House delays votes on tax increase proposals
The Alabama House of Representatives on Tuesday delayed debate on proposed tax increases that have divided some Republican legislators, despite being backed by the GOP caucus. The House effort to fill a hole in the General Fund stumbled at least temporarily with just nine meeting days remaining in the Legislative Session. “We are running out of time,” Gov. Robert Bentley said Tuesday. “They’ve got to make up their mind what they’re going to do in the House, because it has to originate in the House, but here again, I’m somewhat optimistic that at least some or maybe all of these bills will pass.” The House Rules Committee had proposed a debate agenda for the GOP proposal, which was anchored by a 25-cent-per-pack cigarette tax increase. The Rules Committee replaced the debate agenda for the day with a slate of unrelated bills, but could bring the tax bills again as soon as Thursday. “Some of the budget bills are being prepared for consideration on the floor. We felt it best today that we want that calendar to be right before we bring it on the floor,” Rules Committee Chairman Mac McCutcheon, a Republican of Capshaw, said. House Minority Leader Craig Ford of Gadsden asked McCutcheon whether that meant they were “still looking for votes.” McCutcheon responded that the budget bills needed to be “right” because the state is facing a “real crisis.” Some Republican legislators have said they oppose the bills that were brought by their caucus. Guntersville Republican Will Ainsworth said he planned to vote against the bills. “I ran on no new taxes,” Ainsworth said. “I’m going to honor that commitment to the voters of my district.” Alabama faces a projected General Fund shortfall of about $280 million in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. Bentley proposed a $541 million tax increase to avoid what he has described as draconian cuts to state services, such as the closing state parks and prison facilities, and deep cuts to mental health services. The governor, however, has found limited support. The House GOP caucus last week announced support for a plan to raise $150 million in new revenue. Other bills include proposals to raise the title fee on automobiles from $15 to $25, to raise the business privilege tax, and to change how motor oil is taxed. “It’s about 35 percent of the money that we truly need to solve this problem long term,” Bentley said. “But it is a start in the right direction, and I’m very pleased that they have started that and hopefully they will vote on that on Thursday.” Bentley said he thought the delay in the House vote would allow more time for those against new taxes to reconsider. “I’m not sure that they’ll pass all of them, but I do believe that they will pass at least some of the taxes. … We will have to come back for some more later on in the summer, because we need to solve this once and for all … and we can do that,” he said. Senate President Pro Tem Del Marsh, an Anniston Republican, was less optimistic. “I’ll believe a revenue bill from the House when it comes up from the House,” Marsh said. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
5 Alabama delegation members noted for conservative records
The Washington, D.C.-based American Conservative Union, the oldest active conservative lobbying and activism organization in the United States, has released its 44th annual congressional scorecard. It ranks all members of the 114th Congress based on their votes concerning a cross-section of issues important to pro-business, traditionalist influencers. “For 44 years, our ACU Ratings have been considered the gold standard in determining a member of Congress’ courage to stand up to big government liberals and to stand strongly in favor of policy positions important to conservatives,” said ACU Chairman Matt Schlapp, a former aide to the George W. Bush administration and Koch Industries. “Our award-winning senators and congressmen are fighting to protect the rights and freedom of all Americans by honoring President [Ronald] Reagan’s three-legged stool of economic, national security, and cultural conservative issues.” The Alabama delegation scored higher on the ACU’s scale — where 100 is “most conservative” and zero is “most liberal” — than most other states’ by far. Members whose voting records rank in the top 20 percent, a score of 80 and above, were awarded the the ACU Award for Conservative Achievement. Sen. Jeff Sessions was rated the most conservative of all Alabama members with a 96 rating, up from 88 a year ago. Sen. Richard Shelby posted an 88 this year, up from last year’s 76. The House delegation was especially interesting, because it gave a look into the political calculus Alabama members use to legislate while stumping for re-election on a near-constant basis. U.S. Rep. Bradley Byrne nearly aced the ACU exam on his first try: The freshman scored a delegation-best 