Cardin's bill a good start but needs work

(Originally published 3/28/09)

U.S. Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.) jumped into the fray over a new business model for the American newspaper industry this week with his introduction of The Newspaper Revitalization Act.

The bill would allow newspapers to operate as nonprofits for educational purposes under the U.S. tax code, giving them a similar status to public broadcasting companies. Advertising and subscription revenue would be tax exempt, and contributions to support news coverage or operations could be tax deductible, according to Reuters.

Cardin's ideas have merit. But there are also problems.

Non-profit newspapers would still be free to report on all issues, including political campaigns. But they would be prohibited from making political endorsements.

Bad idea.

Though they may infuriate many a politician, newspapers' editorial endorsements are an indispensible part of their mission to serve their communities.

In his news release announcing the introduction of the bill, Cardin said:

"While we have lots of news sources, we rely on newspapers for in-depth reporting that follows important issues, records events and exposes misdeeds. In fact, most if not all sources of journalistic information -- from radio to television to the Internet -- gathers their news from newspaper reporters who cover the news on a daily basis and know their communities."

Bingo.

By virtue of their work and professional training, newspaper reporters and editors should know their communities – and their leaders – better than anyone else. In news articles throughout the paper, they tell you about those public meetings and government contracts and how your tax money is being spent.

The editorial page is where they analyze for you what they've found.

Of course, newspapers must take great care not to color news coverage with political preferences. And, of course, some newspapers and reporters do this better than others. I have said here before that there is no such thing as an unbiased journalist; the good ones, though, are able to recognize and account for their bias in their news stories.

And it is to newspapers' benefit to carefully maintain that bright line against bias. The weight of an editorial endorsement is affected greatly by how fair the newspaper making that endorsement has been in its coverage of the candidates or issues involved.

Back to Cardin's bill: On its face, it appears that its proposed ban on editorial endorsements would pass the First Amendment test, because newspapers would have to opt-in to the non-profit program it would create.

But could it be argued that the government is, in effect, creating a back-door abridgement on the freedom of the press by using these tough economic times to ban editorial endorsements, making help available only to those newspapers willing to drop them?

The bill could also have problems with the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause.

Cardin's measure is targeted toward "local newspapers serving communities and not large newspaper conglomerates." Newspapers serve the same function, regardless of their owners. Why should only community papers have access to the tax breaks of the non-profit option?

I believe Cardin's heart is in the right place. But if he really wants to help the industry, he should protect newspapers’ functions -- all their functions -- and make his lifeline available to them all.

Obama and Congress scramble on AIG bonuses

(Originally published 3/21/09)

AIG has paid $165 million in performance bonuses -- including 73 bonuses of more than $1 million each this year -– to its employees since U.S. taxpayers forked over $170 billion in federal assistance and took ownership of nearly 80 percent of the company late last year.

The American public, most of whom are getting a $13/week "bailout" from Uncle Sam in return for their sinking savings and evaporating home values, pounced like angry piranha on this latest Wall Street affront.

Federal lawmakers and stammered with incredulity. President Barack Obama was even caught up in the wrath, giving himself over to stronger-than-usual rhetoric: "Where's the outrage?" Lawmakers demanded to know, how this could happen?

And that's where the story gets interesting. Journalists dug into the bailout bill and found language that answered their question: Lawmakers not only allowed those bonuses; they specifically protected them.

U.S. Sen. Christopher "It wasn't-a-sweetheart-Countrywide-mortgage" Dodd (D-Conn.), who chairs the Senate Banking Committee and had a personal hand in writing the bailout bill, insisted for two days that he didn't write the language.

Well, actually, he admitted later, he did ... but it wasn't his idea.

It was all the Obama Administration, he said; it was all Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.

The rhetoric softened. The bonuses were still offensive –- even stunning, Obama said, but the government had to protect them because Treasury Department officials feared lawsuits if they weren't paid.

Folks, I'm no economist. But it seems to me that if the government is forced to bail out your company to keep the entire American economy from foundering, your performance is less than bonus-worthy. But I digress.

After realizing that they had no one to blame for the bonus mess but themselves, congressmen who voted for the bailout furiously haggled over whether it was better to sue to recoup the money or just to tax it at ... oh, say, 90 percent.

SIDEBAR: Lawmakers supposedly allowed the bonuses to avoid getting sued, but now they want to sue to get it back. I love irony; don't you? END SIDEBAR

Appearing on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" Thursday, Obama was charming and engaging –- so much so that most viewers probably didn't realize that he apparently opposes recouping the bonuses at all.

"The immediate bonuses that went to AIG are a problem," the president said, "but the larger problem is we've got to get back to an attitude where people know enough is enough and people have a sense of responsibility."

