FM Talk 1065 Podcasts
State Senator Chris Elliott - Jeff Poor Show - Friday 8-30-24
Come carry on down to Georgia. Smell the Tasman and Magnolia. Sleep is sweet home. Alabama. Rotate a road. Muddy water. Mississippi. Blessed Graceland whispers to me. Welcome back to the Jeff Sore Show at the Talk 1065. Thanks for staying with us on this Friday. What's left in this Friday morning? We still got... One, two, three outstanding texts. Maybe we'll have time for after this segment before we end the program. But joining us now, we do this about this time. Every Friday, our returning champions. State Senator Chris Elliott. Senator, good morning. How you been? I'm doing great football season here. I just wish the weather were here. Go along with it. That's that quite there. I think like those first two, three games where you're just suffering in the blasting sun. That's it. That's it. And I want to get away from hurricane season two. We've not done that so far. I'd like to get clear of that and then we can get on with hunting season. Yeah. I would just fall weather in general. Can't get here soon enough. Oh, let's see here. You seem to have done a pretty good job of navigating or avoiding, I should say, a lot of national politics. Just not having to keep up with it. It must be a good place to be. But you still been busy before we get into any specifics. What's it been like so far? Well, it's been a busy, you know, we just just trying to keep track of our state government that tries to continue to grow and expand and, you know, and leverage its bureaucratic power whenever the legislature is out of session. So it is a constant battle to try to keep the bureaucrats straight and in check and doing what they're supposed to do and what, you know, the law of the legislature passes. Because it may just be at the constant, you know, just delay tactics and push back and things like that that just thing to happen. So you just have to stay on it. It's a full time gig to try to get things actually done and try to keep them from expanding their power when we're not there in session to check them. So we are just flouting state law or recently passed state law, like, you know, and then knowing damn well what the law is, but they're playing ignorant or dumb and not really abiding by the law. You see entirely too much of that, you know, and oh, we didn't mean to do that or oh, I'm sorry that's an oversight or oh, we didn't pull well that you passed that law, but we waited a month or a year and a month or a year and six months. Actually get around that implementing it and then those types of things just are aggravating to me and my colleagues, you know, the idea of a citizen legislature that meets for a short period of time is a good and tried and true, you know, concept. The problem is we leave this entire professional political class behind us to essentially, you know, do what they want to do with very little oversight and it is tough to continue to try to exercise some authority or control over them while they are doing their own thing in our absence. Well, just a culture of Montgomery, the environment, the landscape, and the governor doesn't help this at all, but just a such a low regard for you guys. And I feel like this, Senator, and not not that I'm a proponent of a lot of legislative days or whatever, but when you talk in the hallways and you talk to people around town, I mean, they're just counting the days until signing die. Like they cannot wait for you guys to go home and they could get back to what they would call normal. It's sort of that's sort of what goes on in that town that they don't really want like a proactive legislature changing how they do things. No, and surely not. And you can't blame them, but they get, you know, you go back up for the joint transportation committee, the contract review committee, the oversight committee, the, you know, the sunset committee, all these kind of checks and balances that we try to put in place to keep folks on track and they are, they're held in low regard and with disdain by, you know, a lot of folks in Montgomery, you just want to be left in line to do what they're saying. And, you know, and increase their authority of power through, you know, the rulemaking process or just by obfuscating it is it's exhausting. And we, the legislature in the case of or spend just a lot of time trying to say, Hey, come on, go do this. This is the law. You're supposed to enact this. You're supposed to. You're supposed to do this. And it's not how it should work. It's not how it was designed all too often. That is how it works. And it requires a lot of legislative time to keep them on the right track. I mean, guys, you ever want to see this, go to any random hearing on the Alabama channel on YouTube or wherever they stream it. And it's almost like they sneered to legislature. When you call these bureaucrats to, there's two approaches. They're sort of the standoffish approach or there's just, they just kind of happy talk you guys. And sometimes that works, but a lot of times you see it, right? You know what's going on here. You're getting this charm offensive just to buy more time to continue on the path they're going down, even though it's the wrong path. Yeah, you're exactly right. I mean, you know, you see, you see oversight committee meetings from the various section where I, you know, query deck about alternatives, you know, methods for, for, you know, getting rural broadband in place. And, and, and there are one word answers right there. Yes, no, no extrapolation, no, no attempt at doing anything else. And they taught past each other in the media with op-eds, you know, or whatever else. And in the meantime, what do you get? You get a free market solution that solves the rural broadband