PRESIDENT BUSH AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: DID THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN GO TOO FAR?
By: Latoiya Stout

Recently, there has been a great deal of talk concerning Bush's opposition to the University of Michigan's admissions policy of considering race in the admissions process. On January 15 Bush stated that he firmly supports diversity on college campuses, however he feels that Michigan "unfairly rewards or penalizes students based solely on their race." This has angered many civil rights leaders who view Bush's stance on this issue as an attempt to undercut civil rights.

Three white students who claimed they were unfairly passed over in favor of minority students who were less qualified sued the University of Michigan in 1997. The Michigan case could be used by the Supreme Court to review the affirmative action ruling of 1978 that stated quotas were unconstitutional, but did allow for race being a factor in admissions.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice recently stated in an interview with the American Urban Radio Network, that she agrees that affirmative action is needed, "if it does not lead to quotas." "My own personal view is that there are circumstances in which it is necessary to use race as a factor among many factors in diversifying a college class," she stated in her interview. "And so I've been a supporter of affirmative action that is not quota based and that does not seek to make race the only factor, but that considers race as one of many factors."

The Associated Press stated that White House officials said Rice firmly argued her stance on affirmative action to Bush that race could be used as a factor in admissions. Officials also stated that she did not object to Bush remaining silent on the issue in the brief. However, she did agree that the Michigan program went too far.

It was also reported that Rice was upset by a Washington Post article that said she had part in convincing Bush that favoring minorities was not an effective way of improving diversity on college campuses. After discussing the article with Bush, he urged her to go public with her differences, stated officials. After Rice gave her statement, there was a lot of hearsay that Rice and Bush clashed on the issue of affirmative action. In response to such speculation, Rice stated, "I could not be more supportive of what the president did and the way that he did it."

Secretary of State Colin Powell stated that he does not agree with President Bush's view on the affirmative action case. Powell supports the University of Michigan's admissions methods used to increase minority enrollment. On a CBS program entitled "Face the Nation," Powell stated, "Whereas I have expressed my support for the policies used by the University of Michigan, the president, in looking at it, came to the conclusion that it was constitutionally flawed based on the legal advice he received."

Among the dozens of companies supporting the university's admissions policy are General Motors, Microsoft, 3M, Bank One, Procter & Gamble, Steelcase, PepsiCo and Exelon reported the New York Times. The newspaper also stated that the companies firmly believe that the university should be allowed to consider race in the admissions process. Many of the companies have close relationships with colleges in order to recruit minority employees upon graduation, which helps to diversify their workforce.



THE WORLD VS. IRAQ
By: Stuart Pigler

Like most Americans, I have wrestled with the question of how the United States should neutralize the clear threat posed by Saddam Hussein. I have had the opportunity to listen to discussions on the issue of Iraq from many people. I have listened to all sides of the debate. I have concluded that President George W. Bush should continue to honor the words he spoke upon taking office on January 21, 2001: "I will support and defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

The President's recent State of the Union Address, detailed the responsibility the United States faces in leading an international intervention in Iraq for the sake of peace.

As the President said: "We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means--sparing, in every way we can, the innocent."

On the international front, the leaders of Spain, Portugal, Italy, United Kingdom, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Denmark reinforced the U.S. position with their joint letter published in the Wall Street Journal and European newspapers on January 30, 2003 by holding Iraq unequivocally accountable for compliance with United Nations (UN) resolutions. Ten other eastern European nations have expressed their support. Secretary of State Colin Powell continues to communicate with our friends, allies, and UN General Assembly members, identifying Iraq's breach of compliance and to synthesize support of appropriate action.

Central to an accurate understanding of Saddam Hussein's danger is a recognition of his clear pattern of behavior; oppressing his own people, acting as an aggressor to his neighbors and as a threat to all those who value freedom and justice. For these reasons, the world community has been united in its efforts to disarm Hussein for more than 12 years. Iraq has once again failed to comply with the recent United Nations resolution calling for complete cooperation in disarmament as called for in the U.N. resolution in 1991. Iraq has refused to allow unfettered access to Iraqi scientists. Hussein's transgressions include:

- Failing to account for 26,500 artillery rockets used for delivering nerve gas.
-Failing to account for 5,000 artillery shells filled with mustard gas.
- Failing to honor No Fly Zone restrictions by firing coalition aircraft patrolling the area.
- Clearing ties to Al Queda terrorist network, including training of Al Queda members in the delivery of biological and chemical weapons.
- Rebuilding a production facility for long-range solid fuel missiles that was dismantled by the UN.
- Developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of dispersing chemical and biological agents.

