And as for you** Ogre**, suddenly it hit me! When you told Peace Lady to** “go fuck herself”** I understood. You are a card-carrying member of the Bob Riley Political Camp.
Now I understand your rush to disassociate youself with the term “pass-through pork project”. So when** BlueCanary** asked…
**“Pardon my Alabignorance, but what the Hell are pass-through pork projects ?” **
You fell over you feet rushing to explain________ (words to this effect “Arr…uh, hey listen, the term pass-through pork projects is not just used here in Alabama…” etc.
And you were, in fact, right. But you conveniently forgot to mention that the term was a most popular in-the-know phrase of those central to the promotion of the Riley tax plan.
Come clean dear Ogre, what was your job during the Tax Scheme War?
Sorry, sport. I’m an utterly unconnected federal employee. Nice try, gen’ral. Perhaps you would care to try a different color string tie to go with your handlebars?
Wow… I just started reading Straight Dope the other day, but I felt I needed to post in this thread. I am a Birmingham resident myself and show much of the same thoughts as Ogre. I feel we did our state and kids a huge disservice, and the impending cuts are going to adjudicate if there really was a “deficit.” I personally feel there was a deficit, however, many people bought into the Tax Accountability Coalition’s tripe that there was plenty of money. TAC is nothing more than the political arm of ALFA and the timber companies.
I have been really let down by what happened in this vote. I did think that it would get defeated, but I was hoping it wouldn’t be so bad. The citizens of Alabama, did give a clear message at the polls. They said we want to remain the 18th century and continue battling Mississippi for last place. One last tidbit of info I feel I should add. I didn’t vote for this because it wouldn’t have effected me. I have considerable assets and income, and my taxes would have increased by a good portion. I am in that Upper Class bracket that was going to start paying more. It isn’t as if I was getting a cut, or that I was not paying much to begin with.
I am disappointed in my state once again; I hope that we can pass some type of revenue maker in the coming months. Otherwise, we are going to continue being the state that everybody talks about, but they aren’t saying positive things!
Sorry to be so slow in responding, RTFirefly. I made a little three day run up to Nashville to see Auburn play Vanderbilt. Talk about poverty! Vandy’s small stadium wasn’t even full, and of the some 38,000 in attendance, it appeared that at least 30,000 were visitors from Auburn. Oh well, I digress.
My problems with Riley’s proposal were as follows:
He stated that he needed 625 million. The tax proposal would have raised 1.3 billion in the first year, with more likely if the economy improves. WTF?
The State legislature, which has proved very irresponsible in the past, would have had control over ALL of the new money. I don’t trust them to “Do the right thing”. No I don’t!
We’ve heard this same old story before, with the same predictions of dire consequences. Prisoners weren’t turned out and schools weren’t closed previously, and they won’t be this time either.
See, every time Alabama is about to get a new governor and set of legislators, the lame duck guys pass lots money and favors to their buddies before they go out of office. This overspending will fix itself in about two years. In plenty of time for the current group to do the same for their buddies before they go out. I don’t think we need to vastly increase the amounts of money these people can mis-spend.
The Alabama Power Company tax break is just a prime example of the deceit that was in this proposal. The lands division of Al. Power is strictly a timber business, separate from any electrical generating. If Alabama Power’s timber interests can’t afford to pay the new taxes, how can anybody else that’s in the timber business afford to pay? APC’s tax break was written into the language to get them to publicly support the proposal, which they did in full measure. (Surprise me!)
Example of things that could be “FIXED” in Montgomery: I ain’t fer sure, but I done been told that Alabama’s Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the delightful Roy Moore, is the highest paid person in that position in the United States. Why should Alabama’s Supreme Court Justice get paid more than New York’s or California’s, pray tell?
In closing, yes, we need some additional revenue here. This proposal wasn’t the way to get it, IMHO.
Welcome to the SDMB, Kleptocracy and Peace Lady. It usually pays newcomers to lurk awhile and get the feel of things here. Think twice, post once is a good rule of thumb, even for those who’ve been around awhile.
Enough money to cover the deficit, plus more flexible money to help bring this state out of the flower of King Cotton economy.
Uh, why has nobody even acknowledged the fact that the plan had accountability measures built in? There was a bipartisan non-legislature oversight committee built in, with required monthly meetings and a required annual report detailing all expenditures out of the fund. It made pet pork projects (and what else would the legislators misspend on?) a jailable offense. It required school admins to pass financial management courses, and required each school systems to hire chief financial officers to make sure the books balanced independently. Everybody’s harping on how the “legislature can spend the money on whatever nefarious expenses they want, including hookers and Mexican houseboys,” when it ain’t true.
