Katherine Robertson: Conservative solutions to poverty in Alabama
There is no shortage of ideological differences between conservatives and liberals or Republicans and Democrats, but perhaps the most divisive issue on the political spectrum is how to care for the poor. Admittedly, conservatives have done a fairly subpar job of connecting the dots between our principles and combatting poverty. While it is true that government’s bloated anti-poverty programs have not achieved the desired ends and levy a heavy cost on current and future taxpayers, the conversation should not end there. This week, the Alabama Policy Institute is drawing awareness to conservative solutions to poverty in hopes of better communicating our perspectives and initiating more conversations around the dinner table on how we, as a state, should respond to poverty. As Alabama’s population is one of the ten poorest in the nation, poverty is an issue that–directly or indirectly–comes into play during every election, every budget hearing, and the meetings of every study committee or task force. Still, more of what goes on in Montgomery should be responsive to the drivers of poverty and proven solutions to it. Since API’s founding in 1989, the organization has been dedicated to promoting the principles of free markets, limited government, and strong families. When we offer this tagline, we often fail to explain the “why”: that the cumulative effect of putting these principles into practice will yield the best results for our state and nation, including those living in poverty. A free market economy allows for businesses to profit and hire, creating opportunities for individuals. A less invasive, limited government gets out of the way of growth and job creation by rolling back regulations and limits on competition and by reducing the tax burdens of individuals and businesses. And a strong family provides children with the best chance of receiving a good education, staying out of prison, and finding employment. API’s prioritization of educational choice is driven by our desire to see Alabama’s most vulnerable school children escape the poverty trap. Studies from liberal and conservative academics across the country conclude that poverty hinders a child’s development and educational outcomes. For two and a half decades, API has pushed for expanded school choice in the state because of the inherent disparities that come when families cannot afford to choose a school that best fits their child’s needs. We have also worked alongside state leaders to better understand and address the challenges in Alabama’s prison system. While in prison, an offender’s spouses and children suffer and are often left with even fewer resources and less stability in the home. When prisoners are released, they frequently lack employable skills and may be deemed ineligible for many jobs because of their criminal records. This is not meant to imply that individuals should be spared punishment for crimes to avoid such consequences, but the trends in these outcomes should be a consideration as we examine the cost-effectiveness of our system. Our elected officials frequently tout the merits of expanding government entitlement programs-both in duration and eligibility. API opposes this when it is clear, as in most cases, that politicians and bureaucrats are ignoring the abysmal results of the programs, opting instead for feel-good talking points. Further, at times, addressing poverty is not even the sincere aim of maintaining or expanding these programs. Special interests and industries have become dependent upon money flowing through government grants and programs, and exert significant political influence to ensure that this continues. We hope that the information generated this week will cause you to think more about how Alabama can use proven conservative policies to combat poverty; but, we also want to challenge you to participate directly in serving Alabama’s poor and vulnerable. We have provided links to model organizations on our website to give you some ideas for getting involved. If we agree that government is not the answer to poverty, we cannot then sit back and let the government serve the poor on our behalf. Katherine Robertson is vice president for the Alabama Policy Institute (API), an independent non-partisan, non-profit research and education organization dedicated to the preservation of free markets, limited government and strong families.
Can Marco Rubio’s lean campaign keep up with Jeb Bush’s behemoth?