The information released by Secretary of State Powell reinforced the very real threat Saddam poses with nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, and his willingness to use them--even against the United States. One thing is clear, the strength of our Republic, our commitment to debate, democracy and freedom is as strong today as in any time in our nation's history.

Through the toughest of times, united we will stand.

Stuart Pigler is a member of the National Advisory Council of the African-American leadership network Project 21 and a former television commentator in Grand Rapids.



EDUCATION REFORM: GETTING ALABAMA'S CONSTITUTION AND TAX SYSTEM RIGHT
By Edgar Gentle

The first thing a business tells a consumer is caveat emptor (buyer beware). For the consumer to fulfill this obligation, sound education is required.

How does Alabama fit the bill?

· We rank 49th in the nation in the percentage of adults who are age 25 and older that have high school diplomas.
· Of Alabamians 65 and older, only 59 percent have a high school degree.
· In Greene County, one of Alabama's poorest, 51 percent of adults can't read and 40 percent of our residents live in poverty.
· Shelby County claims to be Alabama's richest county, but has an illiteracy rate of 14 percent.

A Model-T Constitution

Is our education system doing anything to improve Alabama's plight? Alabama State Government under our 1901 Constitution seems almost designed to defeat education. Our constitution was created two years before the Wright Brothers' successful plane flight at Kitty Hawk and seven years before Henry Ford invented the Model-T automobile. It is a dinosaur. Under our constitution, we have over time developed a system whereby school funding provided by the state is derived from the taxes, which vary the most with the economy, namely sales and income taxes. No one would have a clue about this in 1901.

Past efforts to improve Alabama's primitive tax system have been difficult and driven by crisis. For example, the revenue derived from income tax was not seen in this country until the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution some dozen years after the 1901 Alabama Constitutional Convention adjourned.

The amendment to the Alabama Constitution allowing for income tax would not be ratified until 1933 at a time when Alabama was mired in the Great Depression and schools were closing.

Even in the face of those dire economic circumstances, Governor Benjamin Miller had to try three times before the legislature passed this new source of funding for the schools.

Our corporate income tax amendment would not come for three more decades, passed during an extraordinary session of the legislature during then Governor Wallace's first year in office and ratified by the people later that same year. Even so, the corporate income tax amendment contains the deduction for federal income tax paid, rendering this source of revenue hobbled at the gate.

The point of this brief digression into history is to reveal that our '01 conventioneers really had no plan to fund education, and usually only in times of crisis do our state's leaders explore ways to fund this most important function of state government. Indeed, during each economic downturn in the last seventy years it seems some effort was made to remedy (or at least study) our education funding woes.

Local Control

The latest attempt to fix the problems came during the last two years of the Siegelman administration. Governor Siegelman's attempts in 2001 and 2002 to coax the legislature resulted in minor fine tuning of the state's corporate income tax, a cell phone tax passed over his veto, and blocked attempts to give local governments constitutional control over their own school funding.

Almost every Alabama county's school budget is in large part dependent on the state. For example, in St. Clair County, where I live, two-thirds of school funding is obtained from the state, about one-fourth is received locally, and about ten percent is from the federal government. School local funding tends to come from local sales and ad valorem taxes, which require constitutional amendments under our present constitution. Sadly, our constitution follows Dillon's rule, a rule of constitutional construction which gives the counties no power unless the legislature agrees.

With cyclical fluctuations of our economy, proration, where moneys fall short for schools, has been declared in Alabama eight times since 1960. It was up to 6.2 percent in fiscal year 2001. Schools are presently stuck with this fluctuating tax base, and revising the constitution is necessary to do anything about it.

Fixing the problem

How do we fix the problem? Property taxes would provide the necessary steady stream of school revenues that do not fluctuate with the economy. Alabama has the lowest property taxes in the nation, averaging $210 per capita. In New Jersey, the highest property tax state, it's approximately $1600 per capita. If Alabama were to double its property taxes, they would still be below that of Mississippi, which has the second lowest property taxes in the country. So why is Alabama so poorly educated? You get what you pay for.

Why don't we fix the problem? Large businesses (mostly from out-of-state) and landowners (largely from out-of-state) prefer that Alabama continue to receive much of its revenue from sales taxes, which discriminate against the consumer, especially the poor, instead of having landowners pay their fair share of tax.

