Justin Bogie: State parks amendment is more of legislature’s fiscal malfeasance
In less than two weeks, Alabama voters will head to the polls to cast their votes in the 2022 Republican and Democratic primary elections. One question that both ballots will have in common is whether to approve a constitutional amendment that would provide additional funding to Alabama state parks and the Alabama Historical Commission. If the amendment passes, the state will issue $85 million in bonds that would be paid off over the next 20 years; $80 million of the funding would be dedicated towards state parks, while the remaining $5 million would fall under the jurisdiction of the Historical Commission. I’m not here to tell you that our state parks do or do not need the funding for maintenance, renovations, and upgrades to facilities. What I can tell you is the fact that our legislators have decided the only way to provide that funding is through taking on more state debt is just the latest example of the fiscal malfeasance we have witnessed over the past four years. As a refresher, Alabama’s state government began 2022 with more cash on hand than at any point in state history. Our government took $1.5 billion more in taxes from citizens last year than it expected to, resulting in a historic surplus. What did lawmakers do with that money? They put nearly all of it back into 2022 spending through a massive supplemental appropriations bill. They passed the largest budget in state history for fiscal year 2023, with almost $11 billion in combined spending. If revenues are higher than expected this year, like in 2021, that total is sure to climb. They gave raises to every state employee while providing only limited and targeted relief for the rest of Alabama’s citizens. The list goes on, but you get the point. It is unfathomable that somewhere in the almost $11 billion in spending approved for 2023 or the $1.5 billion in supplemental funding for 2022, the Alabama Legislature couldn’t find $85 million, less than 1% of next year’s budget, to dedicate towards state park projects. Instead, if approved by voters, the state will take on $85 million in new debt to finance the projects. But $85 million is just the start. The Alabama Legislative Services Agency estimates that debt service payments will be $6 million per year for the next 20 years, $120 million total. In other words, the state will pay an additional $35 million in interest costs to borrow the $85 million. Even if the projects are needed, why would the state take on new debt for what is the equivalent to a rounding error in the scale of an $11 billion budget, especially when Alabama’s government had more cash on hand than ever just a few months ago? Would you take out a 20-year loan to pay for your family’s dinner tonight if you have plenty of money sitting in the bank? Of course, you wouldn’t. If such a loan were even possible, the long-term costs would be much more than whatever you paid for your meal. No family would budget that way. So why does our legislature think it is acceptable? Maybe the answer is that they don’t care about the long-term costs because they aren’t spending their own money. They’re spending yours. The current class of legislators has shepherded a historic period of government expansion. Alabama’s government spending grew by 36% from 2019-2022, faster than California or New York. By borrowing the money to pay for state park projects, instead of spending $85 million next year, state government will only make the $6 million debt service payment. Meaning that they have an extra $79 million right now that they can funnel into whatever else they choose. Our legislators are out of touch with the people of Alabama when it comes to spending our taxpayer dollars. It is up to us to bring them back to reality. Justin Bogie is the Senior Director of Fiscal Policy for the Alabama Policy Institute.