Even if everything stays status quo, which I strongly doubt, how is that a good thing? Alabama schools suck (yeah yeah…in general,) there are no legislative controls on pork spending even on the level that the Riley Tax Plan was implementing, the tax code is blatantly, mockingly unfair, and we still can’t transfer funds where their needed because of the gimlet-eyed, cynical manner in which our code of law was written. Go us.
Uh, see point #2. That was sort of the point. “Let’s make it illegal to use state funds to pay for pet bullshit projects, cause, you know, it’s rampant now.”
What possible difference does it make if APC’s lands division produces power or not? If their taxes go up, power rates go up within the state. Period. Keep APC’s taxes down, and you won’t trickle prices down to the consumer within Alabama. What’s so tough about this? And how can other timber companies afford to pay if Alabama Power (who is not even primarily a timber company) can’t? What kind of logic is that? How ‘bout, for starters, because other timber industries make a whole freaking lot more money than Alabama Power does? According to International Paper’s latest Q-10, for one single example, they made 200 times more money last quarter than APC. And that’s not even a proper comparison, since you’d really have to compare APC’s profit on timber alone to International Paper’s profit. And if their taxes go up in little ol’ Alabama? Yeah. Office paper skyrockets a cent or two in price. Maybe.
And to Peace Lady, please accept my apology. I was inexcusably rude. I realize my thread started with an intemperate screed, and I shouldn’t have reacted petulantly when you responded in the same manner.
To Milum, however, who blatantly accused me of elitism and even racism, you do not, nor are you ever likely to, have an apology. Your argumentative tactics are utterly despicable, but that’s what I get for violating my self-imposed rule that I would ignore your ravings. I assure you it will not happen again.
I certainly would not have floated the lottery option, for one thing. That’s stupid on a number of levels, mainly because five days before the vote, Riley’s chief of staff (whose name escapes me) went on national television and said that the lottery would never be an option, because the people of Alabama had already overwhelmingly said they don’t want a lottery.
As I have said multiple times, I believe this plan was too ambitious. I believe a scaled-down version of this plan would be feasible (for example, take out the ridiculous “services” tax).
Ogre, my man, you have infinitely more faith in the average Alabama legislator than I do. I would no more give our state government “extra” money than I would give Otis Campbell “extra” moonshine to hold for me. In fact, that reminds me of a particularly apropos quote from P.J. O’Rourke: “Giving money and power to government is like giving liquor and car keys to teenage boys.” (Paraphrased, because I can’t remember the exact wording.)
Riley’s idea was good. But he made the mistake of overreaching. He was asked to bring a green-bean casserole to the pot-luck supper. He catered the whole thing from The Four Seasons, and presented us with the bill. That hacked people off.
This is not the end of Alabama as we know it, and frankly all the handwringing looks a little ridiculous.
OK, that’s what you wouldn’t do. So what can we do now? Just sweep the inequities under the rug, like we’ve been doing for most of the last 100 years?
I don’t see this happening. Now the very idea is poisoned. I can see the TAC’s new commercials already: “The voters of Alabama refused to kowtow to big business and the Montgomery fat cats once before. Now we have to do it again. They call it “tax reform.” We call it business as usual in Montgomery. Vote No on Amendment Whatever.”
And sure as heck, regardless of the enforcement measures explicit in the amendment (as happened this time,) it’ll be voted down.
I’m not sure “faith” was a requirement. There were fairly stringent mechanisms in the amendment itself to see that it didn’t turn into a “$1.3 billion slush fund” (TAC’s term.)
No, not the end…but will run out of money eventually, and if Alabama plods along without a hope in hell for serious reforms for another 30 years, you’ll have to pardon me if I don’t see that as a good thing.
I love this. You ask me “What would you do?” and when I tell you, you immediately say “That wouldn’t work.”
This is the PERFECT time to restructure a tax reform plan. The topic is fresh on the minds of the voters, and contrary to your belief, I think many (possibly a majority) favor tax reform. This particular plan wasn’t the right one, though.
You can keep talking about how there were “explicit/stringent” restrictions on how the money would be spent, but that won’t make it so. We’ve already examined this regarding the scholarship issue. If you refuse to see the complete lack of accountability in the scholarship funding … well, we’re never going to agree on what constitutes “explicit/stringent restrictions.”
