March Madness is in full swing and college sports fanatics from the West Coast to the East Coast are tuning in to watch their teams battle it out over the next few weeks.

But once the season is over, the chaos of the modern NIL era returns. Players walk away from contracts just to chase a new shiny opportunity.

Coaches are left begging their alumni to donate to their collectives so that they can “afford” to constantly be re-recruiting their roster. It’s a complete disaster.

College athletics used to be about education, now it’s sadly all about money.

It’s not uncommon nowadays for 17-year-old high school students to sign brand deals with brands like Nike, be gifted sports cars, and to have their bank accounts flooded with more money than you can imagine. America is a capitalist country. If you work hard, the sky is the limit for what you can achieve. But we’ve got to have some rules around this.

Now, I’m all for college athletes getting paid. But unfortunately, the current system has created an unlevel playing field. Sports like football and basketball are thriving while women’s sports and Olympic sports are being hung out to dry.

At this point, I don’t even blame the athletes. The system is fundamentally broken.

You’ve heard me say it: NIL is the Wild West, and it is in need of some major reining in. There is no accountability and absolutely ZERO loyalty in college athletics today. The arbitrary transfer windows don’t line up with the expanded college football playoffs, leading players to announce their intent to transfer before the playoffs are even decided.

This not only interrupts the team dynamics, but it also undermines what student-athletics is supposed to be all about: education.

RELATED: Tuberville proposes Student-Athlete Act to end transfer portal chaos

As you all know, I spent nearly 40 years coaching. I’m not a politician, but in my current role as Alabama’s senior Senator, I’m asked often about my thoughts on NIL.

Over the past few years, my team and I have met with dozens of coaches, administrators, athletes, and other stakeholders with one goal in mind: how can we protect student-athletes while preserving college sports?

I’m excited to announce that I am introducing a bill this week that I believe will solve many of the problems plaguing college athletics today. My bill is called the Student-Athlete Act and has two main provisions.

First, it would clarify eligibility rules to allow student-athletes to have five consecutive years to play five consecutive seasons.

After that, you’re done. We’re not doing this COVID free year of eligibility anymore. We can’t be having 25-year-old “students” who graduated three years ago still competing in the NCAA. A student-athlete gets five years to get an education, compete, and then move on.

Second, student-athletes can transfer ONE time without penalty, after that, they have to sit out a year if they choose to transfer again. I truly think that the unregulated transfer portal is the worst thing to happen in the history of college sports. Look, this is a free country. If you get a better opportunity somewhere else, you owe it to yourself to consider it.

But if college athletics is truly about education, we have to prioritize coursework and help set these kids up for success in life. Every time a student transfers, they lose credits, have courses interrupted, and often are set back in their timeline to graduating. There’s no question that transferring multiple times has a negative impact on a student’s education.

This is not to mention the tragic impacts that the unregulated transfer portal has had on the culture of college sports. When I was coaching, the players in my locker rooms were brothers. If someone needed help moving, they knew that their teammates would show up to help.

If someone had a death in the family, they could count on their brothers to be there for them. That type of bond between student-athletes requires time, trust, and consistency.

That kind of trust is hard to build if you’re worried that the person you share a locker room with isn’t going to show up the next day.

We have a President in the White House who is an avid sports fan. He has attended some of America’s most-watched sporting events over the years — he’s even visited Bryant-Denny Stadium a handful of times.

I have spent a lot of time talking to him about this issue and he’s in agreement that we have to do something about college sports. And as a friend of the President’s and a former Coach, I have full confidence that we can work this out for the betterment of our universities and our players.

The game clock is ticking, but we aren’t going to wait until the clock gets to zero.

Now is the time to move the ball forward and get something done for the future of college athletics.

Across Alabama, many conservatives are looking at what the Alabama State Republican Party’s Steering Committee is doing and saying it feels like the party is eating its own young.

A steering committee that claims to want growth, openness, and new blood is instead blocking multiple Alabamians from even appearing on the Republican ballot.

This isn’t just contradictory — it’s a complete reversal of the party’s own message that “everyone is welcome” and “we want more people involved.”

I was denied Republican Party ballot access after enduring a vicious and unprofessional hearing by the Alabama Republican Party’s steering committee — a ruse designed to make it look like the process was fair when the decision had already been made beforehand. Nothing I could have said or done in the hearing could have changed their minds.

Instead, candidates are being told “no” behind closed doors by a group that, many say, doesn’t even follow its own bylaws and changes the rules whenever it suits them on a whim.

People who might have run for different offices are now saying, ‘Why bother? The insiders will just block me.’ That’s not healthy for any democracy. If voters feel shut out, they won’t just stay home — they’ll start looking for a third party that actually wants them.

A steering committee that refuses to explain its decisions isn’t protecting the party — it’s protecting incumbents.

And voters see right through it. If incumbents need to be shielded from challengers, maybe the problem isn’t the challenger.

I am not alone as others who were denied ballot access by the ALGOP received letters rejecting their attempt to get on the ballot—and they also have said that they weren’t given a single reason why.

No explanation. No due process. No transparency.

Many see that as clashing directly with the spirit of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees that when your rights are affected, you’re entitled to know why through due process.

Instead, a small group behind closed doors is deciding who gets to run and who gets shut out — and observers say they aren’t even following their own bylaws while doing it. That’s not how a confident party behaves. They preach transparency and inclusiveness, but their denial letters come with nothing but silence.

To many voters, this looks less like a steering committee confident in its ideas and more like a group trying to protect incumbents by eliminating competition before voters ever get a say. I believe in the principals of the Republican Party and live those ideals in my daily life.

The Alabama Republican Party is filled with great people, both within the executive committee and everyday citizens all across Alabama. That’s why decisions that hold the future of the party in their hands being made by a small number of steering committee members are so puzzling. 

On the 250th birthday of the United States — a milestone meant to celebrate freedom, self-government, and the right of the people to choose their leaders — Alabama is watching a political machine decide who gets to run and who doesn’t.

Many Alabamians see that as the opposite of America.

A confident party trusts voters. A nervous one tries to choose for them. What the steering committee is doing looks to many like a group shutting out new voices while claiming they want more people involved. I don’t believe a majority of Republican Party executive committee members across the state are in support of what the steering committee does.

You can’t say you’re the party of growth and then a small group of insiders slam the door on your own voters. That contradiction is exactly why people all around the state of Alabama are furious.

The louder this gets, the more people are asking a question that would’ve been unthinkable a decade ago: Has Alabama reached the point where it needs a third party? A party that doesn’t shut down competition. A party that doesn’t fear its own voters. A party that doesn’t treat ballot access like a privilege granted by insiders.

If the party leaders keep shrinking the tent, they shouldn’t be surprised when people start building a new one. People aren’t switching to Democrats — they’re switching off entirely.

If people feel unwelcome, they won’t run. If they feel unheard, they won’t vote, but maybe that is the goal after all.

Angelo “Doc” Mancuso is a dermatological cancer surgeon and an independent candidate for Alabama House District 7.

Washington has done it again. What should be the most basic responsibility of government, keeping the lights on, has turned into yet another avoidable crisis. The fight over the SAVE Act is not just policy disagreement.

It is a glaring example of what happens when leaders refuse to show up, refuse to negotiate, and refuse to put the country ahead of politics. And once again, it is the American people who are left standing in the fallout.

Let’s call this what it is. A shutdown is not leadership. It is a choice. A choice to stall, to posture, and to dig in rather than come to the table. It is shameful that Democrats are once again choosing obstruction over cooperation, acting like spoiled children while real Americans deal with real consequences.

At a time when global tensions are high and our national security matters more than ever, playing games with the function of government is not just irresponsible, it is dangerous.

Senator Katie Britt said it plainly. If government workers do not get paid, then members of Congress should not get paid either. That is what accountability looks like. No special treatment. No insulation from the consequences.

If lawmakers are willing to let families miss paychecks, then they should feel that same pressure themselves.

Senator Tommy Tuberville has made it just as clear. Washington has lost touch with the people it is supposed to serve.

This kind of dysfunction is exactly why trust in government continues to erode.

Then there is the so-called “zombie filibuster”. This is a perfect example of how Washington has lost its backbone. Today, senators can block legislation without ever stepping onto the floor. No debate. No defense. No accountability. They simply signal an objection and move on while the country stalls.

That is not how it was meant to work. A filibuster used to require grit. Senators had to stand, speak, and defend their position in front of the American people for as long as it took. If you feel strongly enough to stop a bill, then stand up and own it. Fight for it out in the open, not hidden in the shadows.

The consequences are not theoretical. They are happening right now in ways that people can see and feel. I stood in line at the Atlanta airport for nearly three hours last week because only a handful of TSA agents were left trying to manage hundreds of weary travelers.

All PreCheck lines had been shut down just to keep up with the general public. They looked exhausted and overwhelmed while still doing their jobs the best they could, all while Washington played politics with their resources.

That is what failure looks like on the ground. It does not stop at airports.

The Department of Homeland Security is responsible for far more than screening passengers. It protects our borders, fights terrorism, responds to disasters, and works to stop human trafficking.

When politicians talk about stripping funding, they are not just targeting one piece of the system. They are weakening the entire structure that keeps Americans safe. That is a risk this country should never be forced to take.

Shutdowns ripple through every part of American life. Military families face uncertainty about pay. Veterans’ services slow down. Small businesses wait on loans that never come. Court cases stall. Research is put on hold. National parks close their gates. Travel becomes more difficult. Confidence in our government continues to crumble.

All of this because elected officials refuse to do the job they were sent to Washington to do.

Chuck Schumer has made his position clear. He said, “We will not support an extension of the status quo,” drawing a hard line and signaling there will be no compromise unless Democrats get what they want. He has also doubled down by insisting that any funding deal must include their priorities or it will not move forward.

He has made it clear that he is willing to stall progress rather than negotiate in good faith. That decision is exactly why we are here. When you refuse to provide the votes needed to fund the government, you are not just negotiating—you are contributing to the shutdown.

And Americans are the ones paying the price.

If Senator Schumer truly wants to lead his party as he says he does, then it is time to change course. Leadership means bringing your party to the table, not holding the country hostage to political demands. It means encouraging compromise, not drawing lines in the sand. It means working across the aisle to find a solution that keeps our government running and our country secure.

The bottom line is that American people are done with the excuses, done with the games, and done watching leaders choose chaos over common sense. Governing isn’t optional—it demands effort, courage, and a willingness to sit down and do the hard work. What we’re seeing now isn’t leadership. It is a complete failure of responsibility, and the American
people deserve far better.

The U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran have dramatically increased oil prices.  Iran has “closed” the Strait of Hormuz through which 20 percent of the world’s oil flows.  Yet insurance availability is reportedly halting shipping.

There’s a lot of economics to unpack.  Let’s start with gas prices.  AAA reports a national average price of $3.59, up 65 cents from a month ago.  Why have prices risen so much if the U.S. is an oil net exporter and gas at stations now was refined before the war?

