Connect with us

National

Poll: Trump has 63 percent approval in Alabama

Brandon Moseley

Published

on

Alabama supported Donald Trump on election night 19 months ago and Alabamians still overwhelmingly support the Republican president.

In a recent survey, Trump had 63 percent approval from Alabamians, which is the highest percentage in the country. That is up from 62 percent during the president’s inauguration. Only 33 percent of Alabamians disapprove of the president.

West Virginia and Wyoming tied for second with 62 percent approval for Trump.

In Louisiana Pres. Trump has 60 percent approval and 35 percent disapproval. In Mississippi, 59 percent approve and 36 percent disapprove. In Tennessee it is 58 percent approve and 38 percent disapprove. In Arkansas the President has 54 percent approval and 41 percent disapprove. In Kentucky 55 percent approve and 40 percent disapprove. In South Carolina it is 55 percent approve and 41 percent disapprove. In Georgia the President has 51 percent approval and 44 percent disapproval. In Florida, which voted for Trump; but voted for Obama twice before that, the President has 50 percent approval and 45 percent disapproval. In Texas Trump has 50 percent approval and 45 percent disapprove. In swing state North Carolina, the President has only 49 percent approval and 47 percent disapprove. In Virginia, which voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, only 45 percent approve while 51 percent disapprove. The President’s lowest approval rating is in Vermont where only 34 percent approve, while 61 percent disapprove. The state of Vermont is followed closely by Massachusetts and Hawaii where Pres. Trump has only 35 percent approval. The President remains heavily unpopular in California where just 37 percent approve and 58 percent disapprove.

The numbers come from Morning Consult which on a daily basis asks registered voters across the country what they think about President Donald Trump. Every month they release those numbers to provide a detailed understanding of how Trump is viewed in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., benchmarked against previous results.

Advertisement

The high approval numbers are a daunting problem for Democrats running in the fall in Alabama. If those numbers hold in the fall, Democrats like Tuscaloosa Mayor Walt Maddox are going to need heavy turnout by core Democrats and they still have to peel off substantial numbers of Alabama voters who are supportive of President Trump; but for some reason or another prefer the Democratic candidate over the Republican candidate for the statewide office or to represent them in the state legislature.

Gov. Kay Ivey’s campaign was quick to point out that on the primary election day, Ivey had more votes than all of the six Democratic candidates for governor combined. Over 67 percent of voters who participated in the Alabama major party primaries voted in the Republican primary.

It is an even harder case for Democrats running for Congress in Alabama. Tabitha Isner is running to represent the Second Congressional District, which has been in Republican hands since 2010, but where incumbent Martha Roby, R-Montgomery, is considered to be beatable. How do the Democratic candidates like Isner convince voters who voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump, and who still have high approval of Donald Trump, that is in their best interests to vote for a congressional candidate that is unsupportive of the popular President’s congressional agenda.

Democrats point to Doug Jones unlikely victory in December over Republican Chief Justice Roy Moore for U.S. Senate. Republicans however argue that there were special circumstances in that election, including Moore’s inability to unify all Republicans, national reporting of decades old accounts of mistreating women by Moore, and incredible amounts of money from liberal interests out of state that flooded into the Jones campaign. Republicans argue that those special circumstances made Jones’s narrow victory over Moore a once in a lifetime exception to the way elections go in Alabama.

The economy both nationally and here in Alabama is presently performing at levels not seen in decades. Some Democrats have speculated that Trump’s approval numbers will drop if the economy slows and unemployment goes up.

Ivey meanwhile is making a major economic announcement in Huntsville on a major data center and the state is also finalizing a deal to bring a major Amazon facility and 1,500 jobs to Bessemer. Ivey and Republicans are hoping that jobs, the roaring economy, and the president’s approval numbers lead to GOP victories in Alabama this November.

Continue Reading

National

Ivey applauds Supreme Court opinion allowing states, localities to collect sales taxes from online retailers

Brandon Moseley

Published

on

On Thursday, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey (R) said that the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to help states and local governments collect sales taxes from e-commerce retailers, “Will facilitate collections in our global, technology-driven economy.”

On Thursday the Court overturned a 1992 ruling that had made it very difficult for states to require online retailers to charge their customers sales taxes. The court found in favor of the state of South Dakota in today’s ruling in the case of South Dakota v. Wayfair.

“Technology and the advent of e-commerce has drastically changed the retail landscape and the states’ ability to collect sales taxes,” Governor Ivey said. “The Supreme Court’s ruling related to online sales taxes is a common-sense approach that modernizes existing limitations on the taxation of e-commerce sales and will facilitate collections in our global, technology-driven economy. The change effected by the Court’s decision will promote parity between our state’s brick and mortar businesses and competing out-of-state sellers.”