Hundreds of donors to Jeb Bush‘s presidential campaign will gather later this month in Houston. They’ll shake hands with a pair of former presidents, and high-profile lieutenants of the former Florida governor will push them to write generous checks. This weekend in Las Vegas, dozens of donors met up with Marco Rubio. They ate fast-food hamburgers, shook hands with a celebrity pawn-shop owner and played flag football with the Florida senator. “I’d say he threw five interceptions, maybe three or four touchdown passes,” Wayne Berman, Rubio’s national finance chairman, said playfully. “There were a lot of middle aged guys trying to show off.” There are more than a dozen major candidates in the Republican presidential primary, and while outsiders Donald Trump and Ben Carson top the current preference polls, it’s the two Floridians — Bush and Rubio — at the head of the second wave. They’re competing for same donors who traditionally support GOP White House candidates, and their October finance summits illustrate how each plans to pay for their presidential ambitions with the hand he was dealt. They are also evidence of how Bush, with four months to go before the lead-off Iowa caucuses, enters the fall with a distinct advantage over his one-time protege. The son and brother of presidents, Bush came to the race with a sprawling network of experienced fundraisers. He also spent months personally wooing wealthy donors for a super PAC designed to help him win. Rubio had none of those advantages. He’s the son of working-class immigrants, and as a sitting senator he is legally barred from raising money for a super PAC that backs him. As a result, his campaign and the super PAC collected less than a quarter of the $114 million the Bush team raised in the first six months of the year. “We have no margin for error in our fundraising,” Berman told The Associated Press as the weekend retreat for roughly 70 top donors was wrapping up inside a hotel on the Las Vegas strip. But, he added, “Our ability to raise money is dramatically improving.” It has to. In modern American politics, money is often the strongest predictor of success. Even though Rubio’s poll numbers are improving, his fundraising is badly lagging several Republican competitors. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz doubled Rubio’s take from donors over the last three months, while Carson, the retired neurosurgeon, tripled it. Money raised for a presidential campaign is usually consumed by one thing above others: television advertising. And in TV dollars Bush’s distinct financial advantage is already starting to play out in the campaign. Bush and his super PAC, Right to Rise, have begun a planned $50 million television advertising blitz. Pro-Bush commercials hit the air several weeks ago and are booked to run continuously in the early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina through February, according to information collected by Kantar Media’s CMAG advertising tracker. Meanwhile, Rubio and the super PAC helping him, Conservative Solutions, have reserved ad space worth about half that amount. They’re putting off expensive broadcast TV commercials until the week of Thanksgiving, according to tracking information updated through Friday. The campaigns and outside groups can purchase ad space at any time, meaning those plans could change. But the ads only become more expensive, particularly for the super PACs. Any investment now pays extra dividends. Rubio’s team currently cannot afford the TV space it has reserved, so it must raise more money to see them through. Bush’s team, particularly his allied super PAC, might not need to bring in another dollar to fund its TV strategy well into next year. Bush’s financial advantage loomed over Rubio’s donor retreat at the Bellagio Hotel and Casino this past week as senior aides shared political and fundraising strategy with top donors. While Bush’s retreat will feature former Presidents George H.W and George W. Bush, the best-known supporter at Rubio’s gathering was Rick Harrison, the Las Vegas pawn-shop owner and one of the “Pawn Stars” of the reality television show. Bush hasn’t yet said what he raised between July 1 and Sept. 30, but he’s thanked supporters in an email that said the campaign beat its fundraising goal. Rubio’s early numbers are in — and they aren’t good. His fundraising dropped to just $6 million over the summer, aides told donors this weekend. While the campaign began October with $11 million in available cash, the nearly $17 million worth of advertising reservations that begin in November show just how quickly that money can evaporate. Still, Rubio’s campaign has been thriftier than others. He was paying salaries for 18 people at the end of June compared to Bush’s more than 50. His campaign manager, Terry Sullivan, has bragged about pinching pennies, saying he must approve any expense over $500. He said Rubio almost always flies commercial. Rubio is also getting millions of dollars in advertising help from a nonprofit group that doesn’t make public its donors. Its pro-Rubio commercials are on the air at a time when the campaign and super PAC haven’t been. More help could be on the way. Rubio shared a private dinner Thursday night in Las Vegas with Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino magnate who with his wife donated more than $90 million during last presidential contest. Rubio, like other Republicans, has aggressively sought Adelson’s endorsement. He’s yet to publicly pick a favorite. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
Bradley Byrne: National security should always be our top priority
