Tuesday, March 2 dawned with snow… fluffy chunks of what Les Phillip calls “Goreflakes”.
The Republican Women of Huntsville held a gubernatorial forum at the Ledges, which is a beautiful place any day, but it was spectacularly beautiful in the snow. Tim James on his Facebook said “the snow up in the hills was absolutely breathtaking”.
The forum was moderated by WBHP’s Will Anderson, who did a fine job of asking questions and pressing for answers. I got to meet Will in person after the event – he recognized my name but couldn’t place it – I mentioned that I’d called his show once before and that we’d talked about Obama’s looming defense and NASA cuts (which have since happened). I was impressed that Will recalled the conversation. We also talked about Brian’s social skills (”wounded rat”) and Will’s compliments to Brian’s posts (calling Flashpoint the “Heritage Foundation of Alabama”).
The forum agenda called for each of the five candidates attending (Robert Bentley, Bradley Byrne, Kay Ivey, Tim James, and Bill Johnson) to give a short opening speech, followed by three questions each, and ending with closing remarks. Here are some snippets:
Kay Ivey – “it’s women who manage money”
Bradley Byrne – “the #1 issue is not bingo, it’s putting our people back to work”
Bill Johnson – asked about education said “not everyone will go to college” and proposed improving technical and trade education
Bradley Byrne – asked about education said “we shouldn’t let the Vice-Chair of the Democratic Party (AEA’s Paul Hubbert) rob our children of their future”
Robert Bentley – asked about health care said “form Health Insurance Exchange” and ’scholarships for medical students with committments to practice in underserved areas’
Kay Ivey – asked about her greatest single skill said “leadership standing on principle” and mentioned that she’s been vilified for PACT but that “Governors don’t get to choose crises”
Tim James – about PACT said “the problem is we lost balance” and that trust fund money should be more carefully invested
Bill Johnson – “always votes against taxes” because “it’s personal”
Tim James – “I’m a businessman” who’s “created private sector jobs”
Robert Bentley – “the State is in pain and you need a Doctor”
Thanks to the Republican Women of Huntsville for a great event – there were more than 250 people there – what a turnout! I think the GOP is going to have a good year…
First, go read an outline of the gambling bill Senator Paul Sanford is planning to propose. While I’ll wait until I can read the actual bill itself (remember, the devil hides in the details) it sounds like a bill I would write myself.
The key element from my perspective is introducing competition to the process and eliminating the constitutionally protected monopolies. If we’re going to have gaming then there must be competition.
I also like that he would ditch the absurd “bingo” pretense and call the machines what they are: slot machines. The very spectacle of grown men and women arguing over bingo – a child’s game – is just sad. They are slot machines, so let’s call them slot machines.
Another thing I like about the bill is that it calls people out. If the current bingo bill backers really want the people to vote then they should embrace this bill since it would give them the votes necessary to move forward. If they don’t then it just shows that their current motives are not letting the people speak, but giving a handful of gambling interests government sanctioned and protected profits. On the other side of the aisle I’ve heard complaints that the Sweet Home Alabama bill is a “bad bill” (I’ve made such an argument). Sanford’s bill addresses the concerns I’ve heard. Are some Republicans going to get on board or are they going to find new and creative reasons to oppose this bill?
I suppose this is as good a place as any to lay out where I stand on the issue of gambling in general. I like freedom. I don’t believe the government exists to protect you from yourself. I acknowledge that gambling brings with it a host of social ills. So do any number of other perfectly legal “vices.” Some people abuse alcohol and let it destroy lives. Some people eat a sugary, high fat diet and suffer from obesity related ailments that can cause death. Nonetheless, I support letting grown people decide how they want to live their lives.
I understand some of my conservative friends oppose gambling. That’s fine, everyone doesn’t have to agree with me. Just say so. Don’t mask your opposition behind a maze of increasingly bizarre arguments. Just say, “I oppose gambling, period.” But don’t make the mistake of assuming that opposing gambling is a prerequisite to being considered a “conservative” (if we must use labels). I know plenty of conservative people who enjoy playing slots, betting on football, or playing cards. And of course it is possible to be a conservative who supports letting others gamble while having no strong personal preference.