88. U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers jumped 24 points from last year to achieve an 84, while U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers finished out the top three by holding steady at 84. U.S. Rep. Martha Roby, whose district includes parts of centrist-leaning Montgomery, scored 56, down from last year’s 64; U.S. Rep. Robert Aderholdt scored a 61, slightly down from 67; and U.S. Rep. Gary Palmer as a freshman was not scored. All are Republicans. Democrat Terri Sewell, who largely ignores the group’s advocacy, scored an 8, down from last year’s 12.5. Here’s a list of some of the key votes scored by ACU, according to its website: In favor of HR 7 (Roll Call 30) Taxpayer Funding of Abortion. This bill would have permanently prohibited the use of federal funding, facilities or staff to provide abortion coverage and services with exceptions for rape and incest and to save the life of the mother. Opposing HR 3590 (Roll Call 38) Federal Land Use. The DeFazio amendment would have defeated the purpose of a bill to open more federal land for recreational hunting, fishing and shooting by requiring a lengthy environmental review of each area of land affected. In favor of H Con Res 96 (Roll Call 175) Conservative Budget. The Woodall amendment to the budget bill presented a conservative alternative that would have balanced the budget in four years by freezing domestic spending at $60 billion below current levels, reformed entitlement programs, and eliminated wasteful programs. Brooks/Roby/Sewell voted against it. In favor of HR 4435 (Roll Call 231) Defense Spending. The McKinley amendment to the National Defense Authorization bill bars the use of federal funding to conduct climate change assessments and reports. In favor of HR 4745 (Roll Call 290) Housing Programs. The Schock amendment to the Transportation and Housing Appropriations bill to reduce the power of the HUD Secretary to hand out Section 8 vouchers above the authorized limit, in some cases valued at $4,000 a month, while keeping others on a waiting list for any type of affordable housing. In favor of HR 5016 (Roll Call 425) Second Amendment. The Massie amendment to the Financial Services Appropriations bill that would prohibit the District of Columbia from taking any action to prevent law-abiding citizens from possessing, using or transporting a firearm. Opposing HR 5272 (Roll Call 479) Immigration. This bill reverses President Obama’s executive order deferring action on some illegal immigrants but not others. The full list of scored votes is available here.
Trail translator: They’re all talking “income inequality”
Of all the buzzwords and phrases popping up early in the presidential campaign, “income inequality” must be close to the top of the list. It’s not just Democrats insisting that the nation must deal with it firmly and fast. While Hillary Rodham Clinton and new primary opponent Sen. Bernie Sanders are hitting the idea hard, Republican candidates, too, are playing up the notion that people at the bottom of the economic ladder are getting a raw deal while the rich get richer. Since you’re sure to hear a lot more about income inequality during the next 18 months, here’s a closer look at what it means, where it came from and what the candidates want to do about it. • • • Definition, please In a nutshell, economic inequality refers to the yawning gap between the income of the richest Americans and everyone else. No one disputes that the gap exists, although there is debate about its size. There are all kinds of subtexts associated with this idea, among them: stagnating middle-class incomes, increasing economic power for the privileged few, barriers to upward mobility for the poor and a culture of cronyism in Washington that protects the well-connected. And that churns up feelings of envy, outrage, frustration and despair for candidates to tap into as they try to show they understand the economic angst of the middle class. • • • Origins The prominence of the issue has been building, off and on, for years, as the share of total income and wealth claimed by the richest Americans has grown. Incomes for the highest-earning 1 percent of Americans rose 31 percent from 2009 through 2012, after adjusting for inflation, according to data compiled by Emmanuel Saez, an economist at University of California, Berkeley. For everyone else, it inched up an average of 0.4 percent. The Occupy protest movement of 2011 and 2012 jump-started a global conversation about the wealth gap, with the rallying cry of “We are the 99 percent.” And everyone from Pope Francis to President Barack Obama picked up on it. In 2013, Obama called economic inequality “the defining challenge of our time.” • • • Look who’s talking Just about all the 2016 candidates are chattering about it. And when candidates describe the problem, it’s sometimes hard to distinguish Republicans from Democrats. See if you can guess who’s sounding off here: “The top 1 