Kay Ivey awards $3.1M in grants to help low-income Alabamians secure jobs, improve lives
Governor Kay Ivey on Thursday announced the award of grants totaling $3.1 million for programs that help low-income residents take steps to secure gainful employment and improve their quality of life. The Community Services Block Grants (CSBG) will enable 20 community action agencies across the Yellowhammer State to help low-income Alabamians achieve self-sufficiency and address barriers to success through a variety of programs and services. “Community Action Agencies offer services that support low-income families as they work to create a more stable foundation for a successful life,” Ivey said. “I commend these agencies for their work toward reducing poverty and helping families in need.” Ivey awarded grants to the following 20 agencies: Community Action Partnership of Huntsville/Madison and Limestone Counties Inc. (Madison and Limestone) – $189,303. Community Service Programs of West Alabama Inc. (Bibb, Choctaw, Dallas, Fayette, Greene, Hale, Lamar, Perry, Tuscaloosa, Sumter) – $297,099. Walker County Community Action Agency Inc. (Walker) – $49,098. Pickens County Community Action Committee and Community Development Corporation Inc. (Pickens) – $21,041. Organized Community Action Program Inc. (Bullock, Butler, Covington, Crenshaw, Dale, Lowndes, Pike) – $144,570. Community Action Agency of Northwest Alabama Inc. (Colbert, Franklin, Lauderdale) – $119,822. Community Action Agency of Northeast Alabama Inc. (Blount, Cherokee, DeKalb, Jackson, Marshall, St. Clair) – $242,780. Community Action Partnership of North Alabama Inc. (Cullman, Lawrence, Morgan) – $139,089. Montgomery Community Action Committee Inc. (Montgomery) – $163,530. Mobile Community Action Inc. (Mobile, Washington) – $318,001. Marion-Winston Counties Community Action Committee Inc. (Marion, Winston) – $40,626. Macon-Russell Community Action Agency Inc. (Macon, Russell) – $67,261. Jefferson County Committee for Economic Opportunity (Jefferson) – $393,941. Southeast Alabama Community Action Partnership Inc. (Barbour, Coffee, Geneva, Henry, Houston) – $148,476. Community Action of Etowah County Inc. (Etowah) – $68,073. Community Action Partnership of Middle Alabama Inc. (Chilton, Shelby, Autauga, Elmore) – $142,374. Community Action Committee Inc. of Chambers-Tallapoosa-Coosa (Chambers, Tallapoosa, Coosa) – $62,991. Community Action Agency of South Alabama (Baldwin, Clarke, Conecuh, Escambia, Marengo, Monroe, Wilcox) – $222,661. Alabama Council on Human Relations Inc. (Lee) – $98,797. Community Action Agency of Talladega, Clay, Randolph, Calhoun, and Cleburne Counties (Calhoun, Clay, Cleburne, Randolph, Talladega) – $183,020. The specific needs of the communities served determine which programs are available, which can include job search assistance and short-term employment skills classes, parenting classes, transitional housing, summer youth programs, financial literacy programs as well as emergency food and shelter. The Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs (ADECA) is administering the grants from funds made available by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “Governor Ivey and I are committed to helping those agencies that offer support some of our state’s most vulnerable residents,” said ADECA Director Kenneth Boswell. “ADECA’s partnership with these agencies has helped many residents and families achieve a better quality of life and created more opportunities for success.” Residents seeking assistance should contact their local community action agency. Full contact information for each agency can be found at www.caaalabama.org/agency-list.php.
Alabama House Democrats elect leadership team, some new faces
State House Democrats return to Montgomery in March with some new faces on their leadership team. The Alabama House Democratic Caucus elected the members of their leadership team this week. Leading the body once more is Hunstville-Democrat, State Rep. Anthony Daniels who will continue as Democratic Leader. “I am honored to continue to serve in this role and with this great leadership team,” said Daniels. “There is a lot of work ahead of us and I could not imagine a more dedicated group of leaders and caucus members to tackle critical challenges and issues in Alabama.” Five of the nine leaders are new members of caucus leadership. 2019 Alabama House Democratic Caucus Leadership: Rep. Anthony Daniels, Minority Leader Rep. Merika Coleman, Assistant Minority Leader Rep. Christopher England, Caucus Chair* Rep. Barbara Drummond, Caucus Vice Chair Rep. Kelvin Lawrence, Secretary/Treasurer* Rep. Adline Clarke, Caucus Whip Rep. Jeremy Gray, Caucus Whip* Rep. Tashina Morris, Caucus Whip* Rep. Prince Chestnut, Policy Committee At-Large* *denotes newly elected leader The newly elected Caucus Chair Christopher England said, “I am honored and humbled to serve our caucus in this capacity. I am looking forward to working with the members of the leadership team and the caucus overall to build a better Alabama.” The 2019 Regular Session is slated to begin on March 5, 2019.