Also, keep in mind the fact that Sanford’s bill would have to pass a vote of the people as a constitutional amendment. I’m all for legislators holding up poorly constructed legislation (like the “Sweet Home Alabama” bill) and preventing the people from voting on it. But it is better to settle contentious issues by letting people vote on a well conceived bill. One question I have is what happens if Sanford’s bill makes it to the ballot and it fails? Would that be a repudiation of “electronic bingo” and render it illegal once and for all?
This is an example of why I believe Sanford is a great state senator. He’s most certainly going to take flak from the “no gambling, no matter what” faction of the GOP, which includes Gov. Riley. But he isn’t a water carrier for the party. He’s his own man and in this case he is clearly seeking out the best way to address a problem that needs to be addressed.
Senator Paul Sanford to propose new gambling bill; “move the bingo debate in a new, honest direction”
Sanford’s press release is below. I’ll offer up some thoughts later, but I like what I see so far. It sounds like a bill I would support and an amendment I would vote for.
(MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA)—Senator Paul Sanford (R-Huntsville) had been working with both sides of the electronic bingo issue (SB380) to try and clean up the bill before it came up for debate in the state senate. After a few attempts to reconcile the differences of both sides, Sen. Sanford’s desired concessions were not met. Within the next day or two he will be releasing a new bill drafted by the Legislative Reference Service that will shrink the size of the constitutional amendment and simplify the issue to a basic up or down vote of the people in November.
“I desire nothing more than to move the ‘bingo’ debate in a new, honest direction – one that is more simplistic, straight-forward, and transparent. It has bogged down the Legislature for years, and it is time to put this issue to rest and move on with the other pressing business in Alabama, like getting our economy back on track,” Senator Sanford said. “We all realize this subject has been a ‘grey’ area of the law, but it’s time for the voters to turn grey into either black or white with a bill that is not dripping in special interest tinkering,” he continued.
Senator Sanford said the original Senate Bill 380 and subsequent substitutions, none of which were released for official debate, were too “stuck in the mud” with unfair special treatment for a select few. His bill, which will be released on his websites (senatorsanford.com and sanfordforsenate.com), pairs down the debate to a straight up or down vote of the people. The bill will also at least do the following:
- Refer to the current machines in use as “slot machines” instead of “bingo”;
- Legalize, tax and regulate slot machine casinos in a few pages instead of the current 48-page constitutional amendment full of fine print that nobody reads or understands;
- Place casino licenses up for bid so the taxpayers, instead of casino bosses, get the best deal
- Add prohibitions of campaign contributions from the gambling interest to those who appoint the Gaming Commission and to the Legislature ; and
- Establish a minimum tax rate of 50% to make sure we’re not “giving away the store”
“I ask that all current supporters of SB380 join me in support of my new bill, because, its is, in its simplest form, accomplishing the same basic tenet of placing this issue before the people for a vote,” said Sen. Sanford. “That is the argument that supporters of the current bill are using in their PR campaign, paid advertising, and discussions with undecided legislators. So why would anyone who supports SB380 not join me in my more basic and straight-forward bill that meets the same goal?” he continued.
Senator Sanford said his tracking of correspondence from constituents is running eighty percent to twenty percent in favor of putting the issue to a vote of the people so long as the bill is not putting the power in the hands of a few monopolies.
“One thing I have learned from the arrogance of the U.S. Congress related to ‘healthcare reform’ is that elected officials better listen to the folks back home, and that’s what I’m doing but I just couldn’t support a non-competitive bill that didn’t have the best interest of the State at heart. I was elected as a ‘citizen lawmaker,’ and if the people of my district want to be able to vote on this issue, that’s what I’m going to give them the opportunity to do,” Sen. Sanford stated. “If this does make its way to the ballot box in November, I ask that voters do their due diligence on the issue and not make a decision based on any slick advertising campaign but on the true facts and information,” he finished.
| March 2, 2010 | ||
| 6:15 pm | to | 8:00 pm |
The Huntsville Governors Forum will be held Tuesday, March 2, 2010 at the Davidson Center. The forum will start at 6:15PM and the public is invited.