percent earn a higher share of our income nationally than any year since 1928. The people who have been hammered … are working men and women.” “While the average person is working longer hours for lower wages, we have seen a huge increase in income and wealth inequality, which is now reaching obscene levels.” “The economy is booming for people at the top. It is not booming for the bottom 90 percent of the workforce in America. The bottom 90 percent, which is most of America, has had stagnant wages for 40 years.” “The deck is still stacked in favor of those already at the top. And there’s something wrong with that. There’s something wrong when CEOs make 300 times more than the typical worker.” “Wage stagnation is happening at a time when the cost of everything is going up dramatically. And it’s not just that the cost of everything is going up, we have expenses we didn’t used to have.” “The policy aim of government absolutely should be that government should not contribute to income inequality.” Answers: 1. Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas. 2. Sanders, a Vermont independent who’s running as a Democrat. 3. Republican Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas. 4. Clinton. 5. Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida. 6. Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. • • • The solution? There will be huge debate on this over the next year and a half, and Republicans and Democrats offer far different solutions. In general, Republicans like to stress upward mobility — giving those at the bottom more opportunity to move up — rather than taking something away from those at the top. “The American people tend not to be envious people,” says Mike Needham, head of the conservative Heritage Action for America. “People are worried about their opportunity to succeed.” Democrats are inclined to look at increasing taxes for those at the top to allow government to do more for those below. “It’s very difficult to do much about the middle class and the poor without tapping some of the wealth and income at the very top, or at least changing the structure of the economy so that so much wealth and income don’t percolate upward,” says Robert Reich, who was Bill Clinton‘s labor secretary. Most of the candidates are still fleshing out their economic proposals. But they’ve already thrown plenty of ideas in the mix, circling back to classic debates over taxation and the proper role of government. Sanders wants to make the wealthy pay more taxes. Rubio’s pushing a big tax cut to spur growth. Clinton has criticized excessive CEO pay and wants to raise the minimum wage. Cruz wants a “simple flat tax.” Paul pushes “economic freedom zones” offering lower taxes in distressed areas. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush wants to give people more opportunities for “earned success.” Christie wants to cut income and corporate tax rates while changing deductions and credits. • • • Odds anything will change? Obama said Tuesday he hopes growing awareness of inequality will help bridge the ideological divide over how to address it. At the same time, progressive Democrats who want to close the gap released a wide-ranging policy agenda, with Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts saying it was time to fight those who “want the game to stay rigged.” Skepticism abounds, though. Sanders questions whether Clinton or any of the Republicans are ready to take on the “big-money interests who control so much of our economy.” Paul thinks Democratic policies make income inequality worse. Carly Fiorina, the former technology executive who recently joined the GOP nomination race, says
Change of hearts, change of calendar: Tax increases pulled from floor
Well, I’ll be! It looks like someone breathed new life (read: reason) into the House GOP and some members (word is it’s a strong group of freshmen) decided to stand up against the impending vote for tax increases. Alabama Today has learned that as many as 20 members were poised to publicly take a stand against the effort to raise taxes. Good for them! As I said Monday, campaigning against tax increases and then passing them is breaking the promise legislators made to voters. The members who do so, or who advocate doing so, should come out individually and explain themselves. There are times when emergencies call for drastic measures such as tax increases but with other options on the table it’s not the time for a solution of last resort. I’m happy to hear that some members aren’t just going along to get along. Among the tax-and-fee increases being pushed by the House speaker were several that would burden Alabama families and businesses. Fiscal conservatives should not be so willing to concede that such tax increases are the best answer yet. We look forward to watching this play out, hearing more about what happened behind closed doors, and reporting on it. Stay tuned to this breaking story.
