FM Talk 1065 Podcasts
Alabama Policy Institute's Stephanie Holden Smith - Jeff Poor Show - Monday 6-24-24
(upbeat music) ♪ The first thing I remember knowing ♪ ♪ Was a lonesome whistle blowing ♪ ♪ And the youngest dream of growing up to ride ♪ Welcome back to the JetPort shoulder if I'm talking about 065. Thanks for sticking around on this Monday morning. Text slide, you wanna be a touch of the show and man, we get a lot of text today. I won't get to those, I promise we're wide open here till the bottom of the next hour after our next guest, but we will continue to respond to your text the best way we can. By the way, Deljes actually come up in about an hour for WV&N, our Monday regular, so stay tuned for that. But joining us now, she's with the Alabama policies too. It's a pleasure to bring on Stephanie Holden Smith to the program. Stephanie, good morning, how are you? - I'm doing well, thanks for having me on, Jeff. - Hey, thanks for making time for us. Well, let's go ahead and kick it off here. The reason I wanted to get you on, you're creating, and I think this is a fantastic idea, with the Cheers Act and the now having like sort of a framework for school choice and people who are wanting to take advantage of that, like, well, how do you navigate that and understanding that and you guys and API are creating a tool for them? - Yeah, so we created a separate website from our kind of normal Alabama policy website called educationfreedomalabama.com. And the idea behind it is basically what you just said, which is we have several different kinds of school choice now in the state of Alabama. It shouldn't be convoluted. It shouldn't be difficult to navigate, but it kind of is. And so we thought that more parents would take the option of, you know, partaking in charter schools or the AAA program or now the Cheers Act, if they understood kind of the three lanes and where their family might fit into one of those three lanes. And so the Cheers Act, as has been well documented on your show, was passed this March through the legislative process signed by Governor Ivey. And what we were became the 11th state in the nation to have a universal school choice program. But a lot of people I'm finding in traveling around the state and talking to people don't really know what that means or how their family can be a part of it. And so that's why we set up this website to really just kind of, you know, put the nuts and bolts out there of what the legislation said and when eligibility is for certain types of students. And then the process is still being developed by the Department of Revenue for the Cheers Act. But as that process is developed, we will push that information out as well. - And you know, I've talked about a little bit now. This whole last session was really overshadowed everything we gambling and we will get to that in a moment here, I promise. But this school choice bill, and I know it's being kind of gradually implemented and they're trying to make sure the ETF can sustain whatever the blow is when it's all said and done. But like, how does this like compared to the, you know, the Arizona sort of a gold standard or even what they did Arkansas recently? Like where is Alabama on the ideal scale? - We're right there, we're right there with both of those. So, you know, the first two years of implementation, the priority goes to students with special needs and active duty service member kids. And then the third criteria is families with income only up to 300% of the federal property level. That's, it varies year to year, but it's not thinking of it as about $90,000 a year for a family of four. So that's the first two years, but then when we hit that third year, it becomes universal. And by universal, I mean every single student K through 12 would have the opportunity to be a part of this program in some capacity that's switching private school, I mean, switching public schools, Freudian, switching public schools, going from public to private or homeschooling, there will be money available for parents to make that decision, regardless of what that decision is in that year three, which is 2027, the 2027 school year. So there's some time, there's lag time. And our concern was with this lag time, people would either forget about it or feel like, oh, well, I'm not, my kids are not eligible this year. And then, you know, just not put it in their plans for the future. And the legislation was passed. Like I said, we were the 11th in the nation to have a universal school choice. It's huge, it was a huge victory credit to Governor Ivy, credit to Lieutenant Governor Ainsworth, Danny Garrett and Arthur Orr and all the people who pushed this bill forward. It was a huge victory for the students of the state of Alabama. - And the other question I would have with this final product is it, does it keep sort of any kind of government influence and homeschooling or private schools? But does it keep that out sufficiently? - Yeah, our big hangout from the Alabama Policy Institute perspective was making sure that schools that already established and homeschool co-ops and micro schools and just, you know, mom and one kid at home homeschoolers had the