Nancy Pelosi, foes clinch deal all but paving her way to speaker
Rep. Nancy Pelosi all but ensured Wednesday that she will become House speaker next month, quelling a revolt by disgruntled younger Democrats by agreeing to limit her tenure to no more than four additional years in the chamber’s top post. Within moments of announcing she would restrict her time in the job, seven of her critics distributed a statement promising to back the California Democrat. Democrats widely agreed that the pledge meant Pelosi had clinched a comeback to the post she held from 2007 until January 2011, the last time her party ran the House and the first time the speaker was a woman. Wednesday’s accord gives Pelosi a clear path to becoming the most powerful Democrat in government and a leading role in confronting President Donald Trump during the upcoming 2020 presidential and congressional campaigns. It moves a 78-year-old white woman to the cusp of steering next year’s diverse crop of House Democrats, with its large number of female, minority and younger members. The agreement also ends what’s been a distracting, harsh leadership fight among Democrats that has been waged since Election Day, when they gained at least 39 seats and grabbed House control for the next Congress. It was their biggest gain of House seats since the 1974 post-Watergate election. Democrats have been hoping to train public attention on their 2019 agenda focusing on health care, jobs and wages, and building infrastructure projects. They also envision investigations of Trump, his 2016 presidential campaign and his administration. To line up support, Pelosi initially resorted to full-court lobbying by congressional allies, outside Democratic luminaries, and liberal and labor organizations. She cut deals with individual lawmakers for committee assignments and roles leading legislative efforts. But in the end, she had to make concessions about her tenure to make sure she’ll win a majority — likely 218 votes — when the new House convenes Jan. 3. Democrats are likely to have 235 seats, meaning she could spare only 17 defections and still prevail if, as expected, Republicans all oppose her. Pelosi had described herself as a transitional leader over the last several weeks. But she’d resisted defining how long she would serve as speaker, saying it would lessen her negotiating leverage to declare herself a lame duck. On Wednesday, she gave in to her opponents’ demands that she limit her service. Under the deal, House Democrats will vote by Feb. 15 to change party rules to limit their top three leaders to no more than four two-year terms, including time they’ve already spent in those jobs. “I am comfortable with the proposal and it is my intention to abide by it whether it passes or not,” Pelosi said in her statement. Pelosi’s opponents have argued it was time for younger leaders to command the party. They also said her demonization as an out-of-touch radical in tens of millions of dollars’ worth of Republican television ads was costing Democrats seats. While some Democrats are still certain to vote against Pelosi — especially incoming freshmen who promised to do so during their campaigns — most Democrats have remained solidly behind her. She’s been a strong fundraiser and unrelenting liberal who doesn’t shy from political combat, and her backers complained that her opponents were mostly white men who were largely more moderate than most House Democrats. Pressure to back Pelosi seemed to grow after she calmly went toe-to-toe with Trump at a nationally televised verbal brawl in the Oval Office on Tuesday over his demands for congressional approval of $5 billion for his proposed border wall with Mexico. “We are proud that our agreement will make lasting institutional change that will strengthen our caucus and will help develop the next generation of Democratic leaders,” the rebellious lawmakers said in a written statement. To be nominated to a fourth term under the agreement, Pelosi would need to garner a two-thirds majority of House Democrats. Several aides said they believed restlessness by younger members to move up in leadership would make that difficult for her to achieve. The limits would also apply to Pelosi’s top lieutenants, No. 2 leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland and No. 3 leader James Clyburn of South Carolina. Both are also in their late 70s. Rep. Ed Perlmutter, D-Colo., was among 16 Democrats who had signed a letter demanding new leadership but who ultimately helped negotiate the deal with Pelosi. Joining Perlmutter in saying they would now back her were Democratic Reps. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts; Tim Ryan of Ohio; Bill Foster of Illinois; Linda Sanchez and Rep.-elect Gil Cisernos, both of California; and Filemon Vela of Texas. Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
As protectors abandon Donald Trump, investigation draws closer