Senate Democrats block action on president’s trade agenda
Senate Democrats dealt President Barack Obama a stinging setback on trade Tuesday, blocking efforts to begin a full-blown debate on his initiatives. The president’s supporters said they will try again, possibly starting in the House. But they were unable to sugar-coat a solid rebuke of a major Obama priority by members of his own party, some of whom served with him in the Senate. Only one Senate Democrat, Tom Carper of Delaware, voted for a GOP-crafted motion to start considering Obama’s request for “fast track” trade authority. Fast track would let the president present trade agreements that Congress could ratify or reject, but not amend. Proponents needed 60 votes to thwart a Democratic filibuster, but managed only 52 in the 100-member Senate. Tuesday’s vote highlighted the deep divide between Obama and the many congressional Democrats who say trade deals hurt U.S. jobs. Leading the fight against fast track are labor unions and liberal groups, which are crucial to many Democrats’ elections. Most Republican lawmakers support free-trade agreements. They were in the strange position Tuesday of losing a vote but seeing the Democratic president take the blame. “It is the president’s party,” said GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah. “It’s amazing to me that they would do this to the president on a bill of this magnitude.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky called the results “pretty shocking.” But Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida said, “Maybe what McConnell really wants to do is embarrass the president.” Several Democrats said Obama erred by pointedly criticizing a leading Democratic foe on trade, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, in an interview with Yahoo News. Those Democrats said they bristled when Obama suggested Warren was poorly informed and politically motivated. Democratic senators said they also are tired of seeing the Democratic president cozy up to Republicans on trade. Most Republican lawmakers support trade agreements. But Obama must recruit a fair number of House and Senate Democrats to achieve his trade goals. Several Democrats say they will back fast track only if Republican leaders clear a path for three other trade measures. One, to renew the African Growth and Opportunity Act, is uncontroversial. The second calls for Trade Adjustment Assistance, which provides federal aid to workers displaced by trade agreements. Republicans don’t like it, but reluctantly acknowledge it’s the price for winning even modest Democratic support. The third bill, involving Customs enforcement, is the stickiest. It includes a measure to take actions against countries that keep their currency artificially low, which makes their exports more attractive. The Obama administration opposes the “currency manipulation” measure, saying it could invite international challenges to the Federal Reserve’s policies meant to boost the U.S. economy. McConnell said that only two of the bills — fast track and Trade Adjustment Assistance — would be the subject of initial votes, but senators would have ample chances to address the other two bills during the amendment process. Democrats met at midday and declared McConnell’s package unacceptable. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Alabama gambling bill prompts passionate testimony
Gambling foes and proponents squared off over whether a lottery and casinos would bring jobs and revenue, or corruption and vice. The Alabama Senate Tourism and Marketing Committee held a public hearing Tuesday on the bill to authorize a state lottery and casinos at four dog tracks. Senate President Pro Tem Del Marsh, who is sponsoring the bill, says gambling has to be an option on the table for the state budget crisis. Gambling opponent Joe Godfrey argued gambling would be a tax on the poor. Others argued Macon County had been devastated by the closure of VictoryLand bingo casino. Testimony also illustrated the developing turf war. Speakers from the Wiregrass asked to have a fifth casino located there. Marsh delayed a vote, saying he wants changes to the bill. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
No vote on gambling proposal from Senate panel
The Senate committee on tourism declined to vote Tuesday on legislation to authorize a state lottery and legalize casino-style gaming in Alabama. Last week, Sen. Del Marsh, committee chair and sponsor of Senate Bill 453, said he expected the committee to vote after Tuesday’s public hearing. Instead, the Senate panel heard extensive debate on the proposal: Eight people signed up to talk in favor of the bill, and nine asked to speak in opposition. SB 453 has been framed by bill supporters as a means for generating revenue in the state without raising taxes. Those in favor of the bill cited its potential to boost the state economy and that of the communities adjacent to casino properties. Frank Wendt, president of the Houston County Development Authority, asked the committee to consider expanding the current plan to include placing a casino in Houston County. In his testimony, he said that adding a casino in Houston County would provide $10 million in revenue to state and create more than 1,000 jobs. However, Katharine Robertson, vice president of the Alabama Policy Institute, pointed out that 20 other states have budget shortfalls even though they have state lotteries. “There is a likelihood of short-term injection in (the) fund,” Robertson said. “But in long-term (gambling) ends up being flat.” An economic impact report commissioned by Marsh’s office projected that his gambling proposal would bring up to $331 million in total revenue and add as many as 13,000 jobs in Alabama. Marsh’s proposal is one of four options lawmakers have at this point to overcome the budget shortage. Other options include adopting Gov. Robert Bentley’s plan to plug the $541 million shortfall using tax increases, approving a $250 million offer from the Poarch Creek Indians in exchange for exclusive rights to manage gaming, or allowing across-the-board budget cuts that could include the loss of up to 1,000 jobs. At a news conference last week, Marsh said that his caucus is largely in favor of the bill and his strategy of seeking a constitutional amendment so that the final decision on expanding gaming would be decided by popular vote. “I’m not hearing a lot of excitement on tax increases,” he said. “What I’m hearing from my caucus is ‘Keep this in play.’” Marsh said Tuesday that he would review comments and work to improve the bill.
