Terri Sewell-backed plan to restore Civil Rights-era historic sites funding passes U.S. House
U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell ended her week in Congress on a sweet note — the third-term Democrat successfully amended this year’s federal Department of the Interior‘s Appropriations Bill to include an additional $7 million in funding for the department’s Civil Rights Initiative, which funds the restoration and maintenance of historic sites and markers related to the era. “National treasures like the Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail, the Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site, and the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic Site tell the story of the struggle for civil rights. It is our obligation to preserve these sites for future generations,” said Sewell, the first African-American woman to represent Alabama in Washington, in a statement. The overall appropriation given to the initiative — $16.5 million including the funds in Sewell’s amendment — still falls considerably short of the $40 million requested by President Barack Obama. “Reduced funding severely limits our ability to protect sites that belong to the National Register of Historic Places and National Historic Landmarks,” continued Sewell before enumerating her amendment’s effects. Per a release, her budget amendment: Restores $2.5 million for the rehabilitation and preservation of significant historic properties on the campuses of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Increases funding by $2.5 million for documenting and preserving civil rights history, and Increases funding by $2 million for competitive grants for underserved communities under the Historic Preservation Fund. Sewell said she was glad of the progress the House made in its budget for Civil Rights sites, but said there was much more to be done. “On the 50th Anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, we should be investing in National Park Service sites associated with the Civil Rights Movement, not cutting necessary funding,” Sewell concluded. Sewell, was born in Selma, represents Alabama’s 6th Congressional District, including much of the state’s “Black Belt” and parts of Birmingham, Montgomery and Tuscaloosa. She is the state delegation’s sole Democrat.
Alabama resumes gay marriage licenses, but not everywhere
Jessica Dent and Carolee Taylor exchanged vows in front of a flowing fountain in downtown Montgomery within hours of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage nationwide. “Never thought it would happen in our lifetime,” Taylor, 39, said, admitting she was so nervous and excited this morning that she repeatedly smudged her toenail polish. A couple for more than 13 years, they said they didn’t want to wait a day longer to be married. “We waited so long. When it came through, I can’t think of a better way to celebrate, the decision and our love,” Dent, 40, said. The ruling allowed same-sex weddings to resume in the conservative Deep South state, one of 14 states where gay couples could not marry, and one that had fought against legalized same-sex marriage until the last moment. Couples began marrying in some Alabama counties Friday, but in other counties they had to wait as officials resisted, or tried to figure out what to do next. A few blocks away from Dent and Taylor’s wedding, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore said he was “saddened for the future of our country.” “They’ve just disregarded everything that precedent holds, and they’ve destroyed the foundation of our country, which is family,” Moore said of the ruling. Earlier this year, Moore told probate judges they were not bound by a federal judge’s ruling overturning Alabama’s ban on gay marriage. And he noted Friday that an Alabama Supreme Court order from March directing judges to refuse to issue gay-marriage licenses has not been lifted. He stopped short of calling for direct resistance, but said states can fight the ruling, as they have decisions allowing slavery or abortion. “The states can do something about this. They’ve done something about things like Dred Scott and Plessy versus Ferguson. There’s been an uproar continually about Roe versus Wade in 1973. This is a religious battle that is just beginning,” Moore said. In Birmingham, Jefferson County Probate Judge Sherri Friday said issuing same-sex marriage licenses was just “business as usual.” “It seems like such a big story, but when you get to the mechanics of it, it’s just that now same-sex couples can marry just like everybody else,” Friday said. Joseph Baker and Joshua Garrard got a marriage license in Jefferson County while still trying to decide if their last name would be Baker-Garrard or Garrard-Baker. “It’s very refreshing to know that now the government sees us as equals,” Baker said. The couple came to Jefferson County after getting turned away in Shelby. Shelby County Probate Judge Jim Fuhrmeister was unavailable for comment Friday afternoon. A clerk said he would not begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses until he has had time to review the Supreme Court’s decision. But Pike County Probate County Judge Wes Allen said he was “saddened” by the Supreme Court’s decision and said he wouldn’t issue marriage licenses to anyone, gay or straight. Allen cited a section of Alabama law that says counties “may” issue marriage licenses rather than requiring them to do so outright. Alabama spent much the first half of 2015 in a fight over gay marriage. A judge ruled the state’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. About 500 same-sex couples were married until the Alabama Supreme Court stepped in and directly ordered probate judges to stop issuing the licenses. The Association of County Commissions of Alabama, which has provided legal guidance and liability coverage to judges during a twisting legal fight over gay marriage, sent probate judges a memo suggesting that judges take applications but not issue the licenses on Friday as lawyers review the ruling. “We’ve just suggested for this one afternoon, as remarkable as this one afternoon is, we don’t see any harm in doing all due diligence before moving forward,” said Sonny Brasfield, executive director of the group. Brasfield said he presumes that their advice on Monday will be to issue licenses. Top elected officials in Alabama criticized the high court’s decision, but acknowledged it was law. “I have always believed in the Biblical definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman,” Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley said in a written statement. Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange said the court “overturned centuries of tradition and the will of the citizens of a majority of the states.” However, Strange said the court had the final say absent a change to the U.S. Constitution. State Rep. Patricia Todd, the state’s only openly gay lawmaker, cheered the ruling and said she hoped state probate judges would immediately begin granting marriage licenses to gay couples. “I’m ecstatic. I’m not shocked, I felt they would give a very strong clear opinion which leaves nothing to chance, which they did. I’m just tickled to death. It validates all of these marriages. Now we’ve got to figure out if probate judges in Alabama will cause any stink, which is a possibility, of course,” Todd said. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Becky Gerritson: Person in charge of getting missing IRS emails now in charge of Benghazi emails
Yesterday, while Americans were consumed with the SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare, I was engrossed in watching congressional testimony from the Treasury Department’s Inspector General, Mr. J. Russell George, and Deputy Inspector General, Mr. Timothy Camus, on the progress of the investigation into Lois Lerner’s “lost emails.” The hearing was an update designed to inform the Oversight and Government Reform Committee of their progress on the investigation into Lois Lerner’s lost emails. The investigation has NOT been completed therefore no fingers were pointed and no final conclusions were stated. HIGHLIGHTS: So far TIGTA investigators have interviewed 118 witnesses and have procured 20 terabytes of data. TIGTA found 1,000 emails that the IRS neglected to give to Congress as requested. TIGTA estimates that there are still 23,000-24,000 emails missing. TIGTA stated that the IRS did not put forth an effort to search for backup tapes. A statement which flies in the face of IRS Commissioner Koskinen’s previous testimony that “the IRS would leave no stone unturned.” Truth is, that out of the following six sources where emails could be located: crashed hard drive back-up tapes for that hard drive decommissioned server tapes for that server Lerner’s Blackberry loaner computers the IRS only looked at one source. As a matter of fact, the IRS didn’t even bother to ask for the backup tapes. Yet TIGTA had no problem asking for and getting them. In fact, it was as easy as going through the drive-thru and speaking to the clown at Jack In The Box on a Friday night. They just drove to the location where they were stored and asked for them, and voila – there they were! Preservation orders for Lerner’s emails were given in Jun 2013. In August 2013, Congress still had not received the emails so they issued subpoenas for all of Lerner’s emails. Yet 7 months later, in March 2014, 422 backup tapes were destroyed. And would you believe that the employees who destroyed them are still working at the IRS? During the testimony, TIGTA emphasized that, at this point, they do not suspect intentional destruction of evidence. OH Rep. Jordan laid out the timeline of events, including when investigations began, when subpoenas were issued, when emails went missing and when misleading statements were made at congressional hearings by IRS officials. He asked Mr. Camus, “How could this not be intentional?” And Camus’ answer was, “It’s an unbelievable set of circumstances.” I agree; I DON’T BELIEVE IT! The probability of all of these events happening by chance is astronomical. So I asked myself, “Is this just incompetence or is it obstruction of justice?” These IRS officials have worked for the government for years and many are making six figures; I just can’t believe they are that stupid. For example, when the order was issued to not delete, wipe clean, erase, etc. any of Lerner’s electronic communications, these managers later told investigators that they weren’t sure if it also meant “backup tapes” (even though the order included in its detailed instructions the words, backup tapes). So after discussion, or collusion, between themselves they decided it didn’t mean backup tapes – so they were “degaussed,” or “Lernerized.” HELLO! REALLY? To me, that is clearly intentional. Who in their right mind would believe this was accidental? An even if it was accidental, they were legally bound with protecting those emails and tampering with or destroying them is still a violation of the law. If you “accidentally” run a stop sign and crash into another vehicle, you can bet you will still be charged with a violation and be liable for the damages! As a casualty of the IRS’ targeting of conservatives, I am infuriated that no one has yet been held accountable. In fact, I found myself yelling back at my computer screen as I was watching the testimony. (I hope Google or NSA was not watching and recording me!) But there was one new piece of information that shocked me. It literally made my heart race as I felt a shot of adrenalin run through my body. S.C. Rep. Trey Gowdy announced that Catherine Duval, former Chief Council for the IRS Commissioner, the one in charge of producing all of the IRS emails to Congress, is now at the State Department in charge of recovering the Benghazi emails! Are you kidding?! It was under her watch at the IRS that 422 email backup tapes were destroyed! Are you concerned yet? I have concluded that our corrupt government has NO FEAR whatsoever of being punished, so they will continue their efforts to fundamentally transform our nation. Conservative Americans, NOW is the time to unite to reclaim our nation… before it’s too late! Share this post and speak out for freedom today! Becky Gerritson is the co-founder of the Wetumpka TEA Party. She serves as the Alabama State Coordinator for ParentalRights.org You can visit her official website at BornFreeAmericanWoman.com.