When considering whether to vote in favor of legislation, I often ask myself a simple question: Is this in the best interest of the American people? I believe that should be a guiding principle for all our elected officials when they are faced with a major decision. Recently, President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry announced a plan to increase the number of refugees allowed into the United States. Under their plan, the Obama Administration plans to accept at least 10,000 refugees from Syria. As soon as I heard this news, I had major concerns about the impact this decision would have on the American people and the national security of our country. Let me explain why. Currently, Syria is home to a major conflict between the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, fighters with the Islamic State, and many different factions of rebels who wish to overrun the government. This brutal fighting has resulted in a mass exodus of Syrian people looking to escape their war torn country. That’s where President Obama’s decision comes into play. As defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act, a refugee is someone who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her home country because of a “well-founded fear of persecution.” The federal government has a process for screening and accepting these individuals before allowing their admission into the US, and the Syrian people can certainly make a strong case to be admitted. However, I have serious concerns about the threat of terrorists infiltrating the refugee system and entering the United States. Groups like the Islamic State have made clear that they would attempt to disguise terrorist operatives as refugees. I am not the only one who has these concerns. In fact, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper recently called the migrant issue a “huge concern” and said that “we don’t put it past the likes of [the Islamic State] to infiltrate operatives among these refugees.” At a recent House Homeland Security Committee hearing, officials from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) implied that bringing in a large number of Syrian refugees would represent a threat to our national security. DHS officials have even admitted that Syria does not have a computer database to check the criminal and terrorist records of these refugees. The issue is especially of interest to those of us in Southwest Alabama because Mobile is home to one of the 190 State Department refugee affiliates. This means Syrian refugees could be placed in our local community. That is why I sent a letter to the Department of State asking for information about the screening process the refugees would be required to go through. In response to my letter, I was invited to attend a classified briefing to learn more about the screening process. Unfortunately, I left the briefing with many of the same concerns. So after listening to the concerns of my constituents and getting more information from the State Department, I decided to support H.R. 3573, the Refugee Resettlement Oversight and Security Act. This bill would require approval from both the House and the Senate before refugees could be admitted to the United States. The bill would also give Congress the authority to block any inadequate refugee resettlement plan. There is simply no way to know for sure that terrorist groups, like the Islamic State, are not going to infiltrate the refugee process, and the Refugee Resettlement Oversight and Security Act will ensure that Congress, and in turn the American people, have the final say when it comes to increasing the number of refugees. On this issue, like many others, I can’t help but ask myself: Is this in the best interest of the American people? At this point, it seems clear the answer is no. Bradley Byrne is a member of the U.S. Congress representing Alabama’s 1st Congressional District.
Auditor Jim Zeigler says state parks closures “bad management”
State Auditor Jim Zeigler again denounced the nature of budget cuts which have resulted from budget negotiations between Gov. Robert Bentley and a Legislature which is increasingly hostile to him. Zeigler – who started a public campaign last month to prevent deep cuts to his own office – said closures of five state parks slated to stem from the current budget are unnecessary despite a budget shortfall patched up by lawmakers this month after nearly six months of fits and starts in Montgomery. Barring drastic administrative changes, five state parks will close their gates October 15: Bladon Springs, Chickasaw, Paul Grist, Roland Cooper and Florala. Zeigler said in a statement over the weekend the closures are not primarily fiscal in nature, but rather due to poor choices state government officials have made. “Just in the past five years, $15 million made by the parks has been stolen from them and used to prop up other state programs. If this money had been left within the park system, there would be no closures,” Zeigler said. Zeigler says the parks generate “85-90 percent” of the money they need to operate from tickets, gift shop sales and fees. While Democratic U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell has focused her efforts on mobile driver’s license facilities which will shutter due to budget cuts – an issue she has said pose a threat to the civil rights of rural Alabamians – Zeigler has largely focused on the state parks issue. “The Bentley administration is hinting at more closures of more parks next year. We need better management and a long-term plan to keep the parks open. The simple thing to do is to stop taking money earned by the parks and let them keep it.” said Zeigler, a statewide elected official who occupies an unusual ombudsman or comptroller-like position. “With a few changes, the parks can be self-sustaining and not rely on taxpayer funds,” Zeigler said. “Nobody in Montgomery is taking a lead role in getting this done.” Zeigler will address the future of state parks on the day of the closures. Zeigler is set to speak this Thursday, Oct. 15 in Hoover at the 5:45 p.m. meeting of Rainy Day Patriots, a Tea Party-inspired political group. The open-press event will be held at Hoover Tactical Firearms, 1561 Montgomery Highway in Hoover.