Auditor Jim Zeigler plays “people’s judge,” hears 29 citizens’ cases against state
State auditor Jim Zeigler on Monday personally heard the cases of 29 Alabama residents who have grievances against the state. The Board of Adjustment, essentially an administrative law court, gives residents the opportunity to have their cases heard. The little-known body is composed of four officials. Three are elected: the State Auditor, State Treasurer and Secretary of State. The fourth is appointed by the governor, the State Finance Director. Zeigler was the only one of the four officials composing the BOA to attend the Monday hearings. The other three officials sent staff employees. “I felt I should be at the hearings listening to those citizens,” Zeigler said. “I felt like Judge Judy. These were everyday people trying to prove damage from actions of state agencies or employees.” “It was almost like a county district court hearing a civil or small claims docket,” Zeigler said. There is no appellate process once a case has been heard by the BOA. So, as on Judge Judy, “the decisions are final.” One case involved a private property damaged by a state-managed forest fire. Zeigler told those assembled he found the case compelling because the embers left behind could have set homes afire. “Only by the grace of God was no one hurt and no homes destroyed,” Zeigler said. The board will decide all the cases at the next scheduled voting session at 10 a.m. June 17 In other cases Monday, Zeigler heard claims by 29 people against Alabama A&M University, Alabama State University, the Department of Human Resources, and Jacksonville State.
Holly K. Soffer: The value of a licensed public adjuster
Alabama is poised to license public insurance adjusters, and the Legislature can’t act too quickly. Extreme weather has been plaguing many parts of the country, and home and business owners are often left feeling helpless and alone in the aftermath of severe storms, or even after any type of property damage. Public insurance adjusters are licensed in almost every state as advocates for home or business owners who have sustained property damage. They are on the ground every day fighting for policyholders, and have seen the heartbreaking damage that storms can cause as well as the problems people face after such an event. Unfortunately, the claims process can be long and difficult, and the homeowner must navigate many obstacles to recovery. Public insurance adjusters help policy holders, commercial and residential, through the complex process. Why are public insurance adjusters needed by homeowners? And how can the homeowners be made whole if they have to pay a public insurance adjuster a portion of the recovery? The answers to those often-asked questions are simple. After a loss, most people do not have the time and/or expertise to properly evaluate their insurance coverage or to estimate the actual damage and effectively negotiate with the insurance company adjuster who does have such expertise. A policyholder must rely on the insurance company to evaluate the extent of the loss, determine coverage, and provide a prompt and fair financial settlement. The interests of the insurance company in this process are directly opposed to the policyholder, yet the policyholder must rely on the insurance company to perform such services. Most insurance company adjusters act with professionalism and treat the policyholder fairly, yet, the homeowner is still at a great disadvantage. The insurance company adjuster is not an advocate for the homeowner, but is a paid employee of the insurance company, or a third party who has been hired for the purpose of adjusting the claim on behalf of and for the benefit of the insurance company, and will put the interests of the insurance company ahead of the consumer. That inequality leads to the undervaluing of claims. Historically, in Alabama, attorneys have stepped in to help negotiate for those who have suffered property damage, but attorneys aren’t always a cost-effective solution for a homeowner. According to the 2015 Insurance Information Fact Book published by the Insurance Information Institute, the average-size homeowners’ claim nationally from 2008-2012 was $8,384. As a result, the victim of the “average” claim is not often able to hire an attorney for representation, because of the prohibitive cost of paying the attorney on an hourly basis, or finding an attorney to charge a contingent fee on a small claim. Licensed public insurance adjusters provide the necessary, yet cost-effective expertise help these people need to