The ruling freed states and local governments to start collecting billions of dollars in new sales taxes from online retailers, overturning a 1992 ruling that had made much of the internet a tax-free zone. Traditional retailers have said that they have been at a disadvantage because their online competitors did not have to charge sales taxes,
The sales taxes are still due and technically Alabama citizens are supposed to keep a record of their online purchases and then pay the sales tax with the rest of their taxes; but very few people know of that,

The court’s 1992 decision involving catalog sales had shielded retailers from tax-collection duties if they didn’t have a physical presence in a state.

Advertisement

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote today’s narrow 5 to 4 decision for the majority.

Kennedy wrote that the 1992 ruling, Quill versus North Dakota, was obsolete in the e-commerce era.

It is estimated that today’s ruling will allow state and local governments to collect anywhere from an additional $8 billion to as much as $23 billion a year in additional taxes.

It is not clear at this time if this might give international sites an advantage over domestically located retailers. Items such as e-books, software, movies, songs, etc. are increasingly marketed as downloads rather than an item that is shipped in the mail.

It is also not clear how this affects marketplace web sites that bring buyer and seller together, like E-bay.

“Today’s ruling is limited to large online retailers and confirms that small businesses are clearly viewed differently by the court,” EBay said in an email. “Now is the time for Congress to provide clear tax rules with a strong small business exemption.”

It is also not clear if the states can make this retroactive and sue online retailers for years of uncollected sales taxes.

The value of Wayfair stock dropped on the news.

Only five states do not impose sales taxes.

Amazon had already begun charging sales taxes; but thousands of online retailers, notably Overstock.com, do not,
Rates vary from state to state and even from town to town. Also many states do not charge sales taxes on items like foodstuffs. Alabama does charge sales tax on food; but not on certain seeds and agricultural products.

Then Alabama Governor Robert Bentley (R) had strongly lobbied Congress for legislation allowing states to tax e-commerce during his first term; but the Congress never passed that legislation.

The state of Alabama is looking forward to increased sales tax collections after Thursday’s ruling.  Alabama consumers may have to expect to pay five to ten percent more for their online purchases than they are now.

(Original reporting by Bloomberg News’s Greg Stohr contributed to this report.)

Continue Reading

National

Byrne, Rogers and Roby were decisive votes to pass the Farm Bill

Brandon Moseley

Published

on

Thursday June 21, 2018 U.S. Representatives Martha Roby, R-Montgomery, Mike Rogers, R-Saks, and Bradley Byrne, R-Montrose, voted in favor of HR2, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act, also known as the 2018 Farm Bill. This bill passed the House by just two votes 213 to 211.

Congressman Rogers said, “I was pleased today to see the Farm Bill finally pass the House of Representatives. As the only member of the House Agriculture Committee from the State of Alabama, I know firsthand the Agriculture industry makes up over 40 percent of our state’s economy and that our farmers and producers count on this legislation every five years.”

“I am proud to serve Alabama’s Second District where agriculture is the largest employer, responsible for more than 93,000 jobs and more than $11 billion in economic impact,” Congresswoman Roby said. “I know how critically important it is that Congress deliver agriculture policy that actually works for farmers throughout Alabama and our country and makes their important work easier, not harder. I was glad to be a voice for Alabama’s farmers throughout the process to ensure that our commodities receive fair treatment. This farm bill addresses many of the challenges farmers face daily, and that’s why I was proud to cast my vote in favor of the legislation today.”

Congressman Byrne said: “Our farmers and foresters are good stewards of the land, and I am pleased the House could pass this important legislation to ensure that our family farms and rural communities have the resources they need to keep up with the challenges of today.”

The bill is controversial because of requirements that able-bodied persons seeking nutrition assistance work.

Advertisement

“Also important, the Farm Bill will encourage able-bodied adults to find jobs and get back to work by reinforcing work requirements in order to receive SNAP benefits, commonly known as food stamps,: Byrne added. “In this economy, there is no excuse for capable Americans to not seek out employment. By encouraging Americans to find and retain jobs, we ultimately lift people out of poverty, strengthen the overall economy, and help save taxpayer money.”

“This year, the legislation will help people pull themselves out of the cycle of poverty because it makes meaningful reforms to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” Congressman Rogers added. “It helps to incentivize all able-bodied individuals to work part-time or receive free training they need to find a job. Keep in mind, this does not apply to children, the elderly, expectant mothers, disabled individuals or caretakers of children.”

Each year, Congressman Byrne holds an “Ag Matters” tour and visits family farms and forest land throughout Southwest Alabama. The Farm Bill is one of the most talked about items each year.