First, the oil market is global.  Buyers denied oil from the Persian Gulf will look for other suppliers, including American oil.  So, its price will rise.

Second, market prices adjust to future events.  Suppose oil shipped today shows up at gas stations on April 1.  Could the price stay at say $2.50 a gallon until March 31 and jump to $3.50?

No.  Gas station owners on March 31 would wait to sell gas the next day for a dollar more.  Because gas can be stored, the price rises immediately.  This will lessen any later shortage.

A lack of insurance has reportedly kept oil tankers out of the Strait.  Business involves numerous risks, some fundamental and others tangential.  Suppose you open a clothing store.  People not buying your clothes is a fundamental risk; a tornado destroying your store is a tangential risk.  Insurance lets entrepreneurs shift some risks.

Price fluctuations make the oil business risky, but oil tankers could also be sunk by a storm.  Insurance can cover the risk of tankers sinking.

The potential loss on an oil tanker is enormous.  Large tankers cost between $100 and $120 million and hold 2 to 4 million barrels of oil, so the cargo is also worth $100 million or more.  Tankers have crews of 15 to 35, each with friends and relatives who would mourn their death.  Spilled oil could cause environmental damage.

A $500 million loss if sunk seems possible.  A competent crew which avoids typhoons keeps the risk of sinking low as well as the cost of insurance.  Iran threatening to sink ships elevates this risk exponentially.

Reimbursement of financial losses when bad things happen is enormously valuable.  Insurance is not charity, rather a contract both parties benefit from.  Investors in insurance companies do not give away but are willing to risk their money in exchange for premiums.

Viable insurance requires that actuaries estimate loss probabilities.  When risks increase quickly, a prudent insurer avoids exposure.

Another element of insurance is reinsurance.  Insurance companies can shift some of their risk, especially for large losses, to other investors through reinsurance.  The Trump Administration is assisting the market here.

President Trump has authorized the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation to offer $20 billion in reinsurance for insurers’ coverage.  Is this a wise use of government funding?

To evaluate, let’s consider the private market alternative.  The market would resume issuing coverage eventually.  Insurers would have to locate investors willing to lose $20 billion in a worst-case scenario.

Imperfect information would also delay coverage.  Imperfect information refers to any situation where some relevant information is not known.  A problematic form is asymmetric information, where one party is better informed than another.  Asymmetric information can yield paradoxes, like Groucho Marx’s famous line, “I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.”

The U.S. military knows more about Iran’s capability to attack ships in the Strait than insurers.  And this capability changes daily as bombing strikes continue.  Nonetheless, insurers will reasonably discount U.S. assurances that Iran cannot damage ships.

Every delayed shipment further disrupts the oil market.  Waiting for insurance markets to restart risks triggering a global recession.

I believe in limited government.  But assisting the insurance market quickly benefits virtually all Americans, given oil’s role in our economy.  Of course, insurance only matters if vessels can safely traverse the Strait.

This event highlights why Congress needs to control spending and borrowing.  Uncle Sam must have the credit needed to spend when truly needed.

Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of Troy University.

Americans should never have to wonder whether politics in Washington will put their families in danger. 

Unfortunately, that is exactly what’s happening right now because of Democrats’ shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

DHS is responsible for protecting our borders, securing our airports, and supporting the men and women who keep Americans safe every day. When Democrats allowed DHS funding to lapse, they didn’t just create a political standoff in Washington – they created real consequences for families, travelers, and communities across our nation.

The effects are already visible at our nation’s airports. Because funding is stalled, Transportation Security Administration officers are working without pay, and hundreds have already quit under the financial pressure.

Security staffing shortages are leading to longer lines and delays for travelers during one of the busiest travel periods of the year. 

Even the aviation industry is sounding the alarm. CEOs from major airlines – including American, Delta, Southwest, and others – recently sent a public letter urging Congress to restore DHS funding immediately. They warned that unpaid aviation workers and staffing shortages are already disrupting travel and threatening the reliability of America’s aviation system. 

This is what happens when politics comes before public safety.

Our border agents, Coast Guard, TSA officers, and other DHS personnel are essential to national security. They show up every day to protect the American people – even when Washington fails to pay them. They deserve better than to be used as leverage in partisan negotiations.

Democrats need to reopen DHS and fund the people who keep our country safe.

House Republicans have pushed to keep these critical security operations running. But Democrats have chosen political gamesmanship instead of responsible governance. House Republicans have passed legislation to fund DHS twice, and Senate Republicans, including my friend Senator Britt who is a leader in the negotiations, have brought legislation to fund DHS to the Senate floor only to have Democrats repeatedly reject it. 

National security should never be a bargaining chip.

The American people expect their government to keep the country safe, protect our borders, and ensure that our transportation systems function properly. Washington should be working for them – not shutting down the department tasked with protecting them.

 It is an honor to serve south Alabamians, and I will continue to work alongside President Trump and my colleagues to reopen DHS. It is time for Democrats to end the shutdown, stop playing politics with public safety, and reopen the Department of Homeland Security before the consequences grow even worse.

Barry Moore represents Alabama’s 1st Congressional District. Born and raised on a family farm in Coffee County, he is a small business owner and veteran who served in the Alabama National Guard and Reserves. He is also a candidate for U.S. Senate in 2026. 

Across Alabama, many conservatives are looking at what the Alabama State Republican Party’s Steering Committee is doing and saying it feels like the party is eating its own young.

A steering committee that claims to want growth, openness, and new blood is instead blocking multiple Alabamians from even appearing on the Republican ballot.

This isn’t just contradictory — it’s a complete reversal of the party’s own message that “everyone is welcome” and “we want more people involved.”

I was denied Republican Party ballot access after enduring a vicious and unprofessional hearing by the Alabama Republican Party’s steering committee — a ruse designed to make it look like the process was fair when the decision had already been made beforehand. Nothing I could have said or done in the hearing could have changed their minds.

Instead, candidates are being told “no” behind closed doors by a group that, many say, doesn’t even follow its own bylaws and changes the rules whenever it suits them on a whim.

People who might have run for different offices are now saying, ‘Why bother? The insiders will just block me.’ That’s not healthy for any democracy. If voters feel shut out, they won’t just stay home — they’ll start looking for a third party that actually wants them.

A steering committee that refuses to explain its decisions isn’t protecting the party — it’s protecting incumbents.

And voters see right through it. If incumbents need to be shielded from challengers, maybe the problem isn’t the challenger.

I am not alone as others who were denied ballot access by the ALGOP received letters rejecting their attempt to get on the ballot—and they also have said that they weren’t given a single reason why.

No explanation. No due process. No transparency.

Many see that as clashing directly with the spirit of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees that when your rights are affected, you’re entitled to know why through due process.

Instead, a small group behind closed doors is deciding who gets to run and who gets shut out — and observers say they aren’t even following their own bylaws while doing it. That’s not how a confident party behaves. They preach transparency and inclusiveness, but their denial letters come with nothing but silence.

To many voters, this looks less like a steering committee confident in its ideas and more like a group trying to protect incumbents by eliminating competition before voters ever get a say. I believe in the principals of the Republican Party and live those ideals in my daily life.

The Alabama Republican Party is filled with great people, both within the executive committee and everyday citizens all across Alabama. That’s why decisions that hold the future of the party in their hands being made by a small number of steering committee members are so puzzling. 

On the 250th birthday of the United States — a milestone meant to celebrate freedom, self-government, and the right of the people to choose their leaders — Alabama is watching a political machine decide who gets to run and who doesn’t.

Many Alabamians see that as the opposite of America.

A confident party trusts voters. A nervous one tries to choose for them. What the steering committee is doing looks to many like a group shutting out new voices while claiming they want more people involved. I don’t believe a majority of Republican Party executive committee members across the state are in support of what the steering committee does.

You can’t say you’re the party of growth and then a small group of insiders slam the door on your own voters. That contradiction is exactly why people all around the state of Alabama are furious.

The louder this gets, the more people are asking a question that would’ve been unthinkable a decade ago: Has Alabama reached the point where it needs a third party? A party that doesn’t shut down competition. A party that doesn’t fear its own voters. A party that doesn’t treat ballot access like a privilege granted by insiders.

If the party leaders keep shrinking the tent, they shouldn’t be surprised when people start building a new one. People aren’t switching to Democrats — they’re switching off entirely.

If people feel unwelcome, they won’t run. If they feel unheard, they won’t vote, but maybe that is the goal after all.

Angelo “Doc” Mancuso is a dermatological cancer surgeon and an independent candidate for Alabama House District 7.

Six weeks ago, Jerry Carl held a 16-point lead. Today it’s 8 — and Rhett Marques is capturing nearly every undecided voter who makes up their mind.

The First Congressional District in Alabama is hosting one of the state’s most closely contested Republican Primary battles and features a number of fun (for political nerds like me) storylines.

Story #1 – Senator Katie Britt endorsed AL House Rep. Rhett Marques early and gave his campaign an early fundraising boost when she contributed to him.

Story #2 – the return of former Congressman Jerry Carl in his second try to capture the newly redrawn 1st District and once again grab a seat in Congress.

And for me, Story #3 – where would the money go, the former Congressman or the challenger endorsed by the popular U.S. Senator?

Last week I completed my second poll in this district, with the first running six weeks ago at the end of January. That poll showed Jerry Carl with a relatively comfortable 16-point lead in the early going.

Conventional wisdom at that time might have been excused thinking the race was setting up to expectations: Carl is a known former congressman with a distinct advantage being from the most populous part of the district, the field against him is largely unknown, and barring something dramatic, the race was his to control. But what does conventional wisdom know anyway?

My latest polling says “Not much.”

On the all-important ballot question, Carl’s lead has been cut in half. He sits at 28 percent today – up 3 points but within the margin of error from January. Rhett Marques sits at 19 percent – an increase of 10 points. Today’s 8-point gap is down from 16-points and is the first sign that momentum is shifting and Marques is currently ascendant.

But the headline number understates the story. The more important figure is what happened among the undecided voters — the 57 percent who were still uncommitted in January. Between the two surveys, roughly 13 points’ worth of those voters made up their minds.

Marques captured 78 percent of that movement, or 10 points. Carl captured less than a quarter (3 points). Joshua McKee, the third candidate in the race, captured essentially nothing and is effectively irrelevant in this race moving forward.

Read that again: nearly four out of every five voters who decided on a candidate in this race in the last six weeks chose Marques.

That is not noise. That is a trajectory. And if it continues at anything close to that pace through May 19th, this race flips.

Carl’s Ceiling Problem

Part of what’s driving this dynamic is what isn’t happening with Carl’s numbers. His name recognition has been the implicit argument of his campaign from day one: he’s the former congressman, the known quantity, the guy who already represented much of this district. But the data suggests that advantage has largely been spent.

The share of voters who have “never heard of” Jerry Carl moved from 27.2 percent in January to 26.8 percent in March. Effectively zero. His favorability improved from 33 percent to 39 percent — a modest gain, but the kind of movement you’d expect from a candidate who is already near saturation. He appears, by the numbers, to be approaching his ceiling.

