Robert Bentley visits Holman Prison amid inmate unrest
Multiple disturbances have occurred at the William C. Holman Correctional Facility in Atmore over the last week, causing Gov. Robert Bentley to visit the city for an update on moves being made to address the ongoing unrest. In two separate instances, inmates at the facility had committed acts of violence against other inmates and prison guards and had started fires and barricaded themselves inside the prison. Though the two uprisings had been quelled, concerns over the state of Alabama’s prisons continues. The incidents stand to prop up Bentley’s landmark prison reform measures, which have come before multiple committees in the form of legislation known as the Alabama Prison Transformation Initiative Act. Holman is a maximum-security prison designed to house 637 inmates, though it currently houses 991, which is 156 percent of capacity. During his visit to the prison, Bentley warned that more uprisings could be on the horizon if lawmakers don’t address the aged and overcrowded system. “What we have today in Alabama makes it dangerous not just for the inmates, but for our guards and our wardens,” Bentley said. “We want to minimize that.” “The facility is overcrowded, and there is a shortage of corrections officers,” the news release from Bentley’s office said. “Disturbances like what has occurred in the last three days are some examples of the issues that have plagued Alabama’s prison system for decades.”
Despite Democrats’ opposition, General Fund budget has its day before the House
Taking a strategy from last week’s playbook, Alabama House Democrats began a filibuster as the Special Order Calendar was brought up for discussion. The calendar includes the General Fund budget, which raised the ire of Dems because of its lack of adequate Medicaid funding. The current budget leaves in place an about $100 million shortfall in the Medicaid budget and will obliterate plans announced by Gov. Robert Bentley to institute a Regional Care Organization (RCO) program in the state. Both Bentley and House Speaker Rep. Mike Hubbard (R-Auburn) have signaled that there will likely be a special session called to address the shortfall in Medicaid. According to statements made by Hubbard, Republicans are slow to fully fund the Medicaid program because it puts a strain on all other state agencies. Along with prisons, Medicaid takes up about 62 percent of the state’s budget. “I stand here today because I am concerned about where we are on the Medicaid budget,” said Rep. Juandalynn Givan (D-Birmingham). “Yet again, we will have failed the people who need it the most. We find money here in this state for everything in this state that we need to find it for. I still cannot fathom why we need to have a special session, yet again, to fix a problem here in this state that we should be addressing right now.” Givan noted that more than a million Alabamians receive Medicaid benefits and lawmakers should be looking at ways to raise revenue to fund the program. Rep. William Buskey (D-Mobile) referred to constituent concerns over a “bare-bones budget.” “I don’t think it’s bare bones,” Buskey said. “I think it cuts through the flesh, almost to the marrow.” “I believe healthcare is paramount to everything we do,” said Rep. Darrio Melton (D-Dallas). “Healthcare drives so much of our economic development. Let’s make health care strong.” Democrats stalled for more than two hours, but eventually a vote was taken and the Special Order Calendar was approved.
Senate Rules panel quickly moves array of bills to Special Order Calendar
In a meeting that lasted less than 10 minutes, the Senate Rules Committee approved a number of bills for addition to the Special Order Calendar. Unlike other committees, the Rules Committee does not give favorable or unfavorable reports. It simply approves or disapproves of bills slated to be added to the daily calendar of bills headed for their respective bodies. With little discussion, the committee approved the entire slate of legislation that included 20 bills. Among those approved for a move before the full Senate was SB136 from Sen. Vivian Figures (D-Mobile), which would raise money for Medicaid via a 5-mill increase in the state’s low property tax. Figures noted in an earlier committee meeting that the move would net about $280 million by 2019 and every year thereafter. The committee also approved SB268 from Sen. Cam Ward (R-Alabaster), which would revoke the Medicaid benefits of city and county jail inmates while incarcerated. SB285 from Sen. Arthur Orr (R-Decatur) was also approved by the committee. Orr’s bill would put further restrictions on public assistance programs, such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits. The bill specifies that SNAP benefits should be terminated if a recipient is late on child support or any “court-ordered support payments.” The bill would also put a lifetime limit of 36 months on TANF benefits and require the Medicaid Agency to better track the income and assets of benefit recipients. Further, the bill would require out-of-state purchases with TANF money to be tracked and a person’s citizenship to be questioned if too many such purchases are made. The committee also approved the Unborn Infants Dignity of Life Act, HB45 from Rep. April Weaver (R-Alabaster), which provides for the “dignified final disposition of the bodily remains” of infants and prohibits the already-illegal sale of fetal tissue. Weaver’s bill has already cleared the House and its addition to the Senate calendar poises it to approach final passage.
