By Linda King

Special to the Press-Register

I wholeheartedly agree that we must fund programs for truly needy Alabama citizens, but I believe it is short-sighted to transfer one-fifth of the principal of the Alabama Trust Fund to the General Fund with no provision to pay it back.

Voting "yes" Sept. 18 on the proposed constitutional amendment will have the immediate net effect of reducing future funding for the very programs proponents of the amendment are trying to save.

The Alabama Trust Fund was created in 1985 and approved by voters as an irrevocable permanent trust fund to provide income to the General Fund for support of Medicaid, prisons and other non-education areas of state government. Interest income and capital gains from the Trust Fund have become one of the General Fund’s largest revenue sources.

Common sense dictates that new sources of revenue will have to be found when future funding from the Trust Fund is reduced as a result of raiding the principal, so legislators should do the hard work now.

House Speaker Mike Hubbard has been quoted as saying that "lawmakers proposed the special transfer with every intent of fully restoring the trust fund at the earliest opportunity." Well, why doesn’t the ballot language say that?

Call me cynical, but I find it a bit suspect that this "special transfer" from the Trust Fund principal will take place over a three-year period — just enough time to get current elected officials through the next election cycle.

Stop kicking the can down the road. Don’t abdicate your constitutionally required duty to balance the budget by asking voters to do so for you.

Perhaps, too, it is time to reassess our priorities. For example, the Alabama Trust Fund is the source of state funding for Forever Wild. How many more acres of private land (which will then be removed from a county’s tax base) does the state need to buy?

Further, as a voter I feel a bit duped by the ballot language. Shame on whoever wrote this masterful obfuscation. Voters want transparency.

For starters, consider that nowhere in the text is the overarching fact that passage of this amendment would take one-fifth of the Trust Fund principal without a provision to pay it back. Instead, the language plays on people’s fears and heart strings: "Proposing an amendment ... to prevent the mass release of prisoners from Alabama prisons, and to protect critical health services to Alabama children, elderly and mothers ..."

The ballot text goes on to read "...to provide a new procedure for distributions made from the ATF ..." What is this new procedure?

Payments will be a fixed share of royalties and assets rather than payments based on earnings and capital gains — all further gutting the principal.

In fact, some believe the new formula could deplete the entire Trust Fund in a decade or two.

The bottom line for me is that taking one-fifth of the trust fund’s principal is irresponsible and sets a bad precedent.

It’s like killing off your laying hens: Right away, you have fewer eggs and fewer hens; pretty soon you risk having neither eggs nor hens.

Voters, please research this issue for yourself. If you still think it is a good idea to vote "yes" on Sept. 18, at least do so armed with the facts. Don’t let politicians and special-interest groups who will be very good at turning out their vote put one over on us.

Linda King is a resident of Mobile. The Press-Register welcomes reader submissions for "Your Word" on topics of general interest. Mail them to "Your Word," P.O. Box 2488, Mobile, Ala. 36652 or email them to letters@press-register.com.