“This year, the Farm Bill also provides support for Land Grant universities like Auburn and Tuskegee. It also helps our area because it will bring quality broadband service to rural areas – like much of East Alabama – where folks need the service the most. The Farm Bill will be good for our area and I was glad to see it pass the House with my full support today,” Rogers said.

Congressman Mike Rogers is a senior member of the House Agriculture Committee which crafts the farm bill.

Congressman Byrne’s office said that among the many important provisions, the bill:

Includes provisions critically important to Alabama’s cotton and peanut farmers
Maintains access to crop insurance through reduced premiums and waived fees
Improves existing programs to maximize efficiency, reduces waste and maintains fiscally responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars
Restores funding for trade promotion efforts in an attempt to keep pace with trading competitors around the world
Establishes substantive work requirements for work-capable adults
Increases funding to $60 million per year for the Emergency Food Assistance Program, with $20 million to be used for the Farm-to-Food Bank program providing inexpensive food for low-income families;
Provides strong incentives for providers to offer quality broadband service to all of rural America
Helps equip and train the next generation of farmers

Supporters say that “the Agriculture & Nutrition Act of 2018 works to address the 5-year, 52-percent decline in the farm economy by providing certainty that an extension of current policy cannot provide. The bill reauthorizes and strengthens the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) options through 2023. Producers are given an opportunity to make a new election between ARC and PLC with several improvements, including allowing a new yield update opportunity for producers who were facing severe drought during the previous yield update, allowing reference prices to adjust to improved market conditions, and prioritizing the use of RMA data for administering ARC to minimize disparities between counties.”

The bill now goes to the U.S. Senate for its consideration.

Continue Reading

Elections

Ethics Commission clears Luther Strange

Josh Moon

Published

on

Luther Strange is off the hook.

The executive director of the Alabama Ethics Commission told APR on Wednesday that the commission determined a few sessions ago that allegations that Strange violated campaign finance laws were unfounded.

The two allegations, which were filed by Secretary of State John Merrill’s office during Strange’s special election campaign for U.S. Senate last year, were considered potential felonies and centered around Strange’s federal Senate campaign transferring funds to his state-level attorney general’s campaign account.

Ethics Commission executive director Tom Albritton said several factors went into determining that Strange had not violated the law. Most importantly: “The statute controlling the transfer from a federal campaign account to a state campaign account requires the candidate to be a state or local candidate. Luther Strange was not,” Albritton said.

Merrill disagreed with the commission’s decision, saying his staff’s understanding of the applicable laws forbids Strange from making the campaign account transfers in question.

Advertisement

“We understand that the Ethics Commission can do whatever they want with the things we send them,” Merrill said. “We do not agree with their finding, but it’s not our job to rule. It’s our job to pass along the violations. We did our job.”

While the laws governing the issue are complicated, the transfers at the center of the debate are fairly easy to understand. In December of 2016, Strange’s federal campaign account, in a series of transfers, sent a little over $1,400 to his state-level campaign account. The money was being used to pay for an already-purchased website domain.

The problem was the $1,400 exceeded the $1,000 threshold allowable for the transfers and also fell outside of the 120-day window. Former Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley was forced to resign after accepting a donation outside of the 120-day window.

But according to Albritton, that’s where the mixing of federal and state laws make things murky. Because in addition to Strange, who was running for U.S. Senate, not being a state-level candidate, the law also requires the transfer to be a campaign contribution before it can be considered illegal.

“The transfer was made in order to reimburse the state campaign for an unintentional payment by the state campaign for the domain maintenance fee for the domain that the federal campaign had already purchased,” Albritton said. “It was not intended to influence the election of a state or local candidate.

“Federal law preempts state law in this circumstance. Federal campaign finance laws required the reimbursement for the state campaign. If they had not repaid it, it would have been a violation of federal campaign laws.”

Albritton said that Merrill and his office can forward their findings directly to the Alabama AG’s office if they feel a mistake has been made.

The Ethics Commission decision on the matter will likely add fuel to what is becoming a fiery feud between it and Merrill’s office. Just last week, Merrill was particularly critical of the Commission’s decision to pass on issuing fines to candidates, businesses and PACs that failed to file campaign finance reports on time.

During an interview with APR last week, Merrill was asked whether his allegations against Strange had been resolved by the Ethics Commission. At that time, he said he wasn’t sure, prompting APR to raise the question with Albritton. It doesn’t appear as if the decision on the Strange allegations has been previously reported in the media.

 

Continue Reading

Authors

Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement

Trending

Poll: Trump has 63 percent approval in Alabama

by Brandon Moseley Read Time: 3 min
0