President Donald Trump has now been abandoned by two of his most powerful protectors, his longtime lawyer and the company that owns the National Enquirer tabloid, bringing a perilous investigation into his campaign one step closer to the Oval Office. Both Michael Cohen and American Media Inc. now say they made hush money payments to a porn star and a Playboy Playmate for the purposes of helping his 2016 White House bid, a campaign finance violation. The women alleged affairs with Trump, and federal prosecutors say the payments were made at Trump’s direction. The admissions by Cohen and AMI conflict with Trump’s own evolving explanations. Since the spring, Trump has gone from denying knowledge of any payments to saying they would have been private transactions that weren’t illegal. On Twitter Thursday, Trump contended he “never directed” his former personal lawyer to break the law. He tweeted that Cohen “was a lawyer and he is supposed to know the law.” Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign finance charges “in order to embarrass the president and get a much reduced prison sentence,” Trump tweeted. He said the charges were “unrelated to me.” Though prosecutors have implicated Trump in a crime, they haven’t directly accused him of one, and it’s not clear that they could bring charges against a sitting president even if they want to because of Justice Department protocol. Nonetheless, Trump’s changing explanations have clouded the public understanding of what occurred and are running head-on into facts agreed to by prosecutors, AMI and Cohen, who pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations and other crimes and was sentenced on Wednesday . “You now have a second defendant or group of defendants saying that these payments were made for the primary purpose of influencing the election, and that it was done in coordination with Trump and his campaign,” said Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine. Trump’s first explanation of the payment that would eventually help lead Cohen to a three-year prison sentence came at 35,000 feet over West Virginia. Returning to Washington on Air Force One, Trump on April 6 for the first time answered questions about the reports of $130,000 in hush money paid to porn star Stormy Daniels, issuing a blanket denial to reporters while saying they would “have to ask Michael Cohen.” Three days later, the FBI raided Cohen’s office, seizing records on topics including the payment to Daniels. Furious, Trump called the raid a “disgrace” and said the FBI “broke into” his lawyer’s office. He also tweeted that “Attorney-client privilege is dead!” The raid was overseen by the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan and arose from a referral from special counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating Russian election interference. At the time, Cohen said he took out a personal line of credit on his home to pay Daniels days before the 2016 election without Trump’s knowledge. Later that month in a free-wheeling “Fox & Friends” interview, Trump acknowledged that Cohen represented him in the “crazy Stormy Daniels deal.” In May, Trump and his attorneys began saying Cohen received a monthly retainer from which he made payments for nondisclosure agreements like the one with Daniels. In a series of tweets, Trump said those agreements are “very common among celebrities and people of wealth” and “this was a private agreement.” People familiar with the investigation say Cohen secretly recorded Trump discussing a potential payment for former Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal two months before the election. On the tape, Cohen is heard saying that he needed to start a company “for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend David,” a possible reference to David Pecker, Trump’s friend and president of AMI. When Cohen began to discuss financing, Trump interrupted him and asked, “What financing?” “We’ll have to pay,” Cohen responded. Prosecutors announced Wednesday that AMI acknowledged making one of those payments “in concert” with the Trump campaign to protect him from a story that could have hurt his candidacy. The company avoided prosecution under a deal with prosecutors. In August, Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations and other charges, saying he and Trump arranged the payment of hush money to Daniels and McDougal to influence the election. That next day, Trump argued that making the payments wasn’t a crime and that the matter was a civil dispute, then took a swipe at his former employee. “If anyone is looking for a good lawyer, I would strongly suggest that you don’t retain the services of Michael Cohen!” he tweeted. Earlier this week, Trump compared his situation to one involving President Barack Obama‘s 2008 campaign. The Federal Election Commission, which typically handles smaller campaign finance violations, where the actions aren’t willful, with civil penalties that are typically fines, docked the Obama campaign $375,000 for regulatory civil violations. The fines stemmed from the campaign’s failure to report a batch of contributions, totaling nearly $1.9 million, on time in the final days of the campaign. But legal analysts said the accusations against Trump could amount to a felony because they revolve around an alleged conspiracy to conceal payments from campaign contribution reports – and from voters. It’s unclear what federal prosecutors in New York will decide to do if they conclude that there is evidence that Trump himself committed a crime. The Justice Department, in opinions issued by its Office of Legal Counsel, has said a sitting president cannot be indicted because a criminal case would interfere with the duties of the commander in chief. Prosecutors in the Southern District of New York, and with Mueller’s office, would presumably be bound by that legal guidance unless the Justice Department were to nullify the opinions. Politically, Trump’s shifting claims could harm his credibility with voters, but legally they may not make much of a difference. “It’s not clear to me that he’s made any false statements in legal documents that could open him to liability for perjury,” Hasen said. For the payments themselves to be a crime