Mo Brooks responds to January 6 subpoena
On Thursday, a House panel issued subpoenas to Mo Brooks and four other GOP lawmakers in its probe into January 6 Capitol attack. Brooks spoke alongside the former president at the massive rally in front of the White House on January 6, telling supporters to “start taking down names and kicking ass” before hundreds of them broke into the Capitol. Other lawmakers who were issued subpoenas were Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., and Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, and Andy Biggs of Arizona. Brooks issued a press release on the subpoena, calling the group the “partisan Witch Hunt Committee” and indicating he hadn’t been served with a subpoena yet. “Eighteen months have passed since the 2020 election without the partisan Witch Hunt Committee bothering to seek testimony from me,” Brooks stated in the press release. “It’s no coincidence Nancy Pelosi and Liz Cheney seek to interfere with Alabama’s electing a conservative Senator by coming after me at the most campaign intense time of the GOP Primary and Runoff elections. Pelosi and Cheney hate America First candidates. With the release of the ‘2000 Mules’ documentary, the American people are learning what I’ve said since the 2020 election: the 2020 election was stolen, and Donald Trump is the rightful winner,” Brooks commented. Brooks went on to say that he was proud to stand with President Donald Trump on January 6. “I have already given at least two sworn statements in federal court during Eric Swalwell’s losing effort to sue me, plus numerous other oral and written statements about events relating to January 6. I have given numerous House Floor speeches about voter fraud and election theft in the 2020 elections. To my knowledge, no other potential Witch Hunt Committee witness has been so publicly open about the 2020 elections and January 6 events. If the partisan Witch Hunt Committee wants my observations of events, all it has to do is read or listen to my numerous prior statements,” Brooks continued. Brooks then listed questions he had if he was issued with a subpoena. Brooks asked the following questions: 1. Will my testimony be public, where the American people can see first hand my testimony (without the prejudicial leaks the partisan Pelosi Witch Hunt Committee is renowned for)? 3. Will I be questioned by Members of Congress rather than their underlings? If I, as a Congressman, must be at a hearing, the least the partisan Witch Hunt Committee can do is put forth Congressmen (not underlings) to do the questioning. If Witch Hunt Committee Congressmen don’t think it worth their time to question me, why is it worth my time to answer them? 4. The media reports the Witch Hunt Committee seeks to depose five Congressmen. All are Republicans. I believe it wise to wait and consult with Congressmen Jim Jordan, Scott Perry, Andy Biggs, and Kevin McCarthy to determine whether it is best to present a united response to the partisan Witch Hunt Committee before giving a formal statement about how I intend to conduct myself in the face of a hyper-partisan effort to corruptly influence the 2022 general elections just as Democrats did in 2018 via the Russian Collusion Hoax.”
January 6 panel subpoenas Mo Brooks, four other GOP lawmakers
A House panel issued subpoenas Thursday to House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy and four other GOP lawmakers in its probe into the violent January 6 insurrection, an extraordinary step that has little precedent and is certain to further inflame partisan tensions over the 2021 attack. The panel is investigating McCarthy’s conversations with then-President Donald Trump the day of the attack and meetings the four other lawmakers had with the White House beforehand as Trump and his aides worked to overturn his 2020 election defeat. The former president’s supporters violently pushed past police that day, broke through windows and doors of the Capitol, and interrupted the certification of President Joe Biden’s victory. The decision to issue subpoenas to McCarthy, R-Calif., and Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, Andy Biggs of Arizona, and Mo Brooks of Alabama is a dramatic show of force by the panel, which has already interviewed nearly 1,000 witnesses and collected more than 100,000 documents as it investigates the worst attack on the Capitol in two centuries. The move is not without risk, as Republicans are favored to capture back the House majority in this fall’s midterm elections and have promised retribution for Democrats if they take control. After the announcement, McCarthy, who aspires to be House speaker, told reporters, “I have not seen a subpoena” and said his view on the January 6 committee has not changed since the nine-lawmaker panel asked for his voluntary cooperation earlier this year. “They’re not conducting a legitimate investigation,” McCarthy said. “Seems as though they just want to go after their political opponents.” Similarly, Perry told reporters the investigation is a “charade” and said the subpoena is “all about headlines.” Neither man said whether he would comply. The panel, made up of seven Democrats and two Republicans, had previously asked for voluntary cooperation from the five lawmakers, along with a handful of other GOP members, but all of them refused to speak with the panel, which debated for months whether to issue the subpoenas. “Before we hold our hearings next month, we wished to provide members the opportunity to discuss these matters with the committee voluntarily,” said Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, the Democratic chairman of the panel. “Regrettably, the individuals receiving subpoenas today have refused, and we’re forced to take this step to help ensure the committee uncovers facts concerning January 6th.” Rep. Liz Cheney, the panel’s Republican vice-chair, said the step wasn’t taken lightly. The unwillingness