A poor lady, in Bessemer continues to pay 10 cents in sales tax on a dollar for a gallon of milk while her neighbor, the big business or large out-of-state landowner pays a pittance in ad valorem taxes. (It would be interesting to discover how much in sales tax the out-of-state corporate honcho pays in sales tax in his or her home state). Also note, that the going rate for a hunting lease on land is about $10 per acre. In most cases this is ten times what the landowner is paying in property tax. Alabama schools, as a result, continue to fall behind.

At the threshold of disaster

We again stand at the threshold of financial disaster in our education budget. Alabama has been lucky in the past when dealing with fiscal crises in that minimal first aid seemed to keep the budget in the game while playing hurt until the economy picked up.

During almost every recession in memory a hue and cry for tax reform has arisen, studies are done, measures for such reform are introduced and die in the legislature, the economy picks up, and we forget all about those uncomfortable tax reform issues. It is akin to the heart patient who keeps eating Tums until he dies of "indigestion". It is probably not wise, during these turbulent times, to bet on the dice passing this time around.

Listen carefully to the Governor

This time around, the downturn in the economy lingers to greet the new Governor, Bob Riley. Let us hope that the leaders of Alabama have the courage and the wisdom to return its government to the people through constitutional and tax reform, and home rule. Only then can Alabama realize true education reform. Only then can we know if we have true leaders or a bunch of fiddlers watching the fire.

As we all are aware, the Governor must set the stage for any meaningful education and tax reform. The Governor must introduce the education budget and all bills necessary to maintain the revenue flow contemplated by the budget. These bills will make up part of the Governor's "agenda". Historically, these proposals have been described by governors during the "State of the State" address delivered the evening of the opening day of the regular session of the Alabama Legislature. This year should be no different.

Mark the date of March 3, 2003 on your calendars. At some point early that evening, we will have the opportunity to hear Governor Riley's first "State of the State" address. There will be pageantry, introductions, statements of appreciation for a whole passel of folks, talk about family, talk about values, talk about belt tightening, talk about accountability and responsibility to the taxpayer, and a few other things we've heard every politician talk about as long as anybody can remember. And we'll hear talk about change… a whole bunch. What we all need to listen out for is talk about stabilizing out the tax system so that the revenue stream is based on a steadier source than the working folks' pockets. We all need to listen out for very specific measures planned to give local governments the right to raise their own revenue and run their own schools. We all need to listen out for plans to collect the business revenue due this state and relieve the impoverished from the burden of paying the bill for the wealthy.

If we don't finally hear a few of these things on March 3, then the change we keep hearing about for Alabama schools will be change in the forms of nickels, dimes, and pennies.

Edgar Gentle is an Attorney for AEA and a recognized financial and tax expert.



REPRESENTATIVE JOHNNY FORD JOINS REPUBLICAN PARTY
By: William Parker

Rep. Johnny Ford (R-Tuskegee) officially announced on January 14, 2003 that he was switching parties to become the first black Republican legislature in Alabama in more than 100 years. Ford, who was re-elected to the Alabama House of Representatives last year as a Democrat, supported Gov. Bob Riley in last year's election. Rep. Ford serves on the Health, Tourism, and Travel as well as the County and Municipal Government Committees in the Alabama House of Representatives.

January 14, 2003

"To The Honorable Governor Elect, Congressman Bob Riley, thank you for having the courage to run for Governor and I congratulate the people of Alabama for electing you… though narrow the margin… it was still a victory of the people and the dawning of a new day in politics in the Great State of Alabama.

To Party Chairman Marty Connors, to Republican Caucus Chairman Jim Carns, to Vice Chairman Mike Hubbard, whom I support for the position of Chairman of the Lee County Legislative Delegation. I support him not because he is black or white, not because he is Democratic or Republican, but I support him because during my service with him last year as we both fought to obtain the right to have our legislation heard on the floor so that our citizens' back home voices could be heard - we fought and stood together - only to be beaten down by a majority legislature controlled by special interest and committee system that is designed to give a chairman the absolute power to crush the people's legislation by not allowing it to be even considered for a vote out of committee. Mike, in 2002, our proposed legislation went down in defeat - but ah - here we stand together like the phoenix of old ---out of the ashes of defeat we rise again in 2003, standing together this time as republicans… ready for the "crossing of racial and political lines", for the forward social, economic, political and environmental progress of our district and our people.

