As a relatively new resident of Alabama, I was astonished at the silence of the ACLU and other liberals over the overt references to God and religion by supporters of the tax. And also by the open involvement by a number of churches in promoting the increase.

In every other instance where religious conservatives have been involved, the ACLU just went bonkers and the letters to the editor page of the Mobile Register were filled with liberal writers (many academics from universities) denouncing this "church-state violation". Baloney.

It was somewhat like the press adulation over Joe Lieberman during the presidential campaign when he would mention how his religion framed and directed his political philosophy and legislative career. We all know that a Republican candidate openly mentioning how religion influenced his public life would have been under much more critical questioning by the press.

Full discloser: I voted IN FAVOR of the tax yesterday despite real misgivings. Too complicated to go into details here (as well as boring) but I though that despite the flaws in the bill that it was an improvement in the current tax structure (basically 100 years old and greatly inefficient - it was designed for a different era and in a different economy - some of the critical provisions are in the constitution and cannot be changed legislatively).

SMT

SteveMG:

Which is why it could well have been a Christian duty to adopt a fairer system. I don't get all the fuss.

Gov. Riley evidently believes that you should render Caesar unto Caesar.

OJ:
Yeah, things were getting pretty silly. Much ado. . .

Riley came right out after the vote and, to his credit, thanked the public and said he respected the vote and that he would now work to deal with the budget shortage by making responsbile cuts and reductions. 'Course, when you lose 68-32, you'd better be humble - fake or otherwise.

Would have been better had he done that BEFORE proposing the increase - i.e., make a more concerted effort to streamline things.

We'll likely see the Boorstein doctrine take effect, though. He was the Librarian of the Library of Congress during the Reagan years. During one of the cutbacks/showdowns, he shutdown the main reading room of the LOC. Instead of reducing the hours and staff at the marginal sites and facilities, he cut back on the most popular and well-attended area that everyone goes to.

Smart decision, though. It worked.

Steve

Steve

Maybe it's a Southern thing. Governor Paul Patton of Kentucky tossed felons out of prison to cut back on state government costs.

After a prompt crime spree, Governor Patton rescinded his plan as not workable. d'uh

I was born and raised in south Alabama, my folks still live there (I'm in Atlanta these days). The Alabama legislature is so corrupt and generally sorry that nobody trusts them to do much of anything above-board. Without any legal safeguards in the referendum to protect the new money from the same old pork-barrel spending, the only people who were supporting the tax hike were either political liberals (who could all comfortably caucus in a broom closet) and state employees who thought they'd stand to benefit.

Riley combined two issues -- tax reform and a tax hike -- and maybe tax reform would have had a chance if it wasn't combined with the tax hike. Will's objection could have been met if reform was coupled with some limit on the legislature's taxing power (e.g. supermajority for tax hikes, or referendum requirement).

I agree about Gov. Riley's plan asking for too much at one time. He had a projected deficit of $675 million to cover, but asked for $1.2 billion in additional taxes. And having asked for twice the amount he needed to cover the barebones deficit, he was faced with legislators who actually stated there were few constraints on what they could do with the added revenues.

I really had a hard time with this one, because we hardly ever have a true "Plan B" waiting if "Plan A" fails. If Governor Riley had asked for the baseline of $675 miilion in new taxes and had put REALLY stringent controls on this new money (as far as preventing "pork"), he would have gotten my vote. If he DOES present a "Plan B" with that design, he will have a better chance of that vote passing. "Half a loaf is better than none"--and I really don't think the people of Alabama are stupid; I admit I have a hard time defending our Legislature, which could be used as an argument against what I just said about our collective intelligence. But one can find examples of such in every state.

Here in Oregon, the Measure 28 attempt came on the heels of a bi-annum budget with $501million (yes, one half of a billion) in NEW programs and
spending. And even if you could convince me that it was all "necessary" -- Oregon's budget growth tragectory over the last decade is over 4 times
the rate of inflation. So, over the next decade, we could expect that $500M to compound to $2.25 billion. And this we would cover with "temporary" surcharge on our already onerous 9% state income tax? I, along with a huge majority, voted NO.

Turns out it's all for naught. The legislature just passed a bulging budget and foisted an $800M tax increase on us anyway. Yes, the petitions are already circulating.

This tax vote dovetails nicely with Orrin's percentage-laden entry about getting to 30%.

What happened is that the 30% liberal true believers, who have wet dreams about raising taxes, voted for the proposal.

And EVERYBODY else voted against it. Okay, there are some individual exceptions, like the guy at the top of this thread. But by and large, the 30% analysis couldn't have been more correct about any election.

The proposal lost the devout conservs, the sorta conservs, the true indies, even the so-so libs.

This vote should be a classic poly sci example of appealing to the hard-core faithful and alienating everybody else.

Casey:

I deeply resent the suggestion that my arithmetic made any sense.

Orrin:

I'm an actuary, and I've submitted your post as study material for the actuarial exams. I figure we can get some REAL good questions out of that sucker.