of the lawmakers to provide relevant information about the attack, she said, is “a very serious and grave situation.” Congressional subpoenas for sitting members of Congress, especially for a party leader, have little precedent in recent decades, and it is unclear what the consequences would be if any or all of the five men decline to comply. The House has voted to hold two other noncompliant witnesses, former Trump aides Steve Bannon and Mark Meadows, in contempt, referring their cases to the Justice Department. In announcing the subpoenas, the January 6 panel said there is historical precedent for the move and noted that the House Ethics Committee has “issued a number of subpoenas to members of Congress for testimony or documents,” though such actions are generally done secretly. “We recognize this is fairly unprecedented,” said Illinois Rep. Adam Kinzinger, the other GOP member of the panel, after the committee announced the subpoenas. “But the January 6 attack was very unprecedented.” Kinzinger said it is “important for us to get every piece of information we possibly can.” McCarthy has acknowledged he spoke with Trump on January 6 as Trump’s supporters were beating police outside the Capitol and forcing their way into the building. But he has not shared many details. The committee requested information about his conversations with Trump “before, during, and after” the riot. McCarthy took to the House floor after the rioters were cleared and said in a forceful speech that Trump “bears responsibility” for the attack and that it was the “saddest day I have ever had” in Congress — even as he went on to join 138 other House Republicans in voting to reject the election results. Another member of the GOP caucus, Washington Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, said after the attack that McCarthy had recounted that he told Trump to publicly “call off the riot” and said the violent mob was made up of Trump supporters, not far-left Antifa members, as Trump had claimed. “That’s when, according to McCarthy, the president said, ’Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,” Herrera Beutler said in a statement last year. The GOP leader soon made up with Trump, though, visiting him in Florida and rallying House Republicans to vote against investigations of the attack. The other four men were in touch with the White House for several weeks ahead of the insurrection, talking to Trump and his legal advisers about ways to stop the congressional electoral count on January 6 to certify Joe Biden’s victory. “These members include those who participated in meetings at the White House, those who had direct conversations with President Trump leading up to and during the attack on the Capitol, and those who were involved in the planning and coordination of certain activities on and before January 6th,” the committee said in a release. Brooks, who has since been critical of Trump, spoke alongside the former president at the massive rally in front of the White House the morning of January 6, telling supporters to “start taking down names and kicking ass” before hundreds of them broke into the Capitol. Perry spoke to the White House about replacing acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen with an official who was more sympathetic to Trump’s false claims of voter fraud, and Biggs was involved in plans to bring protesters to Washington and pressuring state officials to overturn the legitimate election results, according to the panel. Jordan, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, spoke to Trump on January 6 and was
Jack McPherrin: If Joe Biden is serious about tackling inflation, he should not cancel student loan debt
On May 10, President Joe Biden said that fighting ever-worsening inflation – sitting at 8.3% as of the just-released April Consumer Price Index (CPI) report – is his “top domestic priority.” He promised, “All of my plan is focused on lowering costs for the average family in America, to give them just a little bit of breathing room.” If that were true, he would immediately table all discussion of student loan forgiveness. Yet, the Biden administration has not wavered in its commitment to substantially reduce student loan debt for a wide portion of the American public. As of now, Biden is considering several options, and political pressure continues to mount from Democrats for more extreme measures. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) recently called upon Biden to cancel $50,000 in student debt for each borrower, exhorting: “Borrowers don’t just need their debts paused, they need them erased.” Actually, what the average American citizen needs is to be able to pay for food and gas again without taking a massive hit to their wallet. Over the past month, food prices climbed an entire percentage point. Gas prices have hit yet another record high of $4.41 per gallon, having been less than $3 a year ago. So, what would Schumer’s plan to cancel $50,000 per borrower do? Let’s examine data from the Department of Education’s “Direct Loan Portfolio by Borrower Debt Size.” Cumulatively, the 39.3 million individuals included in the report hold $1.37 trillion in student loan debt as of Q1 2022. If the Biden administration were to reduce the debt by $50k per individual, taking simple averages for the ranges higher than $50,000, it would total a $915 billion overall reduction. Parallel analyses have come to very similar conclusions. A recent publication from the Brookings Institution concludes this would be “among the largest transfer programs in American history.” Comparing this exorbitant one-time expenditure to the cumulative expenditures of transfer programs over the past 20 years, only three – unemployment insurance, earned income tax credits, and food stamps – have larger totals. And the difference is fairly negligible. If there is one thing we know about government transfer programs, it is that they