problem. It's good. We don't have one in Alabama anymore yet. They want to continue to do their thing and spend their money and, and move on. And it's, it's just frustrating to see a lack of just awareness of what's going on outside of that bubble. And, and no matter what, the legislature that comes from all over the state about that, but try to say, hey, y'all take a look at this. Hey, maybe you should think about this. Nope. It's the track we're on. It's what the bubbles wants to do. And that's where we're headed. Well, talk about that a little bit because you've been trying to sell. I mean, this on to your colleagues for a couple of years now, but just the, the, the SkyLink approach or the Starlink approach and Elon Musk and like, look, the continue to lay fiber into to the ground and get it out to these rural areas, but like looking at the timeline, there's going to be into the road into the dirt road places. You're never going to get to. You need to start thinking about an alternative here, which is always met with some pushback or, like you said, some goofy op-ed about the virtues of why fiber is superior. And, you know, we, we know the talking points, but like the whole point is here, I don't think people realize like this is like a years, if not decades long process to do what they want to do at the state level. And you have a solution that maybe it's not a permanent solution, even it's at least a fix to get internet in homes where it's needed. Well, nothing's a permanent solution. Technology-based, right? I mean, you know, telegraph wasn't a permanent solution. Facts, facts machines weren't a permanent solution. Blackberries weren't a permanent solution. You know, all of this changes. And so if you're looking for a technology, a technology-based solution to permanent, it doesn't exist and, and that's the nature of the beast. I just get frustrated sometimes with the lack of ability for them to think a little bit outside the box, right? And, and, and look, there's a reality. I don't have to sell my college job. I don't have to sell anybody on the fact that the rural internet problem in Alabama in the United States, heck, in the world, is solved. It's solved right now for $299 and $120 a month. It's solved anywhere. Done. And so we can continue to have this to date, but people that need this, you know, this service, this broadband, it's, it's there. And it's not any more complicated than that. Now, does the government yet to take credit for it? No, because it's a free market solved it. And guess what? That's okay. Heck, that's a good thing, right? That's what us limited government people want to see. Now, I'm not saying there's not a place for fiber, and I'm not saying that fiber is not needed in densely populated areas where actually Starlink doesn't work as well, but it's a big challenge for fiber to work in places that are sparsely populated where Starlink works great. So it was not the enemy of the other, not by a long shot, but maybe we should spend our money that we have for fiber implementation in urban areas where the density requires it. And not in rural areas where, hey, it's not going to do a whole lot of good because you're in a region of people, indeed, it's kind of needed to cut the market fix that problem. Yeah, and whatever you bring this up, I mean, you just get eye rolls and pushback, right? You know, so far, but I think, again, you're starting to see, I was in a meeting last time with young farmers, and I said, you know, we talked about rural broadband. And I said, how many of you have Starlink as an internet provider? And over half of them raise their hand and said, well, that's what we have, it works great. We've been waiting for forever. We're so glad that it's here. It's changed our lives. It's just almost not even a conversation anymore. I just want to make sure when we roll out this billion dollars worth of funding that the feds have really pushed through because of the American Rescue Plan Act for fiber, and yes, it really can only be used on fiber, and that's fine. But she's putting places that it works. Let's not try to put it in a spot where it's going to be cost prohibitive. There's not the density for it. And again, the market has solved the broadband problem. I'm joined by state Senator Chris Elliott here on the program center. I don't know if you can keep a track of it. I got a flood of text yesterday. I don't really understand it completely. What's going on here and some of your colleagues in the legislature. I mean, they're hard at work here, but pharmacy board stuff, the pharmacy. I guess I take away as well this occupational licensing situation in this state. It's just a mess. You don't even know where to start, but on the pharmacy side, what did you make of what's going on here? Well, I just was embarrassed by the leadership of the pharmacy board, both the staff level and the board itself. And I've had some direct conversations that were pretty tough with some of the board members who, you know, who called after some of the statements I made and said, you know, I was really disappointed in what you said. And that's what kind of disappointed in the leadership. You know, we have these folks that are appointed to these boards that are supposed to provide direction to their executive director. They're staff. And when you see some of the problems that are outlined by the examiner public accounts and their audit reports, this is inexcusable. There's no other way to put it out there. And look, these board members are supposed to make sure that their staff members are doing things correctly. That's their first and number one job. And if they're not, they need to find their staff. They need to find better staff members. And so, you know, for the past couple of years