Building Authority with 463 items worth $643,228.98 Dept. of Child Abuse/Neglect Prevention with 82 items worth $127,636.61 Three Rivers Watershed Management Authority with 13 items worth $669,805.32 State Board of Pharmacy with 205 items worth $527,932.73