freedom to teach what they wanted to teach in the way that they wanted to teach it. And that was preserved in this legislation. So there is an accreditation and an opt-in process, but it is very hospitable. And the goal was to have it be an actual choice for every kid in Alabama. And I think that we've achieved that. - Joined by Stephanie Old Smith here on the program, Stephanie, it's back and it didn't take long for it to come back. My buddy, Garly Gudger, who I mean, generally like one of the happier, easygoing guys in the Alabama State House. - Agreed. - You get this real sense that he is really put off by some of his Senate colleagues who oppose or voted against this last round, this conference committee report on gambling. And he's like, well, I'm gonna bring it back up in 2025. Now, it's gotten a little bit of lukewarm response from his house counterparts. But next year, again, really. - Yeah, I mean, when we were in the trenches fighting and making sure that the legislature has understood what it was they were voting for here in this session, more than a handful of people told me, you know, hey, if y'all are able to kill it this time, it won't come back, you know. Started that 20 years, went down to four years, went down to five years. Now we're here and the zombie is coming back again next year. We'll see, you know, I have to, you know, where you started in this conversation, I think was the right place to start, which is there are a lot of hurt feelings. There is some damage repair that needs to be done between the House and the Senate vice versa and even among some senators on this issue. Because I think that some senators feel like they gave as far as they were going to go and they made that clear. And then the negotiations, you know, slipped out from under them and when those negotiations shifted, the expectations were that they would yield and they did not and that's credit to them, frankly. Because to me, you know, how I feel about gambling, but even outside the scope of gambling, if you are a legislator and you give your word one way or the other, you know, your word is your bond and that's one of those things that, you know, you've got to be able to be trusted on those sides of this issue and others. And so I think that that is where kind of we are. I do, I have heard kind of the rumblings of the quote, lottery only bill, which you and I know is a unicorn and does not exist, but we'll see, we'll see where the relationships are when we come back, you know, early next spring is there's a long time between now and then to repair some relationships, but I think there are several and not even just one, not even just three that would have to be shifted on this issue in order for it to be a viable piece of legislation next year. - Yeah, and it's Sam Gervan who opposed it, was saying like, look, that whole one vote narrative in the Senate is garbage. I think that he called it garbage because for a gambling bill, what they want to do, they have to have it comprehensive. If you don't understand that by now and why, then you haven't been listening, but once they put it there in a Republican caucus setting and it's just Republicans, it doesn't have a majority and they're not gonna bring it to the floor if a majority of Republicans are supporting it. - Right, and that's the way the system is supposed to work, that when the whole situation gets thrown into chaos and turmoil, when the system doesn't work that way. And again, as we saw again for ad nauseam number of times, this gambling issue is very divisive externally and internally and it creates problems within the caucus. And it's one of those things that carries over into other issues. There are other issues that were left on the table because gambling took up so much of the oxygen in the room. And those other issues are really important to legislators. And so it creates a situation to where it's not even just about the gambling issue. It's about all of the things that got left on the table or got killed or weren't paid attention to that are important to those legislators as well. So that collateral damage is something that's hard to calculate, but it is definitely there. - Yeah, I mean, I think there's some like just the two chambers. And I know you and I have talked about this multiple times, like there's always divisions within that building. And you know, historically it was Democrat Republican, that's just how it is. But then for a while after the BP oil settlement, it was North versus South. Now it's house versus Senate. Like you just see problems there. And I mean, I'm not really privy to like what the discussions are behind the scenes with the pro tem in the Senate and the speaker in the house. Now I never thought that was a good relationship. It was Marsha McCutchen and you know, when it was Marsha Hubbard and they were new on the scene, it was, you know, it was rocketed rolling. When McCutchen came along, he pumped the brakes really hard and things kind of slowed down and they kind of got along. But like right now with now with Senator Reed and was speaker Ledbetter. I mean, this relationship between the two chambers, it is really, it's got, there's a lot