Senate committee tackles several bills ranging from veterans to background checks
The Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs met shortly before the start of session Tuesday to move on a variety of bills. First on the committee’s agenda was SB325 from Sen. Gerald Dial (R-Lineville), which codifies the jobs of the newly formed Legislative Services Agency. Currently, three departments are responsible for various legislative tasks: the Alabama Law Institute, the Legislative Reference Service and the Legislative Fiscal Office. Dial’s bill would establish the Legislative Services Agency, which would oversee the operations of the three. Dial noted that the move would decrease future spending. Sen. Arthur Orr (R-Decatur) opposed the bill, noting that earlier discussions had decided that a codification of the agency wouldn’t happen until lawmakers were able to see how the changes worked, but the bill garnered a favorable report despite the opposition. Dial also brought SB161 before the committee, which would provide businesses owned by veterans of Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) and Operation Iraqi Freedom with preferred vendor status in competitive bids. Essentially, if a veteran-owned business is within 5 percent of another bidders offering, the veteran-owned operation is given preference. The committee gave the bill a favorable report with a unanimous vote. The committee also approved a bill from Sen. J.T. Waggoner, SB304, which will allow sheriff’s to issue pistol permits to residents of different counties. The National Rifle Association-drafted legislation is said to be for “convenience purposes” and would still allow sheriffs to revoke licenses provided to residents of their counties. The committee also approved a bill that would require polygraph examiners to pass a background check to attain their license, as well as a bill that would extend the renewal period for driver licenses to six months prior to expiration. Currently, residents receive a notification only 30 days prior to their license’s expiration. The bill would allow residents more time to renew their driver licenses.
Martha Roby: Automatic spending growth is unsustainable
Every American should be concerned about the growing national debt and the out-of-control government spending that contributes to it. Frankly, I believe this issue isn’t discussed enough on the national level. While the complexity of government debt and deficits might not make for exciting television news, Washington’s spending problem will have real and profound consequences for all of us if it isn’t addressed. Most everyone agrees with the need to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in the budget. Generally, the federal government needs to be smaller, and some functions ought to be left to the states as I believe our founders intended. However, even the most aggressive restructuring of government would only scratch the surface of the true problem because of deeper-seated spending issues that aren’t often explained and discussed. There are two basic types of federal spending. The first is discretionary, which Congress votes to authorize and appropriate each year to fund the functions of government, such as the military and the various agencies. The second type is mandatory or automatic spending, which funds social benefit programs like Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. This type of spending does not require annual authorization by Congress, but rather continues in perpetuity relying on set rules to determine eligibility. This automatic spending accounts for more than two thirds of all government spending and is by far the largest contributor to the national debt. So, the funding Congress works all year to allocate only adds up to less than a third of all spending. The rest continues on “autopilot,” growing at an unsustainable rate without so much as a vote. To change the way these programs are funded requires actively changing the law. If current policies remain in place, automatic spending will consume as much as 78 percent of all federal spending in just ten years. That’s because costs for Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid will each nearly double by 2026, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). There are serious consequences to the unrestrained growth of “auto-pilot” programs. First, out-of-control costs jeopardize the long-term solvency of programs people depend on for their health and livelihood. Second, as automatic spending grows its share of the budget, the share of everything else shrinks. That threatens our ability to properly fund other functions of government, from the military to transportation infrastructure to veterans benefits. Finally, uncontrolled growth in automatic spending will continue to add to the already unhealthy national debt. CBO estimates that interest on the debt alone will exceed $5.7 trillion over the next ten years. What is the solution? Bringing the federal budget into balance will require smart reforms to social benefit programs to control costs combined with significant growth in the economy to generate revenue. Fair and sensible policy reforms such as premium support for Medicare and a pro-growth overhaul of the tax code would be good places to start. In any case, there must be a more robust discussion with the American people about the fiscal calamity we are facing down the road and what can be done to avoid it. • • • Martha Roby represents Alabama’s 2nd Congressional District. She lives in Montgomery, Alabama, with her husband, Riley and their two children.