Hillary Clinton has edge in Nevada, site of Dems’ first debate
When the Democratic candidates for president take the stage for their first debate this week in Nevada, they’ll do so in a state that serves as a reminder of why Hillary Rodham Clinton is the front-runner for the nomination. One of the first four states to cast ballots in the presidential contest, Nevada is home to large communities of immigrants — many who have only recently arrived in the U.S. When combined with the state’s baroque caucus system, which is so complex that the rules surrounding it run 51 pages, that means winning the state and the largest share of delegates requires a higher degree of organization and effort to get-out-the-vote than in most others. And so for all the excitement generated to date by Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, and for all the anticipation about whether Vice President Joe Biden will decide to make a late entry into the race, it is Clinton and her campaign that are set up to win when Nevada Democratic caucus next February. Clinton installed staff on the ground in Nevada six months ago, and she now has 22 paid operatives in the state. They have recruited more than 3,000 volunteers, who have already held events in remote desert towns as well as the state’s urban centers. Clinton herself has made wooing immigrants a keystone of her campaign; she announced her immigration policy approach at a Las Vegas high school this spring. “That’s a lot of shoe leather, and they’ve been on the ground for 5-6 months,” Billy Vassiliadis, a veteran Democratic strategist in Nevada who isn’t involved in the current race, said of the Clinton campaign’s efforts. “That’s going to be a challenge that I don’t think a Sanders can overcome, that — God bless his heart — I don’t think Joe can overcome.” Meanwhile, Sanders’ effort in the state has just one paid staffer, who arrived less than two weeks ago. Biden has yet to decide whether to run and does not have any formal campaign operation. None of the other candidates Clinton will debate Tuesday night — former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, former Rhode Island Sen. Lincoln Chaffee and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb — have a campaign organization that can match Clinton’s. All are largely afterthoughts in early preference polls. The differences in the structural strength of the campaigns were evident this past weekend. While Sanders’ single Nevada staffer had his first meeting with hundreds of Sanders volunteers at a community college on Saturday, Clinton’s campaign flew in Democratic rising star Rep. Joaquin Castro of Texas in Las Vegas and former NBA player Jason Collins in Reno to cheer on volunteers and staffers who had been knocking on doors and making calls for months. “We gave — and we know we have — the best candidate for president of all the candidates for president, Democrat or Republican — Hillary Clinton,” Castro told about two dozen Clinton volunteers who, armed with clipboards filled with computer-generated lists of potential voters, were about to set out for an afternoon of door-knocking in heavily Latino East Las Vegas. Sanders supporters argue they can catch up. “There is a movement here, even in Nevada, for Bernie Sanders,” said Jim Farrell, Sanders’ Nevada state director. “This is not a normal election cycle.” Yet neither was 2008, when Clinton won the Nevada caucus. Her state director then was Robby Mook, who is now her national campaign manager. Her field director that year was Marlon Marshall, now the national campaign’s director of public engagement. Emmy Ruiz, who worked on the Clinton 2008 effort and then ran Obama’s successful 2012 race in Nevada, is now overseeing Clinton’s 2016 effort in the state. Vassiliadis, who worked on the 2008 Obama campaign, said it had staff on the ground in the spring of 2007 and nabbed the coveted endorsement of the Culinary Workers Union, which represents tens of thousands of casino workers in the state. And yet they couldn’t catch up to Mook and the campaign he built for Clinton in Nevada. Clinton’s team is doing it all over again, including targeting the state’s diverse electorate. The campaign hosts Filipino-style potluck dinners and is courting black pastors as well as Nevada’s influential corps of immigrant-rights activists. And what the campaign does in Nevada, Marshall said, will pay off across the country. “The diversity of Nevada and the outreach programs you use there can help us reach out to those communities in other states,” he said. Yet for all her successes in Nevada in 2008, Clinton left the state with one fewer delegate than did Obama. It’s something noted by some Sanders backers, who cite the complex rules that can generously apportion delegates to runners-up as they tout the potential for the enthusiasm for his campaign to ultimately trump Clinton’s structural edge. “We’ll go to the Democratic clubs and see a Hillary person will get up — they’re all very nice people, but it’s like they memorized a speech,” said Tazo Schafer, 67, a retired academic who is volunteering for Sanders, his first involvement in presidential politics since Eugene McCarthy‘s campaign. “Then the Bernie people get up and say, ‘Enough is enough,’ and there’s real passion.” Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