There’s also a geographic dimension to this problem that the top-line numbers don’t show. Carl’s favorability in Mobile — his home market, the market he represented in Congress — is 53 percent. In the Dothan media market, which covers 35 percent of the district, it is 19 percent.

He is a regional candidate running a district-wide race. The current ballot tells the same story: in Mobile, Carl leads Marques 41 to 11. In Dothan, Marques leads Carl 35 to 8. The district has two very different electorates, and Carl is competitive in only one of them.

Marques, by contrast, is still in introduction mode — and the introductions are going well. His favorable rating has nearly doubled, from 12 percent in January to 24 percent in March. The share of voters who had never heard of him dropped 20 points in six weeks, from 62 percent to 42 percent.

He is building a coalition on favorable terms, with 42 percent of the electorate still to reach. I’ve also seen a marked increase of support for Marques in the Carl stronghold of Baldwin County. Carl has no comparable runway.

What Voters Learn When They Look Closer

There is another data point from the January survey that deserves attention, because it speaks directly to the durability of Carl’s support.

In January, I ran a standard political science exercise: an informed ballot. After exposing respondents to information about the candidates — including what Carl’s record looks like against the values of this district — I asked them again who they supported.

Carl collapsed. He fell from 25 percent on the initial ballot to 11.5 percent on the informed ballot, dropping from first place to third. Marques and McKee both surpassed him.

This is a district that is 89 percent Trump-approving, 82 percent pro-life, 72 percent evangelical or born-again Christian. It is one of the most conservative Republican primary electorates in the country.

When voters in that electorate start learning the specifics of Carl’s Washington record, they move. The January data shows they move dramatically. The question for the next eight weeks is how many of them get the information.

The Britt Message: A 56-Point Swing That Two-Thirds of Voters Haven’t Heard

Senator Katie Britt has endorsed Rhett Marques. When I tested Britt’s endorsement in January, 55 percent of likely Republican primary voters said it would make them more likely to support the endorsed candidate and only 9.8 percent said less likely — a net impact of +45 points.

In February, I wrote a column for Yellowhammer showing her endorsement tested stronger than President Trump’s in Alabama Republican primaries — wider positive margins, lower negatives. It is the most powerful persuasion asset available to any candidate in this race.

Here’s the problem: almost nobody knows about it. Here’s the positive: when people do learn about it, it moves voters. Tremendously.

The March survey asked voters which candidate Britt endorsed. Only 29 percent correctly identified Marques. Nearly 65 percent simply didn’t know.

The consequences of that awareness gap are stark. Among voters who know about the endorsement, Marques wins 68 percent of the vote. Among those who don’t know, he gets 11 percent.

That is a 56-point swing — based on a single piece of information that two-thirds of the electorate hasn’t received yet.

The geography here is especially striking. In Montgomery’s media market (admittedly a small slice of the district) — where 57 percent of voters are still undecided and no candidate has established a clear lead — only 11 percent of voters know about the Britt endorsement.

That is a market that has barely been touched by this race. It is also, given the composition of its electorate, exactly the kind of market where the Britt message converts.

The Outsider Advantage

The polling also asked voters a framing question: would you prefer “a former member of Congress who knows how Washington works” or “a political outsider who will bring fresh ideas”? The outsider frame won by nearly 20 points: 49.8 percent to 30 percent.

This is Marques’s lane — not because he’s running against Washington rhetorically, but because the electorate was structurally predisposed toward an outsider candidate before a dollar was spent. In January, when 62 percent of voters had never heard of Marques, that preference gap already existed. It was waiting for a candidate.

The message efficiency data reinforces this. Among voters who have seen, read, or heard something about Marques, 49 percent say it makes them more likely to vote for him and only 15 percent say less likely — a net conversion rate of +34 points.

For Carl, the equivalent figures are 38 percent more likely and 17 percent less likely: a +21 net. That 13-point efficiency gap means Marques’s message is simply working harder per impression. In a primary where both campaigns still need to persuade a large pool of undecideds, that compounds.

The Money

The momentum in the polls is matched by what’s happening on the fundraising side. According to the most recent FEC filings, Marques has raised $875,878 and holds $775,221 in cash on hand. Carl has raised $480,928 — nearly $400,000 less — and holds just $307,980 after spending at more than twice Marques’s rate.

A challenger who launched this race as a relative unknown has out-raised the incumbent former congressman by nearly two-to-one, outspent him at a fraction of the rate, and built a cash-on-hand advantage of more than $467,000 heading into the final weeks. That is not the financial profile of a long-shot. That is the financial profile of a candidate who has earned the resources to close.

What the Trajectory Tells Us

Down-ballot primaries are often decided in the final weeks, when voters who haven’t been paying close attention start tuning in. The candidate with momentum, message efficiency, a popular senator’s endorsement, and the resources to broadcast it is well-positioned when that moment arrives.

The March survey found Carl still leading at 8 points. But every variable beneath that number is moving in one direction. His name ID is maxed out.

His support is geographically concentrated in a single market. An informed electorate is an electorate that moves away from him. Undecided voters are breaking toward Marques nearly 4-to-1. And the single most powerful message in this race — the Britt endorsement — is still unheard by two-thirds of the district.

McKee is not a factor. His 59 percent “never heard of” number after months of campaigning tells you what you need to know. When his voters eventually sort, they are a persuadable pool — and they are not consolidating behind Carl.

Anyone telling you this race is settled is not looking at the data.

The data says it’s just getting started.

In 1939, the Alabama Legislature adopted “We Dare Defend Our Rights” as our official state motto, and it accurately reflects the fundamental beliefs regarding freedoms and liberties that the vast majority of our citizens embrace.

The Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment that was ratified by voters and enshrined in our state constitution defends the right to worship as you please. Our constitutional carry law that allows citizens to carry firearms without first requesting government permission defends Second amendment gun rights.

Alabama’s strongest-in-the-nation law that bans abortion and protects the unborn defends the basic right to life. But one liberty that is sometimes overlooked and in need of an added dose of defense is property rights.

I am a lifelong outdoorsman, and I believe strongly if someone in Alabama wants to buy some acreage and develop it for hunting land, they should be allowed to do it. The same goes for building a lake for fishing.

Hunting property cannot be created in urban settings, of course, but in more remote locations where the safety of surrounding people and property can be assured, no government or individual should stand in your way.

It boils down to the theory that rights are sacred until they infringe on the rights of another, or as a quote attributed to Supreme Court Justice Oliver Holmes says, “My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.”

But even in Alabama, property rights remain under constant threat from their mortal enemy — aggressive, intrusive, and overly invoked zoning decisions.

With the simple cast of a vote and the stroke of a pen, local government zoning decisions can instantly wipe away property rights and stop any project, large or small, dead in its tracks.

A pattern of inconsistent and extreme zoning mandates can result in investors, business recruiters, and economic development prospects abandoning some towns and communities altogether for fear that their significant financial outlays could be lost at the whim of local officials.

Some communities are currently wrestling with exactly this kind of question as proposals emerge to change zoning or land-use rules after property has already been purchased and development has begun under existing regulations.

Whether someone personally supports or opposes a particular project is not the central issue because allowing government to change zone rules after projects have begun is like letting referees rewrite the entire rulebook at halftime of a football game.

This exact scenario is being played out in south Alabama with a clean, renewable energy infrastructure project that is essential to supplying power for an $800 million Meta data center in Montgomery that will soon add more than 100 jobs.

Some are seeking to halt the already approved and underway project by changing zoning rules, but if they are successful, it could deter future investors from starting businesses in the area and harm job creation and economic progress for years to come.

When government changes the rules for one property owner because of public pressure, it sends a message that no one’s property rights are truly secure. Today it might be one type of development, but tomorrow it could be a farm expansion, a mom-and-pop storefront or business, or a family home built on land that outsiders would prefer to see used differently.

Changing the rules midstream may feel like a quick solution, but the long-term consequences are far greater. It risks undermining the rule of law and weakening a principle that has protected American property owners for generations.

Leadership sometimes requires defending principles even when it would be easier to simply follow the loudest voices in the room.

If we want to preserve the freedoms and opportunities that property ownership provides, we must remain committed to a simple but essential idea — when someone follows the law and invests in their property based on the rules that exist, those rules should not be changed after the fact.

There is no ranking or hierarchy of our individual rights because all of them are precious and important, and blood was shed on battlefields to secure each of them.

The loss of property rights could start a chain reaction that quickly leads to the loss of other freedoms, and that is a road that no true patriot should ever want to travel.

Over the course of a career spent in the Alabama Legislature, in the leadership of the Business Council of Alabama, and as the President of Manufacture Alabama, I have learned one enduring truth about economic development: nothing happens without affordable, reliable energy.

Not a single factory opens its doors, not a single production line turns on, and not a single job is created without it. Energy is the foundation upon which Alabama’s industrial economy is built. That is why I am compelled to speak out in strong support of Senate Bill 360 — legislation that I believe represents the most consequential energy reform in our state’s modern history.

Alabama’s manufacturers compete in a global marketplace where margins are thin and input costs are everything. When a company is deciding where to locate or expand a plant, energy cost and reliability sit at the very top of the ledger.

I have spent decades in rooms where those decisions are made, and I can tell you without reservation that Alabama’s ability to offer competitive, stable energy rates has been one of our most powerful recruiting tools. Senate Bill 360 protects and strengthens that advantage at a moment when we can least afford to lose it.

The legislation delivers three reforms that, taken together, position Alabama for a generation of economic growth.

First, Senate Bill 360 freezes Alabama Power’s rates for three years. I cannot emphasize enough what this means for manufacturers operating in this state. Across the Southeast and the nation, energy costs are rising.

Every manufacturer in every competing state is watching utility bills climb and adjusting their projections accordingly. Alabama’s manufacturers will not have to. For three years, their energy costs will be locked in — a level of predictability that is almost unheard of in today’s environment.

While rates increase across the nation over the next three years, the retail base rate in Alabama will not change. That stability does not just help existing businesses plan and invest with confidence. It gives Alabama a talking point that no other state in the region can match.

Second, the bill creates a cabinet-level Secretary of Energy appointed by the governor. This is a signal — and in economic development, signals matter enormously.

When a Fortune 500 company evaluates Alabama, they want to know that energy policy is a priority at the highest levels of state government. A cabinet-level energy position tells them exactly that. The Secretary will provide strategic leadership and direction for the regulatory agency, ensuring that Alabama’s energy policy is proactive and forward-looking rather than purely reactive.

And for those who worry this concentrates too much authority in a single office, the legislation is clear: the elected commissioners can overrule the Secretary with a vote of five members, and no regulatory action can take place without a vote of the full commission. The checks are real and meaningful.

Third, and most fundamentally, Senate Bill 360 reforms the Public Service Commission itself, expanding it from three statewide commissioners to seven commissioners elected by congressional district.

I spent years in the Legislature, and I understand the power of local representation. When a commissioner is elected by the people of a specific district, that commissioner knows the industries in that district, knows the workforce challenges, knows whether reliable power is reaching the rural areas where many of our manufacturers operate.