Why do you think it’ll be another 30 years before another reform is attempted? My guess is, Riley will make some deep cuts in state funding, this will rile folks up, and another reform will be attempted within the next couple of years.
And people in Alabama will vote it down again. People don’t want to pay higher taxes even if it means better schools. They want to sit back and bitch about “our poor children” but the second anybody says a thing about raising taxes in any shape, form or fashion they stop listening. I don’t care if you earmark it, put it in the budget or hand walk a check to each and every school the minute they hear “raise taxes” people close their ears.
A little precision here, please. What I said was “I don’t see this happening.” I think you’re wrong. What’s wrong with arguing to that effect? You make it sound like I’m debating dishonestly.
Basically what you seem to be saying is that you would introduce a smaller version of the tax plan, right? Well, how would you do that without either 1) restructuring the Alabama constitution or 2) having the same strategic fiscal problems the Riley Tax Plan had, and thus opening yourself up to the same “slush fund” allegations? Remember that, as far as I can see, the tax code can be modified in two ways…either by amendment or by making it a nonconstitutional issue, and that would take a complete rewrite. All the TAC would really have to do is swing the corpse of the last attempt at reforms (the Riley plan) in front of the voters and scream, “They’re trying to do it again!” In spite of all the pooh-poohing over the ad campaign, yes, of course it was effective. Advertising works, people, especially when it plays off people’s native cynicism. Getting reforms through is always an uphill battle, because people are simply more comfortable with the devil they know than the possibility of change.
I don’t know what would qualify as “stringent controls” if criminal liability, financial management requirements, and mandatory independent book-balancing wouldn’t. Perhaps if they hired an independent accounting firm to keep track of the money, but I’m not sure that wouldn’t be seen as throwing another bone to big business too. Just what, in your opinion, would qualify as explicit/stringent controls and restrictions?
My guess is that Riley will make deep budget cuts, his name will be demonized by both Democrats and GOP’ers, he’ll be run out on a rail next election in favor of someone who is much more politically reliable, and “tax reform” will become a dim memory.
“Debating dishonestly” may be a bit harsh. I think you’re ignoring some of the basics of the discussion.
In my opinion, there were two main factors against the plan: TAC ran some seriously negative ads, thereby swaying public opinion, and small businesses were against it (due to the services tax, in my opinion).
What can be done? A few things. First, structure a reform that doesn’t penalize small businesses specifically. Second, get their buy-in and support up front, before you even release details of your plan. Third, attempt to get buy-in from the major landowners in the state. That probably won’t happen, because any meaningful tax reform is going to have to address property taxes. So, fourth, prepare an ad campaign demonizing those very land owners. “The big timber companies don’t want to pay their fair share of property tax in Alabama. Because of their strong-arm tactics, little Susie here has to sit in an overheated schoolroom for three months out of the school year.” Fifth, structure the plan so that a major portion of the tax proceeds are specifically earmarked for certain areas, with an expenditure ceiling and floor specifically outlined. Otherwise, the “slush fund” catcalls will begin.
Finally, yet most importantly, set the anticipated revenue from the tax plan BELOW what is needed to completely make the state solvent. Announce that in order to help make up the shortfall, and to avoid penalizing the taxpayers of the state more than necessary, the Governor, his staff, the judicial branch and the legislative branch of the state government will take an X percent pay cut. That won’t completely make up the shortfall, of course; budgets will still have to be cut in some areas. But the resulting PR windfall will help voters see that not only is the legislature determined to solve the budget crisis, it is willing to put its money where its mouth is regarding the financial problem.
Is it complete constitutional overhaul? No. But it’s a real effort at solving the perpetual budget crisis that would stand a hell of a lot better chance at passing than the behemoth Riley concocted.
I respectfully disagree, Aries28. I talked to a lot of voters who claimed they would vote for a tax increase if they could be “guaranteed” that a significant portion of the money would go for education. They didn’t want to give our legislators an open checkbook with the huge new revenues the defunct proposal would have produced.
Ahem Alabama Power Company’s timber operations should be as profitable as any other large landowner’s. Are we to believe that they are operating the power supply portion of their business at a loss? If not, they can pay the same taxes as anybody else.
Sure, they hold a gun at the lawmaker’s heads (“We’ll have to raise electric rates”) and get a break. I think that’s B.S.
Since Sauron is doing such an eloquent job of explaining other points I might argue, and since I’m very lazy, I’ll leave the rest to him.