The more, the murkier

The presidency of Barack Obama ended April 4. It was a pretty good one, given that it lasted only two years. He managed to get some health care reform enacted, rescued a couple of car makers and generally helped the nation weather an economic tsunami resulting from eight years of a Bushquake.

Would that it had lasted longer. There was plenty left to do. There was the matter of two and a half wars and widespread unemployment and crimes against humanity perpetrated by American financial institutions, just to name a few. What ended Obama’s presidency was announcing his candidacy for reelection. As of April 5, every word he utters will be considered in the context of a campaign speech, instead of a policy directive, by the media mills that fix the parameters of political narrative in the country. President in name, Barack Obama will be regarded mainly as Candidate-In-Chief for the next nineteen months.

Then, after spending what will likely be a billion dollars on his campaign, should he be fortunate enough to be reelected, Obama will pass seamlessly to the next stage in his career, which is Lame Duck-In-Chief, during which many previous presidents have concentrated on legacy polishing and memoir shopping.

This is not an encouraging scenario for those with an interest in enlightened governance. Campaigning now effectively occupies half a president’s term, and that means fundraising, which in turn means compromised integrity. If you’ve made campaign promises, you’d best keep them during your first 24 months, your agenda’s window of opportunity in a potential eight-year term.

Of course, you could follow an increasingly popular approach and not bother to keep promises at all. That’s happened altogether too many times in the Obama Administration so far—still waiting on that oil profits windfall tax; still wondering why Guantanamo remains open for monkey business—and it does make his rhetoric increasingly suspect.

Campaign promises are endangered not only in Washington. Right here in Alabama, down Montgomery way, we were serenaded the other week by the dulcet tones of our duly elected representatives refusing (on a voice vote) to prorate their pay by 15 percent even as they compel  layoffs of other state workers because the state budget has to be trimmed 15 percent.

Back in 2007, the Democrat-majority legislature rammed through a 62 percent pay raise for themselves over the veto of Bob Riley, and a number of GOP contenders for those seats in 2010 campaigned loudly against the fiscal arrogance of the Dems. However, once the new GOP majority was seated atop Goat Hill, there was no equivalent hue and cry to return the excess wages. In fact, House Speaker Mike Hubbard now says, “We never promised we would roll back the pay raise.”

That means your state legislator can now pull down about $52,000 a year for that part-time job. Sweet.

Appearances are important, so a lot of legislators are scrambling to let you know that they will turn down a whopping 1.5 percent cost of living increase that kicks in automatically this month. Some, though, like Joe Hubbard, are taking that further, opting out of the cost of living increase but also voluntarily cutting their own wages by 15 percent. “The people in my district [73] are feeling the pain of budget cuts,” Hubbard said. “I want them to know that I share in that pain, and that I will work with them and for them to see us all through to the other side.” He thinks legislative pay should be tied to proration, and he’s right about that.

Meanwhile, as many of our legislators earn their big bucks passing unconstitutional immigration bills and unconscionable abortion services restrictions, they also are trying to make things tough for Alabama teachers. Doubtless part of this impetus is to hand AEA president Paul Hubbert some payback, but handing teachers pay cuts isn’t a smart approach to improving higher education.

A friend of ours teaching south of town writes to say, “The governor is proposing cutting two days from teachers contracts which means we will get a pay cut. Also, there is a bill for teachers to pay more into retirement and pay more for health insurance. Last year teacher’s rates for insurance went up along with co-pays. Teachers have not received a cost of living raise in several years.”

Sounds like a situation a lot of folks are in, but here’s the difference: “We understand the economy but these are cuts to our salaries to pay for budget deficits. At the same time, big out of state corporations are not paying taxes in Alabama. If the tax loopholes which allow them to not pay millions in taxes were cut, funding for the state budget would not be in the dire shape it is now.” I don’t know if cutting a loophole is the best way to close it, but as long as business’ best buds are wielding the gavels in Montgomery, I suspect those loopholes will remain wide open.

SB310 is trumpeted as a means to reform teacher tenure practices, but Theodore Roosevelt  was the last Republican who gave a hoot about genuine reform. As the lifelong Democrat who writes online as “Publius IX” warns, “This bill, pure and simple, has two objectives: (1) punishing teachers who, through AEA, supported Democratic legislative candidates in 2010, and provided support for Gov. Robert Bentley in the 2010 Republican Primary over Business Council insider Bradley Byrne; and (2) intimidating teachers from such political activity in the future.”

Easter’s here, spring is in bloom, but don’t be lulled into complacency. There’s a lot going on the political world these days that merits your scrutiny. Certainly the economy’s bad, but let us hope we never become so poor we can’t pay attention.

Courtney Haden is a Birmingham Weekly columnist. Write to courtney@bhamweekly.com.