Farm Bill 2018: What it means for Alabama
With the support of the entire Alabama delegation, the Farm Bill sailed through both chambers of Congress this week and has now been sent to President Donald Trump’s desk for signature. The 2018 Farm Bill, which passed the Senate on Tuesday and the House on Wednesday, supports and sustains Alabama’s farmers and foresters by reauthorizing farm programs and directing the nation’s agricultural policy for the next five years. Here are the top ways the new Farm Bill will affect the Yellowhammer State: Health care The Rural Health Liaison Act: establishes a rural health liaison at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to better coordinate federal resources and expand health care access to Americans who have for too long struggled to receive quality, affordable care in their own communities. Fights the opioid crisis: Alabama is at Ground Zero in the opioid overdose crisis — last year the state had the highest national number of opioid prescriptions, more than the state’s total population, according to a report by insurance provider Blue Cross Blue Shield. The new Farm Bill fights the opioid crisis by opening up billions in financing opportunities for expanded telemedicine and community facility investments to provide critical treatment options for those who suffer from opioid addiction. CBD oil now legal: CBD derived from industrial hemp, with a THC concentration of not more than 0.3 percent, can be legally produced, sold, and possessed in the state. Sewage infrastructure Addresses deteriorating wastewater infrastructure: The bill provides grants of up to $15,000 to low- and moderate-income households in rural, underserved areas for installing or maintaining individually-owned decentralized wastewater systems. Broadband Expands high-speed internet in rural communities: Provides new grants that will target areas most in need and connect communities with modern internet access. The bill increases funding from $25 million to $350 million per year – nearly 15 times the previous amount to provide loans and loan guarantees for broadband services in rural communities. The Community Connect grant program: authorizes $50 million annually for the USDA Community Connect Program, which provides broadband grants targeted to the most rural, unserved, and high-poverty communities in the country. The program expands high-speed internet by providing new grants that will connect unserved households and businesses with modern internet access and streamlines broadband application process. Strengthening the diversity of American agriculture Protects crop insurance and expands coverage to new crops including fruits, vegetables, hops, and barley. The bill also improves crop insurance access for veterans, beginning farmers, and fruit and vegetable growers, and more than doubles the disaster assistance coverage options for crops that are not eligible for insurance. Improves risk management options for commodity crop farmers and dramatically expands the coverage for dairy farmers. Building on the $1.1 billion added to support dairy farmers in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, the bill provides improved coverage options at more affordable rates and refunds up to $58 million in premiums paid under the former program. Expands export opportunities by securing an additional nearly $500 million in permanent funding over the next decade to help farmers find new global markets for their goods. Protecting food access for families Protects access to food assistance for families in need by avoiding harmful benefits cuts and eligibility changes that would take away food and create obstacles for working families. Increases job training opportunities to help SNAP participants find and keep good-paying jobs the right way, while keeping out partisan changes to work requirements. Farmers and ranchers The Fair Access for Farmers and Ranchers Act (S. 3117): requires the USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) to provide farm numbers to farmers with certain documentation, including in concert with Uniform Partition of Heirs’ Property Laws in some states. The bill also authorizes FSA to make loans to qualified intermediaries to re-lend to families seeking to resolve heirs’ property issues. Helps socially disadvantaged, veteran, and new and beginning farmers: combines initiatives to create $435 million in permanent funding – tripling the current investment – to educate the next generation of farmers and reach more minority farmers as a part of the new Farming Opportunities Training and Outreach Program.
