Defense is the one thing this nation should be doing.

This is not handouts, it is pay for a service.

Is it bloated and ridiculous at times, you bet. But that doesn’t mean the area is on the teat.

Will be fun to see what happens as federal budget realities sink in and programs get cut.

And another cheery thought, as the word gets around the Huntsville streets are paved with gold, who flocks in seeking any of the numerous unskilled jobs prosperity provides and what party will they vote for? Watching folks cope with demographic change is fascinating.

I think that would be fine. A simple formula would make transportation funding / planning more predictable. Our problem here in Madison County is that we were getting back 53% of the gas taxes we paid for road projects – even as we were among the fastest growing parts of the State (recently we’ve been getting 94%).

Davis supposedly supports a ‘formula’ – what is it?

Madison County leaders are not end-running their responsibilities. The gas tax pledge addresses the problem head-on. For years, the State was content to shortchange us and our local governments built roads to take up the slack – but we’re getting overwhelmed and need to use more of our money around here.

Building in depressed areas is a gamble, supporting proven economic engines is good government.

waltm – good one – you know I love Chilton County peaches. Under the 80% formula, 20% is still available for State-wide needs. I’d be in favor of Chilton County keeping their 80%, and as a relatively fast growing area (IIRC), getting a bit more from the State-wide pool.

You should research and take stock of the entire situation and analyze all the key players involved before spouting off about people being cowards and everyone jumping on the “redistribute and shut up” bandwagon.

Thanks for reading my previous column on this matter. For reasons I outlined there, I couldn’t disagree more with your post here.

Just because local leaders think it’s a good idea doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. What if the local leaders in Auburn and Opelika or Tuscaloosa wanted to hold on to 80 percent of what is generated in their areas? I doubt that would be favorably received by the rest of the state — and rightfully so.

The whole purpose of a funding formula is to redistribute the state’s wealth based on need around the state. Simply returning the money based on its generation point is actually contrary to the whole idea of the formula.

I don’t deny that there are legitimate needs to be met in Madison. I just have a problem with Madison leaders trying to meet them by end-running around their responsibilities. They have options at their disposal, as I outlined in the column. They are just simply unwilling to make the case and take the political heat that may come with exercising those options. In short, their approach is political cowardice.

And legislators who represent Madison have a lot to answer for. Why have they not delivered from Montomgery if the needs are there? They have failed their constituents.

And yes, that bit about social engineering is your opinion. Investing in depressed areas to prepare it for economic development that will allow it to sustain itself and produce money not only for its own needs but for those of the rest of the state is not social engineering. It’s good government.

“Ill-advised”? The major elected leaders of this County’s governments (of both parties) support the “at least 80%” formula. It makes sense to commit funds to the area in which the funds were generated and support the economic development that generate the taxes.

Davis indicated that he supported some version of a formula, but IMO a Davis-formula would have less to do with economics and supporting local needs and more to do with social engineering (the worst sort of senseless pandering).