A seven-member commission rooted in local communities will be more informed, more responsive, and more accountable than the current structure allows. The transition is thoughtfully designed — staggered appointments give way to full elections by 2030, with all commissioners serving six-year terms that promote continuity and expertise.

I helped create Manufacture Alabama because I believe that manufacturing is the backbone of this state’s economy. Our manufacturers employ hundreds of thousands of Alabamians in jobs that support families and sustain communities from the Tennessee Valley to the Gulf Coast.

Those jobs exist in part because Alabama has historically offered an energy environment that allows manufacturers to compete. But the landscape is changing.

Energy demand is surging, driven by industrial growth. States across the South are racing to position themselves as energy-friendly destinations for investment. Alabama cannot afford to stand still while the competition moves forward.

Senate Bill 360 is not a partisan proposal. It is a pragmatic, pro-growth reform that freezes rates for consumers, modernizes our regulatory structure, and elevates energy to the strategic priority it must be if Alabama is going to win the economic battles ahead.

In all my years in public policy and economic development, I have rarely seen a single piece of legislation that so directly and meaningfully strengthens Alabama’s competitive position.

I urge the Legislature to pass Senate Bill 360. Alabama’s manufacturers, their workers, and the communities that depend on them are counting on it.

George Clark is a former member of the Alabama Legislature, former Chief Operating Officer of the Business Council of Alabama, and the former President of Manufacture Alabama.

Rural Alabama has been waiting decades for access to affordable health services — and despite the empty promises of a bill funneling millions of dollars to large ambulance companies, we’re still waiting.

The stories of loss and heartbreak are real. We’ve seen them. We’ve lived them. The families who depend on rural ambulance services are not just our members. They are our families and neighbors. 

Alabama Farmers Federation has been fighting for rural Alabama for over 100 years. We aren’t opposing SB 269 and HB 400 because we don’t care about rural EMS. We oppose this legislation because we do care!

The math doesn’t lie. Alabama’s most rural counties would receive less than 10% of the money collected from this legislation. Although supporters claim it helps the ambulance crisis in rural Alabama, the bill directs more funding to big city ambulance companies than the 28 most rural Alabama counties COMBINED.

Those 28 counties are the exact areas that need the most help. Protecting those counties — and the people who live there — is precisely why we oppose SB 269 and HB 400.

Of the estimated $21 million in new operator revenue generated by this bill, only $2 million reaches Alabama’s most rural counties. Supporters dispute this calculation, claiming the bill generates closer to $34 million.

Even accepting their number, Alabama’s 28 most rural counties would receive approximately $3.4 million, still less than 10% of the total. The distribution problem doesn’t change. The numbers just get bigger.

Rural Alabama is being used as leverage to pass this legislation, but the reality is rural families will pay more and receive far less than big-city companies. In fact, the entire reimbursement formula of the bill is based on a single “super-rural” ZIP code in Greene County, Alabama.

Yet, Greene County only stands to gain $25,000 from this legislation, while Huntsville Hospital collects nearly $4 million annually, and a New York private equity firm gets more than $2 million.  

Sending pennies to rural counties will not solve the ambulance crisis real Alabamians are facing. Worse yet, it subsidizes a few large companies by taking money from farmers, small businesses, teachers and state employees.

Alabama families deserve to know what this bill actually does before it becomes law.

SB 269 and HB 400 would raise insurance premiums for the 10% of Alabamians already struggling most to afford health coverage. Medicaid and Medicare patients are specifically exempt from the bill, and state legislation cannot mandate rates for self-funded employer plans governed by the federal ERISA law.

That means self-employed individuals like farmers; small businesses with commercial plans; and teachers and state employees will pay the full cost of the bill. Because 90% of ambulance rides are exempt, this legislation closes only 6% of the funding gap the ambulance industry itself says exists.

SB 269 and HB 400 are a hidden tax. This legislation would send 90% of the money from YOUR higher insurance premiums to a few large companies operating in metro areas. Only 10% of the money would reach EMS providers in the most rural counties. 

Let’s find a REAL solution. Alabama farmers and rural families deserve answers that address the availability and affordability of health care services. SB 269 and HB 400 do not accomplish that. We are eager to explore options that will address the EMS crisis without shifting costs to a small fraction of patients while benefiting a few large companies.

Alabama is set to receive more than $200 million through the Rural Health Transformation Program. The Legislature has laid a foundation for improvement with Alabama’s Rural Roadmap. It’s time to address the health care crisis in rural Alabama. Sending millions in higher insurance premiums to a few companies is not the answer. 

Rural Alabama is waiting.

Brian Hardin is the External Affairs Department Director for the Alabama Farmers Federation.

The first major victory for the Continental Army occurred 250 years ago on March 17, 1776, when the British evacuated Boston.

Following the fighting at Lexington and Concord, thousands of colonial militiamen surrounded the British army when they retreated to Boston. The Royal Navy maintained supply lines, and while the colonial forces effectively contained the British, they lacked the manpower to liberate Boston from British occupation.

As the siege of Boston began, George Washington assumed command. His army consisted largely of short-term militia with uneven training, limited discipline, and severe shortages of weapons, ammunition, and artillery. Washington quickly realized that the Americans lacked the heavy guns necessary to threaten British positions within Boston.

Determined not to launch a reckless frontal attack with significant losses, he instead focused on strengthening the army’s organization and searching for a strategic opportunity that might force the British to leave.

One of the most important developments in breaking the stalemate came far away from Boston. Earlier, in May of 1775, American forces captured Fort Ticonderoga in northern New York. The fort contained a large supply of artillery, including cannons, mortars, and other heavy weapons that the Continental Army desperately needed.

Washington approved a bold plan proposed by Henry Knox, who suggested retrieving the captured cannons from Fort Ticonderoga and transporting them hundreds of miles through winter conditions to Boston. Against all odds, Knox and his team moved nearly sixty tons of artillery over frozen rivers, snow-covered roads, and mountainous terrain. In January of 1776, Knox successfully delivered the artillery to Washington.

Although the Americans now had artillery, Washington still needed a way to use it effectively. Boston was heavily defended and a direct assault, even with artillery support, was unwise. So, Washington identified a location that could shift the balance without requiring a full-scale attack.

South of Boston stood Dorchester Heights. Whoever controlled these heights would command a dominant position over the British fleet and the city below. If American artillery could be placed there, British ships would become vulnerable, and the entire British position in Boston would be threatened.

But Dorchester Heights lay within range of British defenses, and any attempt to fortify the hills would have to be carried out quickly and secretly.
Washington carefully planned the operation and organized a diversionary bombardment of British positions while troops prepared materials for fortifications. Under cover of darkness, American soldiers quietly moved artillery, timber, and tools onto the heights, where they constructed fortifications and placed the cannons brought from Fort Ticonderoga in menacing positions. When British forces looked up to see fortified positions armed with heavy artillery, they knew the siege was over.

On March 17, 1776, British troops and loyalist civilians began evacuating Boston as approximately 11,000 soldiers and more than 1,000 loyalists boarded ships and sailed to Halifax in Nova Scotia.

The withdrawal ended the nearly year-long siege without a large-scale battle. Washington entered Boston soon afterward, greeted by cheering residents who celebrated the departure of British forces.

The evacuation was a remarkable success for the Continental Army. What had begun as an improvised militia force had managed to contain and ultimately force out one of the most powerful armies in the world.

Based on Washington’s strategic leadership, momentum seemed to shift to the Americans.

Washington had transformed a loose collection of militia units into an organized army. He introduced discipline, established supply systems, and encouraged cooperation among soldiers from different colonies. These efforts created a more unified, fighting force capable of carrying out complex operations.

Most importantly, Washington showed patience and strategic judgment. Instead of attempting risky frontal assaults potentially destroying the Continental Army, he focused on strengthening his position and waiting for the right opportunity. His decision to rely on artillery and maneuver rather than a direct attack proved crucial.

Washington’s leadership embraced a larger strategic view of the conflict by supporting innovative solutions that were risky but offered substantial rewards. His approval of Knox’s plan to retrieve the artillery from Fort Ticonderoga and transport it in winter over rough terrain demonstrated his willingness to trust capable subordinates. Without those guns, the siege of Boston would have continued unabated.

In the end, the secrecy, preparation, and timing of the maneuver reflected tactical planning to covertly place heavy artillery above Boston Harbor. Thus, Washington’s broad and comprehensive vision ensured that the cannons were strategically placed on a high point to force the British to leave.

The British evacuation of Boston had several important consequences for the American Revolution.

First, it provided the Continental Army with its first major victory. Up to that point, the war’s outcome remained uncertain. Forcing the British to abandon a major city demonstrated that the American cause was viable and strengthened confidence among soldiers and civilians alike.

Second, the victory boosted morale across the colonies. News of the British withdrawal spread quickly, encouraging support for the revolutionary movement and paving the way for the Continental Congress to seriously consider independence.

Third, the evacuation allowed Washington to gain valuable experience as commander-in-chief. The siege taught him important lessons about patience, organization, logistics, and strategy that would influence his leadership throughout the war. In many ways, the action in Boston was a precursor to crossing the Delaware River.

Finally, the British retreat shifted the focus of the conflict. After leaving Boston, British forces concentrated their efforts on New York, beginning a new phase of the war. Although the fighting would continue for many years, the events at Boston showed that American forces could challenge British power effectively. The British also saw their vulnerabilities in concentrating forces in an unfamiliar environment.

The British evacuation on March 17, 1776, was more than a simple retreat. It was a powerful demonstration that the Continental Army could organize, plan, and execute operations capable of overcoming British advantages. Success at Boston strengthened the revolutionary cause and helped set the stage for the long struggle that would ultimately lead to the Declaration of Independence four months later.

Will Sellers is an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of Alabama. He is best reached at jws@willsellers.com.

Where I grew up, the term “hijacking” usually referred to the disappearance of a fresh load of moonshine on its way to market. Hijacking occurs when something, or even some process, is taken over without the consent and, at times, even the knowledge of the rightful owner.

Hijacking, like classic high-seas piracy, is one of the most direct and forceful means of stealing something from someone.

Well, folks, I’ve recently come to realize you can hijack a whole lot more than moonshine in the South. A bunch of hijackers from California, and even China, have come to recognize our home, the Southeastern United States, as a field ripe for the picking.

Just last year, in the November elections in Georgia, millions of dollars from these hijackers flowed into the Georgia Public Service Commission races. As a result, two incumbent Republican PSC commissioners lost by about 24 points apiece. That is the first time a Democrat has been elected to the PSC in Georgia since 2000. That, my friends, was a good old-fashioned hijacking.

So, who was the hijacker? An operation called the Georgia League of Conservation Voters pumped about $2.2 million into the Georgia PSC races. They got their money from their mothership, a national group called the League of Conservation Voters.

RELATED: Report: Environmental dark money that flipped Georgia’s PSC now targeting Alabama

This organization, with funding from liberal groups across the nation, reckoned that just a little of their money in down-ballot races would let them sneak in under the radar and hijack those Georgia elections. They were right. They pulled it off slick as a whistle. And now they are setting up a hijacking in Alabama.