act as massive stimuli for personal consumption expenditures (PCE). Each of the two periods since 1945 in which the United States has experienced substantial destabilizing inflation is marked by a precursor of heavy fiscal spending through welfare initiatives. In 1946-1947, inflation hit nearly 20%, largely as a result of FDR’s New Deal and massive government spending on World War II. Spiking inflation throughout the late 1960s and 1970s – though later exacerbated by downward oil supply shocks and transforming into “stagflation” due to bad monetary policy – was chiefly caused by President Lyndon Johnson’s unprecedented “Great Society” welfare policies. For our current episode, we only have to look at the fiscal packages enacted during COVID-19. As The New York Times recently illustrated, about $1.8 trillion in pandemic stimulus money went directly to individuals and families. When that money reached individual bank accounts in the latter half of 2020 and early 2021, much of it was immediately inserted into the economy. A recent study from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) found 42% of stimulus benefits went towards consumer spending. Forty-two percent of $1.8 trillion is approximately $750 billion. PCE and the overall inflation rate subsequently skyrocketed side-by-side. As measured by the Federal Reserve, PCE rose 9% from $15.46 trillion in March of 2021 to $16.8 trillion in March of 2022. It is not a coincidence that inflation rose a nearly identical 8.5% – for the highest annual jump since 1981 – over the same period. There is little doubt that a causal link exists between Biden’s profligate spending and the rapid inflationary onset. Despite Biden’s claims to the contrary, even Treasury Secretary Yellen recently admitted that fiscal and monetary stimuli have substantially contributed to inflationary pressure. Now, Biden wants to double down by giving nearly 40 million Americans more “free” money. The difference between COVID-19 payments and debt cancellation, however, is the heterogeneity of the recipients. The aforementioned NBER study found that 31% of transfer payments went towards debt payments because many liquidity-strained households were underwater with bills. One of the striking aspects about student loan forgiveness is that it benefits those in high- and middle-income brackets. College-educated individuals are significantly more likely to have higher incomes and are able to pay their bills without needing to be subsidized. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) estimates 30% of a widespread debt cancellation would go toward the highest income quintile, with only 5% going to those at the bottom. Similarly, well-off individuals have gained the most from the ongoing payment pause during the pandemic. Due to the pause alone, a typical new doctor will have averaged $60,000 in debt forgiveness by August 31 – the current end of the moratorium – while a new lawyer will have received $37,000. So, when households have their student debt slates wiped clean and don’t have other debts to pay, where will that money go? Some will be saved, yes. But, just as much, if not more, will flood into the economy, further devaluing the dollar. A spending shock of hundreds of billions of dollars is not what the economy needs. Moreover, such a move would permanently adjust household spending habits, sustaining their spending over a longer period and potentially exacerbating the elapsed inflationary period. Frankly, Biden should move in the opposite direction and rescind the moratorium on payments. If all 40 million borrowers had to pay their average of $300 per month once again, it would reduce economic activity by $12 billion a month, limit spending habits, and perhaps even cause a small decrease in inflation over time. Moreover, it would prevent further disincentivizing of labor. Not to mention it would uphold the sanctity of contracts, which is fundamental to maintaining social and economic trust. Yet, Biden will not do this because he is desperate for political support. Biden has paused payments until just before the midterm elections by
Biden administration cancels new oil leases as gas prices hit record highs
President Joe Biden canceled three pending oil and gas drilling leases in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico this week as gas prices hit record highs. Biden has taken heavy fire for blocking new leases and pipelines as energy costs have surged but has defended his record. This latest development intensified that criticism. “It’s day 477 of the Biden administration, we have record gas prices, and they have still not leased one acre of land to drill oil,” Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, said. The Department of Interior announced the decision late Wednesday, saying there was not enough industry interest in the areas. Experts argue the Biden administration’s fight to cancel all oil and gas leasing has made it risky and unappealing for the oil and gas industry to begin new investments in the U.S. The Alaska lease had difficulty receiving interest at certain points in the past before Biden took office. “Canceling oil and gas leases is part of Biden’s ongoing punishing of the industry including threatening banks for lending and investment,” said Daniel Turner, executive director of the energy workers advocacy group, Power the Future. “We are all living the consequence: outrageously high prices and growing shortages.” The decision comes just days after the U.S. hit record-high gas prices. According to AAA, the national average gas price is currently $4.42, up from $3 per gallon the same time last year, when prices had already begun to rise. Federal inflation data released Wednesday also showed a slight decline in energy costs in April but still overall a major increase in energy prices in the past year. Biden blocked all new oil and gas leasing on federal lands via executive order shortly