A third source has sent me an email regarding the Ethics and Hacking post. Seems the Executive Branch Ethics Commission has been contacted about the issues raised in the post.
….concerned citizen has sent a note to the EBEC about Mr. Rutledge and his various sins….
Along with the Auditor of Public Accounts this makes two agencies that are aware of the issues. Will they do anything, that’s the real question?
I would also like Jack Conway to will quit hyping the Cybersafety legislation and take a look at the potential loss of millions of tax payer dollars. We know he can talk the talk, but can he walk the walk?
Monday, March 31, 2008
Give Him Hell Heather
This woman should be in Congress. Please watch the whole video.
Heather Ryan also has a Facebook page.
Heather Ryan also has a Facebook page.
Tobacco Apologista
We have another OP-ED piece in the Herald-Leader from a shill for big tobacco. This one comes from Jim Waters, Director of Policy and Communications for the Bluegrass Institute.
First off let’s understand where the Bluegrass Institute stands. They are anti-union, pro big business, in favor of giving tax money for private schools; support Bush’s policies in Iraq, and in favor of tort reform. They pretty much follow the right wing Republican agenda.
Waters arguments on raising he cigarette tax are basically these:
Poor people smoke the most and can’t afford to pay the price of their addiction.
Can the poor afford to pay all of the costs of smoking, not just the price of a pack of cigarettes? Waters is just blowing smoke when he talks about costs. His argument just looks at the tip of the ice berg when it comes to cost.
If his argument was applied to the cost of having children, he would have us believe that the only cost associated with having children is the cost of bailing them out of the hospital after the birth and the next 18 to 21 years are free, he completely ignores long term issues.
Retailers will go under and lay off thousands of people.
True there may be some job losses, among farmers, cigarette factories workers, advertisers, and retailers. But the money that used to be spent on cigarettes does NOT disappear from the economy. When people cut back their smoking or quit, they spend the money they save on other things, this generates new jobs in other sectors. There is just as much of a possibility that increasing tobacco taxes could generate more jobs than it costs.
The essential fact here is not that people have quit spending money, but they buy something other than cigarettes.
Education works better than tax as a deterrent to smoking.
This makes as much sense as abstinence training stops teens from having sex. In 1994-95 a study of the effectiveness of Choosing the Best was conducted by Northwestern University Medical School 60% of students, who had had sex, indicated an intention to be abstinent.
The real deterrent to smoking is the cost of the product, the details are here.
Legislators will violate their no new tax pledge.
That would be a shocker, a legislator breaking a promise. The lemmings that follow Grover Norquist shouting the “No New Taxes” sound bite are really too stupid to be in the legislature. They limit their options and the options of the people they represent.
I don’t think every tax is a good tax, but to not consider the option shows me a legislator that has the capacity of viewing all their options from A to B.
Waters arguments are short sighted, largely unsupported by facts and rigidly doctrinaire in support of a right wing, consequence be damned philosophy.
First off let’s understand where the Bluegrass Institute stands. They are anti-union, pro big business, in favor of giving tax money for private schools; support Bush’s policies in Iraq, and in favor of tort reform. They pretty much follow the right wing Republican agenda.
Waters arguments on raising he cigarette tax are basically these:
Poor people smoke the most and can’t afford to pay the price of their addiction.
Can the poor afford to pay all of the costs of smoking, not just the price of a pack of cigarettes? Waters is just blowing smoke when he talks about costs. His argument just looks at the tip of the ice berg when it comes to cost.
If his argument was applied to the cost of having children, he would have us believe that the only cost associated with having children is the cost of bailing them out of the hospital after the birth and the next 18 to 21 years are free, he completely ignores long term issues.
Retailers will go under and lay off thousands of people.
True there may be some job losses, among farmers, cigarette factories workers, advertisers, and retailers. But the money that used to be spent on cigarettes does NOT disappear from the economy. When people cut back their smoking or quit, they spend the money they save on other things, this generates new jobs in other sectors. There is just as much of a possibility that increasing tobacco taxes could generate more jobs than it costs.