And while it sounds like something from a John Grisham novel, an outfit headquartered in Beijing is a prominent player in the money trail funneling cash through the League of Conservation Voters and right to Alabama.

Conservation Alabama is the local wing of the League of Conservation Voters, and they partner with and help support a liberal environmentalist group called Energy Alabama.  These two organizations are carrying the water for the same folks who hijacked the elections in Georgia.

So, how do we stop them? 

Last week, the Alabama State Senate took a major step toward derailing these liberal out-of-state hijackers with the passage of SB360 – a bill that passed the Senate without a single dissenting vote 32-0. 

This legislation does three things to deal with rising power bills while stopping the influence of California environmental groups in our elections.

First, it freezes rates for Alabama Power for three years.  Folks, that is an unprecedented action by our Legislature that gives Alabama families and businesses rate assurance that no one else in the nation has.

Second, it enlarges the Public Service Commission from three commissioners elected statewide to seven commissioners elected by Congressional District.  This historic change in the structure of the PSC puts more power in the ballot box and in the hands of the people than has ever existed.

RELATED: Why is an onslaught of dark money flooding Alabama’s energy debate?

Third, it creates a cabinet level position for a Secretary of Energy that will raise the importance of providing affordable, reliable energy to a new level.  But this Secretary will not have ultimate power.  The elected commission members can override the Secretary and nothing, absolutely nothing, happens without a vote of the seven elected commissioners.

These California hijackers, with financial backing that goes all the way to China, have crossed the Chattahoochee River. But they will find it a whole lot harder to work their devious plans with seven elected commissioners rather than three. 

Nevertheless, liberal environmentalists are still going to argue that a three-year rate freeze is a bad thing and that giving the people more control at the ballot box is somehow wrong.

After unanimous passage in the Senate, the House will begin work on the legislation this week.  A unified show of strength against these out-of-state pirates will help serve notice that Alabama cannot be hijacked by paid social media trolls and intentional deception.

With only a few days left in the legislative session, let’s hope our House of Representatives will finish the job and send these hijackers packing back to California.

See you next week.

Steve Flowers is Alabama’s leading political columnist. His weekly column appears in over 60 Alabama newspapers. He served 16 years in the state legislature. Steve may be reached at steve@steveflowers.us.

The production of goods and services requires scarce inputs like labor and natural resources. Achieving prosperity in a world of scarcity requires careful use of inputs. What then should we think about people working to stop production?

Energy writer Robert Bryce labels this, appropriately, the “anti-industry industry.” In 2021, 25 leading non-profit organizations (or NGOs) opposed to climate change and hydrocarbons had $4.5 billion in revenues. The industry “employs thousands of lawyers, strategists, pollsters, and fund raisers.” These individuals use their talent and training to devise strategies to stop modern industrial production.

Industry leaders include the Environmental Defense Fund, the World Resources Institute, Climate Works Foundation, and the Natural Resources Defense Fund, each with 2021 revenue over $400 million. Mr. Bryce includes older, smaller budget groups like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace.

Much of the funding comes from billionaires and the heirs of billionaires. Supporters include Jeff Bezos, Laurene Powell Jobs, Michael Bloomberg, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Wealthy donors back other progressive NGOs, including George and Alexander Soros.

The groups deploy many tools against industry. Legislation, obviously, but regulation crafts the details with less public scrutiny. Litigation is aggressively employed, including the citizen lawsuit provisions of laws and “sue and settle” cases against the EPA. The industry staffs government commissions making and enforcing rules. And NGOs fund much of mainstream news organizations’ climate reporting.

The National Environmental Policy Act’s costly, lengthy, and frequently litigated environmental impact studies are indispensable. The impact study for Micron’s $100 billion semiconductor facility in upstate New York took two years and ran 20,000 pages. But just as Micron broke ground on a complex that will employ 9,000, the NGO Jobs to Move America sued to halt construction because the impact study was “unnecessarily rushed.”

Climate change litigation illustrates the depth of the anti-industry efforts. To lay the groundwork, groups spent millions on weather attribution research linking individual storms to climate change. Researchers were supported to publish computer models to be used as evidence.

The attribution claims, like Hurricane Helene was 2.5 times more likely due to climate change, are bogus. An impact of this magnitude would be apparent in historical weather records.

The lawsuits are now in court. Earlier this year, litigation proponents inserted a chapter on climate change in the 4^th edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence used by Federal judges to decide the admissibility of evidence. The industry is instructing judges how to rule on their lawsuits.

What do we do about the industry? I would like to see it just disappear. Scarce resources should not be used to try to prevent commerce.

Except that these NGOs engage in speech, research, advocacy, and litigation. People must be free to undertake all these actions, even if promoting causes I oppose. Preventing people from arguing for ideas and causes is pure authoritarianism. No leader should be trusted with the power to silence critics.

I also find George Soros backed district attorneys refusing to prosecute criminals an outrage. But strategists for progressive criminal justice reform NGOs recognized elected prosecutors’ significant discretion over charging accused criminals. Modest campaign contributions in low-profile elections could achieve their desired change.

The First Amendment requires meeting arguments with arguments. The enlightened rationalism of the American Experiment trusts citizens to listen to arguments and correctly judge who speaks the truth.

Trump economic advisor Kevin Hassett made headlines in February criticizing research by Federal Reserve economists on the Liberation Day tariffs. Allowing the government to censor critical research is unacceptable.

Dr. Hassett’s comments, however, reflect frustration with the current situation. Because universities have long skewed left, a massive disparity in research capacity exists between the left and right. Every unrefuted research study from the progressive left can move the public policy needle. The traditional rules ensure further progressive policy drift, which many conservatives refuse to accept.

In liberal democracy, people can advocate for their preferred policies. Many environmentalists want degrowth or a decline in our living standards. Using scarce resources debating industrial society is wasteful but seemingly unavoidable.

Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of Troy University.

One hundred years from now, you and I will both be dead. But don’t fret, my friend. You aren’t missing anything. Everyone you know will also be dead. All your children, your grandchildren, your friends, your pets, and your entire family will also be, you guessed it, dead.

After your funeral, the physical things you cherish and hold dear will mostly be given away or sold. That’s why they call it an “estate sale.” Things not sold will be given to a charity. The home you live in today will eventually be inhabited by total strangers or torn down to make way for something new.

The 2026 state races have officially begun. The qualifying ended on January 23. It will now be a less than three-month horse race sprint to the finish line.

Our May 19th GOP Primary will be our election day, because winning the Republican Primary is tantamount to election in the Heart of Dixie.

The Governor’s race will not be one of the best races. Coach Tommy Tuberville appears to have a cakewalk coronation tour to the Governor’s office. He has been running full steam ahead for over a year and has $10 million in the bank.

He is recognized as the most conservative right-wing politico in the Heart of Dixie, and only has token opposition in the GOP Primary. However, he will spend some money and campaign. He is a prolific and effective campaigner and loves it.

Some of you may be wondering why I do not consider the candidacy of Democratic candidate Doug Jones a challenge to Tuberville. My belief is a Democratic candidate cannot win a statewide race in Alabama, especially Governor, and even more especially, a recognized and proven Bernie Sanders liberal Democrat like Doug Jones. Around 40% of the vote is what a Democratic candidate can get in Alabama. Therefore, Jones is not a viable or serious candidate.

The lieutenant governor’s race may very well be the best contest on the May 19 ballot.

As qualifying ended, there was a lengthy list of seven qualifiers for this race. The list includes Wes Allen, George Childress, Pat Bishop, Rick Pate, Nicole Jones Wadsworth, John Wahl, and Stewart Hill Tankersley.

This will probably boil down to a three-man race between current Secretary of State Wes Allen, Agriculture Commissioner Rick Pate, and Republican Party Chairman John Wahl. It will be interesting to see who makes the two-man runoff. Although the female candidate in the race, Nicole Jones Wadsworth, has worked hard and will get some votes.

Secretary of State Wes Allen is the favorite to win this race. He began in earnest over a year ago. He has been like a plow horse and has worked tirelessly. He has raised more money than the other candidates.

Money is the mother’s milk of politics, and it will be especially important in a down ballot race with seven people in the race. He has received every important, major pro-business group endorsement, including ALFA and BCA.

In addition, with a large field of candidates in this race, Wes Allen being listed first on the ballot alphabetically may be worth a 10-point advantage. He already has some statewide name recognition, having had a successful four-year tenure as Secretary of State, and has significant name identification in the Wiregrass having been Probate Judge of Pike County for 10 years and a Wiregrass legislator for four years.

Agriculture Commissioner Rick Pate will be a major player in this race. He has had a very successful eight year run as Agriculture Commissioner and would probably like to run for another four-year term in that important post. However, he is constitutionally term limited. I have never seen anyone in or around state government or Alabama politics who does not like Rick Pate.

It looked like a two-man race between Allen and Pate until a bombshell was dropped into the race the last night before qualifying. President Donald Trump surprisingly endorsed Republican Party Chairman John Wahl in the Alabama Lt. Governor’s race. Wahl qualified the next day.

The big question in this race is whether Wahl can raise the campaign money to tell Alabamians he is the Trump endorsee. Again, money is the mother’s milk of politics. Money equates into media, and media equates into name identification, and name identification equates into votes.

The problem with raising money for this job is that this job has no power. Therefore, it lacks interest for special interest donors.

More than likely, this lieutenant governor’s race will extend into a very interesting June runoff.

See you next week.

Steve Flowers is Alabama’s leading political columnist. His weekly column appears in over 60 Alabama newspapers. He served 16 years in the state legislature. Steve may be reached at steve@steveflowers.us.

Earlier this week, I shared important news about the future of the Shoals area and the role our region will play in strengthening America’s defense industrial base.

It is an announcement that reflects years of work and a belief I have long held: that Northwest Alabama is ready to lead again.

A few months back, I wrote here about how Alabama has always stepped forward when America needed us most.

From the nitrate plants in Muscle Shoals during World War I, to the power generated by TVA that supported victory in World War II, to the rockets that carried us to the moon during the Cold War, our state has never been a bystander in history.

Today, I want to focus on a place that represents both our proud past and our promising future: The Shoals.

For generations, The Shoals has been known around the world for its unmistakable sound. FAME Studios and Muscle Shoals Sound helped shape American music, producing hits that transcended geography, politics, and time. Artists came here because there was something special in the water, special in the “Singing River,” a spirit of craftsmanship, grit, and excellence.

But what is true for the sound that came out of our region is also true for its industry: it is innovative, resilient, and built to last.

That spirit supplied weapons made with American-produced nitrates for our troops overseas. That spirit rolled railcars off the production lines that strengthened our industrial backbone. And that spirit is still with us today as we look toward the next chapter of American strength.

For too long, communities like ours were told that chasing marginal savings overseas was “just the way the world works.” I never accepted that decline was inevitable.