To my fellow House and Senate members and Republican Party leaders, I thank all of you for welcoming me into the party of Abraham Lincoln. It's true that over the years African Americans have left the party of Lincoln because of your policies. However, I want to still pause and thank Abraham Lincoln for having the compassion over 140 years ago on January 1, 1863 to issue the Emancipation Proclamation --- freeing my people from slavery - well "Father Abraham" your Emancipation Proclamation may not have been worth the paper it was written on because it was not until the passage of the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1865 that all slaves were indeed freed… But thank you anyway --- "Father Abraham", for putting freedom on the minds of my ancestors --- they may not have been free, but thank God 140 years later I am free to make up my mind whether I choose to be a Democrat or a Republican --- Today on the steps of the Statehouse of Alabama I chose to be a Republican ---Ready or not Alabama, here we come… crossing party and racial lines in order "to do the people's business". Move over Alabama, ready or not here we come… a "new breed" of independent Republicans and yes, Democrats willing to cross party and racial lines and join hands with a new Governor named Bob Riley and make (Alabama a world class state). Governor Riley, Chairman Connors, Chairman Carns, fellow republicans and fellow Alabamians, I accept your welcome… may God bless us all, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, Independents, Libertarians, Rotarians and any one else (smile) but most of all --- may God Bless Alabama.



THE NEED FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
By Bob Friedman

It's anticipated that the Supreme Court will rule this summer on the constitutionality of the Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold). Supporters claim, the bill will improve political discourse and create opportunities for participation. But will "getting the money out of politics" actually enhance the power of the American people?

In a recent editorial, conservative columnist George Will challenged the assumption that there is too much money in politics. Will echoed the sentiments of many interest groups - liberal and conservative alike - that giving money is a form of participation, and further efforts to regulate political giving will function to constrain, not enhance, participation. Will is correct. There is too little, not too much money in politics. The one billion dollars spent annually by candidates and political parties is a pittance when compared to the size of the federal budget. But Will's analysis begs the question - why are so few Americans participating? And if the McCain-Feingold Bill won't improve politics, then what will?

Reforming our political process is an expensive proposition - but few Americans give to political causes. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, in the year 2000, less than .05% of adult Americans gave $200 or more to the candidate or party of their choice. 15,000 individuals were responsible for 33% of the dollars raised during the 2000 presidential campaign, and the largest 100 special interest groups raise approximately 40% of all dollars spent in federal campaigns. Because they dominate political giving, special interests shape our nation's political agenda.

Campaign finance reform proposals like McCain Feingold assume, and therefore reinforce the notion, that only a small fraction of Americans are capable of investing politically, and steps must be taken to curb the influence of those who do. Reformers argue that politics will become more equitable by limiting the ability of powerful special interests to raise and spend funds, not by encouraging more individuals to invest. But compare this to philanthropy, where individual giving completely overshadows institutional involvement.

American culture encourages ongoing and long-term giving to improve the well being of our communities, to cure disease, ease suffering, and preserve natural resources.

According to Giving USA 2002, individuals gave $212 billion to charities in 2001. Eighty-nine percent of American households contribute to charitable organizations, and institutions account for only 16.7% of all charitable giving. Americans give - and we see the value of giving - but we have been fooled into thinking that we don't need to invest in the development of our greatest natural treasure --- our democracy.

Are there justifiable reasons why we don't give politically? Of course. Political contributions are no longer tax deductible. Democrats and Republicans alike use funds on negative campaigns, attack mailings, and manipulative "issue" ads. Contributing $100 to a local homeless shelter makes you feel good. Giving $100 to a political campaign can leave you feeling in need of a shower.

But if we want to improve the conduct of political campaigns and ensure that vital issues are debated and discussed, then ordinary Americans must apply our philanthropic know-how to the political arena. Further regulating the supply of special interest dollars will not change the status quo. New forms of political expression are needed to reconnect the American people to the political process, and those new forms of expression need to be nurtured, supported and funded.

Could the American people become the primary financiers of political life? Absolutely. Not only can we, but we must. We could fund those candidates who are willing to talk about the controversial issues - trade policy, comprehensive election reform, school vouchers, legalized marijuana, national health care - that special interests currently keep off the table. We could fund candidates, initiatives, petition drives, debates, civic forums, and grassroots campaigns that develop our democracy and shift control away from the special interests.

Will these candidates win? Not right away. Will the negative and "dumbed down" culture of political campaigns change overnight? Not a chance. But positive change in the tenor of politics will require the philanthropic participation of the American people. The impulse to "get the money out of politics" is an understandable one. But the qualitative issue facing us is not getting the money out. It's getting the people in.