2016 Presidential candidates react to supreme court ruling on same-sex marriage
On Friday, in a 5-4 ruling the U.S. Supreme Court gave same-sex couples the right to marry in the United States. Although Lesbian and Gay couples can already marry in 36 states the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling means the other 14 states must stop enforcing their bans on same-sex marriage. The 2016 presidential hopefuls were quick to weigh in with their opinions on the decision. Here’s a compilation of the candidates reactions: Former Gov. Jeb Bush: Guided by my faith, I believe in traditional marriage. I believe the Supreme Court should have allowed the states to make this decision. I also believe that we should love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments. In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side. It is now crucial that as a country we protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate. Ben Carson: While I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision, their ruling is now the law of the land. I call on Congress to make sure deeply held religious views are respected and protected. The government must never force Christians to violate their religious beliefs. I support same-sex civil unions but to me, and millions like me, marriage is a religious service — not a government form. Lincoln Chafee: Congratulations to Supreme Court on today’s good ruling for marriage equality! Hillary Clinton: “Today is one of those days we’ll tell all our grandchildren about,” “This is our country at its best: inclusive, open and striving towards true equality,” wrote Clinton. Read more here Carly Fiorina: This is only the latest example of an activist Court ignoring its constitutional duty to say what the law is and not what the law should be. Justice Alito spoke for so many of us when he said that “[t]oday’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage … All Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power portends.” The Court ruled today that all Americans should receive equal benefits and rights from the government under the law. I have always supported this view. However, this decision was also about the definition of marriage itself. I do not agree that the Court can or should redefine marriage. I believe that responsibility should have remained with states and voters where this conversation has continued in churches, town halls and living rooms around the country. Moving forward, however, all of our effort should be focused on protecting the religious liberties and freedom of conscience for those Americans that profoundly disagree with today’s decision. The Court did not and could not end this debate today. Let us continue to show tolerance for those whose opinions and sincerely held beliefs differ from our own. We must lead by example, finding a way to respect one another and to celebrate a culture that protects religious freedom while promoting equality under the law. Former Gov. Mike Huckabee: The Supreme Court has spoken with a very divided voice on something only the Supreme Being can do-redefine marriage. I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat. This ruling is not about marriage equality, it’s about marriage redefinition. This irrational, unconstitutional rejection of the expressed will of the people in over 30 states will prove to be one of the court’s most disastrous decisions, and they have had many. The only outcome worse than this flawed, failed decision would be for the President and Congress, two co-equal branches of government, to surrender in the face of this out-of-control act of unconstitutional, judicial tyranny. The Supreme Court can no more repeal the laws of nature and nature’s God on marriage than it can the law of gravity. Under our Constitution, the court cannot write a law, even though some cowardly politicians will wave the white flag and accept it without realizing that they are failing their sworn duty to reject abuses from the court. If accepted by Congress and this President, this decision will be a serious blow to religious liberty, which is the heart of the First Amendment. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal: The Supreme Court decision today conveniently and not surprisingly follows public opinion polls, and tramples on states’ rights that were once protected by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that. This decision will pave the way for an all out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision. This ruling must not be used as pretext by Washington to erode our right to religious liberty. The government should not force those who have sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage to participate in these ceremonies. That would be a clear violation of America’s long held commitment to religious liberty as protected in the First Amendment. I will never stop fighting for religious liberty and I hope our leaders in D.C. join me. Former Gov. Martin O’Malley: So grateful to the people of MD for leading the way on this important issue of human dignity and equality under the law. Former Gov. Rick Perry: I am disappointed the Supreme Court today chose to change the centuries old definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. I’m a firm believer in traditional marriage, and I also believe the 10th Amendment leaves it to each state to decide this issue. I fundamentally disagree with the court rewriting the law and assaulting the 10th Amendment. Our founding fathers did not intend for the judicial branch to legislate from the bench, and as president, I would appoint strict Constitutional conservatives who will apply the law as written. Sen. Marco Rubio: I believe that marriage, as the key to strong family life,
First gay marriage licenses issued in Alabama
Some Alabama counties have started issuing marriage licenses to gay couples after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. A supervisor in Mobile County‘s probate court, Russ Davidson, said the court issued its first same-sex marriage license to two women Friday after months of refusing to sell marriage licenses to anyone. The issuance came within hours of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling making gay marriage legal across the United States. Jefferson County was also ready to issue licenses to gay couples. Other counties said they were studying the ruling. Pike County Probate County Judge Wes Allen said he was saddened by the ruling and would not issue licenses to anyone, gay or straight. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Kenneth Paschal: What’s bigger threat to children of Alabama?