Over the past several years, I have worked alongside my colleagues in the Alabama delegation and on the Appropriations Committee to ensure that when America rebuilds its industrial capacity, Alabama, and particularly the Fourth District, is not an afterthought, but a priority.

That work has included fighting for targeted investments in our defense industrial base, supporting policies that restore America’s maritime dominance, and ensuring that major federal resources are directed toward communities that have the workforce, infrastructure, and determination to lead.

The Shoals checks every one of those boxes.

We have skilled workers.
We have available industrial capacity.
We have river access and strategic geography.

And most importantly, we have a culture that understands what it means to build something that lasts.

That is why I was proud to announce this week that the U.S. Navy will soon hold a ribbon-cutting ceremony for a new defense industrial facility in Muscle Shoals.

This 2.2 million square foot facility will anchor shipbuilding and maritime production in Northwest Alabama, representing a major investment in our nation’s security and our region’s future.

This effort is also the result of important partnerships across the Shoals region. AE Shoals has played a key role in fostering the development of this project and advancing the vision for a manufacturing and technology center of excellence serving the aerospace and national security sectors.

The facility itself was owned by the Retirement Systems of Alabama, whose investment has helped position this site for new economic opportunity, and we are excited to welcome Hadrian, the company that will be carrying out the advanced manufacturing work here.

This project did not happen overnight. I spent nearly six years working to bring new industry to an unused facility in the Shoals, and that effort ultimately came to fruition through legislation that secured the resources necessary to make this vision a reality. The result is a transformative step forward for our region.

RELATED: Robert Aderholt: From the Valley to the World – Muscle Shoals is ready for America’s comeback

This facility will help bring thousands of manufacturing jobs and new opportunities to Northwest Alabama. But just as importantly, it will help restore America’s ability to produce the tools necessary to defend freedom and maintain strength at sea.

This project is only just the beginning. In the years to come, I will be dedicated to expanding the Shoals area to be a collaborative campus for both national and international partners working with the Navy and Department of War.

When we talk about national security, we often picture men and women in uniform. We should. But national strength also depends on welders, engineers, machinists, technicians, and the next generation of skilled workers who will power America’s comeback.

The future factory floor will not look like it did in 1942. It will be driven by advanced manufacturing, automation, digital engineering, and cutting-edge technology. It will require precision and innovation. And it will demand a workforce ready to meet that moment.

As current events show, our security at home and abroad demands no less. Northwest Alabama is ready.

Just as The Shoals once surprised the world by becoming the epicenter of American music, I believe it is poised to surprise the country again, this time by strengthening America’s maritime power and helping secure good-paying jobs for generations to come. The sound of industry will ring throughout the world.

When America calls, the Shoals area answers.

And I am proud to help ensure that this region’s next great chapter is written right here at home.

Robert Aderholt (R-Haleyville) represents Alabama’s 4th Congressional District. He is a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee.

William Shakespeare once wrote that “past is prologue,” and that is especially true in Alabama politics, where events, conflicts, and situations that first happened decades ago are repeated again and again.

As a lifelong Republican, I have served as state vice chairman of the College Republicans, a member of the executive committee for almost 30 years, and one of the few former members of the legislature who served when the GOP was in the superminority and when it held a supermajority.

First elected to the Alabama’s House of Representatives in 2002, I was one of only a handful of Republicans in the body that was dominated by a Democrat supermajority, which afforded me a seat in the back of the chamber, an office located next to the janitor’s closet, and a long list of dreams deferred.

Only eight years later, the Alabama Republican Party’s candidate recruitment efforts, hard work at the grassroots level, and displeasure with the liberal Obama administration would help conservatives capture a supermajority in the legislature.

Suddenly elevated to the Alabama State Senate and a member of the supermajority, I played a role in passing conservative reforms that Republicans once only dreamed about — enacting school choice, expanding ethics laws, codifying pro-life policies into law, and ending the cycle or proration with commonsense budgeting reforms.

Since the 2010 realignment in Alabama politics, our Alabama Legislature ranks as the most conservative in the nation, and other Republican states are looking to us for ideas and examples to follow.

Much of that continuing success belongs to the strong, steady, conservative leadership of Governor Kay Ivey, Lieutenant Governor Will Ainsworth, State Senate Pro Tem Garlan Gudger, and Alabama House Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter.

Speaker Ledbetter has reigned over one of the most effective tenures for Republicans in recent memory — passing the strongest pro-life legislation in the nation, cutting roughly $1.5 billion in taxes, including levies on groceries, baby food, and diapers, and ushering in other landmark legislation core to our conservative cause that has strengthened our state.

His leadership style has eliminated the distractions and disfunction that plagued the House in previous quadrenniums and transformed it into one of the most efficient governing bodies anywhere in the country.

Along with that closet office, my long ago perch as low-ranking member of the House superminority allowed me to watch and learn from the mistakes and infighting of the Alabama Democratic Party as it slowly descended into chaos. The Republican Party seems on verge of being the Democratic Party of 1986.

That chaos was caused by the Democrats’ increasing polarization, fracturing, and putting petty party politics above the important work of addressing the needs and priorities of the people of Alabama. The Democrats simply forgot to focus on what secured their supermajority in the first place — their voters, neighbors, church members, and friends.

It’s a lesson — and a forewarning — that Alabama GOP party brass would be wise to study.

Democrats in Alabama ultimately relinquished control on elections in 2010 — and gave up gubernatorial wins before that with the election of Governors Guy Hunt, Fob James, and Bob Riley, but their fate was sealed in the 1980s as fragmenting factions splintered the party into a shadow of its former glory.

Those roles seem to be reversed today as Democrats in the state legislature are once again working together to will themselves out of the political wilderness and are strategically targeting specific districts while some Republicans, for reasons beyond comprehension,  have formed what amounts to a circular firing squad.

Republicans must come to our senses before our loss of unity leads to the loss of elections and the loss of the supermajority in the State House.

In Alabama, we are blessed to have leaders like Gov. Ivey, Lt. Gov. Ainsworth, Speaker Ledbetter, and Pro Tem Gudger, who understand the importance of working together to deliver for the people of Alabama.

For the good of our state and the future of the ALGOP, Republicans must stop targeting other Republicans and turn our attention and attacks on the liberal Democrats seeking to recapture what was once theirs.

With more and more new residents moving to Alabama from other states, especially in Huntsville and the northern portion of our state where the federal workforce is exploding, once reliable red legislative districts are turning purple, and elections that conservatives could win with little effort just a few cycles ago are becoming increasingly competitive.

Dividing, dismembering, and destroying our Alabama Republican Party from within simply opens the door for Democrats to snatch away our supermajority and stop our conservative reforms dead in their tracks.

Rather than continuing to ratchet up ALGOP infighting to increasingly serious DEFCON levels and risking all we have gained, perhaps all involved would be wise to follow the words of the greatest Republican, Ronald Reagan, who said, “Peace is not absence of conflict, it is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means.”

Cam Ward has been a member of the Alabama Executive Committee since 1999 and formerly served as a member of the Alabama House of Representatives and Alabama State Senate. Currently her serves as the Director of the Alabama Bureau of Pardons and Paroles.

In recent years, our commitment to providing alternative educational options has begun to pay massive dividends in our state. We are improving educational outcomes, and I believe that expanding parental choice has played a significant role in Alabama’s comeback story.

The reality is that every child learns differently. And every family’s situation is unique. Some students thrive in a traditional classroom while others need more flexibility to reach their full potential.

Often, individualized pacing or additional support can make all the difference.

Across the country, online public education has become an important option for parents. In Alabama, we have several options, including K12-powered academies: Alabama Destinations Career Academy, Alabama Virtual Academy, and Legends Virtual Academy.

These are public schools in public systems that allow parents to take a tailored approach to their students’ education. Let’s face it, some students need more than a traditional classroom can provide, and that is where online schools can make all the difference.

More than three million students have been served through K12 online programs nationally over the past 25 years. These programs offer college and career preparation, flexible individual courses, and opportunities for students to catch up, get ahead, or explore new interests.

For families facing frequent moves, health challenges, or safety concerns, online education provides stability and continuity. Think of military families and parents whose children suffer from serious illnesses or disabilities. We need educational options for every student and every family, regardless of their situation.

Alabama Virtual Academy, operated through Eufaula City Schools, has been serving Alabama students for a decade. Many of ALVA’s students come from military families or come from unstable living situations.

Despite those obstacles, chronic absenteeism is zero percent. It is proof positive that when we make education work for students, they show up, they learn, and their lives are changed.

Alabama Destinations Career Academy, a program within Chickasaw City Schools, has offered online options to students statewide for the past 6 years. The school currently serves an extremely high percentage of socioeconomically disadvantaged students, and once again, the school reports zero percent chronic absenteeism. These attendance numbers are an amazing accomplishment when compared to the statewide average.

In many unique situations, online school can increase student and parent engagement. It reflects what can happen when students are placed in environments that fit their needs.

Even newer programs, such as Legends Virtual Academy in Tuscaloosa County, are already serving English learners, students with disabilities, and families seeking alternatives that offer more flexibility while maintaining academic accountability.

All three academies are seeing significant enrollment growth. Since 2023, ALVA’s enrollment has doubled, and Destinations Academy has experienced similar growth. Combined, the K12 academies are educating nearly 11,000 Alabama students.

Despite receiving roughly 30 percent less funding, K12-powered academies are serving disadvantaged student populations in every Alabama House District. This program shows that innovation and flexibility can produce real results.

Opponents of school choice often claim that expanding choice will harm public schools or that the programs will fail to deliver on their promises. Time and again, those concerns do not materialize.

Destination Academy’s 2025–2026 Alabama state report card shows continued progress with an 89.26% graduation rate and an 80.99% College and Career Readiness (CCR) rate. These results represent a 4.52% increase in CCR rates and more than a 15% increase in graduation rates.

Similar progress is projected for Alabama Virtual Academy’s 2025 graduating class, with an expected graduation rate of 81.01% and a CCR rate of 70.16%, an 18-point increase year over year.

This progress is a testament to the K12 program’s innovative, responsive education model. By creating a shared CCR team and expanding career pathway opportunities, the academies have made tremendous strides in a short time.

School choice can increase parental involvement, improve student attendance, enhance educational outcomes, and, in some cases, improve students’ emotional stability. When parents are given a role in directing their child’s education, they step up to the plate.

It has always been about giving parents the ability to find tailored options that work best for their child, and in the most extreme cases, our online programs have been the best tool for accomplishing that goal.

The future of education in Alabama depends on our ability to innovate, think outside the box, and meet students where they are. Our K12 academies are among the greatest examples of our innovative approach to educating Alabama students.

State Rep. Terri Collins (D-Decatur) represents District 8 in the Alabama House of Representatives and serves as Chairman of the House Education Policy Committee.

Alabama summer camps have been a foundational and transformative experience for our families over many decades. We are former campers and staff of Alabama camps and parents of current campers.

Most importantly, we had the privilege of knowing Sarah Marsh as a friend and neighbor.

In July of 2025, we had to tell our children that their friend had died in a flood at camp.