now, I've introduced legislation that's tried to consolidate the administrative functions on these boards to save money. One, but two, to make sure that they're run competently. And they're not somebody's, you know, little sacred cow piggy bank to go, you know, go play with and, and have their own little solid. And unfortunately, that happens all too often, where there are these lavish trips and money that's, you know, missing their unaccounted for or misfits or putting the wrong bank accounts. I mean, you can get anybody to look through those reports or seeing those committees. You just, how are we putting up this nonsense in the state of Alabama? It is, it is beyond me. And so you have a sunset committee that is really rolled up their sleeves, is doing the work it needs to do. But their options are limited, frankly, right? They can, they can simply sunset a board and say you don't exist anymore. We did. That's your legislation with the massage therapy board. And I think you'll see questions about whether or not that's what we need to do moving forward with some of these other boards is do you need to abolish them and reconstitute them? Do you need to abolish them and you rid of them? Do you need to consolidate their administrative functions? All of those are options and all of those are things that I, along with contract review committee, authentic committee will continue to look at as we head into the legislation. Well, I mean, isn't that the struggle here is like finding people. Well, where do you, if you don't do it the way we're doing it, then you got to put it somewhere in government. Where do you put it? Now, you're obviously your solution would be just a secretary of state's office. They push back a little on it. But I mean, it doesn't really, some of these occupational licensing endeavors don't have a home. Well, that's right. And so the question is they don't have a home what happens to them and they end up bidding out the administrative functions to some kind of halfway third party entity that usually ends up being a lobbyist, right, who sees this as yet another profit center to operate these boards. It's just another, you know, another income source for them. And so they try to run these boards, but they do so poorly. And so the licensee suffer, it ends up being a barrier to the workforce entry. And you end up with board members who are not, you know, policing and managing their executive staff correctly. And so, you know, for some of these smaller boards, yeah, there's probably some sort of kind of clearing house that needs to handle the administrative functions of the board. For some of the larger, more sophisticated boards. You probably just need more, you know, newer board members that actually are competent, capable and willing to manage their staff and make sure that we don't have the audit findings that we're having right now and hold that staff accountable and make sure that when something goes wrong, you know, you make a change at a leadership level. That's how things work in business. That's how things work in most of the government. That's how things need to work with this occupational, I think, works as well. Center will close it out on this. And I. Yesterday, I was listening to your colleague, Sam Govan, talk about I-10. And here's what occurs to me. And this has probably been the historical talking point or whatever of just how the state treats the coast or deals with the coast. But like, yes, there's an I-10 bridge that needs to be built. It's going to be very expensive. And yes, a lot of people from Louisiana or Florida or Mississippi or Texas are going to be using it. And the mindset is, well, why, why should it be paid for on the backs of Alabamians? But like, my response has always been this. Look, the state has a coastline. And with that coastline, there are a lot of benefits. But there's also a lot of responsibilities. And look, it's going to cause more to maintain infrastructure in this coastline just as it would in the mountains or any other place as it would than it would in a lot of other parts of the state. And I just sometimes I wonder, I mean, maybe I- Center Govan is speaking from his perspective as a Huntsville member and probably speaking from the perception or the point of view of his constituents. But this idea that you just kind of, you can't really focus on the coast, I think this is a bigger point. Well, I think that if you take a step back and you look at it, the push and pull is not between North and South. It is between areas that are growing and areas that are shrinking more or stacked, right? It is between the areas of the state that are economic drivers and areas of the state that are anemic. And unfortunately, when you start looking at a lot of the transportation spending that is advocated for by this administration, it is very much a Robin Hood approach. It is spent a little bit in certain areas, demand, match money from local governments for state and federal projects. So you have counties and cities being forced to put money into a state project, whereas you go into areas like the black belt, and there's certainly no demands made of that. And you see way more money per capita, way more money in total being spent in areas like West Alabama, when you should be spending money in areas of the state, both North and South. They're generating revenue and making the pie bigger. That's how you grow a state's economy, not by investing in areas that are not generating each other well. So you're going to leave it there as always. We appreciate your time. We'll do it again next week. Thanks for adding me. Y'all go enjoy some football this evening. State Senator Chris Elliott, we'll be right back. This is a Jeff Borshow, what if I'm talking 106.5. [Music]