And as for taxing it?

"I understand Congress's frustration," he said. "But the best way to handle this is to make sure you close the door before the horse gets out of the barn. What happened here was that the money's already gone out and people are scrambling to try to find ways to get back at them."

In that analogy, the money is the horse, and taxpayers are left to clean up the barn.

Obama told Leno that over the next several months, he wants to make sure "that we don't lurch from thing to thing" on the economy.

Funny thing, that word "lurch." It means to roll or tip abruptly, or to stagger.

... Kind of like what lawmakers have been doing on AIG all week.

Witherspoon’s movie wit is real-life wisdom in Auburn

(Originally published 3/14/09)

In the 2002 movie "Sweet Home Alabama," Reese Witherspoon's character, aspiring fashion designer Melanie Carmichael, happens into a high school friend at a local bar upon her return to the small town she had left for New York City.

"Look at you," she cooed in disbelief, eyeing the chubby baby boy on her friend's hip. "You have a baby ... in a bar."

The line is built on irony and was meant for laughs.

Opelika-Auburn News reporter Katie Stallcup told you yesterday how the Auburn Planning Commission gave the green light to a new bar that would border a day care on two of its four sides.

There's no shortage of irony. But laughs are in short supply.

I attended the meeting on Thursday and listened as planning commissioners heard from Brandon Haynes, the Columbus, Ga., man who wants to nestle a Caribbean-themed bar up against Hardy's Creative Childcare in downtown Auburn.

Martha Hardy stepped forward and delivered a measured but thorough and compelling case against approval. She asked commissioners to consider carefully the impact the new bar would have on the business that bears her name.

Before detailing the many ways in which bar-patron passersby could compromise the safe environment she has striven to cultivate over the 30 years she has cared for children in Auburn, Hardy noted this line from the city's zoning ordinance itself:

"The purpose of this Ordinance is the promotion of the health, safety, and general welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Auburn by (section 102.11) protecting landowners from adverse impacts of adjoining developments."

Hardy asked commissioners to put themselves in a parent's position. Given the choice between two otherwise equal childcare centers, how many of them would select the one with a bar right next door?

Her point: The commission would be hard pressed to find a type of business that would have a more adverse impact on her own than the one they were considering.

Parent after parent, and even some concerned folks who don't have children at her daycare, lined up to illustrate Hardy's point: For reasons from safety to morality to just plain common sense, they pleaded with the commission not to approve the bar.

For the record, my children don’t attend Hardy's. I’ve never even met Martha Hardy. And in fairness, Haynes seems like a nice enough guy. I appreciate several things about his interest in Auburn: He’s a small business owner looking to expand. He's interested in downtown redevelopment. And although his illustrations about how he and his wife seek to advance philanthropy and be good corporate citizens were overdone, I also appreciate their commitment in those areas.

But Hardy is a small business owner, too. She is now serving a second generation of families in the downtown location she's had for 18 years. Now into her fourth decade of being a good corporate citizen, she is an Auburn resident herself. She is one of the Village's own.

This issue will be before Auburn's city councilors in coming weeks. Between now and then, I hope you will -– respectfully –- ask them to protect Martha Hardy and her business by denying Haynes's application.

Melanie Carmichael had it right: Children and bars don't mix.

See also:

Sign the petition imploring the Auburn City Council to deny Haynes's application.

Sebelius pick shows Obama is no moderate on abortion

(Originally published 3/7/09)

After Tom Daschle's withdrawal from consideration to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, I said on my blog that in selecting Daschle's replacement, President Obama would send a message to Americans about how moderate he really is. With health care reform behind only economic recovery on the president's agenda, the HHS chief will implement whatever changes Congress and the president enact.

Enter Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.

In tapping Sebelius to lead HHS this week, Obama stoked the abortion debate and began what will likely be his most contentious Cabinet nomination fight.

Kansas leads the country in late-term abortions, primarily due to the practice of Dr. George Tiller. Tiller advertises on his web site that his Wichita clinic has "more experience in late abortion services over 24 weeks than anyone else currently practicing in the Western Hemisphere, Europe and Australia."

Not surprisingly, Kansas has been the site of some of the most contentious abortion debates, and Sebelius, supported by abortion providers Planned Parenthood, has been in the middle of the maelstrom. She vetoed abortion restrictions in 2003, 2005 and 2006; last year, she killed the Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act, which would have strengthened late-term abortion laws and clarified Kansas’s parental notification law.

When Obama nominated Sebelius this week, CNN noted the "lightning rod" of controversy that erupted when Tiller and his staff attended a reception at the governor's mansion in 2007. Tiller reportedly "won" the reception at a charity auction. But it was hard to forget about when Sebelius vetoed legislation that would have severely restricted Tiller's practice –- and income.