Tea Party conservatives block Congressional budget; Paul Ryan cites anxiety among voters
Tea party conservatives have blocked a budget plan backed by GOP leaders, a blow to House Speaker Paul Ryan and a reflection of the anti-Washington mood pushed by GOP front-runner Donald Trump. The move by the House Freedom Caucus, the same band of conservatives that toppled his predecessor, would mean that the House would fail to pass a budget for the first time since Republicans reclaimed control of the chamber in 2011. Ryan cited “all of the anxiety that’s coming to a crescendo in this country” for the reluctance of conservatives to endorse the leadership-backed budget plan. “We’re the body of government that’s closest to the people. We’re up for election every other year,” said Ryan, R-Wis. “And there’s just a lot of anxiety that’s out there.” The Freedom Caucus announced Monday night that it won’t support the budget measure, which was released Tuesday by Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price. The move by the bloc of 40 or so conservatives leaves the GOP budget well short of the votes required to pass it and reflects enduring opposition from tea party lawmakers over higher spending levels permitted by last year’s bipartisan budget and debt deal. Price is nonetheless pressing ahead with a panel vote Wednesday on the 10-year measure, which relies on huge spending cuts – $6.5 trillion over the coming decade – to demonstrate that the budget can be balanced. “Surrendering to the status quo or failing to act boldly will mean Americans today and in the future will have less opportunity and less security,” Price said in a statement. “It is a plan to balance the budget through commonsense reforms and greater economic growth; to create a healthier economy, more secure nation, and a more accountable Washington.” But as in past years, GOP leaders have no plans to implement the severe cuts recommended by nonbinding blueprint. Instead, the main goal of the budget moves is to set in motion the annual appropriations process, in which the 12 spending bills that set agency operating budgets are produced. That’s the $1.1 trillion “discretionary” portion of the $4 trillion-plus federal budget that is passed by Congress each year. Conservatives are sharply opposed to last year’s budget deal, which provided an additional $46 billion or so for higher budgets this year for the Pentagon and domestic agencies, easing cuts opposed by both GOP defense hawks and Democrats, who demanded more money for domestic programs. GOP-led committees are moving ahead with a more modest series of spending cuts. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
As Florida votes, there’s a difference between north, south
There’s a big difference between north Florida and South Florida. As different as Alabama and New England. And on Tuesday, those distinctions will likely play out as Florida voters decide who to give 99 Republican delegates to in the race for president. The Florida GOP primary is considered a pivotal moment in the campaign: The winner-takes-all contest could mean a huge boost for Donald Trump, or the death of Marco Rubio‘s campaign in his home state. But the Florida primary isn’t easy to predict. The differences between residents in Bonifay in north Florida and those in Broward County in south Florida are about as stark as voters in Birmingham, Alabama, with those in Boston, Massachusetts. In Bonifay in Holmes County in the north, there’s a sign pointing to a bait shop three miles down the road intermingled with campaign signs for sheriff, school superintendent and property appraiser. They don’t like Democrats even if they are Democrats (because they are Dixiecrats). Nobody blinks if a Confederate battle flag waves in front of a home and people driving off Interstate 10 might think they’re in Alabama, which borders the largely rural community. A day’s drive south is Broward County. Broward is a place where it can take hours to get off Interstate 95 during rush hour, people speak with New York accents and President Barack Obama won enough support to cancel out dozens of places like Bonifay to carry Florida and win two terms as president. In north Florida, boiled peanuts are commonplace. In South Florida, you’re more likely to find boiled yucca, a staple in Cuban restaurants. And on Tuesday, when Florida awards 99 delegates to either Donald Trump, favorite son Sen. Marco Rubio or, much more unlikely, Sen. Ted Cruz or Ohio Gov. John Kasich, there’s a good chance there will be a difference in who north Florida supports and who prevails in the three-county area known as South Florida. “We’re more in line with south Alabama, frankly, than we are below the I-4 corridor,” Dan Smith, chairman of the Holmes County Republican Party, said about the highway that divides Florida in half from Tampa to Daytona Beach. “It comes from our roots. Conservative values and family values.” Holmes County in the north, which includes Bonifay, actually has more Democrats than Republicans, but many are Dixiecrats — Southerners who register as Democrats but vote Republican. Despite the party advantage, Barack Obama earned only 15.2 percent of the vote in 2012. Smith takes pride in saying Holmes County gave more support to Marco Rubio’s 2010 Senate campaign than any other Florida county. But this year, he said the vote in the Republican primary will be close. He agrees that the primary results in Georgia and Alabama, which Trump easily won, could indicate the businessman and reality TV star will do well in north Florida. Exactly why a New Yorker is winning the hearts of Southern voters is something of a mystery. “You’ve got me there,” Smith said. “It’s like a Trump phenomenon.” Rubio will probably do better in South Florida, the state’s most populous region, with more than 800,000 Republicans in Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade Counties. Rubio is from Miami, where the population in his home county outnumbers Holmes by a better than 131-to-1 ratio. Even throw in conservative strongholds like Jacksonville and Pensacola and South Florida votes dominate the state, and tend to be a bit more liberal even among Republicans. Maria Penton-Oliver, of Davie, a city southwest of Fort Lauderdale in Broward County, has already voted for Rubio. She’s no fan of Trump. She said she has “100 reasons” not to vote for the billionaire. She thinks Trump speaks “from both sides of his mouth,” saying that the billionaire businessman talks tough about immigration but takes advantage of the H1-B program to hire foreign workers at his Mar-A-Lago resort in nearby Palm Beach County. “I don’t think he understands our country,” she said. “I do not think he’s an honest man. And I think, like Rubio says, he’s a con artist.” Not that Rubio won’t get any support up north. Jerre Richter stood on her porch in Bonifay and said she’s voting for him because she thinks that’s who God would think makes the best president. She said her faith plays a large part in casting her vote. But the 83-year-old former teacher and current pastor said there are plenty of others willing to cancel out her vote. “Somebody said to me the other day, ‘Who are you voting for?’ And I said my current plan was to vote for Rubio. And they said some junk about him not being from the United States. I don’t remember the term they used, but like he was a foreigner. I said, ‘What difference does that make? It’s more the man, what he stands for, what he is and what’s he going to do,’” Richter said. She said one neighbor pleaded with her: “‘You must be for Trump! You must be for Trump!’ She was talking like he was God sent to resurrect the nation.” Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
Forget favorite candidates, some people voting strategically
Kennedy Copeland is a Marco Rubio fan who voted for John Kasich in Ohio. Ann Croft is all in to elect Hillary Clinton president but cast her ballot for Rubio in Virginia. Julia Price will back the Democratic nominee in November but voted for Kasich in Tennessee. Are these voters confused? No, they’re voting strategically in the year of Donald Trump in hopes of altering the outcome of the presidential race by voting for someone other than their favorite candidate in the primaries. Democrat Croft, for example, figured Clinton didn’t need her help to win Virginia. So she decided to vote instead against Trump in the Republican primary because some of her GOP friends were worried he would win the state. “I was feeling almost sort of dirty about doing it,” she recalled. But then Croft talked to a friend who had done exactly the same thing, which made her feel better. In other cases, Democrats are crossing over to do just the opposite: voting for Trump, on the thinking he’d be the weakest candidate to face the eventual Democratic nominee. The notion of strategic voting – in a way, playing amateur political scientist – is now front and center in Ohio and Florida, which award winner-take-all delegates in the Republican races as part of Tuesday’s five-state round of voting. Rubio’s campaign raised eyebrows recently by urging Ohioans to cast ballots for Kasich as the best strategy to stop the Trump juggernaut. Copeland, president of the College Republicans at Xavier University, says she did just that, casting an early vote for Ohio Gov. Kasich “because he has the best chance of winning Ohio against Trump” even though Rubio is her first choice. Some voters are taking it upon themselves to get strategic without any coaching from a campaign. In Minnesota, Eric Goodemote said he’d never voted for a Republican for anything before casting his caucus vote for Rubio to block Trump. He said he found “the prospect of Donald Trump’s mere candidacy so horrifying that I decided to do the other party a favor and cross lines to vote for a guy who I would normally never even have considered.” Strategic voting happens every election, of course, but political scientists say there’s far more intrigue than usual about what’s going on in this very atypical political year. Columbia University’s Robert Shapiro says that while it’s not uncommon for a voter to select one candidate over their first choice in the same party based on electability, this year there’s more discussion about crossing party lines to influence what’s happening on the other side. “We’re talking about something a lot more complicated and a lot more interesting,” says Shapiro, who defines strategic voting as “basically an insincere vote to pursue another purpose.” More than insincere, it may be illegal in some states – although no one seems too concerned about that. In Ohio’s semi-open primary system, for example, voters must sign a statement saying that they desire to be affiliated with a particular party and support the party’s principles before casting ballots in that primary. Democrats who choose to vote in the Republican primary but don’t support the party’s policies “are committing election falsification by stating that they do in fact support those principles,” says law professor Dan Tokaji, an Ohio State University election law expert. “Will they be prosecuted? Almost certainly not.” Vanderbilt University’s John Geer said that when voters cross over to nominate a weaker candidate in the opposing party it’s known as “raiding.” There’s always some of that, he says, and there may be more than usual this year with Trump in the mix. But, Geer added, “The vast majority of the Democrats that Trump is getting are voting for him because they like him, not because they want to weaken the Republican Party.” Plenty of voters are upfront about their electoral schemes, and in many states there’s no legal prohibition to voting in either primary. Sam Brunson, a liberal law professor in Chicago, says he figures Clinton doesn’t need his vote in Tuesday’s open Illinois primaries, so he’ll hold his nose and vote for a Republican – probably Ted Cruz – to try to deny Trump the nomination. He’s worried about the damage to the country that could be caused by a Trump nomination, saying that could send the wrong message to those who are racist and xenophobic. Others are still waging battles between their heads and hearts in trying to select a candidate. Republican Nancy Froelich, in Palm Beach, Florida, started out a conversation Monday by saying she was leaning toward voting for Cruz as the best candidate in Tuesday’s Florida lineup. She said she likes Kasich, but thinks voting for him could end up helping Trump. But then again, she said, “it might make more sense to vote for Rubio” to keep Trump from winning in Rubio’s home state. “Call me back in an hour and ask me again,” she said. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