The Huntsville Times wrote “Six of seven Republican candidates for Alabama governor to appear at forum”:
The forum will be moderated by a panel including retired Lt. Gen. Jim Link, former commanding general of Redstone Arsenal and former president of Teledyne Brown Engineering; Gary Palmer, president of the Alabama Policy Institute; and former Huntsville Mayor Loretta Spencer.
“Huntsville and North Alabama have not always been at the ‘epicenter of attention’ for candidates for political office, but I believe the scope and size of the Huntsville Governors Forum shows that we are gaining influence in the state’s political process,” said Clinton Carter, chair of the Madison County Young Republicans and the forum’s chair. “We feel that the forum will provide a great opportunity for voters to hear directly from the Republican candidates for governor, including where they stand on a variety of issues that are important to Huntsvillians.”
The forum will commence with the Presentation of the Colors by Butler High School’s Air Force ROTC Color Guard, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation.
Each panelist will ask two questions – each candidate will have 90 seconds to respond to each question (which is a long time in forum time). We’ve scheduled an hour for all three panelists to ask their two questions and get responses from the six candidates (remember – 90 second answers).
We’ve scheduled 15 minutes for a ten question “Lightning Round”. Each candidate gets 30 seconds to respond to these questions ranging from Free the Hops Brewery Modernization to charter schools to improving trade and technical schools, along with the obligatory gambling question. We’ve tried to come up with some questions that are different from those asked at other venues…
We’ve also scheduled 15 minutes for a potentially exciting “Round Robin”, where each candidate gets to directly ask one other candidate a question.
Even though the Forum is competing with NCIS, we expect to have a fine turnout and we’d love to see YOU there!
Thanks to The Huntsville Times for writing about the Huntsville Governors Forum – I think that the event will generate some news content for you…
The PACT bill that just passed the Alabama House, which I discussed earlier, includes a controversial tuition cap for PACT participants. I wondered just what the impact of the tuition cap would be, so I started researching and crunching the numbers. Two general observations:
- The PACT program is shockingly underfunded.
- The tuition cap would cost universities &/or non-PACT parents A LOT of money.
First the financial status of PACT, based on the 30 Sept. 2009 Actuarial Report. The program has a current deficit of $345,666,097 – over 1/3 of a billion dollars. It will run out of money in the 2016 fiscal year. If it keeps paying out tuition as promised then it will be over one billion dollars in the red by 2024. Yeah, we’re talking about a lot of money.
Now for the tuition cap…
I started to calculate the cost of tuition based on the varying estimates I’ve seen for things like enrollment, anticipated rate of increase in tuition, etc. Then I realized there is a much more direct way. The Actuarial Report includes a table that shows anticipated outlays for tuition by year assuming PACT students pay the same tuition as non PACT students. The PACT bill that just passed the House specifies how much money will come from the Education Trust Fund by year. The bill forces the difference to be absorbed by universities.
At the beginning of the 2014 fiscal year the PACT program will have $227.5 million in assets. It will have to pay out $765.4 million in tuition from 2014 to 2021. Only $235.5 million will be taken from the ETF. That means colleges and universities will take a $302.4 million hit. (Note: I’m neglecting the time value of money for the sake of simplicity)
If you’re the parent of a non-PACT child who plans on attending college during this period of time then this should really bother you. There are really only two ways universities can deal with this. One is to offer decreased services – i.e. a lower quality education (not a good option for anyone involved). The other is to defray the cost by passing it along to non-PACT students.
Based on the numbers provided in the PACT report there are about 150,000 total students at Alabama’s universities and two-year colleges. From 2014 to 2021 there will be an average of 7,738 PACT students each year. That means each of the 142,262 non-PACT students could pay a $265 per year penalty to prevent schools from cutting back on the quality of education.
That penalty will be on top of significantly higher tuition non-PACT students will pay. The bill freezes tuition at 2009 levels until 2021. It will be allowed to rise by no more than 2.5% per year if two criteria are met:
- Two consecutive years of growth of the PACT fund in excess of 5%
- The PACT does not fall below a funding level of 90%
To put it in more clear terms: PACT tuition will not rise under this bill. The program is currently funded at 62% and by 2014 it will be down to 23%. I would put the odds of the program miraculously getting back to 90% with only the ETF band-aid somewhere between zero and hell freezing over. Tuition tends to increase about 8% per year. So, for example, in 2021 non-PACT students will pay $17,436 per year for tuition at Auburn, while PACT students will only pay $6,924. Factor in the “PACT penalty” and non-PACT students will pay $10,777 more per year than PACT students. In the event hell does freeze over and the PACT tuition is allowed to increase 2.5% every year then non-PACT students will still pay $8,389 more per year.