Pro-lifers had no illusions that Obama, a strong supporter of abortion rights, would nominate one of their own to lead HHS. But neither did they expect that he would appoint someone like Sebelius.

But they should have. In his first week as president, Obama lifted the Mexico City Policy and cleared the way for American tax dollars to be used for abortion counseling and performance overseas. (Meanwhile, he's looking for ways to close the budget deficit.) No choice for American taxpayers there.

Last week, he signaled that he would rescind the "conscience rule," which allows healthcare workers to deny abortion counseling or other family-planning services if providing them would violate their moral beliefs. Forced to choose between providing abortions and closing, many Catholic hospitals -– which make up 13 percent of the country’s nearly 5,000 hospitals, employ more than 600,000 people and care for one in six patients hospitalized in America –- would choose the latter. How does that improve access to quality, affordable healthcare? But medical staff would have no choice.

This week, sponsors of the Freedom of Choice Act indicated that they intend to pursue the legislation, which would write into statute the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion and override state statutes regulating and restricting abortion. No choice for state lawmakers and governors –- or the citizens they represent –- there.

Obama ran for president on promises to build consensus, move beyond the politics of the past and forge new alliances to get things done for the American people. Those sound bites earned Obama a reputation as a moderate.

But in choosing Sebelius, Obama provided yet another exhibit in the case that on abortion, he is anything but.

Speech showdown indicative of long-term political outlook

(Originally published 2/28/09)

Tuesday night was billed as the battle of the big speeches. In one corner, President Obama, the reigning heavyweight champion of oratory, would deliver his first address to a joint session of Congress; in the other, the GOP tapped super middleweight and rising party star Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal to skip a few divisions and give the Republican response.

Well, if we stick with the boxing analogy, this was Tyson-Saverese: It was over in a hurry.

The pundits spent Tuesday describing the near-impossible bar Obama had to clear -- he'd need tightrope-walking acrobatics to balance the stark reality of America's economy against the hope that swept him into the White House. Be real, they said, but not too gloomy; be optimistic, but not out of touch.

Obama answered the call with a typically superior speech that was more characteristic of his ability than the disappointing inaugural address he gave last month. For about an hour, he spoke about the economy, yes, but also about the rest of his ambitious agenda.

Throughout the 20-minute delay between the end of Obama's address and the beginning of Jindal's speech from the Governor's Mansion in Baton Rogue, pundits marveled at the former.

Jindal had been speaking about a minute when I realized that my face was contorted into an expression of confusion and bewilderment. The speech was so strange, its message so muddled and Jindal's delivery so amateurish, it was almost painful to watch.

In reality, Jindal was the one with the nearly unattainable bar. Opposition responses to presidential speeches are usually wonkish, their settings comparatively poor.

But in retrospect, Jindal's poor performance had more to do with the message than the messenger. Tuesday's mess notwithstanding, Jindal is an intelligent, articulate politician with a national future. But he had little raw material to work with. The GOP is still searching for its new center -- an authentic, credible message that can counter Obama's political agenda without alienating the swing voters who elected him.

The post-mortem on Obama's speech was all about the breadth of his agenda. Pundits wondered whether he would be able -- or whether it is even appropriate -- to tackle behemoths like health care and energy reform while trying to right America's foundering economy.

At the start of the 1995 movie, "The American President," President Andrew Shepherd and his staff discuss his 63 percent approval rating and whether to leverage that high public support to pursue a particularly controversial tenet of his crime bill (coincidentally, a handgun ban).

The president's domestic policy adviser encourages the president to go for it: "Let's take this 63 percent out for a spin and see what it can do," he says.

President Shepherd passed on the "spin." But in laying out his agenda Tuesday, President Obama left no doubt that he won't.

At least for the foreseeable future, the new president and the expanded Democratic majorities in Congress are going to have their way with domestic policy in this country.

Because, as they showed this week, Republicans are still down for the count.

Shelby can be powerful agent of constitutional change

(Originally published 2/21/09)

U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby thinks Alabama should have a new constitution.

He told me so in a quick conversation we had as he left his town hall meeting in Auburn on Tuesday.

But our short exchange on the sidewalk in front of his waiting car left me with mixed feelings.

On one hand, I was pleasantly surprised to find not only that he supports the constitutional reform movement, but that he is passionate about it.

"Oh, we should have done that a long time ago," Shelby said. "That thing is this big," he said, raising his right hand and stretching his thumb and index finger apart to illustrate the massive size of the 108-year-old document and its 800-plus amendments. He reached into his jacket for the pocket copy of the U.S. Constitution he had been carrying for comparison.