fairly adjust such property damage claims. A few years ago Florida conducted a study and found that homeowners who used public insurance adjusters on non-catastrophic claims received, on average, a 574 percent higher settlement amount than homeowners who did not use a public insurance adjuster (OPPAGA Report No. 10-06, p.8). Those results indicate that the homeowner receives greater value even when having to pay the public adjuster’s fee from the recovery. Therefore, instead of asking how the homeowner can be made whole when using the services of a public insurance adjuster, the question should be whether the homeowner can be made whole without the services of a public insurance adjuster. Empirical evidence suggests that the answer is usually “no”. By enacting legislation to allow for the licensing of public insurance adjusters, Alabama will be doing a great service to its property owners, residential and commercial. For more information of the value of a public insurance adjuster, visit www.aapia.org and click on the video below to view an interview with Gene Veno, president of the American Association of Public Insurance Adjusters. Holly K. Soffer Esq. is the general counsel, American Association of Public Insurance Adjustors
Terri Sewell hosts Obama trade chief Michael Froman for trade summit
U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell says Alabama businesses and workers would benefit from expanding U.S. trade opportunities. Sewell invited U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman, President Barack Obama’s chief official on international trade, to visit Alabama to discuss the importance of exports for the state economy. “Exports help drive Alabama’s economy,” Sewell said. “Alabama businesses exported $19.5 billion in merchandise last year, which supported more than 95,000 jobs. Access to foreign markets and fair trade policies that benefit American workers are integral, necessary components that will help Alabama exporters to continue to thrive and spur new job growth.” Froman said reducing taxes that the U.S. pays to export products from Alabama and other states, as well as improving labor standards abroad, were key to supporting jobs in the state. “By tearing down those barriers and raising the standards in other countries, we level the playing field,” Froman said. “And we know when we level the playing field, our workers, our farmers, our ranchers, and our small to medium-sized businesses can compete and win.” Alabama exports — transportation equipment, poultry, soybeans, and cotton — could face tariffs as high as 50 percent, Froman said. “If we can get rid of those taxes and we can eliminate those tariffs, right now 62 percent of all Alabama’s exports go to either the Asia Pacific or the European Union,” he said. “They can do so much more if they get rid of those other barriers. Every billion dollars of additional exports support up to 5,000 jobs. These are good, high-paying jobs.” The ambassador’s visit comes at a pivotal point in the Obama Administration’s battle with Congress over expanding the President’s authority to negotiate trade agreements. Politico reported that so far only 20 House Democrats have agreed to vote in favor of giving the president “fast-track” authority to negotiate trade agreements and that the bill has well below the votes needed on either side to pass in the House and Senate. The legislation would also grant the president authority to finish a sweeping trade deal with several Asian countries. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has taken more than 10 years to negotiate and sets trade terms with 11 countries along the Pacific Rim, including Vietnam, Australia, Singapore, Malaysia and Japan. The group of nations has a combined gross domestic product of $28 billion and represents about 40 percent of the world economy. Sewell called the “fast track” or trade promotion authority a “hallmark” legislation that would provide a framework for the upcoming discussions over trade between the U.S., Asia, and the European Union. Passing the agreement is one of the president’s last major priorities, but so far Democrats have been unwilling to support the deal. “Congress has before it some big decisions when it comes to trade,” Sewell said. “Today has given me the opportunity to ask some very important, pressing questions from my constituents, especially labor, and to raise concerns that they’ve had. The ambassador has left me with a lot of food for thought.” Among those concerns, Sewell said, were that companies not be lured away by relaxed labor and