after taking office, but a federal judge overturned that decision. Earlier this week, the White House defended Biden’s work on energy costs. “He’s also taken steps that are definitely smaller but meant to do anything possible, including issuing a waiver for E15 so that thousands of pumps in the Midwest could have gasoline that – and make it available to Americans so that that’s 10 cents less,” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said. “He also has noted … that oil companies should also do their part in ensuring they’re not price-gouging customers at the pump. As oil prices come down, so should gas prices at the pump. And that’s also something that we are going to continue to watch closely and continue to call on steps to be taken.” Meanwhile, many Republicans blasted Biden for the decision. “As gas prices hit an all-time high in the USA, [the president] canceled a vital round of oil and gas lease sales this morning,” Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, said. “High gas prices are preventable. Democrats are putting woke politics ahead of American families.” They also pointed to the record-high gas prices. “Yesterday Americans paid the highest price for gasoline in history,” Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said. “At the same time Biden just cancelled our largest pending American oil [and] gas lease sale” Critics say Biden’s green agenda has Americans paying the price. “Biden has repeatedly said he is doing everything in his power to lower gas prices, but then he pushes policies like this which cripple the industry’s ability to produce,” Turner said. “It also scares off any investment. Joe Biden made it clear in his campaign that he believes fossil fuels are the enemy. By making them scarce and expensive he creates a narrative to push his green agenda.” Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
Judge expected to rule Florida congressional maps are unconstitutional
A Florida circuit judge said in a hearing Wednesday that he intended to rule against the state in a lawsuit brought over Florida’s recently approved redistricting plan. Once the judge makes the ruling, the state will appeal. The lawsuit, like the previous redistricting lawsuit last decade, is expected to be decided by the state Supreme Court. The conflict between Florida Democrats and Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis over redistricting has been brewing since January, when the governor, through his general counsel Ryan Newman, proposed a different congressional map than the one the legislature had been working on for months. The governor’s plan, Newman argued, “adheres to federal and state requirements and addresses our legal concerns, while working to increase district compactness, minimize county splits where feasible, and protect minority voting populations.” Nevertheless, the state legislature continued with its redistricting plan and passed its own congressional maps with bipartisan support. DeSantis then vetoed their plan on March 31. “We have a responsibility to produce maps for our citizens that do not contain unconstitutional racial gerrymanders,” he said when he announced the veto. The legislature’s plan, he argued, violated the U.S. Constitution. DeSantis then called a three-day special session in April directing the legislature to approve new congressional maps mirroring his plan. When the legislature met to debate and vote on the plan, the Black Democratic Caucus held a sit-in, wouldn’t allow for debate, and disrupted legislative proceedings for about an hour. Once House Speaker Chris Sprowls called the session back to order, he moved to vote on all bills, including the redistricting plan. Then, the Republican majority approved all of the bills while Democrats jeered. DeSantis then signed four bills into law on April 23. Two prompted lawsuits, including one filed by former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and activist groups, over the redistricting plan. They argued the new maps violated the Fair Districts amendment to the Florida Constitution and illegally favored Republicans and disenfranchised Black voters. In a virtual hearing held Wednesday before Judge J. Layne Smith of the 2nd Circuit Court of Florida, DeSantis’ plan hit another roadblock. The judge said he intends to issue an order granting the plaintiff’s request for an injunction, which would temporarily block the congressional maps from going into effect. While he couldn’t determine if the new maps violated the federal Voting Rights Act, he said, said, “I am finding the enacted map is unconstitutional under the Fair districts amendment because it diminishes African Americans’ ability to elect the representative of their choice.” He also said he wasn’t going to order the legislature “to go back in session [to fix it]. I don’t really think that’s up to me.” His order could come as soon as Thursday, although no date has yet to be determined. In response, DeSantis’ spokeswoman Taryn Fenske said in a statement, “As Judge Smith implied, these complex constitutional matters of law were always going to be decided at the appellate level. We will undoubtedly be appealing his ruling and are confident the constitutional map enacted by the Florida legislature and signed into law passes legal muster. We look forward to defending it.” County elections supervisors have said they need finalized maps by the end of the month. The primary election is August 23. The First District Court of Appeal in Tallahassee could hear the case or send it to the state Supreme Court. The matter could also be added to another special legislative session that DeSantis called for the week before Memorial Day weekend when the legislature will convene to address property insurance reform. The last redistricting lawsuit was decided by the state Supreme Court last decade after going through years of legal battles. Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