But when I asked him if he would support the joint resolutions pending in the State Legislature that would allow Alabamians to vote on organizing a constitutional convention, I was disappointed that he took a pass.

"That's a state issue," he said, delivering the line politicians give when they are simply trying to steer clear of someone else’s mess.

Richard Shelby has spent nearly 40 years in politics. He served in the State Senate before being elected to the U.S. House in 1978 and the U.S. Senate in 1986. He's established a national profile on financial issues and brought billions back to this state in education and infrastructure funding.

He is perhaps this state's most prominent conservative, with the possible current exception of Gov. Bob Riley. He has contacts and influence with conservative groups that is unmatched by any other GOP leader.

Imagine the difference Shelby's persistent, public support for constitutional reform could make.

If Shelby believes in reform so strongly, why won't he throw his full political weight behind making it happen?

I suspect it's because he doesn’t want to ruffle the feathers of influential conservative groups that oppose constitutional reform.

But the reality is that, his political prominence aside, Shelby is an Alabamian, too. He is underserved and misrepresented by the shortcomings of the current constitution as much as the rest of us.

I hope that as reform proponents continue to spread the word about the need for a new constitution, Shelby will have a change of heart and decide to lend his significant political clout to our efforts. He is uniquely equipped to assuage the fears of many new-constitution opponents -- individuals, not special-interest groups, who oppose reform for their own reasons –- who misunderstand the reform movement. He could play a unique and irreplaceable role in reshaping state government.

He could leave a legacy beyond Washington by making Montgomery more accountable to the people.

As we parted, Shelby apparently felt that he needed to clarify himself, so he added one last comment.

"I trust the people," he said, raising his voice above the noise from the street.

He can demonstrate that trust by supporting the joint resolutions that will empower them to decide for themselves whether their governing document should be rewritten.

Sen. Shelby, be a leader on this issue. Trust the people. Help us get the vote.

Mock convention will put pressure on reform opponents

(Originally published 2/14/09)

At 9 a.m. today in Prattville, former Alabama Chief Justice Gorman Houston will swear in the 105 delegates to the first session of Alabama's mock constitutional convention, sponsored by Alabama Citizens for Constitutional Reform.

Yes, the convention is only for show. But it is a powerful visual symbol that the constitutional reform movement, nine years in the making, is getting some serious legs.

It's about time. Alabama's current constitution, ratified in 1901 even though almost half of the state's counties opposed it, is riddled with historical anachronisms, racist language and inefficiencies. It strangles local governments and restricts the ability of our city councilors, county commissioners and anyone else outside Montgomery to respond to local needs.

In his column last week, Anniston Star editor Bob Davis adapted the Facebook "25 things about you" phenomenon to the Alabama Constitution. As with those ubiquitous notes authored by my friends, I learned some things.

For example, did you know that in the original state constitution, American citizenship was not an absolute requirement for voting? One's "intention to become a citizen of the United States" was enough.

Did you know that the rallying cry for the 1901 document was, "White Supremacy, Honest Elections and the New Constitution, One and Inseparable"? Talk about your political sound bites.

Did you know that three Black Belt counties voted 17,475 to 508 for the new Constitution? Never mind that the three counties' combined eligible-voter population at the time was 5,623.

And what about the 800-plus amendments to the 108-year-old charter? In the 2008 general election alone, Alabamians approved 25 amendments –- almost as many as the 27 amendments that have been ratified over the entire 220 years of the U.S. Constitution.

Reform opponents use fear tactics and slippery-slope arguments to defend the woefully inadequate status quo. A new constitution would bring increased taxes! Gambling! Haphazard government land grabs!

Well, local governments are having to raise taxes and fees anyway to make up for the state's antiquated tax structure that is, among other things, simply starving schools of the resources they need. I don't know if reform opponents have driven down I-85 toward Montgomery lately, but gambling is already here –- and it's expanding. And as for government land grabs, have they heard of Kelo v. City of New London?

Reform opponents embrace a high-browed skepticism of the convention process. Delegates would surely be unduly influenced and the new constitution permeated with special-interest giveaways if we were to rewrite it, they say.

Really? If they oppose a constitutional convention on those grounds, do they also support the immediate and indefinite suspension of all activities of the Alabama Legislature? Because if the final products of any place are infected with favoritism, influence-peddling and special-interest taint, it's Goat Hill.

State Sen. Ted Little (D-Auburn) and State Rep. Demetrius Newton (D-Birmingham) filed bills this week that would allow Alabamians to vote on whether to hold a constitutional convention to write a new legal document and clean up this mess.

Your legislators presumably trust your judgment to elect them to office. If they won't trust your judgment when it comes to the State Constitution -- if they don't support these resolutions -- you should demand to know why.