How can leaders avoid using chameleon survival skills? Prioritization! I’m a U.S. Army retired first sergeant, a defender of the U.S. Constitution (which includes having the freedom to disagree), a defender of the American Flag, and an advocate for children to have an equal relationship with both fit parents. Several individuals have called and messaged me asking my thoughts on Governor Bentley’s change of heart regarding the Confederate flag. There are countless problems our leaders are faced with daily and it’s imperative our leaders prioritize their agenda and ensure the citizens understand their prioritization process. I challenge our leaders to ask themselves the following questions and identify the potential problems and concerns. Then ask which identified concern presents an imminent threat and dangers to oneself, children, family, communities, state, and or nation? In doing so, our leaders will be better able to handle the political pressure of the mainstream media by sharing with their constituents their prioritization list and agenda. Absent of such, elected leaders will more likely make emotional decisions similar to a chameleon changing colors. Neither benefits the citizens of Alabama, especially our children’s future. Did you know? Each year about 40,000 children are annually subjected to child custody determination in Alabama. These court orders usually limit children to only 48-54 hours twice a month to visit with one of their fit parents (particularly children of color), equating to only 4 years out of 19 years of a child’s minority life. This discriminatory practice is known to the Alabama leaders. This practice places our children at risk of living in poverty, failing in school, hating one-half of themselves, killing each other, failing in life; particularly children of color. In answering the question about the governor’s change of heart about the Confederate flag, I present this question: What has contributed to more hate, increased violence, and killing in the black community within the last 40 to 50 years? The Confederate flag or the family law practices that intentionally deprive children, (particularly children of color), from having a relationship with one of their biological parents, particularly the father. Depriving children of their proud and rightful heritage and placing children at risk of failure simply because of their parents marital status produces hate and, is heinous beyond words. Kenneth Paschal is the director of governmental affairs Alabama Family Rights Association. The mission of the Alabama Family Rights Association (ALFRA) is to change the current child custody laws in Alabama to safeguard children by ensuring they have the involvement of both parents in their lives.