As summer approaches, we are answering their questions about the camps they love: “Is my cabin safe? Is my camp safe? Will my counselor know what to do if something happens?” We wholeheartedly support House Bill 381, the Sarah Marsh Heaven’s 27 Camp Safety Act, and stand firmly with the Marsh family in their advocacy for strong, clear expectations for all camps around emergency planning and protection of children.

We believe when families raise concerns about child safety, we must listen with humility—then take action.

This is especially true when families who have lost children, as the Marshes and other Heaven’s 27 families have, ask for our attention and our legislature’s help in preventing similar circumstances, especially in their home state.

Most camps in Alabama operate with integrity and an unwavering commitment to safety. This is evident through clear and transparent communication from them about emergency preparedness and all the effort they make to protect children from harm.

Safety is not an afterthought; it is embedded into camp culture. However, good intentions and strong traditions are not enough. We want experts reviewing and evaluating emergency preparedness and evacuation plans.

As our awareness grows about what can go wrong, we need to translate this knowledge into additional safeguards to protect our children and the camp communities that we love.

HB 381 is pro-camp, pro-kids, pro-parent, and pro-safety. It modernizes standards to reflect current best practices and strengthens summer camps so they may continue to thrive for generations to come. This legislation requires every camp to have:

• Annually-updated emergency preparedness and evacuation plans that cover, fire, flood, weather emergencies, illness, and other natural disasters.
• Background checks for every camp employee and volunteer.
• Safety notification protocols in place, including National Weather Service radios and camp-wide notification systems for activation in an emergency.
• Staff training on what to do during a weather event.

As camp alumni and camp parents, we believe that these thoughtful, common-sense regulations will reinforce parental and public trust. As a result, children will feel confident going to camp to enjoy nature, learn new skills, take breaks from social media, and make lasting friendships.

When families know that camps follow mandated safety protocols, trust deepens. This sacred trust is essential to the camp experience.

In the aftermath of unimaginable loss, the Marsh family is advocating for change to honor Sarah; their efforts reflect grief in action. We invite you to stand with them to strengthen summer camp safety in Alabama.

Please join us in support of Alabama HB381. Contact your legislators and encourage them to vote YES on HB381.

To find out how to contact your legislator or to learn more about this legislation, visit www.campsafetyalabama.com.

Sincerely,

• Melissa Powell, Camp Winnataska and Camp DeSoto alumna, parent of Camp DeSoto and Alpine Camp for Boys campers
• Ila and Jim Broyles, staff and camping alumnus of Camp Alpine
• Anne Miles Golson, alumna of Camp Mac; parent of Camp Winnataska camper Mary Meadows Livingston, friend of the Marsh Family
• Ginger and Josh Menendez, camping alumni of Camps Skyline and Alpine, staff alumni of Camps Desoto and Alpine, parents of current Alpine campers
• Anna Kate Prum, alumna of Camp Skyline
• Emily Schultz, alumna of Camp Winnataska and Camp Cosby; parent of current Camp Cosby campers
• Shannon Price, parent of Camp Winnataska and Camp Skyline campers Lauren Cole, friend of the Marsh Family
• Emily and Oscar Price, Alumnus of Alpine Camp and parents of current Alpine campers Ellen F Eaton, friend of the Marsh Family
• Ashlee Fulmer, parent of campers at Camp Sumatanga and Camp Seafarer, my daughter was friends with Sarah
• Kali Bennett, friend of the Marsh Family Jessica Ata
• Stacy Rockwell Gunn, parent of current Camp Mac and Camp Cosby campers Lauren Robinson
• Mary Louise Quinn, Alumna of Camp DeSoto, employee of Camp DeSoto and Alpine Camp for Boys, parent of current Camp DeSoto and Alpine Camp for Boys campers
• Lauren Amberson Laura Lumsden Kat Rinehart Loftin Rinehart
• Laura Van Pelt, parent of current Camp Winnataska camper
• Emily and Matthew Menendez, camping alumni of Camps Desoto and Alpine, staff alumni of Camp Alpine, parents of current Alpine campers
• Megan & Colton Houston, parents of current Skyline campers
• Anne Lynn Langloh, fellow parishioners at the Cathedral Church of the Advent Tara Davis, parent of Camp Laney camper and friend of the Marsh Family

Every few years, Alabama reviews the instructional materials used in public school classrooms. The process rarely attracts public attention, but the decisions made during this review shape what students across the state will read, study, and absorb for years to come.

Right now, Alabama is in the middle of reviewing K-12 social studies textbooks, and after spending time reviewing many of the proposed materials myself, it is clear that this process deserves far more public attention than it has received.

What becomes apparent after reviewing materials across multiple learning levels is not just a handful of isolated concerns. Instead, a clear pattern of ideological themes emerges. These materials collectively shift classroom instruction away from American civics and historical understanding and toward modern ideological narratives.

Several recurring themes appear throughout the materials being considered.

First, there is a strong emphasis on activism as a model for students. Some lessons highlight modern protest movements and activist figures as examples of civic engagement, presenting demonstrations and youth activism as central ways for students to make their voices heard. While civic participation is an important concept, repeatedly framing activism as the primary model of engagement risks encouraging students to see protest culture as a normal expectation of their role in society before they even understand the issues involved.

Second, many lessons introduce identity-based activism and political movements. For example, some sections spotlight protest imagery and slogans tied to the Chicano movement—phrases like “Brown and Proud” alongside depictions of marches and demonstrations—without providing balanced historical context about the movement, its debates, or its place within the broader sweep of American history. Teaching the history of different communities in America is important, but it should be done in a way that reinforces a core civic principle: in our constitutional system, individuals are not defined by race, and public leadership should not be judged or elevated on the basis of racial identity. Presented without that broader context, the focus can shift toward identity-centered activism rather than helping students understand the full historical context of the period being studied and the shared civic ideals that unite Americans.

Third, the materials introduce ideological political theory, including references to Karl Marx and the development of socialism. These ideas have undeniably played an important role in world history, but they are also tied to revolutionary political systems that have dramatically reshaped governments and societies across the globe. When these theories are presented without sufficient historical critique or context—particularly without acknowledging the historical outcomes and economic consequences associated with socialist systems—they risk creating the impression that socialism and capitalism produce similar results for everyday citizens, rather than encouraging students to critically examine how different economic systems have impacted societies in practice.

Fourth, some lessons encourage students to view themselves primarily as global citizens rather than as citizens of the United States. The materials frame history as preparation for participation in a “global society” and emphasize developing a global identity. While understanding the world beyond our borders is certainly valuable, civics education in American public schools should first and foremost prepare students to understand their responsibilities as citizens of the United States and the constitutional system that governs our nation.

Finally, some sections move beyond historical voting rights and introduce contemporary debates about election laws and voting policies. These passages frame modern election integrity discussions—such as voter identification requirements and other voting regulations—primarily through the lens of voting restrictions. Presenting complex and ongoing political debates in a one-sided manner risks bringing partisan policy arguments directly into the classroom rather than teaching students the historical development of voting rights in America.

The issue is not that difficult topics should be avoided. History is full of complex ideas, social movements, and political debates. Students should absolutely learn about these subjects when they are presented with appropriate historical context and when students are developmentally ready to evaluate competing perspectives.

The concern arises when instructional materials move beyond teaching about history and civics and begin encouraging students to adopt particular political perspectives or view activism itself as a central part of their role as students.

Public schools exist to educate students, not to guide them toward ideological viewpoints.

Parents send their children to school expecting them to learn the foundations of reading, writing, mathematics, science, and American history. They expect schools to teach students how our constitutional system works and how to evaluate ideas critically.

They do not expect their children to be introduced to protest culture, ideological activism, or modern partisan policy debates through classroom materials before they are developmentally prepared to understand the complexity of those issues.

When educational materials blur the line between instruction and advocacy, trust between families and schools begins to erode. That erosion of trust is one of the biggest challenges facing public education today.

That is precisely why Alabama has a textbook review process in the first place.

The State Board of Education has both the authority and the responsibility to ensure that materials placed in classrooms are academically sound, age appropriate, and focused on genuine learning rather than ideological messaging.

Parents across Alabama deserve confidence that the curriculum used in public schools reflects those priorities.

As the State Board moves forward in determining which materials will be approved for local adoption, members should take a careful and thoughtful look at whether the proposed books truly serve the educational needs of Alabama students.

If instructional materials focus more on promoting ideological activism—whether related to protest movements, identity-based politics, revolutionary political theory, global citizenship frameworks, or modern election debates—than on teaching students how to think critically about history and civics, they do not belong in Alabama classrooms.

This review process presents an opportunity for Alabama to reaffirm a simple principle: our schools should be places where students learn how to think, not where they are quietly taught what to think.

The State Board of Education is scheduled to vote on the current social studies textbooks on March 12. They should vote not to approve these materials as they currently stand. Alabama’s students deserve instructional materials that prioritize knowledge, critical thinking, and genuine civic understanding. We can—and should—do better.

Good-paying jobs allowing people to support families should be the focus of economic policy. So argues Oren Cass of American Compass.

In The Once and Future Worker, Mr. Cass discussed what jobs-centered policy might mean: “creating an economy in which workers of all kinds can sustain strong families and communities. And that requires a policy emphasis on meaningful work.”

As an economist, I get nervous when people emphasize jobs. Jobs serve two roles in the economy. They provide the means for people to support themselves and their families and are also a source of earned accomplishment. But labor is also an input to produce goods and services.

We need to use all factors of production, especially labor, very carefully. Using up a scarce resource is not the goal. Mr. Cass often criticizes economists for viewing exclusively through the factor of production role. But economists correctly observe that prosperity depends on people having the right jobs.

Government does not create prosperity. Free enterprise is the only economic system to ever create sustained prosperity. Good jobs capable of supporting families require a healthy market economy.

Mr. Cass argues for government intervention when profit maximization does not align with jobs. Today I will expand on his criticisms of how policy increases the costs for businesses to hire in the U.S.

Taxes, regulations, and mandates all make hiring expensive. Businesses pay taxes on their operations (besides the sales taxes we pay on purchases) plus corporate taxes. We impose an array of mandates as well. Businesses must pay a minimum wage, time and a half for overtime, provide medical insurance, sick leave, family leave, and other benefits.

Lawmakers place further mandates on employer-provided health insurance. The Affordable Care Act imposed ten categories of coverage mandates. States impose an average of 43 mandates.

Each mandate creates costs. Market exchange is voluntary, so businesses will not operate if unable to charge a price covering all costs. Consumers ultimately pay for taxes and mandates.

Suppose that mandates create $3 million in additional costs annually for a business employing 100 people. This amounts to an extra $30,000 per worker, ultimately yielding fewer jobs.

But cutting mandated benefits seemingly makes workers worse off, no? Not necessarily, because many do not use all the benefits. A worker might value a $30,000 benefit package at perhaps $20,000. Workers would prefer an extra $30,000 in salary.

