…tomorrow! There are two statewide constitutional amendments on the ballot. The first would raise the state’s debt limit by $400 million to allow a governor’s commission to borrow money for industrial incentives. The second would guarantee that trusts set up to pay retiree health care costs could not be used for other purposes in the future.
Here is the text you’ll see on your ballot. Amendment One is tied to Act 2007-005; Amendment Two is tied to Act 2007-007. There will also be local amendments for Mobile County (Prichard foreign trade zone redux) and Shelby County (traffic law enforcement for the ever-expanding subdivisions).
Both the Anniston Star and the Huntsville Times support passage of both statewide amendments. I’ve seen serious opposition to Amendment One from various points on the political spectrum, primarily because the industrial incentives are seen as unnecessary giveaways to companies that would be likely to locate in Alabama anyway, possibly to the detriment of companies with a long history of investment in and commitment to Alabama.
My advice? Read up on the amendments, make your decision, and VOTE!
Ummm, Kathy….need some direction here. I read all this in the paper, and I am not sure if I am for it or not. I rely upon you for political guidance, so please guide me!!!
Jennifer, there was a reason I didn’t just spout my opinion in the post. I, like you, know what I’ve read in the paper, and I’m not sure of the merits of either amendment.
Here’s my two cents’ worth. Amendment Two first — while it’s certainly a worthy goal to preserve the funds set aside for retiree health benefits, I have a general objection to earmarking through our constitution. Once it’s done, it’s almost impossible to undo, even when it’s in the best interest of the state. We’ve done that in the past to our detriment, e.g. the gasoline taxes that can only be used for roads and bridges — not a dime for public transportation. The constitution is supposed to be our basic governing document; instead it is full of legislation that should be part of the state code but not part of the state constitution.
As for Amendment One, my gut reaction is to vote no. ThyssenKrupp is coming here anyway. I’m a little tired of state government giving away the store to lure new businesses that would be inclined to come here anyway. If we would stop with all the tax breaks, perhaps we could build a world-class educational system that would turn out the kind of work force that would attract more and better industry. That’s an investment I could support.
You know, I think I’m coming around to supporting the people who encourage us to vote NO on every amendment, regardless of the content. Given our legislature’s failure to give more than lip service to constitutional reform, perhaps the only effective response is to bring the current system to a grinding halt.
I’m glad you elaborated. I had the same gut feeling, although not the actual sense to word it that way!!
the people who encourage us to vote NO on every amendment, regardless of the content…
Yay, that’s me! But the husband is voting yes, which cancels me out.
I figure, if the amendment fails, AND the T-K deal really hinges on this loan, either they’ll find some other way to manage, or else we will see a new constitution drafted quicker than you can say knife. Or, das messer.
I’m with all of you. Too much corporate welfare…we’ve given away the farm one time too many and this one is the farm AND the lower 40.
However, this thing is going to pass HUGE. Probably 85% to 15%. So much for principle in this state.
As a rule of thumb if The Montgomery Advertiser urges voters to vote one way if I have any doubts at all about how to vote, I vote the other way. Will someone please bring a real NEWSpaper to Montgomery?
Thanks for the thoughtful postings, Kathy–referencing your blog saves a lot on typing and phrasing. As you note, we have people whose views are normally 180 degrees from each other joined in opposition. There’s also the serious question, why vote anything but ‘no’ when the Legislature will not do its job on constitutional reform?
I made up my mind after talking to others, including folks who look at things fairly coldly. It was not primary (whose hands are truly clean?) but, did read “The Arms of Krupp”–concentration camp scene while in labor. The plant appears to be a done deal–the money can be found elsewhere. If better schools are as good an incentive as tax breaks, why not invest in improving education for widespread benefit. A similar point was made at the Good Jobs First website. ttp://www.goodjobsfirst.org/news/article.cfm?id=137
Re Amendment 2: I see it as a responsible way to insure that future teachers will have health coverage when they retire. Pension funds are often attractive targets for raiding by governments who need short-term financial fixes. Of course, the money never gets put back in. Amendment 2 states that funds already in a trust to pay retiree health benefits cannot be used for any other purpose. It’s not really earmarking as much as protecting from future fiscal disaster.
My college daughter’s dream is to be a high school English teacher. My YES vote on Amendment 2 is to help make that career a little bit more fiscally sound.
(I have not been contacted by anyone or told to say this – it’s based on what I have read in the paper. Which is apparently more than my friend John Archibald did, as he admitted in his column this morning!)
Lisa, that was a good column, a gentle indictment of the inattention of the general population and John himself. When I voted this morning (about 8:45, after the “rush” of voters stopping by on their way to work), I was #52 at my precinct. Sad.
I voted around 3:30 p.m. at Shades Mountain Baptist and I was #98. My voting record remains at 99.99 percent! (I missed the referendum on horse racing in Birmingham back in I think 1984 or ‘85, because I had the ‘flu and couldn’t want the half a block to the polling place. That’s the only one I’ve missed since I cast my first vote ever for Jimmy Carter.)
Lisa, I don’t know why the spam blocker keeps catching you this week. Sorry about that.
I wonder if turnout will end up being less than 10%. It certainly appears to be pitifully low so far.
Please, Kathy….when I voted right before lunch time, I was number 51 in my precinct!!
So maybe it’ll be under 5%.
[...] statewide amendments passed by large margins. An underwhelming 9.6% of registered voters statewide (and a pathetic [...]
[...] at Birmingham Blues has a good post on the two statewide amendments up for a vote tomorrow. (Here is a Birmingham News article that [...]