Ben Carson’s gun comments highlight free-wheeling style
Ben Carson suggested last week the Holocaust wouldn’t have happened if Jews in Europe were better armed. He argued that gun control is a bigger tragedy than a bullet-riddled body. He said the best way to confront a mass shooter is to rush the gunman. The statements, after the mass shooting in Oregon that killed nine college students, have drawn no shortage of criticism, including from public-safety experts and the FBI. Carson’s commentary on gun policy is emblematic of his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. The retired neurosurgeon is a political rookie who prefers to muse on the news of the day and make academic arguments, rather than offer a clear picture of what policies he would pursue if elected. The freewheeling approach has put Carson at the top of many preference polls, where he and billionaire real estate mogul Donald Trump are looking down at more than a dozen candidates with experience developing and implementing policy in governor’s mansions and on Capitol Hill. “He’s exactly the kind of man we need representing and leading our country,” said Paige Mitts, a 51-year-old financial planner, as she waited outside a suburban Atlanta bookstore over the weekend to meet Carson. “Who better than a surgeon to solve the complex problems we face?” Yet some Republicans, including Carson’s rivals for the GOP nomination, question how long he will be able to stick with his style, even in an election year in which conservative discontent with anyone in elected office has powered the candidacies of Carson, Trump and former technology executive Carly Fiorina. “Dr. Carson will have to get more detailed, have a consistent message,” said Henry Barbour, a Republican National Committee member from Mississippi who is neutral in the primary campaign. Influential in GOP circles nationally, Barbour is a nephew of former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, one of the veteran politicians trying to catch up to Carson, was less diplomatic. “You know, Dr. Carson loves to sit around and speak theoretically about things,” he said in an interview Friday on Fox News Radio. “I want to talk about the things that are going to directly affect the American people.” While Trump benefits from decades in the spotlight, Carson is, like Fiorina, trying to build a national profile from scratch. But unlike Carson, the former technology executive used the first two GOP debates to project a confident command of policy, firing off in rapid detail the ways in which she would rebuild U.S. military might on Russia’s doorstep and detailing her interactions with foreign leaders during her career in business. “You’ve got Fiorina out there proving every day that she knows her stuff,” Barbour said. “Trump,” Barbour added, “is just Trump.” Both Trump and Fiorina largely stuck to the popular conservative approaches to gun violence in the days after the Oregon shooting, matching a robust defense of the rights of firearms owners with a focus on mental health care. “The Second Amendment to the Constitution is clear,” Trump said at a campaign appearance in Tennessee, before noting that he has a New York concealed-carry permit. Fiorina also hammered President Barack Obama for “politicizing” the Oregon shooting with his call for stricter gun regulations. While Carson made similar arguments, they were often drowned out by his headline-grabbing remarks. Some of his advisers have privately acknowledged that he needs to be more disciplined, but as he signed books Saturday in the Atlanta area, Carson said his place in preference polls validate his approach. “It says that the people are waking up and they are starting to realize that listening to the pundits and the experts and the news media probably is not the right thing to do,” he said. The next morning, Carson was back on national television, explaining again why he thinks “it’s not hyperbole at all” to link 2nd Amendment rights to preventing the rise of a Nazi-like form of tyranny in America. “Whether it’s on our doorstep or whether it’s 50 years away,” he told CBS “Face the Nation” moderator John Dickerson, “it’s still a concern, and it’s something that we must guard against.” Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