To make hiring in the U.S. more affordable, we must reduce the taxes and mandates. The perception that rich businesses can afford taxes and benefits makes such reforms difficult. Americans must view business as the source of jobs supporting families and communities, not the source of free stuff.

Elected officials benefit from business taxes and mandates. Our representatives exploit voters’ belief that “rich businesses” can afford these and businesses’ ability to adjust to a mandate.

Total employee compensation, or salary plus benefits, cannot exceed the value workers create for a business. Lower pay can offset costly benefits. If the reduction in pay occurs through raises never received, workers may never recognize the offset.

Imagine a benefit that costs $500 per worker with $400 offset by reduced pay (or fewer other job benefits). Workers as voters reward a politician with support for a benefit seemingly worth $500. Businesses oppose the politicians for a $100 cost. Turning $100 in opposition into $500 in support gets representatives reelected.

Lather, rinse, and repeat for decades and American jobs get offshored due to the cost of hiring. And workers who would prefer higher salaries over benefits they rarely use.

Some mandates reflect a public decision to ensure access to coverage or treatment. Consider therapy for autistic children. If the public decides that children should get this therapy even if their parents cannot afford it, government could pay for this using taxes. An insurance mandate makes workers and companies pay for the therapy.

I applaud Oren Cass for emphasizing jobs and families. Yet reducing the tax and mandate burden on business will require a reshaping of Americans’ perceptions. Americans should celebrate businesses for providing jobs and sustaining communities and not force them to provide “free” stuff.

Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of Troy University.

Alabama Speaker of the House Nathaniel Ledbetter is one of the most effective House Speakers in Alabama history. He is in a league of his own when it comes to getting things done as Speaker of the House.

Ledbetter is not known for mincing words or telling you what you want to hear. He shoots straight and always stays true to his word, and his members love him for it. Ledbetter’s word and commitment are as good as gold. He is as strong as new rope. Ledbetter is so effective and entrenched as Speaker of the House that I have dubbed him, “The Man of the House.”

He gets things accomplished in a quiet yet focused way. His subdued yet authoritative demeanor yields results. In his five years as Majority Leader, and now in his third year as Speaker, he has never lost a vote.

Under his leadership, the House has picked up some huge wins, which have translated into even bigger wins for the state. Over $1 billion in taxes have been cut for Alabamians and small businesses. Transformational education reforms have been passed, leading Alabama to become one of the most improved states in the nation.

Numerous pro-business policies have paved the way for companies to invest over $60 billion to create 90,000 new jobs in our state.

Ledbetter and his members have led the way on all these issues.

In past years, special interest groups told the Speaker what to do. Ledbetter is the only Speaker I have seen that tells the special interest groups what to do. One of the best examples of his adroit, independent leadership was in 2017, when he beat back every private interest group to pass a bill mandating insurance companies to cover autism diagnosis and treatment for children.

Speaker Ledbetter remains independent of Special Interests because he has done a yeoman’s job of going into each of the Republican member’s districts and helping them get elected and reelected. He knows each of his GOP legislators’ districts like the back of his hand. He has grown the Alabama House Republican membership from 72 to 76 Seats during his tenure as Speaker.

Ledbetter is from Rainsville in Dekalb County. He was born and raised in Dekalb. He and the great iconic Alabama bandleader Randy Owen are best friends.

Nathaniel was elected to the Rainsville City Council at 23 years old, and then at the town’s Mayor a few years after that.

Nathaniel Ledbetter is poised and well positioned to preside as Speaker of the House for the next quadrennium and probably for years after that.

Alabama’s political leadership will be poised to work very cohesively with Nathaniel Ledbetter as Speaker of the House and Tommy Tuberville as Governor. They are truly the best of friends. Ledbetter and Tuberville bonded six years ago when Coach Tuberville first began his campaign for U.S. Senator. Coach stayed in Ledbetter’s home when he camped out campaigning in North Alabama. Ledbetter later became Coach’s titular campaign chairman.

Tuberville and Ledbetter will be a dynamic team. There is an old adage that the Governor proposes, and the legislature disposes. That truism will apply with the Ledbetter-Tuberville partnership.

Another truism will probably be coined in the next quadrennium. Coach Tuberville will be dialing up the plays, and Speaker Ledbetter will be executing them in the legislature. I expect the State of Alabama is going to put a lot of points on the scoreboard.

See you next week.

Steve Flowers is Alabama’s leading political columnist. His weekly column appears in over 60 Alabama newspapers. He served 16 years in the state legislature. Steve may be reached at steve@steveflowers.us.

“My prayer is that when I die, all of Hell will rejoice that I am out of the fight.” –CS Lewis.

We live in a world run by evil and evildoers. This is evident through the suffering endured by everyone who has ever lived in this fallen world. Lies, betrayal, violence, and darkness are just the price of being born into a world that’s deeply corrupted by sin.

As human beings, we have two different paths to follow. You can choose the path of succumbing to the evil around you and let it have its way.

You become docile, weak, and complicit in the evil that takes place in this world with your inaction. This, unfortunately, is the route that most American Christians take today.

They sit back and watch as their communities are overrun by evil ideologies. Transgenderism, LGBTQ-ism, drag queen story hour with their kids, it all is allowed to take place because Christians are told that standing up against it is not “loving”.

They allow the word of God to be twisted by those who hate every word of it to shame Christians into silence and compliance. However, this is not the way. This is not the path that God calls us to take.

The other path available is that of standing up. Speaking up and saying no to the evil of the world. You become a threat to those who seek to kill and destroy, and make evil think twice before trying to impose its way of life on you and your community.

Now, when I say to be a threat, this will automatically be twisted by said evil-doers to mean I’m calling for violence. On the contrary, I’m calling for peace. Peace can only exist in the presence of strong, dangerous men who can control it.

Among my favorite interactions is that of Jordan Peterson when he’s confronted with the belief that men must be dangerous and capable, and then control it.

The interviewer questions Jordan, saying “When you say that men should be dangerous, that implies that I should be ready to threaten someone and hurt somebody!” Jordan replies, “No, you should be capable of it. But that doesn’t mean you should use it. There’s nothing to you, otherwise. If you’re not a formidable force, then there’s no morality in your self-control.”

Here’s how you become an effective and righteous threat against evil: First, become a strong, dangerous man. Then, you intelligently use your words to counter evil. You speak up, and you expose the fragile foundation of their evil.

The perfect example of this was Charlie Kirk. A strong, Christian man who was so intelligent and able to use his words to counter evil that evil had to violently take him out of the fight. Charlie is a Christian martyr, and Hell definitely rejoiced when he was taken out of the fight.

But that’s how you effectively defeat evil. Your strong and dangerous nature deters evil from forcing its way into your life, and then you dismantle and defeat it in discourse.

Too many Christians are too scared to speak up for fear of being called mean words. A transphobe, homophobe, Christian nationalist, or any other -phobe under the sun. They’re told that their Bible tells them to love everyone and be accepting. This could not be more incorrect. Love does not mean accepting others in their sin and allowing them to spread it to you.

Loving your family and community means raising them in the Word and protecting them from evil, and loving your enemy means bringing them to the light while exposing how lost they are without Christ. Truth be told, if you’re not being called mean names by those who seek to inflict evil, then I question if you’re really in the fight.

If you’re not a target in the eyes of evil, they clearly don’t see you as a threat. They see you as complicit and not a roadblock to their plans to remove Christ from this world.

Show me who sees you as an enemy, and I’ll see who you really are.

Therefore, become a threat to evil. Make it think twice before coming to your neck of the woods. And when it does, walk in victory in the name of Christ.

Justin “JP” Plott is the executive producer/co-host of “The Rightside” and co-owner of Rightside Media. You can find him on X @JPRightside. This column originally appeared in Athens Now. 

We just wrapped up the 19^th legislative day, taking us well into the second half of this year’s Regular Session. During these 19 days, we have already racked up some important wins for Alabama.

Just this week, I signed Senate Bill 149, which creates a pathway for more veterans to teach in Alabama classrooms. I also put my signature on the Healthy Early Development and Screen Time Act to help our littlest Alabamians. Earlier this Session on the public safety front, I signed my name on the Child Predator Death Penalty Act, just to highlight a few priorities.

We continue to get good work done for the people of Alabama and I give major kudos to Speaker of the House Nathaniel Ledbetter and Senate President Pro Tem Garlan Gudger for their leadership.

At the end of this Session, I will have 10 Regular Sessions under my belt (as governor). And I cannot help but to think back on all that we have accomplished. Compare that with what we see in Congress these days.

Recently, at a Republican Governors Association gathering, they shared some good news for us:

For cost of living, Alabama is a top 10 state;

For housing affordability, Alabama is a top five state; and,

For just plain affordability, Alabama is the number one state.

That is because of years of strong, conservative governing. Here in Alabama, we put our nose to the grindstone and implement major policies, so much so, that when I am at these types of gatherings, other governors want to know our recipe for success.

RELATED: ‘Get ready’: Sen. Tuberville visits with Alabama House Republicans lawmakers at Speaker Ledbetter’s invitation

Alabama Republicans are leading on commonsense policies and people around the country are taking note. Our recipe for success? We have dedicated leaders who are not afraid to take on the hard issues. Just one month before I was sworn in as governor, Nathaniel Ledbetter assumed his own leadership role. So, we have worked side by side for years to advance conservative policy and to make our government work effectively for the people of this state. To put it simply, Speaker Ledbetter has been a key partner to our efforts to advance conservative policy in Alabama.

Last year, Speaker Ledbetter and I pushed our Safe Alabama public safety package, which included our Back the Blue bill. The Back the Blue Act is undoubtedly one of America’s most pro-law enforcement laws. It gives a clear message to our men and women in blue: Alabama has their backs. Alabama Democrats put up a decent fight on this one, but because leaders like Speaker Ledbetter stood strong, we got it done.

Speaker Ledbetter has been a leader when it comes to the public safety arena. We are expanding Aniah’s Law to keep bad guys off the streets. We are cracking down on fentanyl traffickers and giving the harshest punishments to those harming our children.

While we see other states in disarray over illegal immigration, Alabama is supporting our law enforcement in their efforts and the Legislature is passing sound policy that ensures our state is prioritizing American citizens over illegal immigrants.

While we see Congress struggle with the concept of requiring voter ID in elections, our Legislature is ensuring our elections are free and fair.

We have the strongest pro-life legislation in the country with the Human Life Protection Act.

We have the best education savings account program in the nation through the CHOOSE Act.

We are protecting girls’ sports, and we know what a woman is.

We have delivered $1.4 billion in tax cuts for Alabamians.

We are landing historic economic investments. Our infrastructure is improving. And we are making record, nationally recognized education gains.

Speaker Ledbetter has been part of all of this success.

As I said in my state of the state address, Speaker Ledbetter is an outstanding Speaker of the House, and no doubt, Alabama is better thanks to his service.

Our work is not done yet. So, my fellow Republicans, let us keep our eye on the prize and keep working together to make Alabama the most conservative state in the nation and the best place in which to live, work and raise a family. I am confident that by working together, we will make Alabama the model for the nation.