Bob Friedman is an organizer with the Alabama Committee for a Unified Independent Movement (ACUIM) based out of Birmingham, Alabama.



(From The Birmingham News)

WATKINS MAY HELP CAROLINA SCHOOL
01/10/03
SOLOMON CRENSHAW JR.
News staff writer, The Birmingham News

Birmingham businessman Donald Watkins again plans to help a historically black university make the move to the highest level of collegiate football, and he again has pegged Alabama State coach L.C. Cole as the candidate to lead that move.

Watkins said Thursday that North Carolina A&T had contacted him about implementing the plan he trumpeted unsuccessfully three years ago to make Montgomery's Alabama State University the first historically black university to jump to Division I-A football. He said Cole is a candidate for the Aggies' vacant head coach position and added that Cole would be his choice.

"I do know they're considering him among a couple of other guys," Watkins said. "And I have let it be known that I would look upon his selection in a very favorable manner."

Cole said Thursday he had not been contacted by North Carolina A&T but would have to consider any offer that would help him and his family financially.

"You're always open to opportunities that could come along," he said.

Bill Hayes was relieved of his head coaching duties at A&T, which plays Division I-AA football in the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference, after the 2002 season. He had a year left on his contract at the Greensboro, N.C., school.

Watkins led a campaign in 2000 to take Alabama State's football program from Division I-AA to Division I-A. The lawyer and businessman, then an ASU trustee, brought Cole to Montgomery to lead that change.

That effort ran aground as Watkins met opposition from other members of the ASU Board of Trustees.

Watkins told ASU officials then that he had business partners who would help the Hornets pay for the move to I-A. He said Thursday he has added to that list of potential partners in the course of trying to buy the Anaheim Angels of Major League Baseball.

"If they (North Carolina A&T) make the declaration to go I-A, I'll put my resources at their disposal," Watkins said, adding that his effort to buy the Angels will not stop.

"It's a continuation of what I was trying to do for Alabama State. The difference is my one year of experience out on the Major League Baseball track has introduced me to more people and more corporate relationships and I'll introduce those relationships to the North Carolina A&T officials if they declare intent to go I-A."

Clear advantages:

North Carolina A&T, which is only in the discussion stage about moving up to I-A, has clear advantages over Alabama State as it looks to move to I-A, Watkins said.

"It's a larger institution than Alabama State, they have a board of trustees that's committed to the project, an athletic director who's committed to the project (and) they have foundation people who are actively committed to the project," he said. "At Alabama State, we didn't have a president, we didn't have an athletic director and we had a board that had some members who were adamantly opposed to it and were ultimately politically powerful enough to stop it. And that's OK. That's a viewpoint, and some people are comfortable with the status quo. I'm not."

ASU trustees who opposed the idea said it would be too expensive.

Watkins said Alamerica Bank, which he owns, has offered to sponsor the Southwestern Conference Football Championship Game at Legion Field for the next 10 years. If the SWAC doesn't accept that offer, he said he will quickly offer that money to North Carolina A&T. He would not reveal the amount.

If the SWAC accepts the Alamerica offer, Watkins said he has other businesses that can give money to North Carolina A&T.

"There would be a financial contribution by one of my companies to do the project," he said. "I've got an energy company, I have a land and timber company and a number of financial services companies, so it's just a matter of which one and the nature and scope of the contribution."

Moving to Division I-A would require paying for facility improvements, more scholarships and other expenses.



DONALD V. WATKINS' STATEMENT CONCERNING HIS PURSUIT
OF A MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL FRANCHISE

Birmingham, AL -- Last year, I have had several very positive discussions with individuals involved in Major League Baseball. They have shown me that my ambition to become an owner of a Major League Baseball team is a concept, which they look upon with favor as they continue to process my application. As we continue through that process, we will of course continue to assess with care the impact of the intense economic uncertainty confronting Major League Baseball over the next several months as the owners and players strive to reach an agreement on a satisfactory contract. I am most grateful for the support and advice I have received from Major League Baseball as I continue to seek the franchise which is right for me.

I have narrowed my options, and I am undertaking the requisite due-diligence with all deliberate speed. However, that speed is likely to be governed by overall developments in Major League Baseball economics over which I have no control. I am under several confidentiality agreements, which make any further public comment on my pursuit of a team inappropriate and impossible. For that reason, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the fans and others in the baseball community who have so earnestly supported me. When we finally complete the application process in the coming months, you will be the first to hear about it right here on the Voter News Network website.