This highlights the problem with tuition caps. Granted, if the legislature sees fit to bail out the PACT program then the money has to come from somewhere. But it would be best to spread that burden over a broad base of taxpayers to soften the blow. Shifting the costs to universities (actually non-PACT students) focuses the costs on a small group of people – people who had no culpability in the PACT problems.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m sympathetic to the plight of PACT holders. They’re victims of a Ponzi scheme. That really, really sucks. But I don’t think it is reasonable for non-PACT parents to pay for that misfortune.
A few days ago I received a mailer from Parker Griffith that looked an awful lot like a run of the mill campaign flyer. It did include a request for recipients to contact Griffith and let him know how he is doing. I meant to keep it, but I left it in harm’s way and my wife threw it in the garbage can. Well, it turns out that the flyer included this little nugget in fine print:
This mailing was prepared, published and mailed at taxpayer expense.
It is provided as a service to 5th Congressional District constituents.
Thanks for that critical service! Mailing out what amounts to a campaign flyer at taxpayer expense in the months before a primary election is not only a critical service, but demonstrates what a committed fiscal conservative Griffith has become. He cherishes every dollar of Democrat donations he has in his campaign coffers and minimized the use of that money in favor of using the free money so readily available in D.C.
If you got one of these mailers please scan it and send it to me.
Dale Jackson’s WVNN candidate get together at Mason’s last Friday was a success – about 250 people and 20 officials and candidates attended. Mason’s bartenders and servers looked great in their Free the Hops t-shirts – thank you to Scott and Michael for your support. For an example of the types of discussions one might have with elected officials and candidates, I spoke with:
- Senate 9 GOP candidate Don Spurlin about Alabama’s residential building codes, licensing, and inspection – we both support adoption of a State-wide system (so does the Builder’s Association) rather than the current hodge-podge which potentially allows sub-standard housing.
- Madison County Commissioner and GOP Congressional candidate Mo Brooks, who says he is “not warm and fuzzy”. I like Mo and we talked about a few issues but mostly chatted.
- State Representative Randy Hinshaw (D-21) about Mexican food and gambling. I like getting Randy’s perspective on issues, whether or not we agree (and on many issues we do), he is a force in Montgomery.
***
I visited the Wind Creek Casino in Atmore last week – the casino was fairly crowded since they’re the only game in town. In addition, the Poarch Creeks have a nice convention / meeting capability. The hotel room was really nice – earthy decor, amenities like in-room fridge and two-headed shower, and comfy bedding. The on-site restaurants were outstanding – locals eat there and don’t even gamble. I also got to see some of the Magnolia Branch Wildlife Reserve - I’d sure like to make time to canoe Escambia Creek – sandy bottoms and blackish water.
Speaking of gambling – the bingo machines are still illegal slot machines:
the Alabama Supreme Court has already ruled that slot machine gambling, no matter if it’s called “bingo” or something else, is illegal (Barber v. Jefferson County Racing Association, 2006). After this ruling, another court ruled specifically that electronic bingo was an illegal slot machine (VFW v. Green, 2008).
It’s a shame that the Alabama legislature and law enforcement have let this mess get out of hand - and the legislation coming up next week looks to be just as shameful.
I do not support the State selecting a few big mules for gambling concessions – if we legalize gambling I’d like to see a free market system – like Harrah’s and MGM Mirage (Beau Rivage) and Sam’s Town.
The Creeks have a protected status because of Federal law (Indian Gaming Regulatory Act) – they can have whatever gaming is allowed in the State. What they can have is regulated by the State, under three classes of gaming defined by the State. Class I gaming is traditional Indian games, Class II is electronic bingo (but slot machines are not protected under Federal law!), and Class III is slots, table games like roulette and blackjack.