The essential fact here is not that people have quit spending money, but they buy something other than cigarettes.
Education works better than tax as a deterrent to smoking.
This makes as much sense as abstinence training stops teens from having sex. In 1994-95 a study of the effectiveness of Choosing the Best was conducted by Northwestern University Medical School 60% of students, who had had sex, indicated an intention to be abstinent.
The real deterrent to smoking is the cost of the product, the details are here.
Legislators will violate their no new tax pledge.
That would be a shocker, a legislator breaking a promise. The lemmings that follow Grover Norquist shouting the “No New Taxes” sound bite are really too stupid to be in the legislature. They limit their options and the options of the people they represent.
I don’t think every tax is a good tax, but to not consider the option shows me a legislator that has the capacity of viewing all their options from A to B.
Waters arguments are short sighted, largely unsupported by facts and rigidly doctrinaire in support of a right wing, consequence be damned philosophy.
Striving for Mediocrity
The Herald-Leader has pretty well summed up the Steve Beshear administration so far.
A year ago, amid a competitive Democratic primary for governor, Steve Beshear told a crowd of Hopkins County Democrats that he planned to be the second native of the county to become Kentucky's governor.
It was a bold declaration.
On Saturday night, amid a competitive Democratic primary for president, Beshear had the chance to make another strong political statement in front of his home crowd by endorsing in that race.
Instead, Beshear, who grew up in Dawson Springs, reiterated that he hasn't "quite made up my mind."
I originally thought the Beshear administration would be a care taker administration. But, so far Beshear’s actions and appointments have struggled to reach mediocre.
With the notable exception of pushing for casino’s, a train wreck of political incompetence, this administration has basically done nothing but give a bunch of Frankfort old timers jobs.
Beshear has dropped the ball a bunch of times. His coming late to the idea of raising the tobacco tax and his less than inspiring endorsement of restoring voting rights to former felons are but two examples.
So it’s no surprise his is taking the least politically dangerous route when it comes to supporting a presidential candidate.
If Steve Beshear wanted to make a bold move, or if he could just do math, he would follow Danny Briscoe’s advice.
Briscoe suggested that Beshear should back Obama regardless of how the Kentucky primary turns out because Obama mathematically looks to be the nominee with his lead in delegates.
"In Kentucky, clearly Clinton is going to win 2 to 1, but if the governor steps forward and says he's for Obama in a white, Southern state, that puts him in a position to be remembered by Barack Obama for a long time" if Obama wins the White House, Briscoe said.
A year ago, amid a competitive Democratic primary for governor, Steve Beshear told a crowd of Hopkins County Democrats that he planned to be the second native of the county to become Kentucky's governor.
It was a bold declaration.
On Saturday night, amid a competitive Democratic primary for president, Beshear had the chance to make another strong political statement in front of his home crowd by endorsing in that race.
Instead, Beshear, who grew up in Dawson Springs, reiterated that he hasn't "quite made up my mind."
I originally thought the Beshear administration would be a care taker administration. But, so far Beshear’s actions and appointments have struggled to reach mediocre.
With the notable exception of pushing for casino’s, a train wreck of political incompetence, this administration has basically done nothing but give a bunch of Frankfort old timers jobs.
Beshear has dropped the ball a bunch of times. His coming late to the idea of raising the tobacco tax and his less than inspiring endorsement of restoring voting rights to former felons are but two examples.
So it’s no surprise his is taking the least politically dangerous route when it comes to supporting a presidential candidate.
If Steve Beshear wanted to make a bold move, or if he could just do math, he would follow Danny Briscoe’s advice.
Briscoe suggested that Beshear should back Obama regardless of how the Kentucky primary turns out because Obama mathematically looks to be the nominee with his lead in delegates.
"In Kentucky, clearly Clinton is going to win 2 to 1, but if the governor steps forward and says he's for Obama in a white, Southern state, that puts him in a position to be remembered by Barack Obama for a long time" if Obama wins the White House, Briscoe said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)