regulatory standards in other countries. “I think it’s important that, especially in Alabama, where we’ve seen some trade agreements in the past have caused certain companies to close and take up shops overseas,” Sewell said. “I just want to make sure that the American workers are not left behind and so one of the big concerns that I had, and that some of the local labor unions had, was making sure that they had a seat at the table and that the negotiating would take into account their concerns as well.” In a prepared statement issued late Monday, U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions called the fast track legislation “unenforceable” and said that the administration is seeking “blind faith” that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will increase U.S. jobs and wages. “Everyone supports trade. The question — the most fundamental question of all — is whether they are good trade deals, that advance America’s core national interests, or bad trade deals, that undermine them,” Sessions said. “Poorly negotiated trade deals, instead of opening new markets for our industries, tilt the playing field even further in their competitors’ direction. The result is not freer global trade, but more mercantilist market domination.” Congresswoman Sewell remains undecided on both TPP and TPA. U.S. Sens. Richard Shelby and Sessions voted against expanding trade promotion authority in 2002. It remains unclear whether Shelby will support the deal.
Study: Alabama counties can offer kids shorter – or longer – odds for escaping poverty
The county that a poor family lives in doesn’t just determine what schools or economic opportunities are within their grasp today, it can actually decide how much money their children might earn in 20 years, according to a new study. Harvard economists Raj Chetty and Nathaniel Hendren – renowned for their research on why low-income families in certain cities are locked out of the middle class – are now challenging the basic concept of the American Dream. Their Equality of Opportunity Project analyzed county-level data on family movement and income from 1996 through 2012. The Harvard report extends the Moving to Opportunity study commissioned by Congress in the 1990s to analyze the effects of offering housing vouchers to poor families moving to better neighborhoods. Chetty and Hendren conclude that every year after a child moves to a strong community adds to their future earnings – but every year a child spends in a poor community takes a bit more away from their paycheck as an adult. The key, according to Chetty, is for the child to move as early as possible. “The data shows we can do something about upward mobility,” he said in a recent interview with The New York Times. “Every extra year of childhood spent in a good neighborhood seems to matter.” “Geography does not simply separate rich from poor,” wrote David Leonhardt in his New York Times article analyzing the recent findings. “But also plays a large role in determining which poor children achieve the so-called American Dream.” Matthew O’Brien wrote in The Atlantic that the Harvard study offers a snapshot of not two or three Americas, but hundreds. According to his coverage of the study, kids have a better chance of moving up the economic ladder if they live in the middle states (Utah, Kansas, Iowa or Nebraska), but very little chance if they live in the Deep South. In Alabama, the findings suggest that if a family is poor, moving to a handful of counties early in their children’s lives would improve their odds of escaping poverty in adulthood. Which counties offer the best odds for kids in poor families? Cleburne (#630), Dekalb (#635), Coffee (#824), Geneva (#933), and Lawrence (#947) counties were Alabama’s highest ranked counties compared with the rest of the nation. The study assumes the average household income at age 26 is $26,000. A child growing up in DeKalb County would earn about 8.9 percent more as an adult than if they grew up elsewhere, translating to $2,314 of additional income. In Lawrence County, that additional income drops to $1,378. By contrast, children in wealthier families have a chance at adding to their future earnings if they live in Fayette (#8), Geneva (#57), Crenshaw (#142), Cullman (#150) or Cleburne (#157) counties. Growing up in Fayette County will boost household income at age 26 by 12.7%, or $3,302; in Cleburne County, that additional income is $2,288 (8.8%) Here are some of the findings for Alabama’s largest counties: For an interactive map to see results in another county, click here