Since the State outlaws gaming – and is now enforcing the law – it looks like the Creek’s $245 million hotel / casino gamble is at risk. Gambling Task Force leader John Tyson says that he’s saving the Creeks for last in the State’s gambling raids.
Some people (Democrats) have made comments about how the Alabama Supreme Court is full of “activist judges”, because they defined a six-point set of rules for what constitutes ‘bingo’. The Dems imply that Republicans are hypocrites because they rail against activist judges even as the GOP-dominated Court ‘makes laws from the bench’. Just like many things Democrats say – this is bogus.
Here is the criteria provided in the supreme court ruling:
- Each player uses one or more cards with spaces arranged in five columns and five rows, with an alphanumeric or similar designation assigned to each space.
- Alphanumeric or similar designations are randomly drawn and announced one by one.
- Each player must pay attention to the values announced in order to play. If one of the values matches a value on one or more of the player’s cards, the player must physically act by marking his or her card accordingly.
- A player may miss an opportunity to be declared a winner by failing to pay proper attention or to properly mark his or her card.
- A player must recognize that his or her card has a ” bingo,” i.e., a predetermined pattern of matching values, and in turn announce to the other players and the announcer that this is the case before any other player does so.
- The game of bingo contemplates a group activity in which multiple players compete against each other to be the first to properly mark a card with the predetermined winning pattern and announce the fact.
Turns out that the Alabama Supreme Court applied a widely available test to differentiate Class II bingo from Class III slots – not really legislating from the bench. After a couple of hours of personal testing and observation of the machines at Wind Creek – IMO the machines do not meet the tests, especially points 3, 4, and 5 – once you start playing the bingo / slot machine there is no player interaction.
Note that if the Creeks wanted, they could host Poker tournaments where players compete against each other – as long as the player doesn’t play against the house it’s considered Class II gaming (and outside State regulation).
I’m still unclear on how the dog tracks and pari-mutuel betting play into all this…
If the State Legislature wants to legalize casinos, they need to legalize Class III gaming. BTW the Indians don’t have to negotiate with (or pay special taxes to) the State unless Class III gaming is legal.
On the other hand, if the State wants to outlaw gambling – we need to outlaw the pari-mutuel betting dog tracks. That would fix a lot of problems – they haven’t done anything for the State except make a few big mules rich and finance the Democrat Party – on the carcasses of dead dogs…
One thing the Creeks have done that bothers me is contributing $600,000 to John Teague’s PACs – Teague was involved in the Smithwick School Board hijacking – he has no respect for the electoral process. I hope that the Creeks find a more reputable political consultant.
***
Parker Griffith and the Fair Tax – I’ll go ahead and acknowledge Brian’s point that Griffith is pandering – but I’ll also say it’s a win for the Fair Tax. Regardless of Griffith’s motives he realized that he needed to support the Fair Tax to win. AL05 Congressional candidates Les Phillip and Mo Brooks have both signed the Fair Tax Pledge. Griffith just removed that issue from the table, which is pretty slick politicking.
Alabama Congressmen Jo Bonner (AL01) and Spencer Bachus (AL06) are both co-sponsors of the Fair Tax. If Griffith in his new-found conservative activism can convince his buddies Senators Shelby and Sessions (or others) to co-sponsor the Fair Tax and credit Griffith’s influence, then he will have solid credentials in what has become a bedrock issue among area Republicans.
Congratulations to the Fair Tax volunteers and supporters for making the Fair Tax a gateway issue to election.
On Wednesday the local FairTax group sent out an email declaring that Parker Griffith has agreed to sign on as a cosponsor of the bill (H.R. 25). Before anyone gets too excited I hope they consider his history of cosponsoring legislation strictly to curry favor with voters only to actively oppose that same legislation in the legislature. Just two years ago Griffith did not support the FairTax and wouldn’t give FairTax supporters the time of day. I can only hope voters see this as just another shameless pander by Griffith.
BTW, if anyone has a copy of the video from the two WHNT AL-05 candidate debates from 2008 please send me a copy. They’ve removed the video from their website.
Oh, and the GOP put Griffith on a “Truth Squad” in support of yesterday’s health care forum. Seriously! I guess they haven’t known him long enough to see why that would be funny.