Jeff Sessions: ‘I don’t follow tweets as closely as I used to’
Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions lavished praise on what he called President Donald Trump’s policy accomplishments Tuesday but added that he’s backing away from his former boss’s favorite social media platform. Listing achievements that he said included improving the economy, fighting crime and supporting police officers, Sessions said he was proud of his time running the Justice Department. But more than a month after he was forced out of his job as the nation’s top law enforcement official after a tumultuous tenure in which he was repeatedly maligned by Trump, Sessions said he was “attempting to chill out a bit.” “You can be sure I don’t follow tweets as closely as I used to,” Sessions said to laughter and applause. Sessions, a former U.S. attorney and Alabama state attorney general, said he knew running the Justice Department involved making decisions that could create controversy. “This very public adventure, I’ve got to say, exceeded my expectations,” Sessions said. He infuriated Trump by recusing himself from the Justice Department’s investigation of alleged Russian meddling on behalf of Trump in the 2016 election. But at times Sessions sounded like he was still part of Trump’s team, repeatedly using the word “we” to describe things going on in Washington. He once invoked Trump’s campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again.” The former U.S. senator didn’t say whether he might try to regain the seat now held by Alabama Democratic Sen. Doug Jones. Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
Daniel Sutter: Heading for a fiscal cliff?
Is the Federal government spending us into financial ruin? The current numbers and budget projections suggest so. Yet I think that the scary numbers reflect an unresolved conflict over the role of government more than a threat of bankruptcy. The national debt of the United States, the accumulated borrowing since the Republic’s founding, stands at $21.85 trillion. The deficit, or amount borrowed to cover spending in excess of tax revenues, for fiscal year 2018 was $780 billion. A sense of magnitude is difficult to maintain once we get into the “illions” – meaning millions, billions, and trillions. A good way to size up Federal red ink is as a percentage of U.S. GDP, the value of all the goods and services produced in a year, which is currently $20.1 trillion. So 2018’s deficit and the national debt are 3.9 and 109 percent of GDP respectively. A second debt figure, the debt held by the public, confuses the matter. What is the difference? Some Federal government agencies hold debt, including Social Security and the military and civilian pension plans. As this debt is sometime described as “owed to ourselves,” some experts focus on debt held by the public, which is currently $16 trillion (78 percent of GDP). Which measure matters more? Debt held by the public is the amount the U.S. Treasury borrows in global credit markets. Interest rates are prices adjusting to bring demands for borrowing – by businesses and households in addition to government – into line with the supply of funds from savers and investors. Publicly-held debt potentially crowds out productive investment. The intra-government debt is also real. The $800 billion the Treasury has borrowed from the Department of Defense’s pension program is supposed to pay retirement benefits, but was used for other Federal spending. If not repaid, military pensions would need to be paid out of current taxes. Does the national debt spell inevitable bankruptcy? Warren Buffett has observed that the debt is not necessarily a problem because it was higher relative to GDP at the end of World War II. Mr. Buffett’s observation highlights the importance of budget projections. We borrowed to fight World War II, and investors expected spending to decline precipitously after the war. It did, and debt fell below 40 percent of GDP during the 1950s. By contrast, spending is expected to increase significantly in the future. The most recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 30-year forecast projects Federal spending to increase from 20.6 to 27.9 percent of GDP. An aging population using more medical care will increase spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The CBO expects debt held by the public to reach 152 percent of GDP by 2048. This will be uncharted territory for the U.S. and could trigger a debt cycle through rising interest rates. Will debt at 150 percent of GDP mean bankruptcy? Perhaps. Greece has teetered on the verge of bankruptcy with debt at 180 percent of GDP. But Japan remains sound despite debt at 220 percent of GDP. Debate over insolvency obscures a common assumption that tax revenues will not rise significantly. The CBO, for instance, projects Federal revenues of 19.5 percent of GDP in the 2040s, only three percentage points higher than today. A Cato Institute analysis of fiscal imbalance kept tax revenue at current levels. Potential Federal insolvency demonstrates that we cannot afford a European-style welfare state without European-style taxes. This tension, I think, goes back to Ronald Reagan, who pursued tax cuts even though his desired spending cuts proved politically unachievable. Reagan set Federal spending on a collusion course with our distaste for taxes, likely hoping that his tax cuts would eventually force spending cuts. Maintaining Social Security and Medicare as they are given demographic changes will require paying more taxes. I am not advocating for higher taxes and would prefer downsizing government. We cannot, however, afford a Cadillac on the payments for a Chevy and will soon have to decide whether we are truly willing to pay for big government. … 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. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of Troy University.