of work that needs to be done there. - Yeah, I agree. And some of it is ideological and some of it is personality. And some of it's just straight power politics. You know, one of the things that happened on, you know, and I know you've talked about this with several of the different players, but you know, the last day, you know, as there were a handful of folks that kind of circumvented their own leadership to negotiate directly with the house. And that created some animosity that I also think needs to be repaired. But I would say if you're looking at the trajectory of both of those houses and whether or not they're getting along together or not, it would be an interesting study. Maybe we should do it. It would be an interesting study to see how the shift ideologically, in this last quadrennium, has gone for each house. Meaning, I believe that the study would show that the House of Representatives has gone more moderate as far as its members and what they're willing to vote for and that the House has gone more moderate and that the Senate has moved to more conservative. That's not to say that that would hold steady on every single issue. But I would think that in general, that would probably bear out if we did a study on that. - Well, and you just look at it. Like it was always the Senate passing the gambling bills or the Senate and then things were going to kind of die in the House before this and now that shifted. But, I mean, like-- - The same with tax increases and some other things. - Yeah, even the rumblings are Medicaid expansion. And I kind of wonder like the Senate kind of plays ball to Democrats, I mean, Bobby Singleton and a Roger Smithman, they get to speak whenever they want and they've never made any rules to stop that. But I tell you what's telling Stephanie, it's this. Even the Democrats in the House are complaining about the Democrats in the Senate, which tells you that the Senate is really kind of unified around the central idea, hey, we're the Senate. And you know, you can't just go do your own thing, the House expect us to go along with it when you have a bipartisan sort of attitude there. - Yeah, I agree. And the Senate has always operated, you know, a little bit more like a fraternity than the House. It's just by virtue of numbers. And kind of, you know, general attitude, I think that that has accelerated in the last two quadrenia. And the Senate is working off of, like I said, kind of a similar set of ideological principles that may not be shared by the general House member. - Now, I got in trouble for saying this, and I'm gonna say it again, I'll say it's just the general, like, the way the two leadership approach is that in the Senate, the leadership treats their members like colleagues. And sometimes in the House, the leadership treats their members or the caucus and the Republicans side, like high school kids. I mean, it's just, you know, the ends justify the means. And it proved effective early on, but it doesn't give you like a clear picture, kind of where the pulse is. And that's why you have like, maybe a true representation of where things are by the Senate and then the House is totally, well, how is the House so different to both Republican super majorities? Well, you're not getting, because of the kind of command and control approach, you're not getting a sense of where that needle is, but it's artificial, it's almost that's right there. - Yeah, yeah, I agree. And the thing I would add to that is, it'll be interesting to see how that does or does not shift as we get closer to election time, because those House members are actually representatives. And so they're supposed to be representing their area. And some of the things that they've been asked to do, even in the last couple of years, probably won't pull well in their districts. And they'll, I'm guessing more than a few of them will get some primary opponents from the right. - Yeah, I think you're absolutely right, that there is, you know, you could make these guys walk to Plank so many times. And it's not, it's gonna catch up. I mean, just the law of electoral politics will kick in at some point. And I don't know, though. I mean, the problem is we have 16, 17% kind of Republican turnout in these primaries, but let's turn out elections for somebody who's not, you know, necessarily funded as well as these guys has a punter's chance often, you know? - Yeah, absolutely. And, you know, I would argue that pulling on most issues shows that the people of Alabama are more conservative than the bodies that represent them, both the House and the Senate. - I think that is the understatement of the day. Hey, who's stuff-- - It's diplomatic. - Stephanie, we gotta get out here before we let you go. Folks want to find out more about API. How can they do so? - You can look up API at alabamapolicy.org or our new website about the Choose Act at educationfreedom, alabama.com. - Y'all check that out. It's a good resource. So thanks again, Stephanie. - Absolutely, thanks, Jeff. - All right, we gotta get a break in here. We'll be right back. This is FIT Talk 10065. ♪ Over, everybody making my prediction ♪ ♪ So if I get stoned, I'm just carrying on and on ♪