tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214951.post1537652155200724805..comments2024-03-17T08:07:12.695-05:00Comments on Between The Lines: Signing one, vetoing other rebate bill aids public educationJeff Sadowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03972004592729833310noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214951.post-12281861997548489822012-06-25T20:12:45.867-05:002012-06-25T20:12:45.867-05:00I'm going to attempt a rendition of every sing...I'm going to attempt a rendition of every single Jeff Sadow post. Here goes... <br />1. Jindal is righteous and pure, but someone just said something critical about him, and I'm not going to let it stand.<br />2. The person who said something critical is either (a) childish and naive, or (b) a hateful monster.<br />4. [skip over all meaningful aspects of whatever the issue is that is the subject]<br />5. insert a reference to a study, or make up something to make me sound the the level-headed one in a sea of partisans.<br />6. refer to non-existent flaw in a non-existent cartoon version of "liberalism" from the vantage point of a hysterical Fox News-worshipper from Shreveport.<br />7. Flowery ending that hypes Jindal even more than Jindal himself would be comfortable with.Mr. Harris Plutocrathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14272042050207617611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214951.post-4709263853471257982012-06-16T09:40:17.924-05:002012-06-16T09:40:17.924-05:00Well, Professor, speaking of vetoes and like matte...Well, Professor, speaking of vetoes and like matters, it was quite a week.<br /><br />The Scorecard, the "Ruthless One", has stepped up one of his prime management styles - that is, take quick, absolute retribution on every one that differs even a little with him or displeases him.<br /><br />Lets see; it started with Rep. Jim Morris, who was stripped on his committee vice chairmanship. Voted wrong and disagreed with the Scorecard.<br /><br />Then, he vetoed the Treasurer's appropriations to pay his employer contributions for his employees retirement benefits - and touched no other agency's appropriations for the same purpose. His sin: publicly disagreeing with the Ruthless One's position on continuing to spend one-time, non-recurring revenues of recurring, operating expenses.<br /><br />Next, the Lt. Governor got two more million dollars chopped from his budget. His mistake: Publicly expressing displeasure with budget cuts backed by the Scorecard.<br /><br />Then, I read that the Ruthless One's Secretary of Revenue resigned (translation: Resign today or we will publicly can you tomorrow)on Friday. Her reputation: a very competent and fair administrator, who served three governors. The paper said she did something the Scorecard did not like.<br /><br />Then, there is Rep. Armes, Rep. Barrow and Sen. Erdy - all who had bills vetoed because they said they disagreed with or did not vote with the Ruthless One.<br /><br />Read the veto messages and justifications for these. They would be funny if these actions were not so alarming. They are transparently insincere and adolescent. They are about the only thing regarding the Ruthless One or his office that IS transparent, though!<br /><br />Look forward to your apologies/justifications for this. Must be excellent governing in some way that I cannot recognize or understand.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214951.post-943743045341080312012-06-15T08:15:11.596-05:002012-06-15T08:15:11.596-05:00Here we go again! Hide the ball (especially when ...Here we go again! Hide the ball (especially when it is hairy and nasty). Or, black is white, and white is black.<br /><br />The veto message on HB 1106 stated the reason to be that there was no appropriation for it; as you say, it was unfunded.<br /><br />Surprise, suprise, HB 969 carries no appropriation either; it, too, is unfunded.<br /><br />And, to add insult to injury, HB 1106 is capped as to what it could cost, while HB 969 in UNCAPPED as to what it could cost.<br /><br />HB 969 will be funded "out of current collections" of the Department of Revenue. Let me translate that for your readers: it will be off the budget.<br /><br />We all should agree that this is terrible management and is absolutely non-transparent.<br /><br />The reality: HB 969 was the Governor's bill - the other was not.<br /><br />This is a clinic in the duplicity of your hero, our Governor.<br /><br />Despite your continuing efforts, you cannot hide it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com