Alabama reactions to Supreme Court declaring same-sex marriage a right
Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court declared in a 5-4 ruling that same-sex couples have a right to marry in the United States. The AP reports, “Gay and lesbian couples already can marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia. The court’s 5-4 ruling means the remaining 14 states, in the South and Midwest, will have to stop enforcing their bans on same-sex marriage.” Read more here. Here are reactions from elected officials and political groups in Alabama. We will be updating this post as they come in: U.S. Rep. Bradley Byrne AL-01: I have always believed that marriage should be defined as the union between one man and one woman. I believe today’s decision threatens what should be exclusive state jurisdiction over matters pertaining to marriage. U.S. Rep. Gary Palmer AL-06: I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in this case and believe it represents the height of Judicial activism. Two years ago, in U.S. v Windsor, the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional because they claimed that it interfered with the right of states to define marriage as each state saw fit. Now that same Court has summarily invalidated the right of every state, such as Alabama, that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Nonetheless, it is important to remember that in a larger sense, neither the Supreme Court nor any government entity can redefine marriage, because the definition of marriage pre-exists government. No one can change the fundamental nature of what marriage is: the union of a man and woman and the formation of family which is the foundation of every civilization. The Court’s ruling cannot change that. Because of this ruling I have grave concerns about the assault against the religious liberties of the millions of Americans for whom marriage is a religious institution and will always remain one. Congress should act to ensure that the religious liberties of all Americans are protected so that no one is ever be forced or coerced into violating their conscience. U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell AL-07: There are moments in American history when the trajectory of our nation shifts. Today, the Supreme Court’s ruling affirmed the basic principle that our Constitution affords all Americans the same equal protections under the law, while also acknowledging our First Amendment right to maintain our own religious beliefs. Marriage licenses are an instrument of the state, and every person should have the rights afforded to all unions sanctioned by the state. This decision positively upholds the equal dignity of all Americans to enter and have the same rights afforded to every union of marriage. Gov. Robert Bentley (via a statement): I have always believed in the Biblical definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. That definition has been deeply rooted in our society for thousands of years. Regardless of today’s ruling by the Supreme Court, I still believe in a one man and one woman definition of marriage. The people of Alabama also voted to define marriage as between a man and woman. I always respect the people’s vote, and I am disappointed that the Supreme Court has disregarded the choice made by the people of Alabama in its decision today. AL Attorney General Luther Strange (via @lyman_brian on Twitter): Disappointed in same-sex marriage ruling, but “I acknowledge that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling is now the law of the land.” State Rep. Patricia Todd (Via a tweet shortly after decision announced): Court rules love wins Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore: I think it is just the beginning. I think it’s the beginning just like when the court in 1857 declared that black people were property. It had no right to do that and there was a long turmoil there after. There was actually the civil war and there was a constitutional amendment. Alabama Policy Institute (Via its Facebook page): Foundational to the Alabama Policy Institute’s mission is the adherence to an originalist understanding of the Constitution, zeal for the “numerous and indefinite” powers reserved to the states, and lastly, a biblical view of matters affecting the family. Today’s ruling trounces on a strict interpretation of the Constitution by creating an entirely new right and by inexplicably taking the matter out of the hands of the people of each state. This ruling will have far-reaching consequences, particularly for those who maintain sincere religious beliefs on marriage. We call on our state’s delegation in Congress, the Governor of Alabama, and the Alabama Legislature to take proactive steps to ensure that no Alabamian will be forced to relinquish the freedom to live in accordance with their religious convictions on this matter.
Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide
The Supreme Court declared Friday that same-sex couples have a right to marry anywhere in the United States. Gay and lesbian couples already can marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia. The court’s 5-4 ruling means the remaining 14 states, in the South and Midwest, will have to stop enforcing their bans on same-sex marriage. The outcome is the culmination of two decades of Supreme Court litigation over marriage, and gay rights generally. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, just as he did in the court’s previous three major gay rights cases dating back to 1996. It came on the anniversary of two of those earlier decisions. “No union is more profound than marriage,” Kennedy wrote, joined by the court’s four more liberal justices. The ruling will not take effect immediately because the court gives the losing side about three weeks to ask for reconsideration. But some state officials and county clerks might decide there is little risk in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The cases before the court involved laws from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Those states have not allowed same-sex couples to marry within their borders and they also have refused to recognize valid marriages from elsewhere. Just two years ago, the Supreme Court struck down part of the federal anti-gay marriage law that denied a range of government benefits to legally married same-sex couples. The decision in United States v. Windsor did not address the validity of state marriage bans, but courts across the country, with few exceptions, said its logic compelled them to invalidate state laws that prohibited gay and lesbian couples from marrying. The number of states allowing same-sex marriage has grown rapidly. As recently as October, just over one-third of the states permitted same-sex marriage. There are an estimated 390,000 married same-sex couples in the United States, according to UCLA’s Williams Institute, which tracks the demographics of gay and lesbian Americans. Another 70,000 couples living in states that do not currently permit them to wed would get married in the next three years, the institute says. About 1 million same-sex couples, married and unmarried, live together in the United States, the institute says. The Obama administration backed the right of same-sex couples to marry. The Justice Department‘s decision to stop defending the federal anti-marriage law in 2011 was an important moment for gay rights and President Barack Obama declared his support for same-sex marriage in 2012. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Daniel Sutter: Taxing visitors is still costly
Lodging taxes in Pike County will rise by 4 percent, thanks to a bill passed by the Alabama Legislature in 2015. The measure will provide money to repair and maintain our county roads. Proponents claimed during the deliberations that visitors to our community would pay the tax. Politicians sometimes say the darndest things about taxes, so is there any validity to the claim that others will really be paying to repair Pike County roads? The answer is yes, but it highlights a challenge posed by taxes within our federal system of government. Economists study the effects of taxes by comparing, as best we can, before-and-after snapshots of the economy. We do so by using models such as supply-and-demand and statistical analysis. Suppose that the Alabama Legislature in its upcoming Special Session imposed a $0.50/pack tax on cigarettes. If that raised the price by $0.40 per pack, economists would say that smokers (consumers) paid $0.40 (80 percent) and sellers paid $0.10 (20 percent) of the tax. That analysis is called tax incidence, a staple of public finance economics. Tax incidence can be challenging, because taxes can have effects in distant markets. But economists agree that consumers, many from outside the local community, pay a large share of hotel taxes. Of course, a lodging tax is not paid exclusively by outsiders. The Johnson Center hosted two conferences this past year bringing students and faculty to Troy. We will pay more for lodging for future conferences. And visiting family or friends who stay at local hotels will also pay the tax. The ability of communities to impose taxes paid in part by nonresidents is called tax exporting. Exporting occurs because economic markets and political jurisdictions do not coincide. Tax burdens can be exported across nations as well: Taxes that the U.S. imposes on imported goods, called tariffs, can be paid in part by foreign companies. Unfortunately, the political process tends to view exported taxes as free money. Consequently “visitor taxes” have been rising rapidly. States and cities impose hotel taxes, often at rates in excess of regular sales taxes. Four states have sales and lodging tax rates of 10 percent or more, and cities impose additional taxes. Hotel taxes in the 150 largest U.S. cities average more than 13 percent. St. Louis had the highest total hotel tax rate at 17.7 percent; Birmingham and Mobile check in at 17 percent each. Cities also heavily tax rental cars. Some cities charge taxes of up to 25 percent on rental cars. Americans have paid more than $7.5 billion in car rental taxes since 1990. Most out-of-town visitors, who rent cars arrive at airports, also pay hefty airport concession fees. These taxes definitely do not constitute “free money” for our economy. Taxes paid for business travel will drive up prices of goods for consumers. Visitor taxes have become the politically favored way to fund dubious projects such as sports stadiums. A 2006 study found that rental car taxes were funding at least 35 stadiums nationwide. Tax exporting also raises ethical issues. Travelers cannot vote on the taxes they must pay and essentially face taxation without representation, which the founders of our nation labeled tyranny. And pervasive visitor taxes fuel a turnabout-is-fair-play dynamic: Because we pay them when traveling, we impose them on others when it is our turn. Our federal system of government normally contributes to sound political and economic decisions. Cities and states provide a laboratory to test new policies, allow people to move to communities with parks and schools to their liking, and offer helpful yardstick comparisons to reveal which governments are wasting our tax dollars. Yet federalism leads to excessive taxes when states or cities can impose easily exported taxes. Politics too readily views exported taxes as free money, despite their very real costs to the economy. Sound economic decisions require ensuring that the benefits of our actions exceed the costs. The principle applies to the public sector as well, but ignoring the taxes passed on to visitors can lead to wasteful public spending. Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University and host of Econversations on TrojanVision. Respond to him at dsutter@troy.edu and like the Johnson Center on Facebook.
15,000 signatures and counting for petition to Gov. Bentley to restore flag
Thursday Alabama Today reported about the momentum of a petition calling for Gov. Robert Bentley to restore the Confederate flag. Less than 24 hours ago the post had 8,393 signatures. As of noon Friday the petition had almost 16,500 signatures. The governor has received mixed reactions, including praise from State Rep. Alvin Holmes who previously has sued the state to have the state remove the flag, and disappointment from voters and the state auditor. The Montgomery Advertiser reported Holmes called the flag “part of the ugly history of America.” According to the article he went on to say, “It represented slavery (and) it represented a defunct sovereign, a nation that had attempted to overthrow the United States government.” State Auditor Jim Zeigler in a strongly worded release called the Bentley’s action a “deceptive political move.” In an email to Alabama Today, petition creator Phillip Giddens wrote, “We our now over 15.000 signatures and will not stop till our heritage is safe and left alone.” A spokesman for Bentley’s office said they had no comment on the petition. Some of the comments directed to the Governor of those signing the petition include:
